Features

Fairness and Accuracy in Broadcasting (FAIR) has released a new report on the prevalence of Islamophobia in the corporate media. The issue--which recently came to light in Grand Rapids with the distribution of an anti-Islam DVD by the Grand Rapids Press--is striking for how prevalent anti-Islam sentiment is in the mainstream. In "Smearcasters: How Islamophobes Spread Fear, Bigotry, and Misinformation," FAIR provides many examples of Islamophobia and identifies the twelve most prominent Islamophobes in the media.

The report identifies Islamophobia as:

"...hostility toward Islam and Muslims that tends to dehumanize an entire faith, portraying it as fundamentally alien and attributing to it an inherent, essential set of negative traits such as irrationality, intolerance and violence. And not unlike the charges made in the classical document of anti-Semitism, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, some of Islamophobia's more virulent expressions--like While Europe Slept--include evocations of Islamic designs to dominate the West."

The report documents several prominent strains of Islamophobia in the media. These include the repeated assertions that Islam is inherently evil or violent, or as Pat Robertson has said, a "bloody, brutal type of religion." Related to this is the idea that there is a "good" and "bad" form of Islam and that "moderate Muslims" must rain in the "extremist" elements within Muslim. The report points out that such demands are rarely made of Christians.

Another prominent strain of Muslim-bashing focuses on the idea that "militant Muslims lurking around every corner and paints them as an existential threat to the U.S. and its allies." This is the type of Islamophobia advanced by the anti-Islam DVD distributed by the Grand Rapids Press. The DVD, titled Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West, "describes 'radical Islam' as a menace comparable to Adolf Hitler that, according to the film's website, 'is threatening, with all the means at its disposal, to bow Western civilization under the yoke of its values.'

Anti-Muslim views are disseminated through a wide range of online, radio, and print outlets. Not surprisingly, right-wing blogs have been at the forefront of Islam-bashing, but cable TV and rightwing radio shows also regularly advance such views. The report identifies twelve prominent Islamphobes, many of which can be found either on the radio, television, or in print in West Michigan. The Grand Rapids Press runs Michelle Malkin's column, while Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage can all be heard in West Michigan. Similarly, rightwing commentator Debbie Schlussel is based out of Michigan.

Overall, the report provides a through examination of anti-Islam bias--much of which is outright hateful and offensive--in the mainstream media. While the report does not provide any concrete action steps, it is important that people confront Islamophobia when they see it by writing letters to newspaper editors, calling station managers--and if necessary--boycotting media outlets that advance such views.

Monsanto. It's a company whose name is synonymous with genetically engineered food. Since the early 1990s, the company has aggressively marketed genetically modified seeds around the world, often attracting significant protests and outrage in the process.

Next Tuesday, Grand Valley State University (GVSU) is hosting Kevin Holloway--head of animal agriculture at Monsanto--who will deliver a lecture titled "Monsanto: The Business of Feeding the World." Holloway is speaking at an event in downtown Grand Rapids organized by the Seidman College of Business Alumni Association. Other than that, no further information on the particulars of the talk is available.

While working at Monsanto, Holloway--who formerly worked for Michigan based Dow Chemical--has played a key role in one of the company's most controversial efforts--marketing milk containing the genetically modified growth hormone rBGH (also sometimes known as rSBT) which was sold under the brand POSILAC. The hormone, which was developed by Monsanto and approved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993, has been a lightning rod for criticism by consumers and health advocates. The United Nations' Codex Alimentarius Commission upheld a ban on the product in the European Union, while Canada banned the hormone.

Health related concerns about rBGH are numerous and fuel much of the opposition to the hormone. Critics argue that the hormone changes the chemical composition of the milk via the increased presence of a hormone called "insulin-like growth factor-1" (IFG-1). According to the Center for Food Safety, numerous studies now demonstrate that IGF-1 is an important factor in the growth of cancers of the breast, prostate and colon. The hormone is also harmful to cows, leading to increased instances of mastitis, contamination of the milk with pus, and a 50% risk of lameness due to hoof and leg problems.

Monsanto--who sold the POSILAC brand earlier this year--argued that the hormone greatly enhanced the efficiency of milking cows. According to a company website, "The benefit of POSILAC is its ability to increase milk production significantly and, in doing so, to lower farm fixed costs over units of milk produced." The hormone yields an average of 10 additional pounds of milk per day, per cow according to Monsanto. Additionally, it can increase lactation.

However, while some farmers jumped at the opportunity to increase the "profitability" of their herd via POSILAC, consumers were more skeptical of the hormone. Aside from bans in Canada and the European Union, rBGH milk was dropped by several major retailers including Kroger and Wal-Mart. Moreover, consumers consistently supported labeling the milk--80% according to one Consumer Reports survey--much to the chagrin of Monsanto.

Kevin Holloway, the head of Monsanto's animal agriculture division, played a role in the company's efforts to fight against the labeling of milk. In response to dairies that labeled their milk as "rBGH-free," Monsanto launched an aggressive campaign aimed at stopping the labeling. The company filed lawsuits and attempted to stop dairies from labeling milk. As part of this effort, Kevin Holloway frequently spoke out against labeling, arguing that the use of hormones was one of farmer choice and that labeling milk resulted in unfair marketing practices:

"This milk is positioned as a specialty product with labels that say things like 'no hormones or antibiotics', 'not produced with rbST' and a variety of other statements that imply it may be better than conventional milk."

Holloway also argued that stores demanding rBGH-free milk should pay a premium to farmers:

"The point of this decision guide is that buyers of specialty milk should pay a premium if they want to limit dairy farmers' choice to use safe, effective technology. At a minimum, this premium should be guaranteed to pay for lost profitability, handling and verification costs of specialty milk. This guarantee should last as long as a producer is required to give up the choice."

Aside from efforts coming directly from Monsanto, the company also engaged in more shady campaigns aimed at winning consumer support for rBGH milk. Monsanto was instrumental in the creation of American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology a front group created by the PR firm Osborne & Barr to promote rBGH. According to Sourcewatch.org, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy, Osborne & Barr was hired to handle Monsanto's POSILAC brand in 2006. In 2007, Monsanto and several key dairy organizations met via conference call to plan the formation of the faux grassroots group. Monsanto has admitted to funding the group. Monsanto has also attempted to silence journalists investigating rBGH.

For critics of Monsanto, the company's rBGH milk is just one example of what is a very troubled history. Since its founding in 1901 as a chemical company, Monsanto has been dodged by controversy. It manufactured Agent Orange, a chemical herbicide that was sprayed by the US during the Vietnam War, contaminating hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese civilians and US soldiers. Agent Orange is believed to be linked to birth defects in thousands of Vietnamese due to dioxin exposure from the chemical. The company also produced PCBs and DDT, both of which are highly toxic chemicals. Behind these chemicals is a legacy of pollution.

In recent years, Monsanto has attempted to position itself as an altruistic company, with its website emphasizing such virtues and values as "sustainability," while making lofty statements about improving the lives of farmers and lessening the environmental impacts of agriculture through technology. For Monsanto, this technology has meant genetically engineered seeds--with the company making 90% of the world's genetically engineered seeds.

Of these genetically engineered seeds, Monsanto's most controversial is the "Roundup Ready" soybean, which is engineered with a gene to make it resistant to Monsanto's "Roundup" herbicide. "Roundup Ready" soybeans can be sprayed with the herbicide and they will not die, while all weeds in the area will be killed. The genetically engineered food is rapidly entering the food supply, with some 60% of soybeans in the US being "Roundup Ready." Monsanto has also been the target of criticism for pursuing and researching "terminator" seeds that are engineered to be sterile after the first year, making it impossible for farmers to save seeds.

Like it has with rBGH, Monsanto has aggressively campaigned to win public support for its "Roundup Ready" soybeans. At the same time, it has gone after farmers who attempt to save seeds or who's fields unknowingly become contaminated with genetically modified crops. Monsanto has sued farmers and initiates investigations into potential violations of its licensing agreement by contracting with investigative firms to conduct samples of farmers' fields.

In order to gain approval for genetically modified seeds, Monsanto has maintained a close relationship with the US government. Several government regulators that have been involved in approving Monsanto products have formerly worked for or consulted for Monsanto, raising questions about the scrutiny given to Monsanto's products.

Monsanto has also aggressively marketed genetically engineered seeds in other parts of the world, although it has often met strong opposition than it has in the US. Still, several notable controversies have developed. In India, Monsanto has sold a form of genetically modified cotton called "BT Cotton" that has been aggressively marketed and is supported by the Indian government despite numerous problems. Moreover, around the world genetically modified crops are contaminating non-GMO crops, most notably in Mexico.

When Holloway speaks at GVSU next week, it's likely that much of this controversy will be left out. Those attending the speech likely will be treated to a glossed over, PR friendly version of Monsanto's past and present.

Calvin College began its War Awareness Week on Monday with a lecture by Communications professor Randall Bytwerk. Some may know Bytwek as the primary person behind an excellent online resource of Nazi and East German propaganda known as the German Propaganda Archive.

Bytwerk began his talk by making the claim that it is surprisingly easy to get people to support war. He said it was particularly easy before modern means of communications, since country leaders rarely had to convince the public on the necessity of war. This has changed in the past hundred years with the advent of radio, TV, the Internet, video, and cell phones. Propaganda comes into play when leaders have to figure out ways to persuade the public to go to war.

The speaker said this is always easier if a country is attacked, but sometimes the belief that a country is being attacked isn't always clear. Bytwerk gave the example of how the Germans claimed that Poland started WWII and even staged an attack by having German soldiers dress up as Polish troops. He also gave the example of what is called the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, where the US claimed the North Vietnamese attacked one of its naval ships. With the Gulf of Tonkin, Bytwerk said it wasn't so clear as to what happened, even though declassified US government documents make it pretty clear that this was a fabricated incident used by the Johnson administration in order to escalate the US military campaign in Southeast Asia. The speaker also mentioned the WMD rationale for the US invasion of Iraq, but provided no examples or sources to support his claim.

Professor Bytwerk exclusively used media examples from World War II to support his position on the use of war propaganda. He began by showing part of the Frank Capra series "Why We Fight." Bytwek said that part of what made that series so effective was its ability to demonize the enemy. Next, he showed a clip from Nazi propaganda on the demonizing of Jews in a German newsreel. Bytwerk stated that what the US was doing during WWII was almost on a par with what the Nazis were doing. He supported this claim by showing an example of a cartoon that aired on US television that demonized the Japanese. Cartoons like this are just one example of how much media was produced in the US that depicted the Japanese in negative ways. In fact, the racist depiction of Japanese was much more dramatic than the depictions of Germans, a point that often gets overlooked in discussions about WWII.

Another technique of war propaganda is to present your country as absolutely right, which quite often means that God is always on "our side." The speaker said that when things went well for the Germans early on, they didn't need to emphasize their "rightness," but when the Germans invaded Russia the war got bogged down. It was at this point that the Nazis began producing more media that showed the importance of the need to keep fighting. He used an example from Nazi propaganda that showed the Germans bombing military targets, while the US and British military bombs German civilians. Bytwerk says the Allied forces did the same thing during WWII and showed the audience a clip from a British film called "Mrs. Miniver." This movie was about British families who lost loved ones during WWII. The film's most powerful scene is at a funeral of British civilians killed by the Nazis and the minister proclaims from the pulpit, "all Brits are fighting the war, a war for freedom." Bytwerk said that Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels raved about this film and used it as a model for effective propaganda.

Next, the speaker looked at what countries do when they are not winning the war. He said they would say things like "If we lose, things will be worse." The Nazis during the end of the war started showing news footage of dead Germans with the narrator saying this is the result of "Roosevelt's Christian soldiers." The more contemporary example is the argument, "if we don't stop the terrorists over there, we will have another 9/11 here."

Professor Bytwerk concluded by stating that he wished he had a solution to dealing with war propaganda, but suggested that the other speakers this week would probably provide some answers. The question and answer session was short, but focused exclusively on what is currently happening in the US, particularly with the US government's use of propaganda in leading the country into war against Iraq. Bytwerk kind of defended the US news media for their role in not questioning the government's point of view and said that the public needs to seek out other perspectives and sources of information.

Mediamouse.org asked him about his thoughts on the responsibility of US media in holding the government accountable or even demanding that they seek out other sources of information so that the public can make a more informed decision about such critical issues as war. His response again was somewhat in defense of the news media and individual journalists, as he said they need to think about "job security."

This kind of a response omits the fact that there has been a significant investigation into the role of the news media as it relates to the US war in Iraq. The Center for Public Integrity documented the 935 false claims made by US officials in the months leading up to the war in a report titled "Iraq: The War Card." The Center for Media and Democracy has also documented how the Pentagon recruited former Generals to be "experts" on network media, and even in the Grand Rapids media. Moreover, the Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy (GRIID) has conducted several investigations into TV and newspaper reporting on the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, finding that the media often echoes to the government's position.

On Tuesday, the United States' war against Afghanistan entered its seventh year. With both major party candidates supporting an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, the anniversary hardly registered a blip in the media. Moreover, the war was largely been ignored by liberals, progressives, and the left in the United States--many of whom see Afghanistan as "the good war."

The local group ACTIVATE released a pamphlet examining the US war against Afghanistan and arguing that it should not be forgotten when the antiwar movement demands that US forces exit Iraq.

However, on a national scale, little has been said to mark the anniversary. Of the major antiwar groups, only United for Peace and Justice issued a statement on the anniversary:

On October 7, 2001, the US began a military operation in Afghanistan and launched the opening shot in its "War on Terror."

A few weeks earlier, on September 15, 2001, Rep. Barbara Lee was the lone voice in Congress to vote against the use of force on Afghanistan. She warned, "If we rush to launch a counterattack, we run too great a risk that women, children, and other noncombatants will be caught in the crossfire. [W]e must be careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target. We cannot repeat past mistakes."

Today, seven years later, the "War on Terror" is an utter failure; the fighting, the death and destruction, continue in both Afghanistan and Iraq; and there is no end in site. There is now talk about sending more U.S. troops and expanding the military operations in Afghanistan.

Is this an appropriate course of action?

In response to the horrific crimes of September 11th, we were told that US troops had to be sent to Afghanistan to find Osama bin Laden and destroy al-Qaeda. But neither has happened and war in the region has expanded. In the past two years, the number of US service people killed in Afghanistan has grown dramatically. The lives of the Afghan people are no better today than they were seven years ago -- by some measure, things are far worse for them.

Today, on this solemn anniversary, the second Presidential debate will take place. While the Iraq war and occupation have become widely discredited and unpopular thanks to massive efforts by the peace movement and the deteriorating situation on the ground, we have been largely silent on Afghanistan. Today, the peace movement must speak out!

We urge you to call or email the campaign offices of both Senator McCain and Senator Obama and tell them you want a surge in diplomacy, not an expansion of a deadly, costly war.

Obama Campaign - 866-675-2008
http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2

McCain Campaign - 703-418-2008
http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact/

United for Peace and Justice urges the antiwar movement to take a clear stand against the war in Afghanistan. We have developed a list of resources which can help you learn more about this war and what you can do to help end it.
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?list=type&type=116

Last night at Fountain Street Church, longtime journalist Ray Suarez--a senior correspondent on PBS' News Hour--spoke as part of Grand Rapids Community College's (GRCC) Diversity Lecture Series. Suarez's talk focused on the upcoming presidential election with Suarez sharing his insights on the campaign, the focus on candidates' personalities, race, and religion.

Suarez began by talking about how exciting this election is--calling it the most exciting of his career. He said that while there is still a month left, polls are starting to indicate that Democratic Party candidate Barack Obama is establishing a substantial lead. Still, he said that it is astonishing that the election was ever this close. He expressed surprise that with Bush having such low approval ratings, the weak economy (which Democrats have an advantage on), dissatisfaction with the government, and significant public opposition to the Iraq War that the election is so close when the Republican candidate is so closely tied to those policies.

Suarez argued that the Republican "brand" has problems connecting with voters and that polls repeatedly show that people have a hard time feeling like Republicans care about them. Consequently, this has been more of a "personality" campaign than an issue based campaigned. Iraq--which everyone thought was going to be a major issue--is hardly discussed, while the two major party candidates are also not offering particularly detailed proposals on the economy. Instead, the two candidates are focusing on their biographies and repeatedly saying "this is who I am and how I am like you." Consequently, the public is hearing about McCain's captivity in Vietnam, Obama's past as a community organizer, Palin being a hockey mom, and Joe Biden's wife--none of which offer any kind of policy prescriptions. The candidates are aiming for a "regular guy" appeal more than issues. Suarez said we see this with the vice presidential candidates, with Biden talking about being from Scranton even though he hasn't lived their for years and Palin saying that she is middle class even though she makes four times as much money as what one would earn to be consider middle class. According to Suarez, these are all part of carefully designed campaign strategies to win over voters.

Suarez also talked about the role that race has played in the campaign, although he reminded the audience that it has played out in subtle ways. Instead, Suarez said that the public is getting a number of "pseudo-controversies" about Barack Obama that serve as proxies for race--Obama's "missing" birth certificate, questions about his father's religion, and concern about the time Obama spent in Indonesia. While it is unknown how much race will play in the final vote, many of these questions are being used to confer the status of "the other" on Obama and raise questions about his capacity to lead.

Finally, Suarez talked briefly about the role that religion is playing in the campaign. He said that as an issue, religion probably reached its high mark in the 2004 presidential campaign. In this election, Obama is willing to talk about religion while McCain is more uncomfortable doing so, a change from typical stereotypes about how Democrats and Republicans deal with faith. Despite his willingness to talk about faith, Obama has consistently been asked to prove that he is a Christian. Moreover, there are questions about what kind of Christian he is--a reference to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright--which the Republicans seem increasingly willing to exploit. There has also been persistent "chatter" about Obama being a Muslim by the right, who use it as another way to project "otherness" on Obama. For many on the right, they know that raising the issue in the current political climate means that it is only a short step from Muslim to terrorist.

Suarez concluded by reminding the audience that no matter what is going on in the campaign, there is no doubt that the next president is going to face serious issues--the Iraq War, the health care crisis, rising prices on almost everything, stagnant wages, and a growing national debt. Suarez left it up to the audience to ponder whether these issues are being addressed in the campaign.