On how the Grand Rapids Press doesn't print anti-corporate perspectives

In late March I submitted an essay for the GR Press' Sunday essay column for the 25th anniversary of the assassination of Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero. Romero was murdered by US-back death squads just weeks after he sent then US President Jimmy Carter a letter asking him not to send any more weapons to his country, as they were being used to murder civilians.

I also mentioned that the assassination of Romero and later the 4 female US church workers is what got me involved in the Central American solidarity movement of the 1980s. I, along with dozens of other folks from Grand Rapids, ended up traveling to Central America on human rights delegations to learn about the impact of US policy on the people of countries in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala.

Then I mentioned that even though Central American had been out of the public eye for some time it was now part of solidarity efforts with the upcoming vote on CAFTA, the Central America Free Trade Agreement. In fact, the trip I took to Guatemala this past December for 4 weeks was to interview people on their perspective of this so-called free trade agreement. Considering the impact that NAFTA had on West Michigan, I thought that there would be sufficient cause to accept an article about CAFTA. Girl, was I wrong.

One week after I submitted the piece I received a response from the GR Press Sunday essay editor Mark Allen. His response is quite instructive, so I'll reprint some of it here. First he says "It doesn't quite work as op ed, because it provides a surface look at the issue. Surely there is another side. For instance, if it is unquestionably bad for Guatemala, why also would it be bad for West Michigan?" First of all I didn't think I submitted a surface look at this issue. What I sent him was a summary of what Guatemalans told me during my recent trip. When I say Guatemalans, I mean I talked with teachers, farmers, labor organizers, students, small business owners, human rights groups, indigenous people, foundations and environmentalists. Not one of them thought CAFTA would be good for most people in Guatemala and each of them provided well thought out reasons, plus documentation to support their positions. As to his second point that if it was bad for Guatemalans would it necessarily be bad for West Michigan, this is a reasonable question. However, I didn't say it would be bad for West Michigan, I said it would be bad for working people, working families and small businesses in West Michigan. These policies always benefit someone. For example, with Electrolux moving its factory from Greenville to Mexico, the Electrolux executives and shareholders will win, but not the workers in Greenville.

Next the Press guy said "From what I know of CAFTA, it appears to be a negative for Guatemala, especially since their goods largely enjoy unlimited access to the U.S. already. But without CAFTA, is that situation sustainable? In the long run, doesn't a free market provide the better path to higher living standards? Might this result in the importation of improved farming methods so Guatemalans might increase corn production?" Talk about internalizing the values of the dominant system. It is interesting to note that a person in journalism thinks that the "free market" benefits all. Apparently he doesn't know anyone from around here who has lost a job from NAFTA in recent years. When NAFTA was sold to the American public we were told that it would create higher standards of living in Mexico. Mexicans would then buy more US products, thus create more jobs for US workers. Hello, but unless you have been watching re-runs of Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous 24 hours a day, how could you not know that NAFTA has been bad for many workers and their families in West Michigan? Even his comment about the free market providing Guatemalans improved farming methods to increase corn production is ridiculously naive. Again, if we look at NAFTA as a model we can see that the US flooded the Mexican market with cheap, subsidized corn, which forced thousands of small farmers off their land because they couldn't compete with the US corn.

Lastly, the Press editor says "I don't pretend to know the answers to these questions, but I think they are questions a reader would ask after giving a thoughtful read to your essay. Surely there is a reason the government there voted overwhelmingly to approve it." If readers of my piece had questions I'd be delighted. If they further investigated what CAFTA is and what it might mean for Central Americans and those of us in West Michigan, then I would have accomplished my goal. It is an opinion piece! Isn't that the whole point of an opinion piece? His last sentence, however, is my favorite. "Surely there is a reason the government there voted overwhelmingly to approve it." There is a reason, but not the one he assumes. The fact is that the government of Guatemala was delaying a vote on CAFTA, so the US sent a trade negotiator there to strong arm their government into accepting the plan. What did the Guatemalan government get out of it? Two weeks later the US re-instated military aid to Guatemala, something the US hadn't done in nearly decade. This is why small governments around the world support policies that their populations overwhelmingly denounce, because the US will reward them.

So, why is this so instructive about how a so-called free press works in the US? Well, it demonstrates two things. First, it shows that a media system that is commercially driven naturally embraces a for-profit ideology that benefits only a small sector of the global and US populations. Information or perspectives that don't benefit that commercially driven system are not presented, which is what they used to call in more honest days CENSORSHIP. Second, it reflects a certain contempt that media people have for the average citizen, especially since most of us in West Michigan have never even heard about CAFTA. Why, because there has been an almost complete media blackout in the US. The only places you can find out about this trade policy is through independent media sources or the business press. My co-worker and I have been tracking the local news for the past few months and have yet to find a story about a trade policy that involves our country, 5 Central American nations and the Dominican Republic. This is what Lawrence Soley, author of Censorship Inc.: The Corporate Threat to Free Speech in the United States calls censorship by omission. I would submit that a journalism that doesn't inform the public on the important issues of the day, doesn't deserve to be taken seriously and shouldn't have our support.

Jeff Smith is involved local with a STOP CAFTA campaign made up of a diverse group of grassroots organization, read - people who really don't matter. You can find out information on CAFTA and the local campaign at http://www.mediamouse.org/cafta/. To read the original essay that was rejected by the Press.