General Laurent Nkunda: the Congo’s George Washington or Western Media Villain?

General Nkunda (center) being interviewed in his CNDP compound in eastern Congo. (photo by G. Nienaber)


Rebel leader General Laurent Nkunda generally gets short shrift in the Western media as a “Bad Guy”, while the president of the DR Congo, Joseph Kabila, generally gets a “Good Guy” pass. But is that the case in reality? How many times has the lazy, opinionated, power-worshipping mainstream media gotten it wrong in the past? WMDs in Iraq, the “successful” coup against Chavez in Venezuela, the Gulf of Tonkin, the “Good Guy” Diem in Vietnam, the “Good Guy” Saakashvili vs. the “Bad Guy” Russians in Georgia, and on and on. Is it possible that, once again, the Western media has got it all wrong, this time in the Congo, scene of one of the worst nightmares on the planet? Getting it wrong here could sink an already devastated country into the lower rings of Hell.

Independent journalist Georgianne Nienaber certainly thinks the media has it backwards, and she has just returned from the eastern Congo, where she has been gathering facts on the ground, including a face-to-face interview with General Nkunda, which is a lot more than other mainstream so-called journalists have done. Here, in her own words, is what she has to say about him, as well as a postscript timeline to bring the reader up to date regarding rumors and reports that Nkunda has been arrested or overthrown as chairman of the CNDP:


















Nkunda: More than One Side to the Story

by Georgianne Neinaber

January 23, 2009

I was completely surprised upon meeting National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP) General Laurent Nkunda that his first words to me were to describe me as a “nature writer” who was in Congo to protect the gorillas. The General had obviously done his homework on me, but had no clue as to my personal and moral evolution regarding humanitarian issues in DRC since 2007.

Western media has fabricated an image of Nkunda as an eccentric warlord and murderer who is to be despised and feared. Nkunda is a military leader and military men kill. Nkunda admits that war has its consequences. Every army in the history of humankind has been responsible for atrocities, and citizens of the United States need look no further than Abu Ghraib. Who is ultimately to be blamed?

An underground resistance movement arranged the interview with Nkunda. This movement is not populated with wild-eyed freedom fighters, but rather by serious professionals and government officials who believe that Nkunda offers the possibility of hope and change for a country riddled with corruption.

Aussie journalist Helen Thomas, an American medical doctor and a former member of the RPF army, joined me in entering rebel controlled territory. The most difficult and stressful part of our entry was a Ugandan border check where an inebriated Ugandan official demanded $50 each to guarantee our “safety.” After much arguing and discussion, a call came from “Chairman” Nkunda that we were his guests and should be allowed to pass the short distance to the Congolese border, where we were met by well-trained and disciplined officers of the CNDP army. This was obviously no rag- tag group of freedom fighters. CNDP “Captain Sahara” met us with a polite “bon jour” and assisted our crossing into Nkunda’s 21,000 square kilometers of territory.

Entering the rebel stronghold was far less intimidating than entering the United States Coast Guard monitoring station at Carrollton Avenue in New Orleans, Louisiana.

At no time while under Nkunda’s rule did we feel frightened or threatened. On the contrary, I can say that I am absolutely terrified of the regular Congolese army (FARDC), which controls Goma and points north and west. This is not an investigative report, but suffice it to say that we received many instances of personal testimony describing harassment and shootings by the FARDC. A human rights worker told how the windows of his aid vehicle were shot out by a uniformed FARDC solder riding a motorcycle on the pulverized tarmac that passes as a “road” through the spine of Virunga Park. The same aid worker said he felt safe while crossing into CNDP held territory.

Refugees related stories of being chased from their homes by “soldiers,” but could seldom identify which army. In one instance in FARDC territory north of Goma a woman said she was “chased by Mai Mai,” and in one other instance a woman said she was “told” that it was the CNDP that attacked her village, but that she “never saw them.”

Congolese president Joseph Kabila rules through intimidation and fear. His army (FARDC) is undisciplined and guilty of many more atrocities than the allegations leveled against Nkunda. Kabila is clearly exploiting the wealth of Congo as much or more than Mobutu did, yet Western interests, including the United States support him. Dan Rather recently did an excellent report “All Mine,” which is available for $.99 on iTunes.

Human Rights Watch has also condemned the suppression of free speech in DRC under Kabila. (reference)

We have heard again and again that Kabila owns homes all over the world, including a mansion in Malibu, California. Instead of persecuting Nkunda, perhaps the New York Times might want to do an investigative report on this.

In CNDP held territory, villagers were in extreme poverty by Western standards, but had gardens, pigs in the yard, flowers growing, and they happily waved and shouted as we drove along the road cut by Nkunda’s army. Villagers were engaging and offered none of the blank, sullen stares or frightened responses one gets in FARDC controlled sectors.

As far as Nkunda is concerned, human rights groups will have fits of apoplexy as I report that he was completely appropriate in demeanor. I cannot judge the man, but the medical doctor who was with us remarked that Nkunda exhibited no grandiose, narcissistic or paranoid traits. He is certainly charismatic and one must always be on guard when in the presence of charisma, but my impression of Nkunda is that he is a man who has dedicated his life toward the liberation of Congo from foreign interests, graft and corruption.

Nkunda was surprised when I told him about the distorted photos that accompany articles about him in the Western media. Weird angles, harsh shadows and imaginative prose by writers intent upon furthering writing careers, rather than journalism, have dominated the New York Times and other western print media.

Nkunda was courteous, engaging and welcoming. As the dirt floor flooded during the course of our interview, Nkunda became concerned for our gear and equipment. This was hardly the reaction one would expect from an imperious warlord. Was it a snow job? I doubt it. He seems serious about reaching out to Western interests. And I am not ashamed to say that I enjoyed our informal conversations after the interview. Why? Because I found a human connection that involved serious concern for the people of Congo.

I shared dinner with the man as an intense Virunga thunderstorm raged outside of the open-sided rondeval with a shredded tarp from UNICEF providing the only buffer from the wind. We talked politics, family life, and shared a pleasant conversation..















Eating dinner with the general (photo by G. Nienaber)


I am ashamed to know that some American journalists who provide reports that shape world opinion have been too frightened to enter Congo to see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears.

It was horrible to learn from sources in Rwanda that a noted US reporter was terrified to meet with Nkunda. Instead, he paid for information, instead of accepting an invitation for an interview as we did.

Journalists should be witnesses. We should tell the story. We can use our gift of turning thoughts into words to describe the conditions we encounter in the world. Let the politicians and think tanks determine policy. If we are able to present a clear picture, perhaps the politicians will be forced to act in the name of humanity.

What should I say when a member of the resistance comes to me and asks with tears in his eyes, “Why won’t journalists tell the truth?” I heard the phrase “we are crying,” many times from Congolese.

We were invited back to visit at any time. And Nkunda had a request. Would I try to bring a Congolese American to visit with him?

Then, there was the final question. Would the new Obama government listen to what we reported with an open mind for the Congolese? I replied that I was very small but that I would shout in a loud voice on behalf of the Congolese people. I also told him that I did not know how I would do this.

Nkunda told me, and I will never forget this, “Don’t worry about what you will do. You are “doing” now. By coming here, by speaking on behalf of the Congolese people when you write about the conditions in Goma and in the camps, by speaking openly about this, you are doing. You are doing.”

*********

TIMELINE:

January 3, 2009: Australian Journalist Helen Thomas and I meet with General Laurent Nkunda in occupied territory. We spend over six hours with him. Nothing seems unusual in terms of stress or concern on the part of his troops. Peace talks are scheduled to begin in four days in Nairobi. The CNDP Commissioner of Foreign Affairs, Rene Abandi, joins us for discussion. Abandi is scheduled to be at the peace talks.

January 5, 2009: While in Goma, rumors begin to surface that Nkunda has been removed from power of the CNDP. Sources from within the CNDP tell us this is not true. We wait.

Western mainstream media picks up a consistent drumbeat castigating Nkunda. The stories originate in Dakar, and Kinshasa. No one is reporting this from our location.

January 12, 2009: Posting from Dakar, Senegal, the New York Times said, "Disagreements over tactics and power have split the once seemingly invincible Congolese (CNDP)."

Nkunda vehemently denied the NYT article in a phone interview with us.

One thing is clear. The Congolese Regular Army (FARDC), under President Joseph Kabila, attacked the CNDP in August 2008, and quickly lost ground despite superior numbers. The attack shattered a tentative peace agreement. The NYT account supports BBC reports that Nkunda is fighting off an attempt to topple him by CNDP faction leader Jean Bosco Ntaganda.

"This is absolutely not true," Nkunda said from his location in north Kivu Province in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

Nkunda said that Ntaganda was "unable to move more than one kilometer from his home," and was surrounded by CNDP forces. Nkunda estimated that Ntaganda had "as few as 36 soldiers" with him.

January 19: Rwanda announces a “joint operation” with DRCongo that has been agreed upon since December 2008 in which troops will attempt to disarm remnants of the Interahamwe in eastern Congo. Leaders of the FDLR are responsible for the genocide of 1994. Nkunda has said all along he is protecting his people from attacks by the FDLR.

Thomas and I are no longer in country and must rely upon emails and phone conversations with sources on ground in Congo.

One source close to the CNDP described a meeting which took place in Gisenyi, Rwanda in which the CNDP, Ntaganda, Congolese General Numbi and “others Rwandese and Congolese staff were invited.”

“In that meeting the chief of Staff of Rwanda told our high commander that there was a plan and they must be part of it and for that they must accept Ntaganda as their chief of staff. It was an order and it wasn't negotiable. And they said that General Nkunda must be removed as the chairman of CNDP and that they won't deal with him.

“Of course our high commander refused at first to sign the document which was already prepared, but the Chairman (Nkunda) told them to sign and they did so.

“The chairman is in danger because he has an army which is loyal to him and as long as he is around the plan can't be carried out as they want.”

Apparently there was a deal between DRC and Rwanda that no one in the Western media has reported.

Sources say Rwanda assured Kabila that Rwanda was capable of destroying Nkunda. They tried to accomplish this by installing Ntaganda as head of the CNDP, but the plan fell apart when the CNDP army remained loyal to Nkunda.

Sources say Ntaganda was given $250,000 and promise of amnesty from his indictment by The Hague for war crimes.

Rwanda sends 3000 soldiers into DRC.

Another source, not connected to the CNDP, described the situation.

“In all honesty, I just don't know what is happening at the moment, and I suspect it wasn't exactly planned.

“Like so many things over here, it's basically quite messy.

“I think Nkunda has taken a slight hit, because he was not able to quell Bosco's (Ntaganda’s) insubordination, but as far as I can tell, he is still very much in the driving seat of CNDP, but he's obviously going to have to make some compromises if the Rwandan and Congolese governments are behind Bosco's initiative.

“It was reported that MONUC have been blocked out of Rutshuru, but that's not actually true. For now everything is very calm, but we're bracing ourselves. A major coalition assault on the FDLR may well be in the pipeline, but I can't believe they'll actually succeed in bringing them in.

“We're quite worried about the consequences, in terms of insecurity, but at a very superficial level, I can't help hoping that something good may come of the fact that CNDP, FARDC and RPF are together, if it means the fighting will stop and the IDPs can return to their homes without getting attacked.”

January 23, 2009: From source close to Nkunda:

“I know you've heard the news that the Chairman has been arrested, that is not the truth but he came by himself to Gisenyi last night to meet the Chief of staff of Rwanda. He is at Gisenyi in a hotel but anything can happen. Although the option of arresting him will be a huge mistake because there will be a terrible fight between CNDP and RDF and FARC. “

Democracy Now Interview with Gareth Porter on US Navy-Iran Incident

One of the Iranian Patrol Boats in the so-called "provocation" against the US Navy (source)


Here is a poignant interview by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, on audio and in print, of veteran reporter and historian Gareth Porter discussing the US Navy/Iranian Naval incident of Sunday morning, January 6, 2008. It includes the Arnold Schwarzenegger-type deep voice threatening in a rather un-Iranian accent that "You will explode after a few minutes".

Porter points out that the commander of the 5th Fleet, Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff has made it clear that his "ships were never in danger, that they never believed they were in danger, and that they were never close to firing on the Iranian boats."

So what we have been witnessing is YELLOW JOURNALISM at its worst by the major media, who blew this event up into a near sea-battle, with the Navy "seconds away" from firing on the Iranians, without doing the simplest fact-checking or corroborating. The media mindlessly began dragging us down the rabbit-hole again into the world of make-believe. This is why our country is in such a wretched state. The truth gets slaughtered daily by the mass media. If things had gone wrong enough over this incident, we could be at war with Iran today, spilling blood and treasure on both sides by the bucketful. Ready to sacrifice another half a trillion dollars and thousands of loved-ones to the dogs of war again?

And the big question is out of all this, whose voice issued the Terminator-type threat that sent the media into a feeding frenzy?

*****************************

You can listen to the transcript of the interview by clicking here.


Here is the printed transcript:

January 11, 2008

Gareth Porter: Official Version of U.S.-Iranian Naval Incident Starts to Unravel
The United States has lodged a formal diplomatic protest against Iran for its “provocation” in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday morning. But new information reveals that the alleged Iranian threat to American naval vessels may have been blown out of proportion. We speak to investigative historian Gareth Porter. [includes rush transcript]

Guest:

Gareth Porter, Investigative historian specializing in U.S. national security policy. He writes regularly on Iran for the Inter Press Service. His latest book is called “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam.”

JUAN GONZALEZ: The United States has lodged a formal diplomatic protest against Iran for its “provocation” in the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday morning. But new information reveals that the alleged Iranian threat to American naval vessels in the Strait might have been blown out of proportion.


On Tuesday, the Pentagon released video of Iranian patrol boats approaching American warships and an audio recording of a direct threat in English. The accented voice says, “I am coming to you,” and then adds, “You will explode after a few minutes.”


IRANIAN VOICE: I am coming to you.


US NAVAL OFFICER: Inbound small craft, you’re approaching a coalition warship operating in international waters. Your identity is not know. Your intentions are unclear. You’re sailing into danger and may be subject to defensive measures. Request you establish communications now or alter your course immediately to remain clear. Request you alter course immediately to remain clear.


IRANIAN VOICE: You will explode after a few minutes.


US NAVAL OFFICER: “You will explode after a few minutes.”



JUAN GONZALEZ: That was an audio recording released by the Pentagon along with the video of the encounter between American warships and Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz.


But a Navy spokesperson told ABC News Thursday that the threat might not have come from the Iranian patrol boats, but from the shore or another ship passing by. The spokesperson added, “I guess we’re not saying that it absolutely came from the boats, but we’re not saying it absolutely didn’t.”


Iran has denied all allegations of a confrontation and released its own video of the encounter. This is an excerpt of the Iranian video broadcast on Thursday showing what seems to be a routine exchange between an Iranian Navy patrol boat and the American ship.


IRANIAN NAVAL PATROLMAN: Coalition warship 73, this is Iranian Navy patrol boat. Request side number [inaudible] operating in the area this time. Over.


US NAVAL OFFICER: This is coalition warship 73. I’m operating in international waters.



AMY GOODMAN: Gareth Porter is a historian and national security policy analyst. His latest article for IPS News analyzes how the official US version of the naval incident has begun to unravel. He joins us now from Washington, D.C. Gareth Porter, welcome.


GARETH PORTER: Good morning, Amy.


AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about everything that happened from Sunday, what President Bush said, what the Pentagon was alleging, and now what we understand?


GARETH PORTER: Well, this alleged crisis or confrontation on the high seas is really much less than what met the eyes of the American public as it was reported by news media. And the story really began from leaks from the Pentagon. I mean, there were Pentagon officials apparently calling reporters and telling them that something had happened in the Strait of Hormuz, which represented a threat to American ships and that there was a near battle on the high seas. The way it was described to reporters, it was made to appear to be a major threat to the ships and a major threat of war. And that’s the way it was covered by CNN, by CBS and other networks, as well as by print media.


Then I think the next major thing that happened was a briefing by the commander of the 5th fleet in Bahrain, the Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, which is very interesting. If you look carefully at the transcript, which was not reported accurately by the media, or not reported at all practically, the commander—or rather, Vice Admiral Cosgriff actually makes it clear that the ships were never in danger, that they never believed they were in danger, and that they were never close to firing on the Iranian boats. And this is the heart of what actually happened, which was never reported by the US media.


So I think that the major thing to really keep in mind about this is that it was blown up into a semi-crisis by the Pentagon and that the media followed along very supinely. And I must say this is perhaps the worst—the most egregious case of sensationalist journalism in the service of the interests of the Pentagon, the Bush administration, that I have seen so far.


JUAN GONZALEZ: And, Gareth Porter, there have been some reports about the apparent splicing of audio onto the actual video that appear to be from two different sources. Could you talk about that?


GARETH PORTER: Well, that’s right. I mean, we don’t yet know exactly what the sequence of events was in this incident. We don’t know exactly when the voices that we hear making what appear to be a threat to the American ships, where—when that occurred in the sequence of events in this incident. And it seems very possible that indeed the Pentagon did splice into the recording, the audio recording of the incident, the two bits of messages from a mysterious voice in a way that made it appear to occur in response to the initial communication from the US ship to the Iranian boats. And it seems very possible that, in fact, those voices came at some other point during this twenty-minute incident.


So this is something that really deserves to be scrutinized and, in fact, investigated by Congress, because of the significance, in the larger sense, of a potential major fabrication of evidence in order to make a political point by the Bush administration.


AMY GOODMAN: Gareth Porter, what about the timing of this, on the eve of President Bush’s visit to the Middle East?


GARETH PORTER: Well, of course, there’s no doubt that the motivation for the Pentagon to blow this incident up was precisely the timing of President Bush leaving on a trip to the Middle East, in which one of his major purposes was to try to keep together a coalition of Arab states, which—a very, very loose and shaky coalition to oppose Iran and to support, hopefully, according to the administration’s policy, the US pressure on Iran through diplomatic and financial means, through the Security Council and through its allies in Europe. So this is definitely part of the reason, very clearly, that what was a very minor incident which did not threaten US ships, as far as we can tell from all the evidence so far, was turned into what was presented as a confrontation and a threat of war.


JUAN GONZALEZ: Gareth Porter, I’d like to ask you, I was watching the Republican debate last night on Fox News and was astonished to see one of the moderators spend quite a bit of time on this topic, questioning every one of the candidates as to whether they believe the Navy commander on the scene did the right thing by not blowing the Iranian boats out of the water. Surprisingly, only Ron Paul, the maverick, even questioned some of the facts of the incident as reported. Your response to this suddenly becoming a topic for the presidential debates?


GARETH PORTER: Well, I think it’s astonishing that you have this incident being regarded as a test of whether the United States is being belligerent enough, when the commanders of the ships themselves clearly did not regard this as a threat to the safety of their ships. This is the point, again, that the commander of the 5th fleet made very clearly. He was asked by reporters whether the commanders were close to firing on the Iranian ships, and he said, “No, that was not the case,” that at no point were they about to fire on the ships and that they did not feel threatened by the Iranian boats. Bear in mind, what has not been reported by the media, that these are essentially small speedboats that are at most armed with machine guns, not with any weapons that were capable of harming those ships.


AMY GOODMAN: Gareth Porter, this also comes right at the time that new documents have—newly declassified documents have revealed that the Johnson administration faked the Gulf of Tonkin incident to escalate the war in Vietnam, to provide a pretext for increased bombing and increased troops there.


GARETH PORTER: Well, you know, this is an incident—the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the policy shenanigans surrounding it are something that I wrote about in my book, Perils of Dominance, about the US involvement in the Vietnam conflict. And what actually happened regarding the Gulf of Tonkin was that the ships, because of anxiety on the part of the crew of these ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, they thought they were under fire originally. They sent back messages saying that.


But within a matter of a couple of hours, the commander of the flotilla had decided that they had been mistaken, and he passed that message on to the Pentagon, and the Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara was informed by early afternoon on the same day. And it is my interpretation, based on the evidence, that he failed—he refused to inform President Johnson of that fact, and that’s why Johnson went ahead with a decision to bomb North Vietnam, which had already been made at noontime.


JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, going back to the incident also, one of the key contradictions now that have surfaced between the initial reports and certainly after the Iranian release of their own video is that initially the public was told that these were Revolutionary Guard boats, and now the Iranian government has said no, that they were actually boats of the Iranian Navy, and they clearly identified themselves as such.


GARETH PORTER: I do not know what the provenance of these Iranian boats was, whether it was IRGC or Iranian Navy. We do have pictures, photographs of the IRGC small speedboats that clearly resemble the boats that are depicted—at least one of them—depicted in the video. But from the evidence that we have right now, it’s really impossible to say what—whether these boats belonged to be on IRGC or not. It is the case, however, that the IRGC does have, apparently, the primary responsibility to patrol in this area of the gulf. I heard yesterday a former commander of the IRGC state very clearly that they do in fact have the primary responsibility to patrol in that area. So it’s certainly the—it’s a possibility, a good possibility, that these were IRGC boats.


AMY GOODMAN: Gareth Porter, I want to thank you for being with us, investigative historian, writes for Inter Press Service. His latest book is called Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Universal Support by Public Against FCC Ruling

The Parent's Television Council President testified that there is "Universal Support" by the public against the FCC loosening restrictions on media ownership. Here is Tim Winter's testimony. It's worth reading. Tim Winter, President of The Parents Television Council:

…It is a personal honor for me to be here once again before this committee on whose staff I had the pleasure to serve….My name is Tim Winter, and I’m president of The Parents Television Council, with more than 1.2 million members across the United States. The PTC is a non-partisan, non-profit grassroots organization dedicated to protecting children and families from graphic sex, violence, and profanity in entertainment. At first blush, there would seem to be very little connection between the PTC’s mission and the media ownership issues which bring us here together today. But there is compelling evidence that the consolidation of media outlets has led to a coarsening of television content, a destruction of the concept of community standards of decency, an unresponsive, irresponsible news media that routinely ignores news stories to protect its parent corporation, and a cable television industry that effectively functions as a cartel.

Mr. Chairman, a few years ago the PTC stood shoulder to shoulder with a remarkably diverse group of public policy advocates to decry the loosening of media ownership rules. The National Organization for Women and Concerned Women for America, the Salvation Army and Common Cause, Consumers Union, the National Rifle Association, MoveOn.Org and others. As PTC founder, Brent Bozell, noted at that time, “When all of us are united on an issue then one of two things have happened. Either the earth has spun off its axis and we’ve all lost our minds or there is universal support for a concept.” I believe the FCC’s recent localism hearings across the country have once again demonstrated universal support for a concept. Big media companies have not conducted themselves in a manner which merits them owning even more media outlets. The strongest voices in favor of allowing big media companies to grow even bigger have come from those within those very companies.

Let me explain why the ownership issue is so important to the Parents Television Council. With very few exceptions, network owned television stations do not consider standards of community decency even though the terms of their broadcasting licenses demand it. During the summer of 2003, the FOX broadcasting network aired an episode of a prime show called Keen Eddy. Criminals trying to sell horse semen on the black market hired a prostitute to perform a particular act on the horse in order to extract the semen. Although the act itself was not displayed on the program, the dialogue was so course that I’m uncomfortable mentioning it here to you today. A member of the PTC in Kansas City wrote a letter to the FOX owned and operated television station in his market expressing his concern. And I wish to read aloud the response he received from the station’s general manager. “We forwarded your letter to the FOX network. The network, not the station, decides what ‘goes on the air for the FOX owned and operated stations.’” When station general managers in cities and towns across the country take their orders directly from headquarters in New York or Hollywood it comes as no surprise that they would toe the company line when it comes to program decisions. How does this serve the public interest?

We have heard repeatedly and privately from independent local broadcasters from around the country who are threatened by the major networks that they will lose their affiliates status if they preempt network programming. Fortunately, there are a few notable exceptions of broadcasters pushing back on the networks, including Mr. Goodman here, and others like Abbot Communications. But when local programming decisions are dictated or prohibited by corporations thousands of miles away, the public interest cannot be served.

Media consolidation has led to a self serving news media that seeks to protect interests of their own corporate parent. When a broadcast network recently challenged the FCC’s ability to enforce indecency standards, they convinced two federal judges in New York City that they have the right to air the “F” word anytime of day even when they know millions of children are watching. Although dozens of concerned family groups, including the PTC, were shocked that a federal court could reach such a preposterous conclusion, there has been only limited public outcry over that decision. The reason for this is simple. In large measure the American people don’t know that it has happened. In the wake of that court decision, not a single national news broadcast organization saw fit to cover the story. And even with a host of 24 hour a day news channels on cable there was near zero coverage of a decision that will impact every family in this country as well as the policies determining appropriate use of the airwaves that they themselves own. Why no coverage? We believe that the corporate news divisions knew the public would be incensed by the arrogance of a media conglomerate arguing for the right to air profanity in front of their children early in the day over the airwaves that they own. It should be noted that the Second Circuit “F” word lawsuit, and the now pending Third Circuit lawsuit which alleges that the Janet Jackson Super Bowl strip tease was not indecent, were not brought by local broadcasters like Mr. Goodman here. Rather these lawsuits were filed by the major television networks. Those same corporations who now want an even greater control of America’s media.

If you think media consolidation has stifled the broadcast industry please listen carefully to the following statistics on cable. At my office in Los Angeles, there are 48 cable networks bundled together on the expanded basic cable tier. Of those 48 cable networks, Viacom owns all or part of 8 of them. NBC owns all or part of 8 of them. Disney owns all or part of 8 of them. News Corp owns all or part of 6. Liberty Media owns all or part of 6. And the local cable operator--Time Warner--owns all or part of seven of them. By using the retransmission consent rules these conglomerates are able to use their TV stations broadcast licenses in an extortion like way to force unwanted cable networks onto our cable systems and onto our cable bills. There has been much attention paid recently to the acquisition of The Wall Street Journal by News Corporation. Imagine the outrage if Mr. Murdoch demanded the subscribers of The Journal now take and pay for the The New York Post. But that is precisely what he’s doing with his new FOX business network. News Corporation is able to force his new Fox business network. News corporation is able to force its new business network onto systems across the country, regardless of whether a single consumer wanted another business cable network. Such bundling cable arrangements maybe great for Wall Street, but not for main street. And it does not serve the public interest.

There has been a great deal of discussion about the lack of diversity in the American media landscape as it relates to the ownership of media properties and rightfully so. Most Americans can name one network that caters to African Americans, BET. But can you name a second, or a third? You can’t because they simply don’t exist as an option on most basic cable systems. The Black Family Channel, the only black owned and operated television network for African American families is now only distributed via Internet. Because it is independently owned and cannot apply the same bundling leverage the conglomerates can, the Black Family Channel is effectively shut out from carriage. In an environment dominated by media giants, there has developed no market that would allow additional minority programming to be created and distributed.

Mr. Chairman, how can media conglomerates be afforded the additional public trust to hold even more broadcast licenses when they behave in this manner? This Committee, the Congress, and the FCC must work in concert to protect the interests of the public, the very owners of the airwaves. In the strongest terms, I urge the Congress to consider these issues carefully as it evaluates any appropriate action the issues of localism, diversity, and media ownership. Thank you.

Lobbyists hired by Big Media will be talking with your Senators today. Will you?

MEDIA ALERT: STOP THE CORPORATE MEDIA TAKEOVER

Our FCC, paid for with our tax dollars is NOT doing it's job--regulation and oversight of the monopolized power of the corporate media. Instead it is using our tax dollars to act like corporate lobbyists. The FCC has proposed new rules that grants the corporate media more power and less accountability. In spite of Americans speaking out in an incredibly united voice on this issue...where else will you see organizations such as the Christian Coalition, MoveOn.org, National Rifle Association, and NOW stand side by side and demand that media ownership rules be strengthened not weakened?

Here's an issue that we can unite us all....unfortunately, a rare occurrence these days. It would do all of us some good to join together whenever possible....here's a golden opportunity for us.

The Media is fundamentally a crucial issue. No matter what your political issues are (civil liberties, gun control, immigration reform, anti-war) it is incredibly difficult to get folks activated if the media distorts your message or refuses to cover it. The media is fundamental for a democracy to function...that's why our constitution has an amendment for the "fourth estate." They wanted to protect the press from government censorship. However, our founding forefathers (who had a healthy fear of corporations) did not anticipate that the corporations would end up controlling the media and censoring us.

It's not to late!! Something can be done.....Congress has the power to throw out the FCC's new rules. Here's the FreePress info:

Throw Out the Rules

The FCC approved new rules that will unleash a flood of media consolidation across America. The new rules will further consolidate local media markets -- taking away independent voices in cities already woefully short on local news and investigative journalism.

Congress has the power to throw out these rules -- and if hundreds of thousands of people demand it, they'll have to listen. Sign the open letter to Congress urging them to stop the FCC and stand with the public interest. In addition, you may want to contact your Senator and Representative.

Congressional Contact Numbers

800-828-0498 is the toll free phone number of the Congressional switchboard

TAKE ACTION FOLKS....WE CAN STOP THIS ANTI-DEMOCRATIC FCC IF WE ACT RIGHT NOW...IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ALL AMERICANS....