breaking...

Tuesday, February 10, 2009 The following is based on a report by Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media. Elite members of the World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, recently considered a proposal for a new global television network to usher in a state of “global governance.” The concept strikes some as authoritarian, even totalitarian. But the parent company of Fox News was one of the sponsors of this year's gathering. Isn’t it nice that we might have a TV network telling us “who we are?” And “what we mean to each other?” Perhaps we will learn that we are global citizens. Perhaps a global leader of some sort will tell us that. Who might that be? Also In This Edition This proposal doesn’t come from a fringe organization. The WEF is an exclusive club of very rich and powerful people from around the world. It describes itself as “an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas.” This year’s conference featured speeches by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Chinese Premier We Jiabao. Many U.S. corporations, including some getting Wall Street bailout money, were sponsors. News Corporation, the parent of Fox News, was a “strategic partner” of the event. Valerie Jarrett, Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Relations and Public Liaison, represented the Obama Administration at this year’s event and called leaders from all nations to “seize gladly” the duties of collaborating and boldly embrace “a new era of global financial responsibility.” But the WEF also envisions cooperation and collaboration in global media ventures. It asks, “How can we save journalism to help it save the world?” Clearly, this is advocacy journalism on a global scale. Indeed, the list of “Recommendations” says it is imperative to start “Communicating a global agenda, and motivating and mobilizing people to support it…” Is this journalism? Or is it brainwashing and propaganda? It says that “a genuine, global voice” is needed that shares a “fundamental commitment” to being an international media voice, and makes mention of “the media voices we think of as international” coming from London (the BBC), Qatar (Al-Jazeera) or Atlanta (CNN). BBC is known for its anti-American programming, Al-Jazeera for its pro-terrorist slant, and CNN for its left-wing and pro-Democratic bias. It will take “innovative public-private funding” to bring this new network into being, apparently meaning that the taxpayers in the U.S. will have to be soaked in order to help bring this about. But no price tag is put on the venture and no objection was apparently raised to government funding of such a network on a global basis. An “overview” statement does, however, decry “censorship and self-censorship.” Elsewhere in the report (page 31) the idea of “international taxation” is proposed for “global action” of various kinds. Perhaps this is a vehicle for raising revenue for the new “global voice.” The media proposal was developed by one of several “Global Agenda Councils” under the auspices of the WEF. The new TV network proposal was issued under the supervision of Pat Mitchell, the president of the Paley Center for Media and former President and Chief Executive Officer of the Public Broadcasting Service. She was the chair of the Global Agenda Council on the Future of Media. Other members of the Council on the Future of Media were Betsy Morgan of the left-wing Huffington Post (former general manager of CBSNews.com); Rui Chenggang of China Central Television, an official political propaganda arm of the communist regime; and Zafar Siddiqi of CNBC Arabiya, a subsidiary of General Electric which is described as a 24-hour Arabic language financial and business information channel. There is no indication in the published report that the Huffington Post executive raised any objection to working hand-in-glove with the communist propaganda channel. Is the Chinese media model a precedent for the new “global network?” The conference was covered by media organizations such as CNBC, CNN, Bloomberg, Forbes and Fox, but no coverage that we could find was devoted to the proposal for a government-financed global media network. Talk about self-censorship! John J. DeGioia, President of Georgetown University and the “Rapporteur of the Global Agenda Councils focusing on Society and Values,” summarized the work of Mitchell’s panel. He says (page 46) that, “We believe that this new moment also calls for a new media platform, across all media channels, a global non-profit ‘CNN’ providing a new form of independent journalism to inform, illuminate and deepen knowledge about issues that improve the state of the world.” According to DeGioia’s biography, he walks the walk and is dedicated to helping “prepare young people for leadership roles in the global community.” His bio adds, “He is a member of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO and Chair of its Education Committee and he represents Georgetown at the World Economic Forum and on the Council on Foreign Relations.” The media council took advantage of what a description of its work said was an “enormous opportunity” to “redefine the media and its roles in a global, interconnected society.” Under the title of “Recommendations” (page 182), the Council on the Future of Media declares that “The Council is championing a new global, independent news and information service whose role is to inform, educate and improve the state of the world?one that would take advantage of all platforms of content delivery from mobile to satellite and online to create a new global network.” It goes on, “In a world where there are calls for global governance as a response to a global financial crisis, where scientific research, capital flows and production chains are globalized, the media and the communities in which we imagine ourselves remain fiercely localized.” Hence, a global network will work against “localized” or national-based systems and convince people to go “global” with their outlook and solutions. In other words, the new network will help undermine old-fashioned notions of national sovereignty and patriotism. There are 22 members (page 183) of the Council on the Future of Media. In addition to Mitchell and Morgan, American members include: Alex S. Jones, former media reporter for the New York Times and now Director, Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.



Susan King, former Washington correspondent for ABC News and now Director, Journalism Initiative, Special Initiatives and Strategy, Carnegie Corporation of New York.



John Lavine, Dean, Medill School of Journalism Northwestern University.



Nicholas Lemann, former Washington Post reporter and now Dean, School of Journalism, Columbia University.



David Nordfors, Director, Innovation Journalism and Senior Research Scholar, Stanford Center for Innovations in Learning, Stanford University.



Monroe Price, Director, Centre for Global Communications Studies, Annenberg School for Communication, the University of Pennsylvania.



Orville H. Schell, Director, Center on US-China Relations, Asia Society. There doesn’t appear to be one identifiable conservative member on the list. Of course, everyone on the list is a certified objective media proessional, neither liberal nor conservative. Just ask them. COMMENT LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Comments Re DBB comment: ""....What proof has the author provided that al-Jazeera is the 'terrorist' network or that CNN has a 'pro-democratic bias' or that the BBC is anti-American?" Yeah, that's right. And what proof does he have that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Douglas J. Bender 7:17 p.m. / Tuesday, February 17, 2008 This is just more proof that were heading towards a "new world government" where the people have no rights and follow in a line right behind the brainwashed person in front. People need to wake up and do just a little research. Wake Up 10:00 a.m. / Sunday, February 15, 2008 If you want to see an example of "brainwashing and propaganda", you need look no further than this article. Why is it comparing an internet blog, like Huffington's to major TV news stations? What proof has the author provided that al Jazeera is the "terrorist" network or that CNN has a "pro-democratic bias" or that the BBC is anti-American? DBB 1:33 p.m. / Friday, February 13, 2008 "BBC is known for its anti-American programming, Al-Jazeera for its pro-terrorist slant, and CNN for its left-wing and pro-Democratic bias." Propaganda coming from propaganda "questioners". I guess this means that alternative media has been right all along...you can't trust corporate media. That Guy 6:58 p.m. / Thursday, February 12, 2008 Don't forget your're going to need a global police force to go with the global bank. Then, will that be the "Ministry of Truth" network? (Don't forget: Rupert just lost about 4.6 billion last qtr.) Robert 5:03 p.m. / Thursday, February 12, 2008 All hail the New World Order! Establishment, establishment, you always know what's best! Draconius 2:10 p.m. / Thursday, February 12, 2008 The Globalist agenda is not 'liberal'; it is capitalist. The Dem and Pub Parties both serve the globalist, elitist agenda. If the globalists were truly 'Communist' or 'Socialist' they wouldn't be giving all our tax money to the gang bankers. Gregory Fegel 11:43 a.m. / Thursday, February 12, 2008 As if the globalists don't have enough outlets, now they want directly into our living rooms (at U.S. taxpayers' expense). By Rich 10:17 A.m. / Thursday, February 12, 2008 You know what these Socialism/communist/liberal @#&* can do with their world TV channel. By Bob 10:20 A.m. / Thursday, February 12, 2008 Just remember: Americans play monopoly, Russians play chess. By Eyes Wide open 10:20 A.m. / Thursday, February 12, 2008 About Us l Contact Us l Geostrategy-Direct.com l East-Asia-Intel.com Copyright © 2009 East West Services, Inc. All rights reserved.