Protest Columbia University's Complicity With U.S. Imperialism: April 24-27, 2008

To mark the 40th anniversary of the 1968 Columbia Anti-War Student Revolt against Columbia University’s complicity with U.S. imperialism,veterans of the 1968 Columbia Student Strike will be converging at Columbia’s School of Journalism between April 24 and April 27, 2008. See the following link for the schedule of commemoration events:

http://www.columbia1968.com/

`Bloody Minds'

Come, you Bloody Minds
Look what I done find
I done did research
IDA exists.
Laugh between your walls
And sit behind your desks
And watch your missiles fall
IDA exists.

The value-free school
Your mask we see right through
The weapons of the Pentagon
Their brains procured by you.

Godly Grayson Kirk
On the board he knits
Smokes upon his pipe
While his bombers bite.
Problems he assigns:
“How to make men die?”
Professors they plan
Death for Viet Nam.

In ’56 to serve Defense
Five schools they did combine
Four years later
Columbia
It joined the Bloody Minds.

City slums they rot
Homeless live in lots
Atoms to destroy
They’re your little toys.
Oh, they pay you well
To create a hell
Did you see the news?
Twelve children they slew.

A division
Its name Jason
In summer they study
They meet, they talk
They plan, they plot
Counter-insurgency.

Lovers they must part
Lamps they now are dark
Knowledge turned to swords
Kirk sits on the board.
Schools changed into guns
For the Pentagon
Students now they learn:
How to make kids burn.

You stand in class
You spout your facts
A” noble scientist.”
But then at night
You join the fight
You do secret research.

Murder poor peasants
With the tools you sent
Orphan thin children
Help the Junta win.
Kill them with your mind
Paralyze their spines
Someday you will die
And in slime you’ll lie.

To listen to this protest folk song about Columbia University’s complicity with the U.S. war machine during the Vietnam War Era, you can check out the “Columbia Songs for a Democratic Society” site at the following link:

http://www.myspace.com/bobafeldman68music

The Bloody Minds protest folk song was written in a Furnald Hall dormitory room on Columbia University’s campus in March of 1967, after I discovered that Columbia University was an institutional member of the Pentagon’s Institute for Defense Analyses [IDA] weapons research think-tank and that Columbia University President Grayson Kirk was a member of both IDA’s board of trustees and IDA’s executive committee. The Bloody Minds protest folk song was lyrically patterned somewhat after Dylan’s Masters of War protest folk song of the 1960s (which was sung to the melody of the traditional folk song Nottamun Town that Jean Ritchie used to sing in the late 1950s and early 1960s).

IDA continues to exist in 2008, continues to perform weapons research for the U.S. war machine and continues to include representatives from U.S. universities like M.I.T., Harvard, the University of South Carolina and the University of Texas on IDA’s board of trustees. For more information about IDA’s most recent war research in this current 21st-century “era of permanent war”, you can check out IDA’s website at http://www.ida.org/

Next: Protest Columbia University’s Complicity With U.S. Imperialism: April 24-27, 2008

Corporate Influence On Public Broadcasting Historically--Part 3

Lies Of Our Times was a now-defunct monthly Downtown Manhattan magazine, with offices at 145 West 4th Street in the early 1990's, which focused on misinformation and disinformation in the New York Times and other Establishment media. In 1991, Downtown asked its then-managaing editor, Bill Schaap, what was his opinion of PBS’s NewsHour, in terms of the issues that Lies Of Our Times was then raising?

“It’s a little hard to generalize. But, generally, it’s not quite as independent and unbiased and impartial as it purports to be. I think PBS is subject to the same pressures as the commercial networks,” Schaap answered.

Did the NewsHour ever invite any editor of Lies Of Our Times to discuss the issues that Lies Of Our Times raised?

“No,” said Schaap. “But they’ve certainly dealt with some of the issues, occasionally.”

Schaap noted that the Institute for Media Analysis, which then published the Lies Of Our Times magazine, also published a book, The Rise and Fall Of The Bulgarian Connection which documented that the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour “did exactly the same thing as the commercial networks for four years” in spreading misinformation about the alleged involvement of Bulgarian secret police in the attempted assassination of the now-deceased Pope John.

"It’s hard to see where they’re much different than the other networks. They’re definitely pretty bad on their UNESCO coverage. Only in minor ways does their coverage differ from private networks,” Schaap said.

Why?

“They’re very much dependent on the good will of the Establishment and the government. You don’t suppose Mobil Oil would fund PBS if it exposed Mobil too much? Or that the government would provide it with funds if it was too anti-government?"

Downtown asked Schaap in 1991 how he would respond to the NewsHour’s then-spokesperson who maintained that a “line in the sand” existed between the show’s corporate funding sources and its editorial decision-making.

“I would disagree. It’s probably not blatant. The president of a corporation doesn’t go around the studio with a blue pencil. But there’s self-censorship.”

The Institute for Media Analysis was started by Schaap in the late 1980s, before it started to publish the now-defunct Lies Of Our Times.

“We really decided that there was a need for a major magazine devoted to this kind of media analysis in a magazine format,” recalled Schaap in 1991.

Had the media gotten better or worse since the Institute for Media Analysis was started?

“It continues to get worse. What happened is that the dependence on government keeps growing in the news media. They’re becoming dependent on sources of information in the government for their news. There’s also been greater pressure on the media from the Reagan and Bush [I] administrations in recent years [in the early 1990s],” observed Schaap.

Although Schaap agreed that “having anybody else tell them what to say” might raise freedom of the press issues if public participation in PBS editorial policy-formation increased, he dismissed the notion that more public accountability of PBS represented a greater threat to freedom of the journalists in the media than corporate control. “The fact is that the corporations have vast power over the media,” said Schaap.

Despite NewsHour spokesperson Ramsey’s 1991 contention that editorial independence of his publicly-funded show was not threatened by the acceptance of corporate funding, the Carnegie Commission also observed in its 1979 report that:

“An examination of the national television program service distributed by PBS reveals that outsider funder control is a very real issue in the present system…Corporations have become particularly visible in public broadcasting…Corporate underwriting has undoubtedly skewed the total schedule in the direction of cultural programs which are popular among the `upscale’ audience that corporations prefer. Controversial drama, documentaries, public affairs, and programs for minorities and other special audience must then compete for remaining discretionary money. Too often they have become casualties in a neo-Darwinian competition for scarce funds…

“Other funders have shown a similar interest in specifying the terms under which they will provide financial support…

“The fact is that public television, so dependent upon outside funding for its basic national schedule, has repeatedly forfeited its autonomy in programming. In one instance, rather than lose vitally necessary funding, programs were accepted by PBS and a large East Coast station even though PBS and the offering station did not agree with the program selected by the major corporate funder…The fact that underwriters can choose the programs they wish to fund or not to fund considerably reduces the system’s discretion.”

(Downtown 5/8/91)

Next: Bloody Minds protest folk song lyrics

Corporate Influence On Public Broadcasting Historically--Part 2

Asked by Downtown in 1991 what was the relationship between MacNeil-Lehrer Productions and PBS’s NewsHour, MacNeil-Lehrer Productions’ then-spokesperson, Christopher Ramsey, said that “MacNeil-Lehrer Productions produces the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour and WNET co-produces it.” Ramsey also noted in 1991 that his MacNeil-Lehrer Productions company produced other programs besides the PBS evening news, such as a PBS series on the English language and a series featuring the Surgeon General which NBC broadcasted.

Asked by Downtown in 1991 if the NewsHour was then involved in a relationship with Time-Warner, Ramsey answered affirmatively and noted that the relationship with Time magazine involved photo access and purely journalistic concerns.

Asked by Downtown how he would respond to critics who felt that there was a conflict-of-interest involved in the publicly-funded MacNeil-Lehrer Productions operating as a commercial venture, Ramsey questioned whether any such critics exist and said:

“All of the producers on PBS are independent contractors. And all the programs are contracted. There’s nothing wrong with a production company for public television making some small profit like any other business. Otherwise, you become dependent on just one funding source.”

Asked how he would respond to those critics of public broadcasting who worry about the dangers of “clandestine commercialism” within the public broadcasting system, Ramsey replied:

“That’s part of a much broader issue. We don’t have any kind of pure public broadcasting system in the United States. Maybe some commercialism can be avoided elsewhere. But even in the BBC they pay a salary or contract out on the basis of a production fee that insures a fair and reasonable profit to program producers.”

Downtown then asked Ramsey how he’d respond to critics of public broadcasting who argue that commercial funding of the NewsHour leads to commercial editorial control.

“We have a line in the sand drawn between our corporate funders and our editorial decisions. Corporate funders like AT&T have never tried to influence our program,” Ramsey said.

When Downtown noted that some people felt that the NewsHour doesn’t report on issues involving AT&T because AT&T funds the program, Ramsey replied in 1991:

“We’ve done quite a lot on AT&T. I can show you the transcripts of many programs on AT&T.”

Downtown then asked Ramsey whether he could recall if the NewsHour had ever done a show about the Gannett Company?

“I can’t off the top of my head. But Gannett is a low-profile company. And we tend to focus on issues of public policy and are less involved with issues related to companies like Gannett.”

(Downtown 5/8/91)

Next: Corporate Influence On Public Broadcasting Historically—Part 3

Corporate Influence On Public Broadcasting Historically--Part 1

Asked by Downtown in 1991 if there was any connection between WNET and MacNeil-Lehrer Gannett Productions, a WNET spokesperson replied:

“We are one of the presenting stations of the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour. We don’t have any input in MacNeil-Lehrer Productions. MacNeil-Lehrer is an independent satellite, not a part of WNET.”

Asked by Downtown in 1991 whether WNET thought there might be a conflict-of-interest in its NewsHour also operating MacNeil-Lehrer Productions, the spokesperson answered:

“Not at all. The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour is a program funded separately, funded by public television and there is a station editorial board which helps run the program.”

But in 1979, the Carnegie Commission on the Future of Public Broadcasting published a report, titled A Public Trust, in which it noted that as early as the 1970s:

“Many public groups, once staunch supporters of public broadcasting against the blandness and vulgarities of commercial broadcasting, began to express disappointment about the record of public broadcasting on programming for minorities and women, public participation in station governance, equal employment opportunity, clandestine commercialism via corporate underwriting and the use of so many British imports.”

Asked by Downtown in 1991 if she felt that the presence of somebody from a commercial network like former CBS Evening News Anchor Walter Cronkite on WNET’s board in 1991 seemed to back-up the concern expressed by the Carnegie Commission’s A Public Trust report about “clandestine commercialism” in public television, the WNET spokesperson insisted:

“We are noncommercial and nonprofit. There are no commercials on public television. We are chartered as a nonprofit corporation.”

She then expressed suspicion about Downtown’s line of questioning, wanted more information about exactly what Downtown was going to write about “her” public broadcasting station and requested that she not be publicly identified in this article. Instead, she suggested that Downtown speak with Christopher Ramsey at MacNeil-Lehrer Productions if it had any more questions about possible conflict-of-interests or clandestine commercialism at Channel 13.

(Downtown 5/8/91)

Next: Corporate Influence On Public Broadcasting Historically—Part 2

Discrimination At Gannett Historically

As might be expected, 91 percent of the general managers at Gannett-owned television stations during the early 1990s were male and 82 percent were white. At Gannett-owned radio stations during the early 1990s, 80 percent of the general managers were white and 70 percent were male. Of the local publishers who supervise the operations of Gannett’s 81 daily newspapers in the early 1990s, only five were African-American, only two were Latino-American and only two were Asian-American. In 1978, according to The Media Monopoly, an African-American media group had protested that Gannett’s history of hiring women and minorities was “worse than the industry average” and that in Rochester, New York the Gannett media conglomerate’s newspapers “had refused to print Urban League reports of supermarket price discrimination” in African-American neighborhoods “for fear of offending advertisers.”

Twenty-two percent of Gannett’s local newspaper publishers were women in the early 1990s (as was the then-publisher of USA Today). But, according to the book Press Concentration and Monopoly by Robert Picard, “the mean circulation of the Gannett dailies headed by women” in the early 1990s was “25,000, compared to 56,000 for Gannett papers headed by men.” In other words, in the early 1990s Gannett apparently tracked its female “local publishers” into the management of its least influential local newspapers. In his Confessions Of An S.O.B., former Gannett Chairman of the Board Neuharth did not indicate what percentage of Gannett’s managers were gay men, lesbians, people with disabilities or people who were under 30 years of age.

(Downtown 5/8/91)

Next: Corporate Influence On Public Broadcasting Historically—Part 1

Gannett's Historic Brokaw And Carter Connection

Former NBC Evening News Anchor Tom Brokaw also had a historic Gannett connection. His wife, Meredith Brokaw, sat on the board of directors of the Gannett Company media conglomerate during the late 1980s. Tom Brokaw, himself, was a good friend of Gannett’s former board chairman, Al Neuharth. In his Confessions Of An S.O.B. book, Neuharth noted that Brokaw is “a South Dakota buddy, and his wife, Meredith, is on the Gannett board.” The book The Making of McPaper also revealed that on at least one occasion “Neuharth had given Tom Brokaw a lift back from South Dakota on the Gannett jet, and Brokaw had mentioned he couldn’t find the paper (USA Today) in Missoula.”

During the late 1980s, the wife of former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, Rosalynn Carter, was also a director of the Gannett Company media conglomerate.

(Downtown 5/8/91)

Next: Discrimination At Gannett Historically