US News Media Censorship by Mark Taylor-Canfield There are many topics considered “too hot” to cover by the US press and electronic news media. Among these taboo subjects are: Instead of reporting on what’s actually happening in the world, CNN would much rather discuss Brittany Spears or Tom Cruise’s latest bizarre escapades. These weapons of mass distraction, distortion and deception are unleashed on an unwary public like a cannon barrage of cheap fodder, leading to a collective sigh of apathy and confusion on the part of most media consumers. It’s what media critics like to refer to as “pure infotainment” – insipid, exploitative pre-packaged news delivered by artificial talking heads. This much repeated formula is really just another hype scheme designed to sell advertising. Brilliantly practiced, I might add, by questionable folks like Rupert Murdoch. And that’s just what the powerful and wealthy national puppet masters want. They certainly couldn’t entertain the idea of a truly enlightened and educated public. After all, who would wash their dishes and clean their floors if everybody had a college degree? Who would pick up their garbage or drive them to the airport if everyone was a stockholder? Who would buy the products needed to fuel the manufacturing economy? If I sound rather cynical it’s because I am. In the wake of constant disappointments regarding our much maligned “democracy” and its electoral system, and in light of the current corruption brought into our political process by countless corporate gansters, I am left with a high suspicion of misconduct on the part of most of our national leaders. (When I speak of “national leaders”, I am actually referring, of course, to the wealthy lobbyists working for Exxon/Mobil, Blackwater and the Halliburton corporation.) Please forgive me if I seem to protest too much about the latest loss of vital information in the public’s interest which has been cast down Orwell’s memory hole. As Rod Serling once said, “I submit the following case for your consideration”. It should alarm anyone who believes that a free press is vital to the healthy functioning of a democratic society. ILWU SHUTS DOWN 29 WEST COAST PORTS TO PROTEST US OCCUPATION OF IRAQ On May 1st (May Day) 25,000 members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) shut down all the major ports along the entire west coast of the United States. Their protest was meant to call attention to the union member’s opposition to the war in Iraq. This amazing feat, an astounding act of civil disobedience, drew support from anti-war protesters from Canada, the US and Iraq. The day-long strike proved once again that the ILWU is one of the only labor unions left in the US that can still make a major impact on the nation’s economy. Last time the ILWU considered striking, at the beginning of the war in Iraq, George W. Bush threatened to call in the US Army to crush the strike and open the ports. He called it a “national security issue”. Unfortunately, in the case of this latest west coast strike on May 1st, US news media sources chose largely to ignore the national implications of this important and far-reaching story. Even NPR and the BBC had no mention of it on their website’s front page on the day the ports were shut down. My friends and I searched the major corporate media websites looking for information, but alas, it was to no avail. The story seemed to have disappeared like a mirage. Soon, I came to realize that the only news outlets actually covering the story live and in depth were our own Pacifica Radio Network affiliate KBCS in Seattle, Pacifica’s Free Speech Radio News, The Independent Media Center, Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now, and the Seattle Post Intelligencer. Otherwise, the story about union workers shutting down 29 US ports was very hard to find on May 1st. ILWU president Robert McEllrath was surprised to find that few reporters were willing to contact the union’s spokesperson. Apparently, the impetus for this labor action came directly from rank and file members, despite the fact that union leadership had made promises to port authorities that there would be no labor stoppage. According to the ILWU’s press release, the 25,000 dock workers were simply exercising their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech during the 24 hour walk out. Eventually, the union leadership was forced to announce the strike to the public and the press. ILWU president McEllrath stated, “We’re telling politicians in Washington, DC that it’s time to end the war in Iraq.” McEllrath complains that the union is being forced to negotiate with an employer group, the Pacific Maritime Association, which represents large carriers and port operators, most of which are owned by foreign interests. PMA spokesperson Steve Getzug stated, “We are very disappointed and angry about the event.” He claims that PMA had assurances from union representatives that the ILWU would not encourage a mass walk out, which they say was extremely disruptive to port operations. Obviously, port operators and shipping companies lost a lot of money that day due to the labor union’s actions. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, industry analysts suggest that in the future some US manufacturers may choose to use US ports on the east coast exclusively, due to what they refer to as the “unreliable” and “unstable” labor force on the west coast. In other words, longshore workers on the “left coast” (as some neo-cons call it), are willing to go on strike, whereas the east coast unions are more compliant. ILWU president McEllrath responds by saying, “Big foreign corporations that control global shipping aren’t loyal or accountable to any country. For them it’s all about making money. But longshore workers are different. Wte’re loyal to America, and we won’t stand by while our country, our troops, and our economy are destroyed by a war that’s bankrupting us to the tune of 3 trillion dollars. It’s time to stand up, and we’re doing our part.” The ILWU represents 60,000 working women and men in California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii. It also represents workers in Canada. Members of the ILWU, which is affiliated with the AFL-CIO, include longshore workers, warehouse workers, watchmen, clerks, ferry and tugboat workers. The union also represents people who work in the tourism industry and agriculture. The ILWU was formed in 1934 during an intense labor struggle for recognition and higher wages that cost many workers their lives. The first west coast strike took place that same year and became a major factor in the increased solidarity of ILWU members throughout the 1930’s and beyond. Labor history expert Peter Cole from Western Illinois University calls the ILWU, “perhaps the most militant and politicized worker organization in the nation”. He claims the union is “highly democratic”. In fact, a caucus of 100 longshore workers from every ILWU local in the country voted to stage the latest strike as a protest against the war. In reference to the longshore union’s current strength as a bargaining and organizing movement, Professor Cole maintains, “these days such examples of worker power are increasingly rare in the US.” The International Longshore and Warehouse Union chose International Workers Day to declare the strike. The demands outlined in the union’s anti-war proclamation include: This section of my article could have been subtitled: “Censored News Story #2”. The US news media missed most of the relevant facts of the issue and most newscasts never even covered the Iraqi union’s support of the ILWU anti-war strike. It could be another example of how shamefully banal and vapid the US news networks have become on TV, radio and the web. The fact that workers in Iraq have expressed solidarity is really quite amazing once you consider that they are residents of a nation which is currently being torn apart by internal strife and occupation by US military forces. Members of the Port Workers Union of Iraq reportedly shut down the ports of Umm Qasr and Khor Alzubair for at least part of the day on May 1st. According to a letter posted on the web, the PWU is critical of both the Ba’athist party of Saddam Hussein and Paul Bremer’s post-invasion Occupation Authority because of their suppression of union organizing in Iraq. The letter states that the current Iraqi regime has also tried to stop independent union activity. Another letter titled, “May Day Statement From the Iraqi Labor Movement” was also discussed on email lists. According to this statement, the demands of Iraqi unions include: US BORDER PATROL SEARCHES DOMESTIC FERRY PASSENGERS AT ANACORTES Another significant story that most folks outside of Anacortes and the San Juan Islands don’t get much information about is the current dispute over searches conducted by US Border Patrol and customs agents. Although the inspections have received some media attention, the real constitutional issues involved in this story have been largely ignored by a news media too obsessed with the latest American Idol show to spend any time covering civil liberties and government repression. US Border Patrol activity at the Anacortes ferry terminal has created a major controversy in the community. Local civil and immigration rights groups say that the Border Patrol agents’ demands for ID and the random searches of cars are unconstitutional. Every passenger arriving from Friday Harbor on the Washington State ferry system may now be subjected to questioning by US Border Patrol agents, and every vehicle is subject to potential searches. Some passengers complain of “police state tactics”. They claim residents of the San Juan Islands and visitors from the mainland are being harassed by Border Patrol agents who interrogate ferry passengers and demand identification from people who have not been traveling outside the US. Folks who live on the islands have been complaining to their congressional representatives about the situation. The Washington State American Civil Liberties Union and many immigrant rights activists say they are opposed to the aggressive screening practices currently being conducted by the US Border Patrol in Anacortes. Spokespersons for the US Border Patrol say the spot checks are necessary as part of the government’s plans to protect the nation from terrorism. The screening program was initiated in February partly to determine the citizenship status of people traveling on the ferry run from Friday Harbor to Anacortes. Previously, passengers were subjected to customs inspections only if they had boarded a ferry arriving from Sydney, British Columbia, Canada. Now even domestic ferry passengers are being screened by border agents. Civil rights attorneys are advising ferry passengers not to answer any questions regarding their citizenship. According to attorney Matt Adams of the Northwest Immigrants Rights Project, people who have not crossed an international border are not required to give information about their legal status. According to the US Border Patrol’s deputy chief for the Blaine border sector, Joe Giuliano, when people refuse to answer questions, agents still stop them long enough to run a check on vehicle license plate numbers and search databases for potential information on detainees. Since February, 43 people have been arrested during these stops, most for alleged immigration law violations. In addition, over 140 people from 33 different countries have been detained and interviewed by US Border Patrol agents. Customs and Border Protection spokespersons have been advising passengers who plan to travel between the San Juan Islands and Anacortes that they should bring their passports, even though that particular ferry run doesn’t leave the United States. US Customs spokesperson Mike Mine claims the government has the authority to inspect any persons who “co-mingle” with other passengers on a vessel that has traveled across an international border. The Washington State American Civil Liberties Union, however, assesses the situation in an entirely different manner. They point out that two state courts have rejected the federal government’s position that the state ferry terminal at Anacortes serves as a “functional border” for all passengers. According to federal law, anyone crossing an international border into the US can be searched by border agents without a warrant or even probable cause. The result is that customs agents search people’s luggage everyday. The guaranteed constitutional right to protection from unwarranted search and seizure is not respected at the US border. However, the Washington State Court of Appeals and the US District Court in Western Washington have both handed down rulings which challenge the federal government’s claim that Anacortes is a border. These rulings have proven to be very important in determining precedent for the ferry searches, especially in the case of one ferry passenger arrested after border agents found cannabis in the car. The plaintiff had boarded the ferry at Friday Harbor in the San Juan Islands. The court in that drug seizure case found that the city of Anacortes does not qualify as a border area, largely because most of the people going through customs at the ferry terminal are actually domestic travelers. An article in a recent Seattle Times travel section points out that the government’s rationale for justifying the ferry passenger searches is completely flawed. The US Border Patrol contradicts its own position in this matter. The agency admits that it exempts domestic ferry passengers from rules requiring new traveler identification for international travel. Yet these same passengers are now being subjected to inspections and vehicle searches because they are supposedly arriving at an international border crossing at Anacortes. Seattle Times reporter Betty Udesen wrote that her family was forced to wait in line for an hour in order to be screened. She complains that the inspections at Anacortes are especially unjustified since US Customs agents have already screened passengers boarding at the Sydney, British Columbia ferry station. She wonders why they have to be searched again. US Customs spokesperson from Seattle, Mike Milne says he has an answer. He claims that inspections conducted at the B.C. ferry terminal are designed to intercept possible terrorists and illegal immigrants, while the searches of arriving passengers at Anacortes focus mainly on “banned cargo”. Milne claims that the inspections are not “duplicative”. Instead, he says the searches are simply “layered”. Many locals interpret the words “banned cargo” as a code phrase which refers to marijuana imported from British Columbia, known to northwest herbal enthusiasts as “BC bud”. Even the Canadian provincial government admits that cannabis is one of British Columbia’s biggest cash crops. Some civil libertarians see the customs searches as nothing but a thinly veiled crackdown on the import of pot from Canada into the US. The controversy continues, with civil rights groups challenging the government’s inspections at Anacortes by attacking the policy publicly. Organizations like the ACLU are lobbying members of Congress in Washington DC to pass legislation to stop the searches, and activist attorneys are filing appeals in Washington State courts. In the on-going dispute, one thing is perfectly clear. The people’s right to privacy, and to be secure in their personal possessions, is being eroded quickly by the government’s violations of the US Constitution’s prohibitions on illegal search and seizure. Already, we have given up our right not to be put under surveillance by our own political representatives and their appointed intelligence agency bureaucrats. Now we are being asked to submit to searches while traveling on a state operated ferry. Should we be surprised by this series of events considering the Bush legacy? For example, the US Congress no longer declares war. Instead, the US “Commander in Chief” now authorizes torture as a political policy, and orders military invasions and occupations of sovereign nations who have not attacked us. Violating international law has become standard operating procedure for the administration of George W. Bush. Under these circumstances, is it any wonder that we as a people are no longer safe from government intrusion into our personal daily lives? It’s easy to become paranoid when you realize the feds have the ability and the authorization by Congress to listen in on your phone conversations, document your web searches, and read your email. We are no longer allowed to be secure in our papers and our personal effects. In the name of terrorism and illegal immigration, we are being forced to present official identification proving our citizenship/loyalty. Our families are now being subjected to questioning by border agents. Border agents conduct vehicle searches of vacationers traveling within the borders of the US. If this scenario is acceptable to the “average American”, then we are in great danger of losing the very foundations of our supposedly democratic society. When the people acquiesce to intimidation and harassment by overzealous agents of the government, the fight for liberty is over and freedom has been defeated by the fascist structures of the state. When we are told by our government that we must all accept the loss of our cherished constitutional rights in order to protect national security, the time has come to respond with a resounding “no!” The people of the US should always strive to honor Benjamin Franklin’s famous statement, for it is true that those who give up their liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security… |
