COMMENTARY:
WTO Is Cosy With the MediaBy
Norman Solomon
When thousands of protesters converge on Seattle at the end of this month to
challenge the global summit of the World Trade Organization, they're unlikely to get a
fair hearing from America's mass media.
Consider how one of the nation's most influential newspapers framed the upcoming
confrontation as November began. The Washington Post reported on its front page that the
WTO has faced "virulent opposition" -- an assessment not quoted or attributed to
anyone -- presumably just a matter of fact.
"Virulent"? According to my dictionary, the mildest definition of the
word is "intensely irritating, obnoxious or harsh." The other definitions:
"extremely poisonous or pathogenic; bitterly hostile or antagonistic; hateful."
Don't you just love objective reporting?
Headlined above the fold on page one of the Post, the Nov. 2 article went on to
quote four pro-WTO sources: the organization's president, a top executive at the Goldman,
Sachs investment firm, the U.S. trade representative and a member of the British House of
Commons. In contrast, quotations from foes of the WTO were scarce and fleeting.
Such coverage of trade issues is significant because it's routine. For much of the
U.S. news media, the virtues of economic globalization are self-evident, like motherhood
and apple pie.
Overall, in recent years, journalists depicted the NAFTA and GATT trade pacts as
steps toward rationality and global progress. Opponents have been frequently discussed --
but not often heard. The media "debate" over globalization has resembled the
sound of one side clapping.
Many of the anti-WTO activists who'll soon be heading to Seattle have gained
in-depth knowledge about key aspects of trade and the global economy. They will bring a
wealth of information and deep concern about the environment, labor, human rights and
economic justice.
Meanwhile, in the halls of corporate power, strategists are worried.
The Nov. 8 issue of Business Week features a downbeat piece by Jeffrey Garten, a
former undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration, who declares: "In
late November, Seattle is likely to be the scene of a big test for global capitalism.
That's when more than 1,000 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are planning to disrupt
the kickoff of a new round of global trade negotiations."
Similar concerns are being voiced by many other media commentators. What are they
afraid of? Undue democratic participation in decision-making. NGOs "have skillfully
exploited the void between shrinking governments unable to cushion the impact of change on
ordinary citizens and multinational companies that are the agents of that change,"
Garten writes.
Translation: Huge firms have been able to bend and shape government policies,
while "ordinary citizens" have suffered dire consequences. Rather than passively
accept the results, activist groups are resisting -- and what's worse, they're getting
somewhere.
"While governments and chief executives bore the public and the media with
sterile abstractions about free markets," Garten adds, "NGOs are sending more
nuanced messages sensitive to the anxieties of local communities around the world. At the
same time, they are preparing sophisticated strategies to influence television networks,
newspapers and magazines."
Translation: Activists are threatening to usurp the prerogatives of big money to
determine the main media messages.
"If Washington and Corporate America don't move decisively," Garten
warns, "NGOs could dominate public opinion on global trade and finance."
Translation: Washington and Corporate America must make sure that they continue to
dominate public opinion.
But the fears of some are the hopes of others: During the week after Thanksgiving,
events in Seattle could signify a breakthrough for advocates of democratic processes. The
surfacing activism could create a new dynamic powerful enough to shift the terms of public
discourse.
Throughout this decade, as government leaders and corporate execs have marched to
the beat of multinational drums, grassroots oppositional movements have taken root and
flowered in many communities. Gradually, since the founding of the World Trade
Organization five years ago, they have developed ways to monitor the secretive WTO's
activities and to work together -- across boundaries of race, class, language, culture and
nationality.
Truly democratic procedures -- not unelected WTO officials -- should determine the
rules of the global economy. The implications are profound: for human rights, workers,
public health and the environment. With a worldwide movement emerging to challenge the
corporate globalizers, we'll see how much of its message can get through the media filters
during the historic Seattle summit.
_________________________________________________
Norman Solomon is a syndicated columnist. His latest book is "The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media."
home |