The news when in crisis

AOG, Madrid

One of the worst aspects of Spain’s current socio-economic situation is the effect it is having on the news. 

Last week I met up with a man who told me about his youth during the Franco years. 

He told me about the time he traveled to Italy, in the early 1970s, and about a small incident which told me a lot about the power of freedom of speech and information. 

It appears that at the time, Franco was having the last people he would order killed, killed. 

This man told me he was traveling with a small group of people, all from Spain, and that, when visiting the Vatican, their bus had to be diverted so as to stop them from seen a large anti-Franco banner which was hanging from a building. 

"That is when I first realised that Franco was not as loved outside of Spain as we had been told", he said.  

I was surprised to hear this, since I would have thought that people in Spain would have realised by then that the Regime was very in tune with propaganda.
 

But obviously not.  
 

A few days ago, J.L. Cebrián, CEO of Grupo Prisa, and owner of Spain’s top daily, El País, declared publicly that the paper had to lay off several members of staff.

In Spain, any large-scale lay offs have to be pre-approved and coordinated with the Spanish authorities.

Thus far, Mr. Cebrián, who it is rumoured earned over 11 million Euros in 2011, after declaring that “we can't continue to live so well”, has dismissed 150 journalists, and forced many over the age of 59 to early retirement –and sparked a public outcry for declaring that people over 50 (he himself is over 60) are “incapable” of producing the type of paper Grupo Prisa want to publish.

The remaining staff has to accept a 15% reduction in salary.

To this, the paper’s labor committee has responded by decided not to sign their work.  

Much like what goes on at The Economist, but as protest, not editorial policy.
 

In other words, anyone could be writing for the paper. 
 

In Spain, as elsewhere, signing your name to your work as a journalist is what gives it its value.

Unfortunately, Mr. Javier Moreno, Editor of El País, has threatened the  paper's foreign correspondents with unemployment, or with closing down their foreign post altogether.

The paper's newsroom will respond by taking him to court for coercion, threats, and bullying. And some articles have been published unsigned. 

For all intents and purposes there is an internal struggle going on at the paper and, unfortunately, the greater damage, aside from those people affected by unemployment, is the country at large.

You see, Spain, like anywhere else on Earth, needs reliable quality information, and media like El País ensured that it does.

Not long ago Spain’s current Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, when talking about Spain’s possible EU bailout, or not, declared that Spain was not Uganda.

However, information-wise, his party has done its best to ensure that free speech in the media approaches third-world levels.

RTVE

 

A few years ago, Spain’s Socialist government decided to ‘free’ the country’s public radio and television broadcasting network, RTVE, from government control, in a move seen by many as akin to turning it into  something as close to the BBC as possible.

Shortly after Spain’s Conservative party (the Partido Popular, or PP) took office last November, several changes at RTVE were implemented.

After having been questioned by some of the country’s top television journalist live on air by RTVE during the period immediately after its new charter was implemented, many at the PP felt that they needed to be taught a lesson, and they were removed.

Soon after, the Government repealed the Socialist Government’s law and, once again, turned RTVE into a Government mouthpiece by appointing one of its trusted men as Director of the public corporation: Leopoldo González-Echenique.

He in turn appointed as News Director a man in charge of doing that same job at TeleMadrid, a regional broadcaster criticised even by its own staff for manipulating the news.

As you may know, Spain is divided into 17 semi-autonomous regions, each with its own regional television and radio stations.

Of course, out of all of Spain’s news programs, those of TeleMadrid had of late (and for several years) experienced the lowest audiences, and its News Director is now in charge of the country’s largest broadcaster news programs.

Needless to say, where once TVE’s news shows had the highest ratings in the country, it now trails the private broadcasters. 

Not by much, but the trend is not about to change anytime soon.

It is not surprising that this is the case. 

Watching the news now is similar to watching a continuous party political broadcast. 

I'll give you an example.

Last September, when there were public riots in Madrid, on the day of the riots, TVE (although, to be fair it did mention the on-going riots at the start), spent 15 minutes talking about the Catalan President’s move to call for early elections (and the subsequent referendum concerning the independence of Catalonia) before it turned its attention to the situation on Madrid’s streets. 

 Fifteen minutes.

All the while the country’s other news channels, to say nothing of foreign channels like Al Jazeera, Russia Today, CNN Europe or the BBC, were broadcasting the riots live from Madrid’s streets.

But it is not just television. RTVE’s radio stations have also taken a turn for the worse. 

The Corporation’s president has also decided to swap radio presenters for people closer to his, and the PP’s, way of thinking. 

A case in point is  RTVE's Radio5, an all-news radio station. 

Popular presenter Juan Ramón Lucas was removed from his morning news talk show (En días como hoy – 'On days such as today') and replaced by Manuel Hernández Hurtado, who worked with him on the same morning show but, according to many, has different political views.

The morning news show in question has turned into, not surprisingly, a pro-Government three ring circus.

Whereas once you could expect to hear different voices arguing different sides of a particular story, these days you are expected to believe that what they serve as partisan views represents the view of  ‘most people’.

If you want to know what the official Government posture is on any issue  you need just tune your radio to them and you will hear it. 

In other words, they are biased.

Fortunately for Spain, there are still independent media struggling to give a voice to the other half of the country. 

Unfortunately, Spain’s current economic crisis, paired with unscrupulous businessmen like Mr. Cebrián, is ensuring that the country’s free voices may not remain free for much longer. 
 

Not so much because the Government will do their best to keep them quiet, which they will, but because the news, after all, are a business, and at present the economy is looking less than rosy.
 

And free speech is the biggest loser.

W I K I L E A K S

 AOG, Madrid

According to the Internet (guess whose name is buzzing and trending on most top 10 lists?), the arrest of Julian Assange, founder and director of Wikileaks, is imminent. 

 Apparently, he is wanted in Sweden in connection with rape and assault charges there. 

Now, I am no expert in undercover CIA ops, but it strikes me as odd that this guy would be guilty of said offenses. 

He may very well be, I don't know for a fact that he isn't, but isn't it 'convenient' that the US Government is these days trying to stop by all means a diplomatic fall-out with the rest of the planet courtesy of the salacious Australian? Link to the original story here.

As if that were not enough, even the website is under attack with some people calling Mr. Assange a "digital refugee": link to story here.

What amazes me most is the reactions of some politicians in the US who have declared that he should be put to death. Link to the story here. 

As we all know, when the American  Government (or any other foreign Government) does not want something to be known publicly, it does have a tendency to declare things like "National emergency", "Putting the lives of so and so at risk", "National interest concerns", etc etc. 

I'm sure that sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are not. 

But my question is this: is the American Government endowed with the divine power to decide who and what its electorate (and secondly the rest of the world) gets to know about its modus operandi? 

My take on it is that no, it just does not have that privilege. 

True, it certainly has the  resources to stop things from being known, but it, like the Papacy, cannot declare for itself the notion of Infallibility. Life just does not operate like that. Why? 

Because when faced with any Governmental pontification regarding the National interest, as defined by the US Government alone, a big fat "HELLO?" begins to take root on the mind of many people. 

Quickly followed by an "Excuse me?", and a no less irksome "Oh, really?" a la Saturday Night's Weekend Update.

If anything, the revelations of Wikileaks have shown that the US Government is probably the only Government who has an almost identical public and private discourse. 

Here in Spain, the revelations -as published by El País-, have only created a slight public outcry regarding the apparent Government intrusion into the Couso affair, whereby a Spanish cameraman was shot by US Forces in Irak, and the US has, it would seem, pressured Spain for this not to happen. 

Here's a link to an article talking about this very issue.

Of course, Spanish authorities have always denied obstructing the course of Justice in the country. But the leaks are there...

The documents in question only show what the US Diplomatic Corps is meant to do. 

The Diplomatic Corps of any country. If surprises have arisen, it is often to do with National politics and the behavior of certain individuals, politicians and influential society figures in their respective countries towards their electorate, to whom in most cases, it has lied to , or hidden the truth from, concerning their relations with the US. 

In my opinion, the fault does not lie with the American Government. It is free to do whatever it wants, and to ask, request, or coerce other Governments to do their bidding. The problem lies with the other party, the one the Americans talk to. 

 The problem is not that the US wants you to do something. Well, of course, it would. It is a global power after all. The problem is when you go along with it. 

Is Mr. Assange as bad as Osama Bin Laden? 

No. 

He has not plotted to kill Americans or anyone else. He has merely publicised a lot of documents the US Government would rather nobody saw for at least 30-50 years. Some call that a crime. 

A crime only the US Government has decided it is one. But of course, as with all else in life, their take on the situation is completely subjective. 

It cannot be a crime simply because they say so.

Iran 2009

AOG, Madrid

The past few days have shown the less friendly face of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I have read testimony after testimony of the protesters in Iran regarding their Government. Many of them, perhaps most, are amazed at the actions of their Government. Some say that they cannot believe that an Iranian would ever harm another Iranian. Disbelief seemed to permeate the early stages of the, in my opinion, soon to be aborted Iranian version of the Orange Revolution.

Certainly the people in charge will ensure that they remain in charge for a long time to come. As with China and Tiananmen Square 20 years ago last month, so with Iran.

It everything points towards that being the ultimate outcome of this national happening, if that is the word that can be allowed to describe the recent events in that country.



Today it surfaces that president elect Ahmadineyad is asking the US for a formal apology, all the while the G8 condemns and threatens to isolate Iran even further.

My question is, how much can one isolate a country already isolated? And what purpose will this solve?

I wonder what kind of brainwashing must go on in authoritarian regimes that its own population seems to believe time and time and again that it is somehow impervious to the greater evils of its Government?

Time after time History has shown that authoritarian, as well as pariah, states are the first to turn their might against their own citizens. True, democracies are known to do this as well, but never like these countries do. Never on that scale.

So I wonder what it is that people get told to make them think that their form of Government is benign, when the rest of the planet seems to think otherwise.

Where is the criteria that allows people to understand that any state which calls for the destruction of another (like Iran and Israel and, lately, North Korea and the US), is far from benign. Far from just. And far from sane.

Perhaps it is a sign of weakness the fact that the Ayatollahs endeavour to harm their citizens so freely. However, as with China, I’m sure that just as they can fool people into thinking they are a force for the greater good, they can also fool them into thinking that they are still powerful. And that Iran will not withstand, under any circumstances, any more revolutions other than the 1978 Islamic one.

Nevertheless, according to French philosopher and writer Bernard Henri-Levy, "Whatever happens, the people know, from this point on, that they are the people and that there is not a regime on earth that can remain in power against the people", as he wrote for the Huffington Post in reference to Iran's situation.

I wish he were right, but then I think of China, Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, and a host of authoritarian regimes intent of maintaining power no matter what, and I can't help but disagree.



PS: According to today's Guardian, Mousavi is defying the Government's crackdown and accuses his opponents of an "evil conspiracy". Is there hope yet for change, positive change, in Iran?

Iran

AOG, Madrid

Iran is on a knife-edge, with millions of voters taking to the streets in outrage as evidence mounts that the government may have massively rigged and stolen last Thursday's election.

The Islamic regime has cracked down brutally on the protesters and is imposing a blackout on Iranian society - shutting down domestic and international media, the internet and even text-messaging. For many, it the best thing that could have happened to Twitter.

The voice of Iranians may have been silenced at the polling booth, now the regime is attempting to silence them everywhere else.

Facing beatings and gunfire, the opposition, according to Western media, is organising mass demonstrations and a general strike.


This election is of international importance. Iran is a major regional power, and the international community is seeking diplomatic engagement that holds a key to peace in the Middle East.

The conservative Guardian Council, headed by a key Ahmadinejad ally, is reviewing the vote over the next 9 days.

According to some Western media, “There is a real possibility that democracy will prevail.”

However, just because a regime allows for elections, a voting booth, and an electoral list, this does not mean it is a democracy, nor that the elections are free.

Ultimate power in Iran lies with Ayatollah Khamenei, who may have backed the rigging - but he is hired and fired by the Assembly of Experts, chaired by ex-President Rafsanjani who has condemned vote-fixing.

If Rafsanjani and allies can get enough votes on the Assembly this week, they can press to re-open the results, even to remove Khamenei from power.

But will any of this happen?

The Islamic Revolution came into power back in the 1970s in a similar way, and the religious right took over the country.

Is the West not expecting too much in hoping that a recount, if it goes ahead, will show a true vote count?

Are we to think that the regime will welcome change peacefully?

Of course, it could also turn out that Ahmadineyad won the election fair and square.

But the current state of affairs in the country certainly points to a feeling of insatisfaction within the Iranian population.



Even if the election was not rigged, there is obviously a certain malaise in the country which the ruling oligarchy would do well to address. Sooner rather than later.

Here are some international sources:

1. The Guardian: "Iran's regime cracks down on opposition and media", 16 June 2009


2. Al-Jazeera: "Supreme Leader Under Pressure", 15 June 2009


3. "Evidence that the Iranian Presidential Election Was Stolen", Juan Cole, 13 June 2009


4. More detailed analysis by a polling expert of "fishy numbers" in the results announced by the interior ministry.


5. One of many active live-blogs.


6. #IranElections - live, unfiltered updates via Twitter from Iran and around the world

Turkey looses the plot.

AOG, Madrid

Today, a court in Turkey ordered Türk Telecom (TT), to deny access to YouTube from anywhere inside the country- read article here. The reason? Someone has uploaded a video on You Tube that seems to suggest the creator of modern Turkey, Kemal Ataturk, was a homosexual and so were some (or all) of his assistants.

As we all know, in Turkey, to defile or insult the country, or its history, is a crime punishable by law. To say nothing of the Armenian genocide. Turkish writers, the latest high profile case being that of Nobel prize winner Orhan Pamuk, are forever on the news being tried for defiling the Turkish nation because they suggested - or right out confirmed- that there had been a genocide of the Armenians.

This is another case of denial of a basic human right:the freedom of speech. The other day I went to the Democrats Abroad meeting. A wise lady said she had a stock answer for people who opposed abortion: "If you don't like abortions, don't have one!" I would suggest to the Turkish Government to do the same. If you don't want to watch a video that suggests Ataturk was gay....don't watch it! For those of you interested to see what all the fuss is about....see below.



As if this video were not bad enough (though perhaps this is not the video in question but rather another video) someone has posted a reply. This time suggesting that it is the Greeks who are homosexuals. Look out for those "Gayreeks" [sic.]



The only thing wrong with this video is that it falls short of its purpose. It leaves out hundreds of names. Pity.

I think someone has to remind both of these countries of a couple of things. One, it is not a crime nor a cause of shame to be a homosexual. Personally, if Kemal Ataturk was gay (and I guess we'll never know for sure), it would make me like him a bit more. And two, Greeks and Turks can both be gay. I think it is disgusting that anyone would try to make this distinction and somehow try to denigrate a person by merely calling them gay. If you are called black...should you feel insulted? Is being black a bad thing? Well of course not! Neither is being homosexual.

I sometimes wonder if the EU is doing the right thing by toying with the idea of allowing Turkey into the club. As far as I'm concerned, we should start by kicking Poland out if its government's comments regarding abortion, religion and homosexuality are concerned. I thought we all entered the XXI century together.