Richard Silverstein, Larry Johnson, Bruce Ramsey:

Workshop

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Media Coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The panel examines the nature and quality of reporting on the conflict in both the U.S.:
1. How do we get more & better coverage into the media?
2. How do we make such coverage more accessible to the average American?
3. How does the collapse of print media alter the landscape for coverage?
4. Where do people get their coverage of the conflict?
5. Critique of media coverage of I-P conflict
6. What political issues should be covered that aren't being covered?
7. How to improve communications between Israeli, Palestinian and U.S. media and peace activist communities
8. Role of digital media, social networking in expanding access to news about the conflict
_______________________________________________________________
Thom Hartmann: Unequal Protection
 
With the recent Supreme Court ruling opening the floodgates for unlimited corporate money influencing our elections, the corporate takeover or our democracy is now complete. This ruling by the very same 5 fascist Supreme Court justices who overturned the 2000 election ushering in 8 years of ‘W', not only overrules a hundred years of legal precedent but also destroys “ strong state constitutional provisions prohibiting corporate influence ”. Commentators have been comparing this ruling to the awful Dred Scott decision which declared people to be property and have asserted that this ruling now makes it clear that property is persons. Better informed people trace the root of the problem back to the Santa Clara Co. v Southern Pacific Railroad decision of 1886 whereby corporations first asserted their certificate of personhood.

In this video, Thom Hartmann lays it all out: How this Supreme Court decision in fact never found any such thing and how corporate usurpation of human rights was stolen. And why the time has never been better to get moving on the process of revoking the legal fiction of Corporate Personhood once and for all. I hear rumors that Thom will be coming out with an updated edition of Unequal Protection in the near future. We look forward to seeing him back here in Seattle to address this subject again. This talk was recorded at Elliott Bay Books October 5th 2002.

John Stauber: Poisoning the Grassroots

Giant Corporations not only use their unlimited resources to subvert the public will by buying our elected officials, but to corrupt and subvert activist movements and nongovernmental organizations as well. PR Watch founder John Stauber gave this talk to the Twentieth National Pesticide Forum on April 27th 2002 at Bastyr University in Kenmore Washington .

There exist Public Relations firms whose sole purpose is to “mine” activists. They infiltrate and spy on activists and activist organizations compiling dossiers and using the information to advise their clients how to undermine their efforts. Stauber illuminates by example how corporations use this information to devise divide and conquer strategies to effectively derail reform movements. With this information, they divide the actors into 3 categories: 

“Radicals” are the ones who usually have a personal or principled stake in the issues at hand and most generally are the instigators of the movement. This designation does not necessarily connote a political orientation. They are “radical” in the sense that they are attacking the root of the problem. The “radical” in question may be a Republican grandmother living in a trailer out in the countryside who is suffering the effects of aerial bombardment from 2-4D, now dying of cancer and whose children and grandchildren are all sick. They want an absolute end to the spraying of toxic chemicals and a genuine redress of their grievances. These people are unlikely to accept compromises that amount to non solution solutions. 

“Idealists” are the ones who come to the support of the people who have been victimized. They may include rank and file members of large non governmental or other organizations committed to social progress as opposed to personal gain for themselves or their organizations. 

“Rationalists” are the ones, usually leaders of large nongovernmental organizations whose main interest is organization building, PR, and or fundraising. They are most willing to sell out their principles by negotiating “win, win” compromises that make their organizations and the corporations in question look good. They gain lots of corporate funding in exchange for “solutions” that don't threaten the corporate bottom line or make fundamental changes that may actually get to the root of the problems at hand. 

This is essential knowledge for anyone attempting any kind of reform which in our day would necessarily involve challenging some sort of corporate privilege. For instance, a direct analogy could be applied to what would likely happen if a grassroots attempt were made to take over from corporate control of the Democratic Party. John Stauber outlines how most large main stream environmental organizations have been compromised in this way and calls for a return to grassroots organizing.