FWD: [surgelocal] [floridaleft] [news] Why did US media black out Civil

Perhaps I'm insufficiently jaded, but this forwarded message left me shocked 
and indignant.

Steven Sherman


>===== Original Message From jimsenter@mindspring.com (Jim) =====
Students United for a Responsible Global Environment -
                 www.unc.edu/surge

For those interested, the Commission's initial report can be found at their
website
http://www.usccr.gov/vote2000/flstrpt1.htm
Jim

>Status:  U
>Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 23:24:14 -0600 (CST)
>From: Michael Eisenscher <meisenscher@igc.org>
>Subject: [floridaleft] [news] Why did US media black out Civil Rights
>Organization: ?
>Article: 117337
>To: undisclosed-recipients:;
>
><http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/civ-m21.shtml>http://www.wsws.or
>g/articles/2001/mar2001/civ-m21.<http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/mar2001/
>civ-m21.shtml>shtml
>
>Why did the US media black out the Civil
>Rights Commission report on the Florida
>vote?
>
>By Jerry White
>21 March 2001
>
>It would seem elementary that a report from a federal civil rights
>agency charging widespread voter disenfranchisement in the pivotal
>state of Florida during the 2000 US presidential election would be a
>major news item. Not so, according to the decision-makers at the US
>broadcast media and some of the most influential newspapers.
>
>Twelve days ago the US Commission on Civil Rights issued the
>preliminary findings in its probe of the Florida election, declaring
>it had found evidence suggesting voting rights violations by state
>officials. The commission chairwoman, Mary Frances Berry, reported
>that, among other irregularities, state officials used an inaccurate
>database knowing that it would wrongly identify as convicted felons
>thousands of legal voters, who were then purged from the state's
>voter list. (See our report: US Commission on Civil Rights charges
>'voter disenfranchisement... at heart' of Bush victory in Florida)
>
>The commission's report did not name the "key officials" who it said
>were responsible. But from the evidence the commission presented,
>one could only conclude that President George W. Bush's brother,
>Florida Governor Jeb Bush, along with Secretary of State Katherine
>Harris and other Republican officials, intentionally acted to make
>certain that likely Democratic voters would face obstacles casting
>their ballots and having them counted. In particular, the commission
>pointed to the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of working
>class and minority voters.
>
>The commission released its politically explosive report at a press
>conference held on the morning of March 9 at its Washington, DC
>headquarters. The event was attended by reporters and photographers
>from the ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and Fox television networks, as well as
>from the Associated Press and several radio stations and newspapers.
>
>Initially, the report was treated as a major story. The Associated
>Press had an article on the news wires shortly after the report was
>released, and CBS radio broadcast the commission's findings as its
>lead story at 11 a.m. After that, however, news of the report was
>virtually effaced from the media.
>
>Cable News Network's Headline News, which purports to present
>24-hour coverage of the most important developments of the day, did
>not air a word about the Civil Rights Commission's findings. The
>television networks-ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox-followed suit, saying
>nothing about the report during their evening news broadcasts.
>
>The story was either ignored or downplayed by the print media. On
>March 9, the day the report was to be released, the New York Time s
>carried a small article, on page 14, which included one paragraph
>about the commission's charges of voter disenfranchisement.
>
>The Washington Post was no less dismissive. On March 10 the Post
>published a four-paragraph article in its "Washington in Brief"
>column in the back pages of the edition. According to a media
>relations representative for the Civil Rights Commission, neither
>the Times nor the Post sent reporters to cover the release of the
>report, although, in the case of the Post, the newspaper's offices
>are only 11 city blocks from the commission's headquarters.
>
>The rest of the US print media treated the release of the report as
>a non-event, with only about a dozen papers-half of them located in
>Florida-reporting it. USA Today ran a report on page 13 of its March
>12 edition.
>
>Given the substance of the commission's report, the World Socialist
>Web Site decided to contact the television networks to demand an
>explanation for their failure to inform the public of its release.
>CBS and NBC news spokespersons did not return our calls. In the case
>of CNN, we were transferred to an operator at the Atlanta-based
>station's "comment line," who said, "As far as the network is
>concerned, we are not obligated to give an explanation as to what
>news is on the air."
>
>The WSWS did get through to an executive at ABC News headquarters in
>New York City, who asked that he not be named. At first he sought to
>justify the network's decision by saying the report was only a
>preliminary summary of the commission's findings. Apparently, he
>wasn't even certain that this was the case. "That's your
>understanding, isn't it?" he asked the WSWS reporter.
>
>After the WSWS reporter outlined the substantive character of the
>Civil Rights Commission's findings, the ABC News executive insisted
>that his network had provided ample coverage about charges of
>discrimination against minority voters.
>
>The following exchange ensued:
>
>WSWS: Tell me, how does this process work? You had reporters there.
>A document was released from a federal agency. You had an editorial
>board meeting. How did you decide this should not be presented to
>the American public?
>
>ABC: Actually we don't discuss our internal editorial discussions,
>so I'm not about to start doing it with you.
>
>WSWS: You mean there are no objective criteria involved?
>
>ABC: The objective criterion is whether something is newsworthy,
>whether it makes news.
>
>WSWS: So this wasn't newsworthy?
>
>ABC: Well, because it's my understanding that ... I'm not saying
>that at all, and if you quote me saying that, you will be incorrect.
>What I'm saying is this was a preliminary report, there is a more
>extensive report to come out, and I guess they made the judgment
>that when the more extensive, fuller report was ready, that is what
>they would use as the news hook.
>
>WSWS: But a preliminary report that listed at least 10 items-police
>roadblocks, the fact that officials did not provide resources to
>precincts, that legal voters were knowingly purged from the
>registration rolls-in which they said explicitly that
>disenfranchisement was at the heart of the Florida elections-this
>wasn't news? Isn't it the case that the networks don't want to
>present anything that challenges the legitimacy of the Bush
>administration?
>
>ABC: Before you make a charge as serious as the one you just made,
>you need to watch our programs. If you've watched our programs, you
>would know that we reported for 36 days about the elections.
>
>WSWS: Yes, but in the aftermath of the inauguration...
>
>ABC: This conversation is coming to a very quick close.
>
>The WSWS reporter then informed the ABC executive that the WSWS was
>preparing an article about why the news media suppressed the Civil
>Rights Commission's findings. He responded by saying we had better
>be careful before charging "some sort of conspiracy to withhold this
>information from the American people."
>
>In fact, it is not necessary to assume the existence of a conspiracy
>between the networks and the rest of the media to suppress the Civil
>Rights Commission's report. Closed door meetings and secret phone
>calls would not have been required for all of them to reach the same
>decision, since they all share a similar political bias and a
>general disdain for the democratic rights of the American people.
>(Nor would it be correct to rule out, a priori, the possibility of
>collusion between the network and media moguls.)
>
>The media played a consistently cynical and reactionary role during
>the 2000 election crisis and beyond. For the five weeks when the
>presidential election hung in the balance, the media systematically
>downplayed the fundamental issue at the center of the conflict: the
>right to vote and have one's vote counted. News coverage was
>generally slanted, avoiding criticism of the Bush camp for blocking
>the counting of votes, while placing the onus on Democratic
>candidate Al Gore, who, it was suggested, unreasonably and
>unnecessarily prolonged the political crisis by refusing to concede
>the election.
>
>In the aftermath of Bush's inauguration the media has gone out of
>its way to promote the Republican president, refusing at press
>conferences or other forums to raise any questions relating to the
>anti-democratic manner in which he obtained the presidency, or the
>fact that he won fewer popular votes nationally than his Democratic
>rival.
>
>In this regard, the final exchange between the WSWS and the ABC News
>executive was enlightening:
>
>ABC: You had three separate news organizations, making three
>separate editorial judgments on a particular story, all of which
>happen to come to the same conclusion: that it doesn't rise to the
>level of the evening newscast on that particular day. What does that
>tell you?
>
>WSWS: It tells me that the networks all lack any real concern for
>basic democratic rights. Popular sovereignty was violated. People's
>votes were suppressed and it took place in Florida, a state run by
>Bush's brother-but for the media, that's not news.
>
>ABC: Let me ask you a question. Are you a journalist or are you an
>advocate?
>
>WSWS: I'm an advocate of democratic rights, which journalists are
>supposed to be. I'm not a political supporter of Gore, far from it.
>I'm a socialist. But when it comes to clear violations of democratic
>rights, I think it is the responsibility of any halfway decent
>journalist, any one with an ounce of integrity, to report it. This
>was not just any organization. This was the US Commission of Civil
>Rights, which charged that likely violations of the Voting Rights
>Act took place and documented it after 30 hours of testimony. It was
>decided by the major news networks not to report it. Now, that is
>advocacy. Your advocacy is expressed in not allowing the American
>public to hear news stories that challenge the legitimacy of the
>Bush administration.
>
>Yahoo! Groups
>Sponsor<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=170603.1361494.2950176.2/D=egroupmail/S=17000
>44093:N/A=613936/?http://www.newaydirect.com>
>
>-------
>
>To subscribe to The Florida Left List, send a message to
>moderator@revolution.gq.nu
>
>Read messages you may have missed at
>
><http://www.egroups.com/group/floridaleft/>http://www.egroups.com/group/flo
>ridaleft<http://www.egroups.com/group/floridaleft/>/
>
>___________________________________
>FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which
>has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are
>making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
>environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,
>and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of
>any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US
>Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material
>on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
>prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
>educational purposes. For more information go to:
>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use
>copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond
>'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
>
>============================================================
>Visit Ancestry.com for a FREE 14-Day Trial and enjoy access
>to the No. 1 Source for Family History Online. Search over 1
>Billion names and trace your family tree today. Click here:
>http://click.topica.com/aaabFab1dc1Ab1jclkc/MyFamily
>============================================================
>
>______________________________________________
>You can subscribe to Solidarity4Ever by sending a message to:
>Solidarity4Ever-subscribe@igc.topica.com and unsubscribe by sending an
>email to:
>Solidarity4Ever-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com.
>This is a read-only list, but if you have an item you want posted, send it
>to the list moderator at <meisenscher@igc.org>, who will determine whether
>it is appropriate for redistribution.  You can temporarily suspend
>delivery by sending a request to the same address.  Notify the moderator
>at the time you want delivery resumed.  You can also manage this function
>yourself by going to the list at
><www.igc.topica.com/lists/Solidarity4Ever.
>
>____________________________________________________________
>T O P I C A  -- Learn More. Surf Less.
>Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
>http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
>



---
You are currently subscribed to surgelocal as: ssherman@gborocollege.edu
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-surgelocal-400326U@listserv.unc.edu