Volume VI, Issue IV
February 28, 2011
JHU POLITIK LABOR PROTESTS TO SAVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
ISSUE IV, 2/28/11 Also in this Week’s Edition:
NATIONAL THE PLANNED PARENTHOOD CONTROVERSY
By Sahdia Khan, ‘13 -Page 3
INTERNATIONAL THE FIGHT FOR LIBYA
By Daniel Roettger, ‘13 -Page 3 RUSSIA’S KHODORKOVSKY CASE
By Anna Kochut, ‘13
-Page 5
OPINION IN DEFENSE OF THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD
by Rachel Cohen, ‘14 Staff Writer
W
hile much of the media’s attention has been focused on the protests in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Libya, the infectious democratic spirit is now energizing thousands of middle class Americans in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and other pro-union states as Republican leaders attempt to pass controversial pieces of legislation that will affect government employees. The state at the front of this controversy is Wisconsin. With debt at $137 million, Wisconsin faces a crippling budget deficit and with the current two-year budget plan, the current deficit is projected to jump from $137 million to an unsettling $3.6 billion. In a state where the manufacturing workforce is among the nation’s highest, Wisconsin lost
1
By Cary Glynn and Jacob Grunberger, ‘13 - Page 5
a large percentage of manufacturing jobs during the recession, despite maintaining a 7.5% unemployment rate. With these circumstances in mind, newly elected Governor Scott Walker proposed a sweeping plan to cut benefits for employees of the state and take away most of their collective bargaining rights in order to balance the budget. The collective bargaining component, considered by many to be a fundamental and proud part of human labor justice in America, is the most contentious of the newly proposed legislation. Protestors point to collective bargaining as the avenue by which child labor laws, safe working conditions, and the minimum wage were achieved. To rid the American system of collective bargaining would be to kill an
THE CASE FOR DEFIANT JOURNALISM
By Dennis Orkoulas-Razis, ‘13 - Page 7
JOHNS HOPKINS’s Only WeeklyPublished Political Magazine
important part of the essence of democracy, they argued. Walker and Republican leaders have responded that their intent is not to “kill unions”. Rather, Walker has suggested that the alternative with which he was faced was to lay off over 6,000 workers and siphon Medicaid funding away from hundreds of thousands of children. Walker’s plan is set to save $30 million in the current budget, and $300 million in the following year. Other key provisions in the bill in(Continued on Page 2) www.JHUPOLITIK.com
Volume VI, Issue IV
February 28, 2011
The POLITIK EDITOR-In-Chief
Editor-in-Chief
Editor-in-Chief
Joshua Ayal
Harry Black
Sam Lichtenstein
Staff Writers
Executive Editors
Randy Bell Alex Clearfield Rachel Cohen Rohit Dasgupta Eric Feinberg Becca Fishbein Conor Foley Cary Glynn Benjamin Goldberg Paul Grossinger Dan Hochman Jordan Kalms Anna Kochut Briana Last Hilary Matfess Daniel Roettger Ari Schaffer
Managing Editor
Will Denton Morgan Hitzig Hannah Holliday
Matt Varvaro PRODUCTION MANAGERS
Casey Navin Neil O’Donnell Faculty Advisor
Steven R. David JHU POLITIK is a student-run political publication. Please note that the opinions expressed within JHU POLITIK are those solely of the author. Please sign up for our e-mail list on our website, www.JHUPOLITIK.com
INTERNATIONAL REPORT
(Continued from Page 1) clude that government workers should now contribute 5.8% of their pay to their pension account, despite the current rate of less than 1%. Moreover, the bill requires public employees to pay at least 12.6% of health care premiums; currently, most state workers pay around 6%. Union workers have conceded that they would be willing to pay these new costs, as they acknowledge the harsh realities of the state deficit, but they pledged to continue to fight for their right to collectively bargain. Thousands of people have flocked to Wisconsin’s capitol in protest, holding rallies coined as “solidarity events.” As other similar demonstrations are scheduled across the country, it is clear this bill will not pass without a fight from the people. The protests became so large that public schools in Madison were closed last week as thousands of teachers flocked to the streets to rally. Firefighters, police officers, and state troopers are the only three unions exempt from this bill. Interestingly, commentators have observed that these three unions were the only three that supported Scott Walker’s campaign when he ran for governor. Despite their exemption, they too flocked to the streets to join their fellow public employees in protest of the bill. Other states, like Ohio, are also grappling with similar pieces of legislation, and would most likely use a victory in Wisconsin to establish momentum in their legislative favor. This, simply put, is the type of bill that could set a
precedent for many states in tough financial situations. Democratic legislators in Wisconsin are using interesting tactics to avoid voting for this bill, playing a figurative game of “political chicken.” While Republicans hold a majority in the Assembly and Senate, Democratic lawmakers have fled to Illinois and other states to prevent the Republicans from having a quorum necessary to make the vote. Last Tuesday, Democrats and Republicans debated for over 20 hours straight, as Democrats putting forth over 66 new amendments designed to slow down the legislative process. Despite public opinion, Governor Walker’s Republican supporters held fast to his belief that eliminating collective bargaining was a necessary evil to balance the budget. “We understand. You don't like the bill. We get it," said Republican Representative Joel Kleefisch of Wisconsin. In opposition, protests against the bill have grown. This weekend, an estimated 70,000 flocked to the Wisconsin Capitol and yelled booming chants of “This will not stand!” It will be interesting to see how this democratic struggle plays out and is remembered historically. It could be read as a leader taking a tough but necessary step in order to balance a budget while risking his political clout to do the right thing. By contrast, the current situation in Wisconsin could be viewed as a power-tripping, unreasonable governor who ignored the will of the people (Continued on Page 3)
2
www.JHUPOLITIK.com
Volume VI, Issue IV
February 28, 2011
NATIONAL REPORT / INTERNATIONAL REPORT (Continued from Page 2) who put their faith and trust in him as their elected official. Rest assured, as the political battle continues to unfold, legislators in other states will be watching closely. s
The Planned Parenthood Controversy by Sahdia Khan, ‘13 Contributing Writer Two weekends ago, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to cut funding for Planned Parenthood, an organization that provides medical care, abortion services, and contraceptives to nearly 800 clinics across the United States. The bill mandates the elimination of $75 million of federal funding that Planned Parenthood receives to provide family planning support to low-income women. Advocates of the bill, however, argue that this money promotes federally sponsored abortions. A recently added amendment, known as Title X, authorizes cutting the entire $317 million budget for family planning aid. In fact, the amendment prohibits Planned Parenthood from receiving any federal funds whatsoever. Many Republicans view the vote as a success for the Souza) anti-abortion movement. "The time has come to(Pete respect the wishes of the majority of Americans who adamantly oppose using taxpayer dollars for abortions," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, said. The debate will now progress to the Senate, which holds a small Democratic majority. According to Susan Cohen, Director of Governmental Affairs for the Guttmacher Instititue, a research and policy analysis organization which advocates safe reproductive health, Democrats in the Senate will almost certainly not support the elimination of all federal funding for family planning, nor will they allow a bill that slashes Planned Parenthood’s subsidy. Regardless, the dispute has stirred up controversy nationwide. Supporters of the bill call into question the legitimacy of Planned Parenthood as an agency. The anti-abortion organization Live Action recently released videotapes depicting Parenthood employees aiding a man posing as a sex trafficker. Planned Parenthood, however, contends that the tapes suggest an erroneous impression of the agency. Furthermore, they note that the delinquent staff member from the video was fired and that the incident was reported to law enforcement agencies.
3
In New York City, another anti-abortion agency, Life Always, sponsored a billboard that depicted a young African-American girl below the words, “The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb.” The billboard was located blocks away from a Planned Parenthood clinic. According to Rev. Derek McCoy, a Life Always Board Member, the “campaign highlights the tragedy that abortion is the number one killer since 1973 in the black community and the truth that we must confront in a city with a near 60 percent abortion rate for black women.” Nonetheless, after talks of an anti-abortion demonstration at the site of the advertisement, Lamar Advertising, the company that placed the billboard, removed it on the grounds that the campaign was creating a public safety issue. Adding to the debate, President Obama’s 2012 budget actually proposes an $11 million increase for the family planning initiative of Title X. According to the Guttmacher Institute, “family planning services are vital to achieving important public health goals by helping millions of young and economically disadvantaged American women prevent unintended pregnancies.” The institute’s statistics show that women who do not use contraceptives account for 95% of all unintended pregnancies annually. Regardless, the current controversy could ignite political debate over abortion. While last year’s midterm elections largely focused on the state of the economy, social issues could easily make their way into the 2012 presidential election, particularly if Republicans believe they can be used to rally their socially conservative base. Of course, such a strategy risks backfiring if it looks like Republicans are using a wedge issue during a time when most Americans are still worried about unemployment. Thus, while for now the debate has been contained, only time will tell if the debate over abortion becomes a national topic of conversation once again. s
The Fight for Libya by Daniel Roettger, ‘13 Staff Writer Tripoli, the site of two pirate wars involving the U.S. in the early 1800’s (and a reference point in the first (Continued on Page 4) www.JHUPOLITIK.com
Volume VI, Issue IV
February 28, 2011
INTERNATIONAL REPORT (Continued from Page 3) stanza of the Marines Hymn) is back not only on our horizon, but on that of the world stage, as well. Led for the past 42 years by the flamboyant (or flamboyantly robed) and dictatorial Muammar al-Gaddafi – the selfstyled “Leader and Guide of the Revolution” and the selfproclaimed “King of African Kings” – Libya under Gaddafi has epitomized the fragile balance between stability and tyranny in the Middle East. But no longer. For the past few weeks, Libya has witnessed the previously unimaginable: mobs in the streets calling for Gaddafi’s overthrow. The response – predictable from Gaddafi’s brutal history – has been a violent effort at suppression that has shattered the nation’s fragile tribal fault lines. The Libyan crisis follows an outbreak of revolutionary uprisings that have flared in Bahrain, Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen. However, the degrees to which similar movements have been met vary significantly. Gaddafi, it seems, has enlisted Sub-Saharan mercenaries to maintain his rule. The result has been widespread incidents of kidnapping and murder. Furthermore, Gaddafi has even ordered airstrikes against opposition-held cities, resulting in reportedly massively civilian casualties. In fact, the true scope of the conflict and casualties is uncertain because the international media is largely unwelcome in the country. Still, some sources, including Italy’s foreign affairs minister, cite a number far exceeding 1,000, while international agencies such as the Human Rights Watch cite a far lower estimate of around 300. Regardless, the number of casualties is expected to rise as inner-Libyan turmoil grows, according to doctors and medical staff throughout the country. Gaddafi, whom President Reagan once referred to as a ‘mad dog,’ has made statements to and on state television, blaming the country’s rebellion on Osama bin Laden, international terrorists and money, as well as on ‘hallucinogenic drugs’ and pledging to defend his rule to “the last drop of blood.” To support one of these claims, Libyan state television has also shown images of men, who were found with Egyptian passports and assault rifles, detained. However, the credibility of such images is suspect, given the state television’s tenuous connection with reality in the past. The international community that was initially surprised at the challenge to Gaddafi now appears shocked at the ruthlessness of his response. Slow to respond, European countries are now transitioning from development to deployment. On Saturday night, the members of United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to impose sanctions on Gaddafi and his closest advisors.
4
Libyan protester celebrates as he stands on a destroyed tank at Al-Katiba military base after it fell to rebels. (Hussein Malla/Associated Press)
Member states of the European Union have also begun calling for the enforcement of a no-fly zone over the country, marking a particular response to the regime’s use of attack helicopters and fighter jets to besiege opposition-held cities. At the same time, the Swiss government has ordered all of Gaddafi’s assets be frozen, which would impair his ability to pay mercenaries their reported salary of $2,000 per day. Such an action is particularly important, as Gaddafi has purposely kept his country’s armed forces weak to reduce the likelihood of a coup similar to that which brought him into power over four decades ago. Furthermore, the United Nation’s High Commissioner for Human Rights has declared support for opening an investigation on Gaddafi’s recent actions, which could culminate in a trial before the International Criminal Court. In addition, the United States has begun examining military options, according to an unnamed Pentagon source, in addition to beginning sanctions of its own. What are the prospects for Libya’s future? It is not impossible that Libya will splinter into several smaller units, as has happened in Somalia, with Gaddafi maintaining his outpost in Tripoli. More generally, the upraising in Libya seems to be yet another step into a more dangerous and uncertain Middle East. Regardless, the coming days must be watched carefully as Gaddafi’s hold over Libya loosens, perhaps best epitomized by four members of his air force defecting and either landing their planes in Malta or crashing them in the desert, behind opposition lines. s
(Continued on Page 5) www.JHUPOLITIK.com
Volume VI, Issue IV
February 28, 2011
INTERNATIONAL REPORT / OPINION (Continued from Page 4)
Russia’s Khodorkosvky Case by Anna Kochut, ‘13 Staff Writer
(Denis Sinyakov/Reuters)
A little under two months ago, Mikhail Khodor(AP) kovsky, a former Russian oil tycoon, was sentenced to six years in a Siberian prison. He had been formally charged with money laundering, though most analysts have argued that his sentence was based on politically motivated charges. Moreover, this was not his first bout in jail. In 2005 he was sentenced to eight years in jail for tax evasion, a charge that was also considered politically inspired. When confronted with criticism about the ruling, a statement from the Russian government was released conveying the message that the other nations of the world should “mind [their] own business.” This development has come at an interesting time for Russian politics. At the time of Khodorkovsky’s first indictment, Vladimir Putin was still the president of Russia. According to Boris Nemtsov, a Russian politician and outspoken critic of Putin, Russia under Putin “[had] $100 billion in [a] stabilization fund, $300 billion in the central bank” and no need for democracy to help decide how to distribute those funds “among the people.” Naturally, such a system of leadership that was built on the nostalgia for Soviet past would keep a critical eye on a man like Khodorkovsky, who single-handedly impacted the production of one of Russia’s most important exports: oil. Back in 2005,when the first charges against Khodorkovsky came to the Russian courts, it became clear to observers that the Kremlin was working to regain control over some key sectors of Russian economy. For many observers, the Khodorkovsky arrest proved to be a clear move in that direction. After the arrest of Khodorkovsky, his company, Yukos, was sold to a state-con-
5
trolled firm. The 2008 election of Dmitry Medvedev as President of Russia sparked a bit of hope in the eyes of the world. The question of Russian democracy and established rule of law was in the air, and other nations watched with anticipation. However, given his missed opportunity to correct the ruling in the Khodorkovsky case, it is apparent that an established and fair rule of law is not in the cards for Russia yet. In a New York Times article written by one of Khodorkovsky’s defense attorneys, Yuri Schmidt, one obtains an inside-of-the-courtroom perspective on the case. According to Schmidt, Judge Danilkin “systematically denied defense motions… [while] almost all of the prosecution’s motions were granted.” This appears to be a clear example of how a legislative system is controlled by orders directly from the top, not by an established rule of law. Alongside this description are the statements from Natalya Vasilyeva, assistant to the judge. The New York Times relayed her words, stating that she reported that judge had been monitored and that it was “widely known in the judicial system that the case was rigged from the start.” Needless to say, observes agree that the entire fiasco shines a light on the shady quality of contemporary (Miguel Medina/ AFP) Russian politics. For her part, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the case would have a “negative impact on Russia’s reputation,” especially concerning foreign investment. For a Russian leadership that wants to refurbish its country’s image and increase its wealth and status, observers agree that the results of the Khodorkovsky case indicate that the opposite might come to be true. s
In Defense of the Muslim Brotherhood by Cary Glynn ‘13 and Jacob Grunberger ‘13 Staff Writers As unrest in Egypt escalated many Americans voiced concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood. Some argued that the Brotherhood was furtively fomenting the revolution, while others asserted that the Brotherhood would dominate a democratic Egypt. Pundits even forewarned that Egypt would morph into a terrorist-supporting, Muslim theocracy. These concerns were even (Continued on Page 6) www.JHUPOLITIK.com
Volume VI, Issue IV
February 28, 2011
OPINION (Continued from Page 5) used to urge the U.S. government to help former Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, quash the uprising. The Brotherhood, “represents a clear and present danger,” claimed Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), “not just to Egypt and Israeli security, but also oil prices.” He is wrong; the aforementioned critics’ fears will not materialize. Of possible outcomes, a democratic Egypt is the best antidote to the worst elements, real or imagined, of the Brotherhood. Historically oppressed in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has evolved across decades of existence. Yet the average Western observer has failed to understand this evolution as violence leaves a lasting impression on the media and, by extension, the public. The Council on Foreign Relations’ Steven Cook articulated that Mubarak used the Brotherhood as “his boogeyman”, to “stoke the fears of successive American administrations and, in turn, secure Washington’s generous diplomatic, political, and financial support.” Founded in 1928, the Brotherhood is the world’s oldest Islamic political group. It began as an anti-colonialist movement, thriving on popular discontent about England’s mandate over Egypt. Adopting a militant view of politics, the Brotherhood promoted jihad against apostate governments. In 1954, the movement became notorious in Egypt for attempting to assassinate Gamal Nasser, the well-known former Egyptian president. Yet, since then, the Brotherhood has not advocated that degree of militancy and it has been reported that the Brotherhood has constructed roads, schools, hospitals, and pharmacies. James Clapper, U.S. Director of National Intelligence, speaking before Congress said that the Brotherhood has “eschewed violence” and instead “pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt.” Currently, the organization promotes the Qur’an as a social and legal philosophy within a pluralist democratic context. This is not dissimilar to American Christian groups who, while still respecting democracy, advocate against abortion on religious grounds. Indeed, when Al Qaeda threatened Egypt’s Coptic Christians, the Brotherhood countered that Muslims should respectfully protect Christian holy places. As the Brotherhood’s Deputy General, Mahmoud Izzat, said, “we want a civil state, based on Islamic principals, a democratic state, with a parliamentary system, with freedom to form parties, press freedom, and an independent and fair judiciary.” Moreover, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood no longer promotes or supports terrorism. As an outspoken
6
critic of the September 11th attacks, the Brotherhood has frequently condemned Al Qaeda. In fact, more violent groups like Hamas have siphoned off the most militant members of the Brotherhood. The organization no longer advocates jihad and, since 2001, has become supportive of changing the state through solely democratic means. In 2005, Brotherhood members ran for parliament as independents and won 20% of the vote. The movement, despite losing, encouraged elected members to become active participants in whatever semblance of a democracy Egypt had. This led to the highest parliamentary attendance in Egyptian history and, according to Samer Shehata of Georgetown University, the first effort to reform the authoritarian government by reviving parliament since Mubarak took control of the country. Under Mubarak’s oppression, the movement’s funding apparatus was irreparably damaged, which has diminished the Brotherhood’s capacity to recruit new members. Egypt will not become another Iran. Juan Cole, professor of history at the University of Michigan, argues that the nature of Islam in Egypt is far different from that in Iran. Religious conservatives will not support the Muslim Brotherhood in the way that the Ayatollahs were supported. Sunni Islam, unlike the Shia Islam practiced in Iran, does not obligate implicit obedience to clergy. You may still think the intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood are nefarious, that all reform since 2001 is a sham. Yet, this only matters if Egyptians agree with the Brotherhood, and they do not. The Brotherhood is not even the largest or most powerful religious organization in the country. The majority of Egyptians belong to the quietist Salafist and Sufi movements. Additionally, the most conservative voices of the Brotherhood belong to the older members of the group. As the movement expands today, the number of younger, moderate, sometimes even apolitical, members is increasing. Many youthful members of the Brotherhood want to split off into an even more moderate party. The courageous young Egyptians who rebelled against the autocracy of Mubarak will not embrace a theocracy. The Brotherhood has even claimed that it will not run a candidate in the upcoming presidential elections and has steadfastly supported the transitional military government. The movement’s feared rise to power, some argue, will spell the end of the peace treaty with Israel. Even if the Brotherhood did come to power, it would not reject (Continued on Page 7) www.JHUPOLITIK.com
Volume VI, Issue IV
February 28, 2011
OPINION (Continued from Page 6) the treaty. “The decision on the treaty does not belong to the Brotherhood, it belongs to the entire Egyptian people,” said Essam al –Erian, a Brotherhood spokesman. “The Brotherhood will not impose their vision on the Egyptian people. The Brotherhood is part of a society that accepts what the Egyptians accept.” The United States government views Israel as a precious ally in the region and would protect the state from external threats. The U.S. will warn Egypt that if a Brotherhoodled government rejects the peace treaty that Egypt will lose $2 billion of annual aid, thereby tying the hands of the Brotherhood. Even if you still believe the Muslim Brotherhood is a threat within Egypt, democracy is the optimal form of mitigation. In a democracy, the Muslim Brotherhood would be forced to moderate its views to appeal to voters. When they express their opinions, dissent is welcomed, exposing the populace to informative discourse. On the other hand, if the Brotherhood is suppressed, marginalized by an autocrat, or covertly undermined by America, their members will become radicalized. Cracking down on the movement will only furnish it with a victimization narrative. If the Brotherhood wanted to return to violence, it would be easier to justify. Furthermore, marginalization can actually legitimize its message in the eyes of the people. Denying members of the Brotherhood their freedom of speech forces their political discourse underground. Thus, there is no one to refute the claims of the Brotherhood. This situation also leads to attitude inoculation, whereby people who are initially exposed to only one viewpoint hold it more strongly than those who develop perspectives in a multidimensional political conversation. Thus, clearly any attempts America makes to secretly sabotage the Muslim Brotherhood will result in blowback. It is not only Islamic radicalism, but also American meddling, that breeds terrorists. s
The Case for Defiant Journalism by Dennis Orkoulas-Razis, ‘13 Contributing Writer This past October the Nobel Prize Committee awarded Liu Xiaobo its most esteemed prize for his contribution to the promotion of world peace. One could wonder why him, why not some prominent leader such
7
as Morgan Changerai of Zimbabwe, who has made huge advances in making his native country a more democratic state. The reason is that Mr. Liu signifies something that usually goes unnoticed to the most of us. Mr. Liu was convicted of “spreading rumors or slander or any other means to subvert the state power or overthrow the socialist system” and has been imprisoned for the past 11 years for expressing his opinion. His sentence is a clear violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the institutionalized moral code that should be an overarching ideal in all communities across the globe. Mr. Liu signifies not only an irreverence against such violations, but also something that has faded nowadays in the era of mass media: that is, defiant journalism, journalism that deviates from the norm, be it in China, in Somalia, or here in the United States. No matter the cost, the purpose of a journalist is to promote the truth and inform the world of any deviations or transgressions concerning laws or even moral codes. This is not an idealistic pipedream. Across the globe there are examples of journalists choosing this more ‘righteous’ path. In Afghanistan, Nilofar Habibi was attacked on her way to the TV offices of the channel she worked for, while in Nepal Tika Bista was attacked after writing an inflammatory article concerning the Constituent Assembly in a Kathmandu-based newspaper. These are examples of journalists who risked their own lives in order to promote truth and transparency and even then continued their work. They are examples of how journalism should be conducted, performing on the level that it should. Perhaps the most sonorous example is that of Radio Mogadishu, the station based in Somalia’s capital, constantly under siege by insurgent forces trying to overthrow the government. According to most observers, Somalia is a failed state, but the Somali broadcasters and the few international correspondents who manage to reach this haven of unique journalism think otherwise. They have not given up, and through reports about both sides they try to bring balance and hope to the desperate citizens of Somalia. Of course, this line of work is not without grave dangers, with 15 journalists having been killed in the past 20 years. Significant restrictions on the freedom of speech may have become commonplace in Somalia, but they do not stop the fervor with which journalists pursue stories and the truth. Interestingly enough, Somalia is not even one of the countries of Africa where a free press is most threatened. Instead, Eritrea, Libya, Tunisia, and Zimbabwe are on
www.JHUPOLITIK.com
Volume VI, Issue IV
February 28, 2011
OPINION the shortlist. A prime advocate against curtailment of journalism is Geoffrey Nyarota. After his newspaper in Zimbabwe was banned, he started operating a website, which has become one of the few sources of news about the country’s situation provided by a Zimbabwean that is not curtailed by Robert Mugabe’s regime. Again, we must embrace the fact that nowadays there are very few sources of news untainted by politics and interests. Sadly, there are examples in our own country that must make us shake our heads. For instance, there is the example of morally-skewed journalism that embodied in the case of Maggie Gallagher and Mike McManus, two columnists who a were paid by the Bush administration to promote its policies. Or, on the flip side of the coin, there is the case of a blogger who, after to refusing to cooperate with the FBI by releasing material he had published online, was jailed for 7 months until he finally gave in. The fact that such bully attitude exists even within the confines of this country, the self-professed bulwark of freedom and human rights, is unnerving and makes one wonder to what extent are the news that we are exposed to on a daily basis is manipulated to fit a certain purpose. Fortunately, with the advent of the Internet and online blogging, journalism has become much freer. Opinions from every range of the spectrum can be found, while videos and images taken from mobile phones that would otherwise never surface bring us closer to the reality of things. What I advocate here for is not some sort of renegade journalist group that would bring truth and rightness back to the world, but rather to bring forth the reality of things and to plead for other journalists to take example from Mr. Nyarota or the people of Radio Mogadishu and choose transparency over interests and politics, assuming once more the true role of a journalist, one that is untainted by influences and whose goal is to out the truth no matter what. It is possible to deviate from streamlined media and assume a defiant position within journalism and thus provide each one of us with a sincere account of what happens in the world or whether the people we have elected to govern us conduct matters in an appropriate and just manner. s
8
presents
BOB WOODWARD
Investigative Reporter Associate Editor The Washington Post
Tuesday, March 1 8:00 PM in Shriver Hall
www.jhu.edu/fas
www.JHUPOLITIK.com