NEWS RELEASE: January 16, 2006

WHERE THE POLITICAL PARTIES STAND ON CULTURE
Canada's Political Parties State Their Positions on Cultural and Communication Policy

"Troubled by both the lack of media coverage and political party attention to cultural and communication policies" in this election, Dr. Paul D. Boin decided to ask Canada's main political parties directly. Boin, an assistant professor of Communication Studies at the University of Windsor who also teaches a course on Canadian cultural and communication policy, formulated five specific questions that were sent out to the Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic, Bloc Quebecois, and Green parties. [Note: BELOW (and at: www.RNNnews.info) you will find the complete OFFICIAL PARTY RESPONSES to Boin's five cultural policy questions.]

Over the past five years "there have been four different governmental reviews on the state of our media landscape with the goal of informing our leaders' policy decisions as to how Canadians will communicate, be informed, and entertained in the 21st Century." Boin says that these four reviews - the Heritage Committee review (Our Cultural Sovereignty: Canada's Second Century of Broadcasting), the Industry Canada review (Opening Canadian Communications to the World), the Senate Review (Interim Report on the Canadian News Media), and Prime Minister Martin's ad hoc cabinet level review (Industry Minister David Emerson's 3-person review committee) - not only "have conflicting and competing recommendations but, depending on which recommendations are ultimately accepted and rejected, could have a dramatic impact on the state of our democratic and cultural life."

Boin feels that issues such as CBC funding, foreign ownership limits, Canadian content regulations and support for the arts "should be a front page election story". He states that, "While Canada's mainstream media seem to devote ample coverage to issues such as health care, the military, taxation, and crime, they tend to either ignore issues of cultural and communication policy or relegate it to the business and entertainment sections of their newspapers and newscasts."

Boin calls this media problem a "cultural blackout of incredible democratic significance." He says that the usual media claim is that cultural issues are not recognized as being of comparable importance to other issues for the electorate is unfounded. "What comes first? The chicken or the egg?" asks Boin. "Since Canadians rely on the media for their election information, if media aren't covering culture and communication issues these issues become out of sight and out of mind." Boin states that this is especially important because "policy decisions in the cultural realm, will ultimately impact on our media's ability to cover and inform citizens with regards other important issues, be they related to health care, the economy, the environment, or to matters of war and peace."

Boin also says that the mainstream often have "vested interests in various Canadian cultural and communication policy decisions which contributes to the cultural blackout, since such decisions can have a direct impact on their bottom line," and that this "media blind spot can be seen in both the private and public mainstream media."

Professor Boin's hope is that asking the political parties these cultural and communication questions directly will work to "shed light on this neglected policy area so that Canadian voters can make a more informed election choice on an issue the merits much greater public attention."

Below you will find professor Boin's five questions and the complete responses of Canada's national political parties.

For More Information contact:

Dr. Paul D. Boin
Assistant Professor of Communication Studies
University of Windsor, Windsor, ON N9B 3P4
Tel: 519-253-3000 ext. 2893
Email: pboin@uwindsor.ca

WHERE THE POLITICAL PARTIES STAND ON CULTURE
Canada's Political Parties State Their Positions on Cultural and Communication Policy

Questions posed (January 12/05) and answers compiled (January 19/05) by Dr. Paul D. Boin, Assistant Professor of Communication Studies, University of Windsor, 519-253-3000 ext. 2893, pboin@uwindsor.ca)

The following responses are the OFFICIAL POLITICAL PARTY RESPONSES (in their entirety) of Canada's main political parties (Conservative Party, Liberal Party, New Democratic Party, Green Party, and the Bloc Quebecois) to the following five cultural and communication policy questions:

1. WHAT IS YOUR PARTY'S POSITION IN REGARDS TO FUNDING LEVELS AT THE CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION (CBC)? IF ELECTED WOULD YOUR PARTY INCREASE, MAINTAIN, OR DECREASE CBC FUNDING LEVELS IN THE COMING YEARS.

CONSERVATIVE: "The Conservative government will ensure that the CBC and Radio-Canada continue to perform their vital role as national public service broadcasters."

LIBERAL: "The Liberal Government worked with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) to ensure it can fulfil its programming mandate while addressing the needs of Canada’s regions.
In Budget 2005, the Liberal Government confirmed the importance of public broadcasting by providing an additional $60 million in 2005-2006. This was in addition to the nearly $1 billion already committed in the 2005-2006 Main Estimates.
As well, the CBC has been exempted from any cuts to its budget under the Government-Wide Expenditure Review. A new Liberal Government will support the CBC to ensure it can meet the needs of Canadians at a grassroots level."

NEW DEMOCRATIC: "New Democrats have always been strong supporters of the CBC and public broadcasting, of film and television, of the arts, and above all, of artists. Our investment plan is about focused, targeted steps to support creative people and to make sure Canadians see themselves in our culture.
The NDP has fought hard for increased and stabilized funding for the CBC to off-set the years of Liberal cuts to CBC's budget and lack of commitment from Paul Martin’s government to protect and promote public broadcasting."

GREEN: "The Green Party of Canada proposes to Provide stable base-funding for the CBC to provide quality television and radio programming in both official languages."

BLOC QUEBECOIS: "Le Bloc Québécois est en faveur d’une télévision publique forte avec un financement adéquat. De plus, nous croyons que celle-ci devrait être représentative de toutes les régions et que cette condition devrait être intégrée dans leur condition de licence.
Le Bloc Québécois croit donc au maintien du financement avec une indexation minimale et la préservation des émissions d’affaires publiques et d’information ainsi qu’une augmentation du nombre d’heures consacrées aux dramatiques."

2. WHAT IS YOUR PARTY'S POSITION IN REGARDS TO THE FUNDING LEVELS OF OTHER CANADIAN CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS AND PROGRAMS SUCH AS: THE CANADA COUNCIL FOR THE ARTS, TELEFILM CANADA, AND THE NATIONAL FILM BOARD OF CANADA? IF ELECTED WOULD YOUR PARTY INCREASE, MAINTAIN, OR DECREASE THE FUNDING LEVELS TO THESE ORGANIZATIONS AND PROGRAMS IN THE COMING YEARS?

CONSERVATIVE: "A Conservative government will preserve the role of the National Film Board, the Canada Council for the Arts, and other federal arts and culture agencies."

LIBERAL: "In 2001 the Liberal Party launched the largest investment in Canadian culture: Tomorrow Starts Today. This $560 million initiative focused on long-term sustainability and was extended in 2004-05 and 2005-06, providing an additional $207 million and $192 million.
The Liberal government will provide predictable funding levels for the arts; Budget 2005 further extends $172 million of new funding annually for four years. This brings total new funding for Tomorrow Starts Today to $860 million over the next five years.
A Liberal government will also:
• Ensure funding for key cultural institutions such as Telefilm and the CBC; and,
• Provide increased support for Canada’s major arts organizations."

NEW DEMOCRATIC: "Canada’s NDP will provide increased funding for the Canada Council for the support of artists and ensure that the government follows through on November’s Canada Council funding announcement. Our platform includes funding of $600 million over four years in support of artists and the arts. The NDP plan gets results for arts and artists by: Introducing fair tax treatment for artists through tax averaging and exemption of the first $30,000 copyright and certain royalty income; Providing increased funding for the Canada Council for the support of artists; Directing the CRTC to require clear, binding, monitored and enforced performance standards for broadcasters, including a significant increase in the production and broadcast of Canadian drama; Ensuring that Canadian television networks remain Canadian owned; Providing sustained funding for the Canadian Television Fund and Telefilm Canada; and Enhancing federal film incentives to encourage film and television production and working with film distributors on a strategy to increase distribution of Canadian films."

GREEN: "At every level, arts and culture help define our identities and communities, they unlock our individual and collective creativity, and help Canadians share their ideas worldwide. The Green Party understands that our future together, our sense of who we are, depends on policies that ensure a thriving, diverse and socially responsible cultural community as part of an inclusive Canada.
The Green Party of Canada proposes a 40% increase in funding for Canadian film production, to be distributed between Téléfilm Canada, the National Film Board of Canada and other independent film initiatives. This new portion of their budget would ideally be allotted to regional production and “non-traditional” production (sci-fi, animation, etc.). We also work to see funding for the Canadian Council of Arts doubled to surpass $300 million ($10 per Canadian), and to substantially increase funding to the Cultural Human Resources Council."

BLOC QUEBECOIS: "Le Bloc Québécois a demandé au cours des deux dernières années l’augmentation à 300 millions $ du budget du Conseil des arts du Canada. En outre, le Bloc demande l’indexation du fonds du long métrage ainsi que la création d’un fonds du long métrage documentaire.
Le Bloc Québécois considère essentielle la hausse du financement de la Commission de droit de prêt public pour les écrivains et le maintien du programme d’aide aux publications."

3. WHAT IS YOUR PARTY'S POSITION IN REGARDS TO FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF OUR TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND MEDIA COMPANIES? IF ELECTED WOULD YOUR PARTY MAINTAIN THE EXISTING FOREIGN MEDIA OWNERSHIP LIMITS FOR TELECOMMUNICATION AND BROADCASTING COMPANIES? WILL YOUR PARTY ALLOW FOREIGN INTERESTS TO OWN OVER 49% OF OUR TELECOMMUNICATION AND BROADCASTING COMPANIES?

CONSERVATIVE: "While recognizing Canada’s diverse culture and shared history, we will work to strengthen opportunities and accessibility in both the domestic and international markets for our creative works. The Conservative Party of Canada believes that Canadian artists can compete with the best in the world. Any change to foreign content rules for telecommunications and broadcast distribution, will not take place without full consultation and discussion with industry and the people of Canada."

LIBERAL: "Canada has a duty to protect its cultural identity. This Liberal Government firmly holds that Canadian programming interests will not be sold to foreign interests.
In response to conflicting reports from two House of Commons committees, the Liberal Government firmly reiterated that it has no intention to modify foreign limits on broadcasting or general content. Foreign investors are limited to owning up to 40 percent of shares in Canadian media. The Liberal government strongly supports these restrictions on foreign ownership and has no plans to alter them. The strength of Canada’s broadcasting system must not be compromised by any kind of foreign-ownership measures."

NEW DEMOCRATIC: "It is essential that we keep Canadian control of one of our most important cultural industries and through it foster the development of Canadian identities that are distinctly recognizable to ourselves and to others. We will oppose any attempt by other parties to ease foreign ownership restrictions.
New Democrats want to maintain current restrictions to foreign ownership in this sector. We want a Canada written about by Canadians, portrayed in productions by Canadians, encouraging Canadian artists, presenting Canadian news – made possible by a vast array of Canadian workers and technicians."

GREEN: "The Green Party is committed to protecting the sovereignty of Canadian telecommunications companies in order to ensure that foreign interests cannot seize control of our media."

BLOC QUEBECOIS: "La levée des restrictions sur la propriété étrangère dans le domaine des télécommunications et de radiodiffusion représente une véritable menace pour la culture québécoise. En effet, devant les mutations technologiques qui caractérisent les activités dans ces domaines, les entreprises de télécommunication sont devenues des entreprises de distribution de contenu. Penser que l’augmentation de la part du capital étranger dans les entreprises de télécommunication à plus de 46,7 % n’aura pas d’impact sur le contenu de nos médias est illusoire. Bref, Le Bloc Québécois s’oppose fortement à la levée des restrictions sur la propriété étrangère dans le domaine des télécommunications."

4. WHAT IS YOUR PARTY'S POSITION WITH REGARDS TO EXISTING CANADIAN BROADCASTING CONTENT REGULATIONS, AND TOWARDS THE CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (CRTC)? IF ELECTED WOULD YOUR PARTY MAINTAIN, INCREASE, OR DECREASE EXISTING CANADIAN CONTENT QUOTAS ON OUR TELEVISION AND RADIO BROADCASTING COMPANIES? WOULD YOUR PARTY MAINTAIN OR CHANGE THE ROLE OF THE CRTC IN THE COMING YEARS? IF SO, HOW?

CONSERVATIVE: "The Conservative Party believes in a stable Canadian presence in a varied and vibrant broadcasting system. The Canadian broadcasting system should offer a wide range of Canadian and international programming, while being respectful of Canadian content. The system should provide audiences with maximum choice and have the ability to utilize new technologies to achieve its public and private objectives. A Conservative government will review the role of the CRTC in concert with its review of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Acts to ensure that it plays a relevant role in Canadian broadcasting."

LIBERAL: "The Liberal Government has a strategy that emphasizes high-quality Canadian content reaching Francophone or Anglophone markets showcasing Canadian drama, children’s programming, cultural programming, and documentaries.
The Liberal Government remains confident the role of the CRTC. However, in an era of constant change the CRTC should systematically review its regulatory policies and regulations to determine if they are achieving their stated objectives.
Therefore, the Liberal Government will ask the CRTC to prepare annual reports outlining steps to streamline rules, regulations and decision-making processes. Furthermore, the Liberal Government will explore whether monetary penalties should be added to the CRTC's toolkit for ensuring compliance with broadcasting regulations."

NEW DEMOCRATIC: "Canadian content requirements for all broadcasters were originally introduced as an effort to develop Canadian TV production capacity, and to address the overwhelming dominance of U.S. programming during prime time. The changes in 1999, that redefined the content requirements for prime time, created an influx of U.S. content, and caused a serious decline in Canadian English language television drama production. The NDP thinks a review of these changes is long overdue. The CRTC should be directed to review the 1999 television policy for the exhibition of priority programming in prime time and set firm content and spending requirements for broadcasters. The NDP plan includes a significant increase in the production and broadcast of Canadian drama and would also ensure that Canadian television networks remain Canadian owned."

GREEN: "The Green Party recognizes that here in Canada we have among us some of the best film, radio and television professionals in the world. We believe that we must strengthen our efforts so that these people don’t become mere sub-contractors to foreign projects.
We would work to implement a Canadian content law stipulating that broadcasting firms must show 50% Canadian content during prime time television viewing hours, in order to favor the integration of Canadian dram series. We would also enforce a law that film and video chains must offer 20% Canadian material."

BLOC QUEBECOIS: "Le Bloc Québécois est en faveur du resserrement des quotas de contenu canadien et francophone afin qu’ils soient respectés partout et dans tous les médias, incluant la radio par satellite ou les stations radiophoniques frontalières. Nous croyons qu’un instrument de réglementation tel que le CRTC est essentiel et nous travaillerons ardemment afin de nous assurer que son rôle soit maintenu et resserré en proposant une révision de la politique canadienne de radiodiffusion."

5. WHAT IS YOUR PARTY'S POSITION IN REGARDS TO EXISTING MEDIA OWNERSHIP CONCENTRATION LEVELS? IF ELECTED WOULD YOUR PARTY WORK TO REDUCE, MAINTAIN, OR ALLOW FOR FURTHER MEDIA OWNERSHIP CONCENTRATION? WHAT WILL YOUR PARTY DO IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS A DIVERSITY OF MEDIA OWNERSHIP IN CANADA?

CONSERVATIVE: "The Conservative party recognizes the vital role played by the private broadcasters of Canada through their local and regional programming that reflects the language and multicultural realities of our country. Private sector broadcasters and service-providers first and foremost are businesses and must be able to compete in an ever increasing fragmented and global market. We recognize the need for both regulatory flexibility and predictability. Broadcasting policy in Canada must be relevant in today’s communications environment and responsive to the demands of Canadians. We will review and update the Broadcasting Act to ensure its relevance in today’s technological environment, and we will establish clear, national policy directions and a framework that will maximize the freedom of choice and ensure that freedom of speech is respected."

LIBERAL: "Competition in all economic sectors, including the media is one of the best ways to promote the Canadian economy. The Competition Bureau assesses all significant mergers to determine their impact on competition, including mergers in the media sector.
The Liberal government recently proposed changes to the Competition Act to enhance the Bureau’s enforcement powers. These amendments died when the opposition parties defeated the government in November 2005. Also the Senate Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications tabled an Interim Report on the Canadian News Media in fall 2005. They are examining ways to ensure that Canadian news media remains independent and diverse."

NEW DEMOCRATIC: "We will oppose any attempt by other parties to ease foreign ownership restrictions.
New Democrats want to maintain current restrictions to foreign ownership in this sector. We want a Canada written about by Canadians, portrayed in productions by Canadians, encouraging Canadian artists, presenting Canadian news – made possible by a vast array of Canadian workers and technicians."

GREEN: "The Green Party of Canada would enforce an antitrust law in order to diversify the scope of Canadian media, and to create opportunities for emerging enterprises to flourish."

BLOC QUEBECOIS: "Le Bloc Québécois est en faveur des principes de diversité culturelle et de diversité d’information. Le Bloc Québécois n’entend pas quantifier de limites en ce qui a trait à la concentration des médias mais entend s’assurer que les principes édictés plus haut seront respectés en tenant compte, évidemment, des champs de compétence de Québec.
Le Bloc Québécois travaillera en fonction de la diversité de la propriété de la presse plutôt qu’en fonction de la concentration."

Many thanks to all of the above political parties for there prompt response to this questionnaire.

For more information contact:

Dr. Paul D. Boin
Assistant Professor of Communication Studies
University of Windsor, Windsor, ON N9B 3P4
Tel: 519-253-3000 ext. 2893
Email: pboin@uwindsor.ca

or

Contact the political parties directly:

Conservative Party: www.conservative.ca
Liberal Party: www.liberal.ca
New Democratic Party: www.ndp.ca
Green Party: www.greenparty.ca

THE REAL NEWS NETWORK (RNN) WEB SITE (www.RNN.ca) WILL BE OFFICIALLY LAUNCHED IN THE SUMMER OF 2006 (when it will transfer to www.RNN.ca).

THE 1st of 3 RNN REAL NEWS BRIEFS BEGINS HERE:

(RNN Real News Brief #3: Written September 18, 2001)

TRUTH IN TERROR & IN WAR
Providing the fullness of truth and understanding is vital for world peace and security

By Paul D. Boin (pboin@uwindsor.ca)

It has been said that the first casualty in war is the truth. This usually pertains to the propensity for about-to-be warring nations to conjure up a pretext for war that can be justified in the public mind. Often this means that the truth is compromised prior to the shedding of blood. When terrorists strike, however, blood is drawn first, and the victim's pretext for retaliation is determined second. In the midst of both war or terror truth can be compromised by the selective exclusion of important information, the elevation of hearsay or opinion to the status of fact, or by the outright fabrication of misinformation. In this regard, our governments and our mainstream news media have much to answer for.

While it could be argued that the terrorist act already constitutes the pretext for a retaliatory response, any response is an exercise in decision-making. Even our basest and seemingly automatic human responses still inextricably involve a series of choices. Do we, in the case of the United States and its allies, respond immediately? Do we confirm, beyond a reasonable doubt, who the terrorists were? Do we retaliate (punish) in a manner that is equal to the initial terrorist act (crime)? Are we also going to sacrifice the lives of innocent civilians in our chosen response? Who is to participate in this retaliatory action? And what range of repercussions may follow from our chosen response?

When deciding among these monumental choices, if we are to have any hope of making good decisions, our elected representatives, and the citizens in whose name they act, must have access to and demand the full range of facts. In order to make good, or truth-based, decisions we require complete and accurate information which is grounded in a broad context that is appreciative of history, the present, and the future. What happened on September 11, 2001 was unspeakably evil and insane. Before we respond to this terrorist act however, we must first ensure that the truth, or at least as full a truth as possible, is provided. In a world where there are enough nuclear warheads to kill all of the world's 6 billion people dozens of times over, nothing less is acceptable.

GETTING TO "WHY?"

In times like these we not only need to work towards understanding what?, who, or how, but if we are truly concerned for future world peace and security, we must ask the most important question: Why? Many pro-democracy advocates (elsewhere referred to as 'anti-globalization protesters') have expressed fear that the new heightened sense of security, augmented by last week's US Congressional approval of $40 billion in new emergency and security spending, will be used to roll back civil liberties and crush out all forms of dissent. The very viewpoints that offer our best hope of eliminating terrorism.

Many critics of US foreign policy (both official and clandestine) will be, and have been, quick to conclude that September 11th was simply a case of "Chickens coming home to roost." By this, people will point to a litany of examples of the US role in imposing both incidental terrorism and systemic terrorism on countries - Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, East Timor, El Salvador, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Iran, Iraq, Panama, etc. The US government's own documents, recently declassified and meticulously catalogued by the non-profit National Security Archives (www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv), will serve as a valuable lesson on the real conduct of governments, so often kept from public knowledge. So, people will say that September 11th was, in the minds of the terrorists, a simple act of revenge for previous US government indiscretions. But while this analysis, and the evidence now available, is clearly important, it is still an analysis of a symptom. We must dig down to the roots of the problem.

The deeper and underlying cause of systemic terrorism, and the incidental terrorism that follows from it, is the unjust global economic system that rich Western governments (not just the US) have imposed on the poorer countries and, increasingly so, upon their own citizenry. This global system - from the colonial/mercantile period to its new incarnation of corporate-led globalization - is resulting in a world where an elite few nations and individuals benefit at the expense of an ever increasing number of poorer nations and people. Such an unjust and unsustainable system can only be held together by force (systemic terrorism), and will ceaselessly produce responses (incidental terrorism) to it.

In reacting to last week's events Thomas Homer Dixon, Director of the University of Toronto's Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, stated "We have to step back and reflect on what's happening in the world that is leading to the kind of tensions that produce this kind of hatred against the west....There are disparities in this world, there are structural problems with the world economy that aren't being addressed. The envy, the frustration, and the anger that arises out of those problems will be directed against us." Homer Dixon goes on to say "We have to remember...this is a very small planet now...they can bring weapons everywhere. And other things like diseases, and pollution flow across boundaries. We have to recognize that the world has changed in a fundamental respect." {CBC Radio 2001}

In fact, the US and Canadian government's defense departments also quietly admit (more honestly than our politicians, who keep misleading us into believing that this globalization tide will "raise all boats".) that the present version of unjust corporate-led globalization is, and will continue to be, directly contributing to the escalation of terrorism. In a document entitled Global Trends 2015, jointly researched and produced by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Intelligence Council, the US intelligence community states that the benefits of globalization "will not be universal. In contrast to the Industrial Revolution, the process of globalization is more compressed. Its evolution will be rocky, marked by chronic financial volatility and a widening economic divide....Regions, countries, and groups feeling left behind will face deepening economic stagnation, political instability, and cultural alienation. They will foster political, ethnic, ideological, and religious extremism, along with the violence that often accompanies it." {Central Intelligence Agency & National Intelligence Council 2001} In a 1999 document entitled Shaping the Future of the Canadian Forces: A Strategy for 2020, Canada's Department of National Defense concludes that "Ethnic unrest, religious extremism and resource disputes will likely remain the main sources of conflict, but environmental degradation and the threat to the nation-state by globalization may arise as new sources....Disparities between the developed and developing nations will remain." {Canadian Department of National Defense 1999}.

In 1999, the US Intelligence Community (the Central Intelligence Community, the National Intelligence Council, and the State Department) conducted a workshop entitled Alternative Global Futures: 2000-2015. This think tank-type workshop, couched within the framework of our present version of globalization, yielded four different scenarios or alternative futures. Scenario 1, somehow labeled 'Inclusive Globalization,' represents the best our world could expect. Even within this rosiest of scenarios, however, the US intelligence community holds that while "A virtuous circle develops among...a majority of the world's people," they go onto to say that "A minority of the world's people - in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and the Andean region - do not benefit from these positive changes, and internal conflicts persist in and around those countries left behind." This workshop, and the document that followed from it, then goes on to describe the other 3 scenarios – 'Pernicious Globalization' (Scenario 2), 'Regional Competition' (Scenario 3), and ' Post-Polar World' (Scenario 4) – each of which contain outcomes worse than our best hope of 'Inclusive Globalization.' {Central Intelligence Agency & National Intelligence Council 2001} If Scenario 1 represents the best we can derive from the present bill of goods (corporate-led globalization) our Western politicians keep selling us, it's about time we stopped buying it.
It would seem, therefore, that retaliatory responses to incidents of terrorism are simply Band-Aid 'solutions' at best. What is needed to truly "root-out the problem" is to fundamentally alter our disparity-creating and terrorism-producing model of globalization. While not given mainstream media recognition, there are inspiring alternative visions and versions of globalization that are being presented. Forums such as the International Forum on Globalization (www.ifg.org/index.html), the annual World Social Forum (www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/eng/index.asp), and initiatives like the Council of Canadians' Citizens' Agenda (www.canadians.org/actionlink/citizen_agenda.pdf) are expanding our imaginations and our range of possibilities. Collectively these organizations, and their initiatives, are providing blueprints for achieving a 21st century society that is economically sustainable, socially just, and environmentally responsible – a world that both nurtures, and is based on, world peace and security.

In the McCarthy era, government officials, and much of the general public for that matter, were jumping over themselves to pin the 'communist' label on anyone who questioned the simplistic and faulty notion of "My country right or wrong." After last week's attacks, there are those in authority and in the public who are eager to usher in a new anti-terrorist era which would see the label 'terrorist' pinned on anyone remotely critical of government actions, or the general state of global affairs. While people in the US, and worldwide, are experiencing incredibly intense and raw feelings of horror, sorrow, fear and anger, this anger is directed, understandably so, towards the perpetrators of this act, and most shamefully and unjustly towards innocent people of colour. This irrational and misplaced fear - towards any and all criticism and against people of colour - must be resisted vehemently and overcome. While the immediate impulse of governments is to put all people under surveillance and suspicion, it is the people themselves who must conjure up the courage and the consciousness to put our governments under the microscope. As our governments represent us in carrying out actions over this critical period, we must become ever vigilant and vocal.

INTERRUPTING THE DRUMBEAT FOR WAR

We must all realize that during times of would-be war, the full truth is severely bottlenecked. As we all watch, read, and listen to accounts coming from the leading media outlets in our respective countries, we must treat every story as an unconfirmed report. Our news media is, and will likely be for months to come, in the midst of extensive pressure and strategic editing. This editing usually serves to provide a strategic context that is in line with each government's 'national interest'. For example, Canadian viewers were shown repeated video footage of Yasser Arafat giving blood on September 12th, while American viewers were not. Russia has taken the atrocities to justify their own brutal treatment of Chechnya, and Israel has utilized the events to step up attacks against Palestinians. This, while India has used it to condemn its main political rival, Pakistan.

Earlier this year it was also revealed - and has since been reluctantly confirmed by CNN's President of News Gathering and International Networks, Eason Jordan - that the US Military's special Psy-ops unit [Psychological Operations Group based in North Carolina] had at least five of its personnnel working at CNN during the Serbia/Kosovo conflict. The Dutch journalist who brought this story to public attention, Abe de Vries, quoted Major Thomas Collins of the US Army Information Service as saying, "Psy-ops personnel, soldiers and officers, have been working in CNN's headquarters in Atlanta through our program, 'Training with Industry.' They worked as regular employees of CNN. Conceivably, they would have worked on stories during the Kosovo war. They helped in the production of news." Devries first became aware of the story by reading a French military newsletter, Intelligence On-line, which detailed Colonel Christopher St. John, commander of the US Army's 4th Psy-ops Group, speaking candidly at a military symposium this past February in Virginia. Intelligence On-line revealed that the colonel was discussing the use of the press in military operations when he stressed that the military needed even "greater cooperation between the armed forces and media giants." While CNN's Jordan claims that the five Psy-ops personnel did not contribute to the production of news, he was forced to admit, however, that they were indeed at CNN [2 in television, 2 in radio, and 1 in satellite operations), and had only recently been terminated. {Cockburn 2001} One has to wonder, in the aftermath of last week, whether Psy-ops personnel have now been re-deployed.

On Friday (September 14) thousands gathered in New York's Union Square to mark the national day of mourning for the victims of the week's terrorism and to criticize plans to deploy massive military action, possibly consisting of tens of thousands of ground troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere. {NYC Indy Media 2001} Yet when this event, and similar gatherings throughout the US, was covered in the mainstream media, the peaceful sentiments of thousands were conveniently edited out. Earlier this year, Pacifica Radio and Democracy Now! journalist Amy Goodman asked CNN's veteran reporter and V.P. of Political Coverage Frank Sesno, the following question. "If you support the practice of putting ex-military men - generals - on the payroll to share their opinion during a time of war, would you also support putting peace activists on the payroll to give a different opinion during a time of war? To be sitting there with the military generals talking about why they feel that war is not appropriate?" Sesno's response - "We bring the generals in because of their expertise in a particular area. We call them analysts. We don't bring them in as advocates." {Cockburn 2001} - helps to explain why there doesn't seem to be any interruptions to the mainstream media's drumbeat for war.

Not only is CNN, with its gargantuan reach into over 150 countries, directly influential, but mainstream media outlets (with far fewer news resources) throughout the world follow CNN's lead. Whether it be through the re-airing of video images or the repeating of analysis, CNN's strategic framing of world issues and events is seen, heard and (mis)understood far and wide.

Last week, the US Senate voted 98-0 to make $40 billion available to President Bush, and a war resolution which states that "The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." It has already been reported that the $40 billion is just the start of an ever-growing war chest. According to Normon Soloman, of Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), this resolution has given the Bush administration a "blank check" which will be "payable with vast quantities of human corpses." {Soloman 2001}

Since it is no secret that Republican administrations highly favour military solutions over diplomatic ones, we can expect President Bush to do his best to treat this war chest as one without a bottom. In fact, the UK-based investment journal Barrons reported in February of this year that "Defense stocks have surged mightily in the past year, partly on the expectation that the Bush administration would spend lavishly on traditional defense programs." Even though the S&P Index fell by 10%, the average share prices of the Big Five military contractors - Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon - "jumped 46% last year.," upon news of the controversial Bush election victory. Prior to last week, Pentagon spending for the current fiscal year was to total $293 billion, which amounts to roughly 3% of the US economy.{Arvedlund 2001} The $40 billion allotted last week puts the total well over $300 billion, and counting.

In an era of mutual-fund-mania, weapons manufacturers aren't the only companies set to profit from increased military spending and new (prolonged) wars. Former Reagan Administration Defense Secretary, Frank Calucci recently became the point man for an investment firm called the Carlyle Group, which specializes in holding stock in the weapons industry. According to Barrons, Carlyle, which has $12.5 billion in its investment portfolio, "boasts in its literature that it has generated annual returns of 34% for the past 10 years." Calucci, whose "plush Pennsylvania Avenue offices...are just a three-buck cab ride from either Capitol Hill or the White House," has regular working lunches with government officials, including the present Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Carlyle, which also has former Prime Minister of Great Britain John Major on its advisory board, was founded by William Conway Jr. in 1987. Conway, lamenting back in February on his firm's predicament, stated "The problem for investors is that it's impossible for President Bush to fit all current weapons development programs into former President Bill Clinton's defense budget." {McTague 2001} It now seems that this problem has been solved.

While the mainstream media were quick to voice their absolute disgust at opportunistic, and small-time, T-shirt vendors in New York City (just days after the terrorist attack), they repeatedly fail to even question the obscene blood-profits made from the weapons industry.
In a May 2001 Congressional Statement, and plea for more funding for counter-terrorism measures, entitled the Threat of Terrorism to the United States, the FBI and Department of State list among its terrorism risks what they call "state sponsors of terrorism." Afghanistan aside, this list includes Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Cuba, and North Korea. {Federal Bureau of Investigation 2001} Does this mean the heinous events of September 11th will be used to carry out a "sustained war" against all of these nations? Or perhaps, 'America's New War' effort will be used to justify a concentrated and permanent presence in the Middle East - an area that President Eisenhower called the most "strategically important [i.e., Oil] area in the world." {Chomsky 1996}

If retaliation and/or war does occur, which all western governments and their media seem to keep telling us it will "soon," we can be sure of two things. One, is that innocent civilians will die; and two, that the mainstream media will keep the full impact of our actions from our eyes and ears. We need only to look back to the Gulf War travesty of journalism, when NBC journalist John Alpert was blacklisted from US media circles for submitting video footage of US bomb damage to civilians in Iraq. {Hazen & Winokur 1997: 11} Not only would these truth-based images have contradicted the US government's line that the Gulf War was an exercise using 'smart' bombs with surgical precision (of military targets), but it would have injected some much needed sobriety into the popular support for the war.

The terrorists of September 11th must indeed be brought to justice. But bringing the world to the brink of World War III, and risking a nuclear holocaust, is not a justified response.

TOWARDS WORLD PEACE AND SECURITY

In his book Necessary Illusions Noam Chomsky states that "Citizens of democratic societies should undertake a course in intellectual self-defense to protect themselves from manipulation and control and lay the basis for more meaningful democracy." {Chomsky 1989} While this is good advice for citizens at all times, it is especially relevant today. In this regard, people can turn to independent media sources - Democracy Now! (www.democracynow.org), Free Speech Radio News (www.freespeech.org), the Independent Media Centre (www.indymedia.org), Common Dreams News Center (www.commondreams.org), Rabble.ca (www.rabble.ca), The Straight Goods (www.straightgoods.com), the Media Channel (www.mediachannel.org), Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (www.fair.org), the New Internationalist (www.oneworld.org/ni), ZNet (www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm), and the media of countries that might be on the receiving end of a US-led response. These news sources will help us develop a fuller context, and hence, a fuller truth at this crucial time. My earlier warning, to take all media reports with critical grains of salt, also applies to independent media sites (or for that matter, this article). For example, after checking with the original sources of recent, and widely circulating, stories alleging that CNN used old (1991) footage depicting celebratory Palestinians last week, or that the hijackers on United Airlines Flight 93 were American citizens, I found both of these rumors to be baseless.

Last week President Bush stated that this "war on terrorism" would be "The First War of the 21st century." This, while NATO invoked, for the first time in its 52-year history, Article V, which effectively means that an act against one NATO nation is an act against all. While some NATO foreign ministers have attempted to deflect the gravity of this resolution, ludicrously stating that it is merely "symbolic", it is in fact a giant step towards world war. Thankfully, there are some NATO allies that have said that they will require solid proof before agreeing to any retaliatory action, and that they will not support an unjustified and overbearing use of force – which would only serve to create that (terrorism) which it is trying to destroy.
The 21st century does not belong to our government leaders, nor even to us. This new century, which we are just beginning, belongs to the world's children. Do we want our children, and their children, growing up in a culture of war? Or do we want them to grow up in what former Secretary General of UNESCO Federico Mayor called a culture of peace. {Goodman Adelson 2000} If we hope to achieve a culture of peace, we will need our mainstream media to create a culture of truth. It's about time that our mainstream media got with the program - the truth program.

This most important choice is for each of us to make. We must do all that we can (e.g., call, e-mail, fax, teach, learn, protest) to hold our governments and our media to account. By not taking a stand for peace and restraint today, you are refusing to participate in the most important decision of your life. RNN

Dr. Paul D. Boin is a Canadian investigative journalist and communications scholar based in Ontario, Canada. Paul is the founder of the Real News Network (RNN Web site – www.RNN.ca - to be officially launched in 2003), and is an assistant professor at the University of Windsor. Paul is also a co-founder of Media Democracy Day (www.MediaDemocracyDay.org) and is an associate with the Transformative Learning Centre (www.tlcentre.org). Paul is presently working on a book entitled "Reclaiming Our Minds: Creating a Democratic News Media and Society", to be published in the Spring of 2006 (Fernwood Publishing). He can be reached at pboin@uwindsor.ca

REFERENCES
1. CBC Radio, This Morning, September 13 2001.
2. Central Intelligence Agency and National Intelligence Council, "Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue About the Future with Nongovernment Experts," , 2001.
3. Canadian Department of National Defense, "Shaping the Future of the Canadian Forces: A Strategy for 2020," , June 1999.
4. Alexander Cockburn, Counterpunch March 26 2001, .
5. NYC Indy Media, "Thousands of NYC Mourners Call For Peace," New York City IMC September 15 2001, .
6. Cockburn, CNN and Psy-ops.
7. Norman Soloman, "A Unanimous Triumph for Masters of War," , September 15 2001.
8. Erin E. Arvedlund, "Starship Troopers: New Weaponry Will Shake up the Defense Industry - and Investors," Barron's, February 12 2001, 23-26.
9. Jim McTague, "Ex-Pentagon Chief Targets Defense Plays," Barron's, February 12 2001, 26.
10. Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Threat of Terrorism to the United States: Congressional Statement," , May 10 2001.
11. Noam Chomsky, Powers and Prospects (Boston: South End Press, 1996).
12. Don Hazen and Julie Winokur, We the Media: A Citizen's Guide to Fighting for Media Democracy (New York: The New Press, 1997), 11.
13. Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions: Though Control in Democratic Societies (Boston: South End Press, 1989).
14. Anne Goodman Adelson, "The Culture of Peace and the Evolution of Human Beings" (Toronto, 2000).

(RNN Real News Brief #2: Written August 29, 2001)

RE-FRAMING OUR GLOBAL PREDICAMENT:
2 Bits Towards A Better Society

By Paul D. Boin

Just hearing the mainstream news media's characterization of the G-8 protesters that gathered in Genoa, Italy, has left me, well, exasperated. As news commentators uncritically lap up the old pablum that leaders such as George W. Bush and Tony Blair spew out of their mouths - that 'anti-globalization protesters' are "no friends of the poor" or that those who oppose 'free trade' are simply unrealistic "isolationists" - I realize how powerful labels, especially inaccurate and pejorative labels, are in discrediting legitimate analysis and concerns. While our establishment-biased media are often to blame, the protesters, primarily the higher profile protesters, must also realize that they too share the blame.

The two bits that especially irk me, and severely undermine real movement towards a better world, are the label 'anti-globalization,' used to describe this incredibly broad coalition of advocates, and the phrase 'against trade,' when explaining what these protesters stand for. Both the mainstream media and high profile activists are guilty of simply regurgitating these statements, and for failing to call them into question whenever they are uttered.

My 2 bit suggestion is as follows: 1) change the label 'anti-globalization' to 'pro-democracy,' and 2) change the phrase 'against trade' to 'for fair trade.' This would immediately help to re-frame the debate and could inspire both journalists and citizens to begin asking different and more pressing questions, which could help our global society truly 'progress.'

For example, when hearing the demonstrators call themselves 'pro-democracy' protesters, one might be moved to ask and investigate how organizations, elite gatherings of nations, and trade agreements such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), G-8 meetings, and NAFTA (and possibly the FTAA) respectively, undermine the rights and living conditions of the vast multitude of people. Such a person might realize that critical public interest decisions are being taken out of more local democratic jurisdictions and put into the hands of unaccountable supranational corporate agents. Or a journalist might wonder why powerful international financial institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) force poor countries like Bolivia and Honduras to privatize their water management facilities and telecommunications services in exchange for 'aid' or 'loan' packages. If a person, any person, took the time to look into the concerns and arguments of 'pro-democracy' protesters they would be quickly find that the present version of corporate-led globalization, and the dominant institutions and agreements that enforce it, overwhelmingly benefits the privileged few at the direct expense of the great majority of the world's 6 billion+ people.

If journalists would start characterizing the people who gathered in Seattle, Quebec and Genoa as being 'for fair trade,' they might realize that far from being 'isolationist' or 'nationalistic' these protesters are quite internationalist, and actually embrace globalization - social globalization. Our media, and their audiences, could learn that 'pro-democracy' protesters are for globalizing more humane labour standards, responsible environmental regulations, and human rights. An enterprising journalist might learn about the years of hard work (from 1980 to 1992) that the UN Centre on Transnational Corporations spent drafting a "Code of Conduct for Transnational Corporations" that would have truly helped the people of the world escape poverty, and the earth avert an environmental crisis. Such a journalist would also find that this code of conduct for multinational corporations was lobbied off the 1992 Rio Earth Summit agenda, where it was to be signed, by George Bush Sr. and no less than the very multinationals that it was designed to hold to account.

The UN centre, itself, was also disbanded shortly thereafter. Since then, we've seen a litany of proposed global agreements and codes - like NAFTA, the (temporarily) failed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), and all-too-regular WTO decisions - which have dramatically tilted the balance of global activities in favour of the exploitative practices of multinational corporate interests and away from the real needs of the people of the world.

Further, most 'pro-democracy' advocates aren't even 'anti-business' or 'anti-corporate', but 'pro-responsible business' or 'pro-responsible corporations'. Re-framing our present global predicament is the first step towards truly understanding it. Once understood, informed actions and responsible policies will follow.

Onwards 'pro-democracy' and 'fair trade' advocates. The re-framed global movement for democracy and justice is just beginning. RNN

[This Article (now a Real News Brief) was originally submitted as an Op-Ed article to Canada's major daily newspapers - The Globe and Mail, the National Post, and the Toronto Star - on the morning of Friday July 20, 2001 (just prior to the Genoa G-8 Summit/Protests). However, none of them gave it the light of day.]

Dr. Paul D. Boin is a Canadian investigative journalist and communications scholar based in Ontario, Canada. Paul is the founder of the Real News Network (RNN Web site – www.RNN.ca - to be officially launched in 2003), and is an assistant professor at the University of Windsor. Paul is also a co-founder of Media Democracy Day (www.MediaDemocracyDay.org) and is an associate with the Transformative Learning Centre (www.tlcentre.org). Paul is presently working on a book entitled "Reclaiming Our Minds: Creating a Democratic and Informative News Media," to be published in the Spring of 2006 (Fernwood Publishing). He can be reached at pboin@uwindsor.ca

(RNN Real News Brief #1: Written July 25, 2001)

NORTH AMERICAN MEDIA SILENT ON MASSIVE POST-G8 ITALIAN PROTESTS
If 150,000 protest in the streets, and the media doesn't cover it, did it really happen?

By Paul D. Boin

Yesterday (Tuesday, July 24), massive simultaneous demonstrations occurred in cities throughout Italy in response to what many Italians feel was an unjustified use of force during the Genoa G8 meetings.

Yesterday's spontaneous peaceful protests were also a reaction to the brutal police raid, at the Summit's close, of two schools housing participants from the Genoa Social Forum and members of the Independent Media Center, that also went largely unreported or ill reported. Accounts from Reuters {Reuters (Rome) 2001}, the Indy Media Centre {Brabinger 2001}, and other European news sources confirm that approximately 150,000 people marched through the city centres of Rome (approx. 50,000), Milan (approx. 45,000), Bologna (approx. 15,000), Florence (approx. 6,000), Genoa (approx. 5,000), Napoli (approx. 5,000), Palermo (approx. 2,000), Trieste (approx. 2,000) and a number of others, bringing the total number of participating cities to about thirty. Remarkably, if you were watching, listening, or reading North America's mainstream news media, you'd think this real world event never happened.

Participants in these Italy-wide marches represented a broad coagulation of pro-democracy ('anti-globalization') activists, environmentalists, union members, parliamentarians, families and children. Apparently such a huge and broad-based expression of outrage aimed at the Italian government, and other G8 nations, isn't 'newsworthy' to 'leading' news outlets like the CBC, the National Post, CNN and others. This real news story consistently remained invisible on CBC radio's World Report and on CBC Television's newscasts, CNN's newscasts, and the entire July 25th edition of the National Post. This, while CBC Television's newscast managed to find time to air "N Sync's newest CD", and CNN found reason to fit "McDonald's new public stock offering in Japan" into its 'Global Minute' slot (itself struggling for news air through the cracks of the CNN frenzy over the Condit-Levy affair).

The Globe and Mail, while doing its best to ignore the story, managed to include a misleading and skeletal wire copy paragraph piece (in their World Report box on page A9) that read (in its entirety): "Tens of thousands of people, many shouting 'Killers, killers,' protested throughout Italy yesterday against the use of police force that left one person dead and more than 230 injured at the recent Group of Eight summit in Genoa. There were no immediate reports of serious violence during marches in Rome, Genoa, Florence, Bologna, Palermo and a host of other smaller cities across Italy." {Reuters 2001}. The Toronto Star also included a wire copy article that led with "Thousands marched in cities across Italy..." The piece continued to explain that marchers were "demanding the resignation of the country's Interior Minister over the death of a protester during the Group of Eight summit." {Reuters/Canadian Press 2001} Besides scandalously understating the numbers of people in the streets (the Toronto Star actually managed to include the figures for Bologna, Florence and Palermo, while failing to mention the huge turnouts in Rome and Milan. Since the participants for these two cities alone amounted to 95,000, perhaps the crafter of this piece felt the people of Rome and Milan's role wouldn't go too well with the lead line "Thousands march...".), both reports again focused on the already internationally (and unavoidably) known death of Carlo Guiliani, and neglected to mention the terrible beatings that people took while working and sleeping in the two school buildings at the very end of the G8 summit.

So why wasn't this massive news story 'newsworthy,' or worthy of proper and accurate coverage, to our agenda-setting news media? Thankfully, there are media scholars and authors who can help guide us through the media fog towards an answer. James Winter, from the University of Windsor, points out that "the news media in Canadian [Western] society predominantly may be seen as promoting a narrow ideological 'consensus' on the world around us." Winter labels this 'consensus', and the process that forms it, 'Media Think.' "By this I mean a form of group think on a vast scale which permeates the lives of elites, news workers, and much of society at large....It is a process by which the mainstream, corporate media largely function, wittingly and unwittingly, as the delivery system for neoconservative (and neoliberal) dogma....It's the means by which the media create particular pictures of the world in our heads, all the while omitting and thereby preventing the formation of alternative, competing pictures." {Winter 1997 :114} Robert Hackett, with other researchers based at Simon Fraser Univiversity, point out that "the most important and debilitating blind spots in the Canadian [Western] media: [are] the lack of coverage afforded to Canada's [North America's] deepening social inequalities, growing corporate power, and alternatives to neo-liberal economic perspectives." {Hackett, et al. 2000: 166} And, of course, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman's media analysis revealed that "views that challenge fundamental premises or suggest that the observed modes of exercise of state power are based on systemic factors will be excluded from the mass media even when elite controversy over tactics rages fiercely." {Herman & Chomsky 1988: xii}

Sure, mainstream publishers, editors, and even many journalists (socialized into perpetual denial) will speak volumes on how this tradition of media analysis is baseless. But actions or, more accurately in this recent G8 case, inactions speak far louder than words. Obviously our mainstream media, and the elite clients and advertisers they serve and represent, feel threatened by reality - a reality that demonstrates the failures of corporate-led globalization and the ever blossoming resistance to it. As our predominantly corporate media's content becomes ever more abstracted from, and irrelevant to, today's real world, thankfully, inspiring media alternatives and actions are emerging to help citizens get a more accurate picture of our world - the Independent Media Centre (www.indymedia.org), Democracy Now's daily radio/web-audio programs (www.democracynow.org), the Straight Goods (www.straightgoods.com), Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (www.fair.org), the Media Channel (www.mediachannel.org), NewsWatch Canada/Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom (www.presscampaign.org/newswatchlist.html), and the up-coming Media Democracy Day on October 18th. (see www.MediaDemocracyDay.org for more information).

These organizations and initiatives are providing both alternatives to, and lessons for, the mainstream news media's performance. A performance which is increasingly becoming more dreadful and embarrassing.RNN

Dr. Paul D. Boin is a Canadian investigative journalist and communications scholar based in Ontario, Canada. Paul is the founder of the Real News Network (RNN Web site – www.RNN.ca - to be officially launched in 2003), and is an assistant professor at the University of Windsor. Paul is also a co-founder of Media Democracy Day (www.MediaDemocracyDay.org) and is an associate with the Transformative Learning Centre (www.tlcentre.org). Paul is presently working on a book entitled "Reclaiming Our Minds: Creating a Democratic and Informative News Media", to be published in the Spring 2006 (Fernwood Publishing). He can be reached at pboin@uwindsor.ca

REFERENCES
1. Reuters (Rome), "G8, Manifestations in 30 Cities. In 50,000 They Parade to Rome," Yahoo-Italy News July 24 2001, .
2. Airven Brabinger, "Protests Against Police Violence,Throughout Italy," Independent Media Centre July 24 2001, .
3. Reuters, "Marchers Protest Against Summit Police," Globe and Mail, July 25 2001, A9.
4. Reuters/Canadian Press, "Fire Italian Minister, Protesters Demand," Toronto Star July 24 2001, .
5. James Winter, Democracy's Oxygen: How Corporations Control the News (Montreal: Black Rose, 1997), 114.
6. Robert Hackett, Richard Gruneau, et al., The Missing News: Filters and Blind Spots in Canada's Press (Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives/Garamond Press, 2000), 166.
7. Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (New York: Pantheon, 1988)

RNN will also be launching the MEDIA MICROSCOPE PROJECT in this Spring, which will provide original research and analysis of contemporary media coverage.

If you would like to support this type of (time and resource intensive) investigative reporting become an RNN MEMBER, and receive 4 special in-depth (15 to 20 pages each) RNN Investigative Reports , in addition to the Real News Briefs (RNN members will also receive special discounts on future RNN publications). RNN MEMBERSHIPS can be obtained for $22 (Price includes shipping and taxes. US price is $20, International orders add $2). Mail, and make check payable, to: the Real News Network, 66 Ambleside Dr., London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 4P1. RNN will launch its newly registered web site (www.RNN.ca) in the Spring of 2006. Please visit then. If you would like to SUBSCRIBE to just the Real News Brief's (FREE), send an e-mail to pboin@uwindsor.ca with "SUBSCRIBE" (all caps) in the subject box.

OTHER RECOMMENDED INDEPENDENT NEWS SOURCES

Democracy Now! (www.democracynow.org)
Free Speech Radio News (www.freespeech.org)
Independent Media Centre (www.indymedia.org)
Common Dreams News Center (www.commondreams.org)
Global Vision News (www.gvnewsnet.com/html/index.html)
Rabble.ca (www.rabble.ca) - Canadian
The Straight Goods (www.straightgoods.com) - Canadian
The Media Channel (www.mediachannel.org)
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (www.fair.org)
The New Internationalist (www.oneworld.org/ni)
ZNet (www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm)
Making Contact: (www.radioproject.org)
ZNet (www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm)
Tao.ca (www.tao.ca) – Canadian
Toronto Video Activists Collective (www.tvac.ca) – Canadian
Alternet (www.alternet.org)
Alternative Radio (www.alternativeradio.org)
Aljazeera (English) (www.aljazeerah.info)
Guerilla News Network (www.guerrillanews.com)
Iraq Body Count (www.iraqbodycount.net)
Working Assets Radio (www.workingforchange.com)
Flashpoints Radio (www.flashpoints.net)
Red Pepper (www.redpepper.org.uk)
Indy Media War Coverage (www.mediawar.info/censorednews.htm)
Narco News (www.narconews.com)
Google News Search (www.news.google.com)
Media Lens (www.medialens.org)
Radio Nation (www.nationinstitute.org/radionation)
Intelligence Online (www.intelligenceonline.com)
Outlook India http://outlookindia.com
War Photos (www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0212/pt_intro.html)
CBC News (www.cbc.ca/news)
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk)
Dancing Bush (www.politicalpulpit.com/dancing_bush.htm)
Covert Action (www.covertaction.org)
Anti War (www.antiwar.com)
Foreign Policy Focus (www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org)
Newseum (www.newseum.org)
War Times (www.war-times.org)
Education for Peace (http://epic-usa.org)
The Guardian (www.guardian.co.uk)
Counter Punch (www.counterpunch.org)