Send your letters to the Free Press, PMB #178, 1463 E Republican St, Seattle 98112. Keep them short. Longer letters will be edited down. Letters do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Free Press. Letters which respond to Free Press articles will be given precedence.

AIDS: An Ethnic Bullet?

Just re-read the fascinating article "Genetic Bullets" by R. Roy Blake (Jan/Feb 2000, p8). Since the HIV epidemic exploded onto the world scene, there have been rumors that HIV was a man-made depopulation agent, targeting particularly persons of African ancestry. In that vein it might be interesting to consider the recent discovery that persons with a particular genetic makeup (invloving a CCR5 gene) may have some degree of immunity to infection if they have two copies of the gene-- one from each parent-- and a possibly less severe form of the disease if they have one copy of the gene ("CCR5 and Protection Against HIV-1 Infection" Center for Disease Control fact sheet dated Feb 1997, CDC Nat'l AIDS Clearinghouse, POB 6003, Rockville MD, 20849-6003). The variant protecting gene "occurs primarily in persons of Western European heritage" according to the CDC fact sheet. so the prospect of infectious diseases targeting particular ethnic groups is not new-- we apparently already have at least one, although whether its selectivity is due to nature or human design has not been determined for certain.

Really appreciated Mr. Blake's article.

-- Maria Abdin

Too Many PR Flacks

I enjoyed David Bacon's article about the persistent class bias expressed in Project Censored and in the mass media in general (July/Aug 2000, p13). Further buttressing Bacon's argument is how the labor movement is covered in the mass media when it does receive mention at all.

Bacon is correct that the mass media does largely ignore covering the struggles of unions to organize workers or get a better deal for its members by striking. This is largely because the labor beat, with a few exceptions like the Wall Street Journal, has all but been eliminated from the pages of daily newspapers. It is worth noting that the only reason why a publication like the Journal continues to cover the labor movement is because of the need for its elite business exectutive and shareholder constituency to know what organized labor is up to, as an organized workforce always means less profits for corporate greedheads. The masses need to know what organized labor is up to also but every local daily in the nation has relegated coverage of organized labor to its business section. So how is a struggle by unions to organize or get a better deal for its membership by striking covered?

An excellent study of the biased portrayal of unions in the mass media is William Pruette's Through Jaundiced Eyes: How The Media View Organized Labor. Pruette's book demonstrates that one of the rare occasions unions do recieve attention in the mass media is when they strike. The community-oriented charitable activities of unions are ignored in favor of coverage of corporate-dominated charities. When unions do go out on strike, it is always portrayed as inconveniencing consumers. The fact that the demands of employers during contract negotiations might inconvience union members by forcing them to have to decide between paying their monthly bills and feeding themselves and their families, if they have to take a pay cut or get laid off, is never put into print or mentioned over the airwaves during the coverage of a strike.

In a nutshell unions are portrayed as a disruptive and criminal force in society in the mass media. We are all living in complete harmony with one another and this gets disrupted by union activity. That's the general picture you see in a daily newspaper and the evening newscast on television. There is a subtle appeal in this kind of coverage for the public to side with employers during a labor dispute. In other words, the business backed mass media is saying in its coverage of business/labor disputes: "Here we public servants in the business community are trying to provide the masses with commodities, services and charity and along come these criminal, anti-American unions disrupting everything. We're on your side, they're the enemy."

The reader of Pruett's book does not need to take his word for it. Examples of his arguments surface every time union strikes receive mass media coverage. As I write this article a story about a strike by 86,000 telephone workers against Verizon Communications appeared on the Internet edition of the Washington Post on August 7.

The article by Peter S. Goodman is title, "Verizon Strike Having Impact: As talks go on, phone services are getting disrupted." The opening paragraph is a standard unbiased lead. However, the following two paragraphs state that Verizon customer services are being disrupted by the strike. Goodman notes "The absence of the workers began imposing noticeable incoveniences on Verizon's 27 million residential and business customers." It is not until the fourth paragraph of the story that the grievances of the Communications Workers of American and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers are spelled out. By that point in the story the majority of readers have stopped reading and moved onto another article in the paper.

So what is to be done about this sad reality? Well, the only remedy is for labor unions to start publishing free mass-circulation weekly newspapers, modeled after the small-circulation monthly Labor Notes, that reach readerships beyond their memberships. There used to be a lively labor press in this country in first half of the 20th century when unions had far less financial resources at their disposal. Every major metropolitan area has a weekly business journal, like the Puget Sound Business Journal, and an arts and entertainment weekly like the Weekly and the Stranger. The AFL-CIO has the financial resources to fund the labor equivalent of such newspapers. However, such a commitment would require the nation's conservative unions to become the movement for social change they used to be. Unfortunately, this is a commitment organized labor is unwilling to make. It was made abundantly clear by the lack of support from the AFL-CIO's leadership for the civil disobediance during the WTO demonstrations.

As the holder of a degree in "journalism" I can testify to the reality of Bacon's argument that J-schools have an ideological bias that guarantees a majority of "journalism" graduates will leave school with a pro-business/government bias while believing that they are "objective."

Accredited journalism programs are not teaching students journalism at all. Every journalism school offers students the option of the public relations concentration. If J-schools were serious about teaching students journalism, then they would eliminate the PR concentration from their programs as this concentration belongs in, say, a school of business. There are far more working PR flacks than reporters these days. In fact, many in the ranks of the PR profession used to be reporters who have since taken up employment in the more financially lucrative PR field.

While J-school does not prepare you to be a journalist, it does prepare you for working in the "real world" that is the mass media. This is the function a J-school should be performing in our society given the distribution of wealth and resources. As a reporter in an underfunded newsroom, you are going to rely on official sources and PR flacks to write your stories. Deadline pressures will discourage you from seeking out non-official sources of information. Step on the toes of enough important people as a reporter and you will find yourself without a job. Former award-winning San Jose Mercury-News reporter Gary Webb, author of the "Dark Alliance" expose on CIA complicity in importing crack-cocaine into the nation's inner-cities during the 1980's, can testify to this.

-- Rick Giombetti

Appalled by the Alternatives

I am appalled by your lack of knowledge about Cuba. [See "Organic Food Feeds a Nation" July/Aug 2000 p8] You have a one-sided view typical of "alternative" newspapers.

-- P Jova

Another for Nader

When my wife and family and I were traveling through your part of the country last spring we noticed that your media are not reporting certain facts relevant to the November election. These have been burned into my memory because they came up in classes I teach with foreign adults using radio and newspapers. The materials need extensive explanation, and so they tend to stick with me.

The Bush Ambassador to Iraq, Ms. April Glassby, has admitted to delivering the following message from President Bush to Saddam Hussein: "If you invade Kuwait, the U.S. has no policy in place to respond." Concurrent with this time period the current Republican nominee for president and his brother Jeb were in the papers daily for their alleged scams with banks and savings and loans.

Saddam, as we know, took the bait, invaded, and the ensuing national emergency/war (on which this country made a profit via payments from Japan and others) also had the desired effect of moving the Bush brothers out of the newspapers. At the time Barbara Bush was asked if she would answer questions about her sons. Her answer: "...only if you want to see a mother cry."

This coupled with the earlier payments for Saddam from Bush, Sr., when he was CIA director, and the later failure to ultimately remove such a useful enemy... point to the entire war as being staged for damage control.

Well, Americans admire families that stick together, but I fail to see us ready for a monarchy in which somebody gets elected simply for being the son of a former president, no matter how much of a genius that father was.

Gore is a decent man, but I myself am voting for Ralph Nader, the only candidate who really questions whether the bill of rights applies to giant corporations instead of people. I agree with the Ten Key Green Values and the grassroots workers who've gotten him on the ballot in 45 states. Nader name recognition grows daily. After all, we have seatbelts in cars because this now-millionaire (he's really intelligent) has for thirty-five years put all his energy and money into improving conditions for ordinary Americans, and questioning what Eisenhower warned us about: the military-industrial complex.

The Republicans faithfully have served that complex. Historically they've opposed the end of child labor, the eight-hour day, the right to have unions, the right of women to vote, to control their bodies, to be equal to men. They opposed the creation of Social Security and kept us from joining Wilson's League of Nations in 1918, which could have stopped Hitler.

It's important to see the big picture. Republicans currently want to give public school money to go for private schools, continue selling off and deregulating our public utilities, and allow Microsoft to continue its monopoly.

-- G. Ernest Hopkins, Santa Monica, CA