Will News Corp move its content to Microsoft's Bing?

According to a Financial Times report, Microsoft is in discussions with News Corporation and others about pulling content from Google

According to the Financial Times, News Corp had a meeting with Microsoft about de-indexing Google

The next battle in the search wars could be over access to news content. The FT reports that Microsoft – which has made increasing the market share of its Bing search engine its top online priority – has reached out to "big online publishers" in order to get them to pull their sites from Google. Among the parties currently in discussions with Microsoft is News Corp., which has very loudly threatened to block search engines from crawling the content of its newspapers.
Unclear how far along these discussions are, although TechCrunch also reported a week ago that Microsoft had a meeting with representatives from top British papers, including the Financial Times, about giving their content "premium positions" on Bing.
This report seems to take that a step further since not only would Microsoft presumably be giving the content of its partners better play, it would also be paying to ensure that their content could not be found directly via the search engine of its arch-rival.
That would give Bing bragging rights to something Google does not have. Its other attempts at doing so haven't been as successful. For instance, after it announced a deal with Twitter to feature Tweets from the microblog in real-time, Google followed up with its own agreement hours later.
For the newspapers, of course, the question is whether Microsoft's dollars can make up for the loss of traffic that Google generates for them.
Online publishers would likely demand top dollar. Asked about the possibility last week, News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch said he wasn't convinced even Microsoft could afford it. "If they were to pay everybody for everything they took, from every newspaper in the world and every magazine they wouldn't have any profits left," he said.

10 best productivity books of 2009

It’s the time of hustle and bustle, best-of-the-year and top lists! Over the next few weeks before we bid a fond Aloha to 2009, we’ll make resolutions for better health, productivity, and prosperity for 2010.
Publishers Weekly reviewer, Dustin Wax put together his 10 best productivity books of 2009. He adds a disclaimer that his list includes books published since November 2008, but really does it matter? It’s a great list of books that make great gifts so that others can have a great 2010!
Check out this aggregation of top lists.

How the Telegraph uses social media

Over on econsultancy is an interesting Q&A on social media with Julian Sambles, the Head of Audience Development at the Telegraph. According the interview, the Telegraph uses social media to 1) broaden their audience reach and 2) increase reader engagement with the newspaper's editorial. As a result, they've attracted some 75,000 unique visitors per day, solely from social media channels.

I've always wondered about the pay off for newspapers in social media channels. If the Telegraph is truly pulling in so many readers and also buildling loyalty among online consumers, it looks like there is definite monetary justification for social media presence for newspapers.

KSO executives

IMPHAL, Nov 20 : The Kuki Students Organisation has elected Peter Holkhomang Mate and Lalrobul Pudaite as president and general secretary respectively for the students body for the term 2009-11 in its election held today at the Kuki Inn Imphal.

A press release of the KSO said the election was participated by electorates from seven students organisations namely the Gangte Students Organisation, Mizo Zillai Pawl, Zillai, Zoumi Sangnaupang, KOREM Students Union, Hmar Students Association, Khangthah Zun Pawl, Thadou Kuki Students Organisation and KSO branches and blocks.

Women’s Untold Stories

By Michael Deibert

Le Monde diplomatique

The Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasrin, 47, has the European parliament’s Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, and the Unesco Prize for the Promotion of Tolerance and Non-Violence. Nasrin is an outspoken feminist and secularist, and a stern critic of the role of religion in the oppression of women and the poor. She worked as a physician in Bangladesh’s understaffed public hospitals before her exile in Europe and the US in 1994.

Since she published her first book Shikore Bipul Khudha (Demands) in 1986, Nasrin’s works, including Lajja (translated into English as Shame), have offended Muslim fundamentalists in Bangladesh, and the government has banned some of them. In 2004 she settled in Kolkata (Calcutta), India, which has a Bengali-language intellectual tradition. There she ran into trouble with Indian fundamentalists. In 2007 she was assaulted while attempting to speak at a book release event in Hyderabad; among her assailants were members of India’s Majlis Ittehadul Muslimeen party, including Indian lawmakers. In Kolkata, religious decrees called for her death and there were violent protests. Nasrin was therefore forced to move to the capital, New Delhi, before once again seeking exile in Europe in March 2008.

Michael Deibert spoke to her in Paris.

MD: Can you tell me what inspired you to become a writer?

TN: I studied medicine, my father was a doctor, and he inspired me. I wanted to be an artist, but when I studied medicine, I really liked it. I always believed in signs, and I had a rational, logical mind, so I became a doctor. I had a practice in public hospitals, but unfortunately I had to quit my job because the government asked me to stop writing if I wanted to continue working in public hospitals, they didn’t like it. As a doctor, I could treat the patients, but as a writer my work was a prescription for a sick society. Lots of people were influenced by my writing, they became agnostic or atheist or secular, and also very aware of their rights and freedoms.

MD: How would you describe the political and social situation in Bangladesh today?

TN: The situation is ever worse. All the politicians use religion for their own interests. They want to get votes from ignorant masses. They don’t think of improving women’s conditions, or economic conditions, or social conditions, even though 80% live below the poverty line, and not many women have access to education or politics. Whoever comes into power, man or woman, from whatever party, they are corrupt, they are hypocrites, and they don’t do anything for women’s equality. They keep Muslim religious law, which is oppressive to women, only to please the fundamentalists, but don’t take action against them even though they are a big threat to the progress of the society and to the equality of women. Half of the population is female, but women don’t have jobs and are forced to stay at home. This economic condition is not good for the country.

MD: How would you characterise the reception your books received in Bangladesh?

TN: People either loved me very much or they hated me very much; there was no middle ground. I got a lot of support and solidarity from the people who were truly secular and humanist. As long as I was writing about oppression of women or criticising traditional customs and culture, I got lots of support. But when I criticised Islam, then I lost support.

It was very difficult to criticise Islam in a Muslim country. Of course, I don’t just criticise Islam, I criticise all religions. But when I criticised Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism for oppression of women, I had no problem; nobody came to kill me. When I criticised Islam, they issued fatwas and put a price on my head. And the government threw me out.

MD: Can you describe the circumstances of your exile?

TN: It happened in 1994. I was in hiding in Bangladesh; the government filed a case against me, claiming that my books hurt people’s religious feelings. I had to go into hiding because prison was not safe for me – my lawyer told me that I must not be arrested because the police might kill me. It was difficult. I got support from western countries, from the European parliament, and from the US. I was granted bail and I had to leave. From then, I moved around in Europe, but life was never easy: I was a Bengali writer, not a writer who writes in a European language, so it was very difficult.

Exile was like waiting at a stop for a bus to get home. After 10 years the bus came, but I couldn’t go back to Bangladesh, so I went to the Bengali part of India, where I could speak the language, where we had the same culture and where I had my publisher and friends. I settled there in 2004. But after three or four years I was attacked by Muslim fundamentalists in India, and 10,000 people came on to the streets and demanded my deportation. I was physically attacked in 2007 in Hyderabad; before that I had been attacked in 1993 in Bangladesh at a book fair, where they destroyed a shop and burned my books publicly.

I always had police protection in India. But in Hyderabad, the organiser who invited me to release my book there didn’t provide police protection. After the programme I was about to leave, but 100 or so Muslim fundamentalists started screaming at me in Telugu (a local language), which I don’t understand, except (for the prophet’s name) Muhammad. They started throwing whatever they could find, chairs and things, at me. I thought I would be killed. I was very sure about that. I was really, really scared. I didn’t want to lose my life in that way. The police saved me. Some people tried to close the doors, but they were breaking down the doors and shouting that they would kill me. It felt like a decade passing.

Later I heard they were members of parliament present, but nobody was punished. They said: “We are sad we couldn’t kill her today, but next time we will kill her.” That was broadcast and no one was punished for that.

MD: What was your status in India?

TN: I had a residence permit. When I came back to Kolkata, where I was living, the Chief Minister of Bengal, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, was constantly asking me to leave the state, and sent policemen to tell me to leave the state and even the country. I said “no,” because I knew leaving the country meant the West, and India was my adopted country. I didn’t want to leave. So the government put me under house arrest in Calcutta, I wasn’t allowed to leave. Then violent protests started and they bundled me out and put me in a cantonment in New Delhi, where I was also under house arrest. The Foreign Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, came to me and said that I must leave. I told him I would not leave: if they wanted to put me in prison, fine, I was not leaving. He was very, very angry.

I finally had to leave in March 2008 because my health was getting very bad. I asked my friends to bring all my belongings from Kolkata to Delhi, and the government put them in storage. I don’t know where the storage is. (The Indian government) gave me a residence permit on condition that I don’t live in the country, so it’s a meaningless permit.

MD: How did you arrive in Paris?

TN: Paris is the first city of my life outside of the Indian sub-continent. I came here a long time ago when I was invited to talk about press freedom. My books were published in French. I was invited by FNAC, and by the Nouvel Observateur.

MD: Why do you think it’s important to have a discussion about the role of religion in public life?

TN: I have seen how women suffer because of religion, and because of religious law; if we can have secular law, and a uniform civil code based on equality, then women wouldn’t suffer so much. My writing is not only about religion; it also criticises anti-female traditions and culture.

When I was in India, I wrote that Hindu culture is very discriminatory against women. Nobody punished me for that. Yet they branded me as anti-Islam. But I am not anti-Islam, I’m a secular humanist. Women suffer and people hate because of religious faith. That should end. There should be no Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu law. This is not secularism, this is not democracy, and women do not have equal rights.

I continue to write because lots of people encourage me to go on writing, and to tell their untold stories. They say they get strength from me. And it is important to me to give strength to vulnerable, weak people.

Michael Deibert is the author of Notes from the Last Testament: The Struggle for Haiti (Seven Stories Press)

Natural Disasters In Asia: Harbinger Of Things To Come?

By Brian McAfee

In a span of 5 weeks and one day earthquakes, floods, mudslides, typhoons and tsunamis swept through 10 nations leaving thousands of people dead and rendering millions more homeless.

The first of the natural disasters struck Manila and the surrounding area on September 26 causing massive floods and mudslides and forcing thousands to flee their homes. Tropical storm Ketsana left hundreds dead and thousands displaced. On October 3rd this happened again with Tsunami Parma.

The combined impact of Ketsana and Parma left 929 people dead in the Philippines and hundreds of thousands homeless, many forced to live in flooded areas with contaminated water replete with disease. Last week tropical storm Mirinae increased that number by 20 in the Philippines to 949 and 91 in Vietnam. Ketsana and Parma moved on in the region a few weeks ago and killed 165 in Vietnam, 16 in Laos and 11 in Cambodia.

During the same time period torrential rains killed 247 in South India and left 2 million homeless. Floods and mud slides took the lives of 143 in Nepal (the Nepal issue, while occurring in the same period as the other disasters, is more directly related to the melting of the Himalayas).

The tsunami that struck the South Pacific after the 8.3 earthquake of September 29 left 183 people dead in Samoa, 34 in American Samoa and nine dead in Tonga. One day later. On September 30, a 7.6 earthquake hit West Sumatra Indonesia killing 1,117 and leaving 2 million homeless. Some of the more remote areas have yet to be reached by aid workers.

Aside from the personal tragedies of the hundreds of thousands who have lost loved ones, homes and livelihoods millions throughout the region who live, or lived in low lying areas have been and will increasingly be at the mercy of rising sea levels.

The low lying coastal regions of South India, Bangladesh, Burma, Cambodia and Vietnam as well as the numerous Islands throughout the Pacific, Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea and parts of the African coast already have perennial flooding and with a rising sea level and greater frequency and intensity of typhoons and tsunamis more international preparation and cooperation is needed.

The more and better prepared the more lives will be saved. The inevitability of this is without question. With the readily evident rise in sea level, melting on the north and south poles and melting seen on the Himalayas, Andes and Mount Kilimanjaro the evidence is irrefutable.

I encourage people to help those hurt by the Asian natural disasters. Please specify your desired country and cause (all mentioned are in great need). Please choose your own but here is a list of organizations helping specifically with the needs and events mentioned here. – redcross.org, care.org, unicef.org, oxfam.org, crs.org (Catholic Relief Services).

Paid Lying: What Passes For Major Media Journalism

By Stephen Lendman

Today's major media journalism is biased, irresponsible, sensationalist reporting that distorts, exaggerates or misstates the truth. It's misinformation or agitprop disinformation masquerading as fact to boost circulation, readership, viewers, or listeners, and on vital issues lie about or suppress uncomfortable truths to provide unqualified support for state and/or corporate interests - to the detriment of the greater good that's always sacrificed for profits and imperial aims.

As a result, major media sources produce a daily propaganda diet and what Project Censored calls "junk food news," and get most people to believe it. In their landmark book, Manufacturing Consent, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky explained the "propaganda model" that controls the public message by "filter(ing)" disturbing truths, "leaving (behind) only the cleansed residue fit to print" or air.

Today the media is in crisis and a free and open society at risk at a time fiction substitutes for fact, news is carefully controlled, dissent marginalized, and on-air and print journalists support powerful interests as paid liars, or what famed journalist George Seldes (1890 - 1995) called "prostitutes of the press."

As a result, imperial wars are called liberating ones. Civil liberties are suppressed for our own good. Major topics go unaddressed or are misrepresented. Government and business interests are endorsed wholeheartedly. America is always called "beautiful." Beneficial social change is considered heresy. The market works best, we're told, so let it, and patriotism means supporting lawlessness and corporate outlaws by shopping till we drop.

The New York Times - Its Lead Role in Distorting and Suppressing Truth

For many decades, The Times has been the closest thing in America to an official ministry of information and propaganda masquerading as real news, commentary and analysis.

Its unmatched clout once got media critic Norman Solomon to call its front page "the most valuable square inches of media real estate in the USA;" most everywhere, in fact, because its reports are widely circulated and followed globally.

The Paper of Record has a long history of:

-- supporting the powerful;

-- backing corporate interests;

-- endorsing imperial wars;

-- supporting CIA efforts to topple elected governments, assassinate independent leaders, prop up friendly dictators, secretly fund and train paramilitary death squads, practice sophisticated forms of torture, and menace democratic freedoms at home and abroad. For decades, in fact, some Times' foreign correspondents were covert Agency assets. Others today likely are as well as other prominent fourth estate members.

The Times management is also comfortable with:

-- Washington and corporate lawlessness;

-- an unprecedented and growing wealth gap;

-- Wall Street banksters looting the federal treasury;

-- a private banking cartel controlling the nation's money;

-- unmet human needs and increasing poverty, hunger, homelessness, and despair for growing millions in a nation run by rogue politicians who don't give a damn as long as they're re-elected;

-- a de facto one-party state;

-- deep corruption at the highest government and corporate levels;

-- democracy for the select few alone;

-- sham elections; and

-- a deepening social decay symptomatic of a declining state, yet The Times management won't use its clout to expose and help reverse it.

Of course, the same applies throughout the corporate media, the only variance being audience size, the ability to influence it, and the special impact of TV news and talk radio to arouse their faithful. Plus their power of round-the-clock persuasive repetition.

Examples of Journalism, New York Times Style

After a Washington staged February 29, 2004 middle-of-the-night coup ousted democratically elected Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, The Times March 1 editorial lied by:

-- stating he resigned;

-- saying sending in Marines to abduct him "was the right thing to do;"

-- claiming they only came after "Mr. Aristide yielded power;"

-- blaming him for "contribut(ing) significantly to his own downfall (because of his) increasingly autocratic and lawless rule....;" and

-- accusing him of manipulating the 2000 legislative elections and not "deliver(ing) the democracy he promised."

In fact, he's a beloved democrat first elected in 1990 with 67% of the vote, ousted by a US-supported coup months later, returned to Haiti in 1994, then, because he couldn't succeed himself in 1996, ran in 2000 and was overwhelmingly re-elected with 92% of the vote. Today in exile, the great majority of Haitians want him back but paramilitary occupiers, under orders from Washington, won't let him.

Following Hugo Chavez's December 1998 election, The Times Latin American reporter, Larry Roher, wrote:

Regional "presidents and party leaders are looking over their shoulders (concerned about the) specter (they) thought they had safely interred: that of the populist demagogue, the authoritarian man on horseback known as the caudillo (strongman)" taking power.

Ever since, Times writers consistently:

-- turned a blind eye to Venezuelan democracy;

-- bashed Chavez as "divisive, a ruinous demagogue, provocative (and) the next Fidel Castro;"

-- said he "militarized the government, emasculated the country's courts, intimidated the media, eroded confidence in the economy, and hollowed out Venezuela's once-democratic institutions:" common conditions during decades of pre-Chavez rule that columnist Roger Lowenstein falsely said exist now in:

-- calling him anti-capitalist for sharing his nation's oil wealth with the people by providing essential social services, and for lifting the most needy out of poverty; and

-- denouncing his making foreign investors pay their fair share.

Lowenstein backed the aborted April 2002 coup by calling Chavez's ouster a "resignation," then saying Venezuela "no longer (would be) threatened by a would-be dictator."

Post-/911, the Times played the lead role in taking the nation to war by highlighting the "day of terror" and saying the "President Vows to Exact Punishment for 'Evil.' "

In the run-up to the Iraq war, Judith Miller was a weapon of mass deception with her daily front page Pentagon press release columns masquerading as real news, later exposed as manipulative lies, but they worked.

Following the September 15, 2009 Goldstone Commission report, a same day Neil MacFarquhar column suggested that Israel's "disproportionate attack" followed Hamas provocations, so perhaps it was justified. While The Times gave Judge Goldstone op-ed space, it:

-- published scathing letters denouncing his "one-sidedness" and a September 18 piece saying "the Obama administration said (today) that a United Nations report accusing Israel of war crimes in Gaza was unfair to Israel and did not take adequate account of 'deplorable' actions by the militant group Hamas in the conflict last winter."

The paper then imposed a near-blackout on its news and editorial pages to bury the story and kill it through silence - never mind its importance in documenting clear evidence of Israeli war crimes against a civilian population.

National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting (PBS)

Founded in 1970 as an independent, private, non-profit member organization of US public radio stations, NPR promised to be an alternative to commercial broadcasters by "promot(ing) personal growth rather than corporate gain (and) speak with many voices, many dialects."

Having long ago abandoned its promise, and given its substantial corporate and government funding, NPR is indistinguishable from the rest of the corporate media, just as corrupted, and consider its former head, Kevin Klose.

He was president from December 1998 - September 2008 and CEO from 1998 - January 2009. Earlier he was US propaganda director as head of the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Worldnet Television, and the anti-Castro Radio/TV Marti, so he fit easily into his new role.

On January 5, 2009, Vivian Schiller succeeded him as president and CEO. Her official bio says she was previously with "The New York Times Company where she served as Senior Vice President and General Manager of NYTimes.com."

She'll oversea "all NPR operations and initiatives, including the organization's critical partnerships with our 800+ member stations, and their service to the more than 26 million people who listen to NPR programming every week." Most don't know they're getting the same corporate propaganda and "junk food news" or that

NPR calls itself "public" to conceal its real agenda, and why critics call it "National Pentagon or Petroleum Radio" with good reason.

Created by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) calls itself "a private, nonprofit corporation created by Congress...and is the steward of the federal government's investment in public broadcasting. It helps support the operations of more than 1,100 locally-owned and-operated public television and radio stations nationwide, and is the largest single source of funding for research, technology, and program development for public radio, television and related online services."

Like NPR, it's heavily corporate and government funded and provides similar services for them. Under George Bush, former Voice of America director Kenneth Tomlinson was chairman of CPB's Board of Governors until an internal 2005 investigation forced him out for repeatedly braking the law.

On September 16, 2009, a CPB press release announced that "The board of directors (of the CPB) today elected Dr. Ernest Wilson III (as) chairman and re-elected....CEO Beth Courtney (as) vice-chair."

Wilson previously held senior policy positions as Director of International Programs and Resources on the National Security Council. He was also Policy and Planning Unit Director for the US Information Agency and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Beth Courtney is a George Bush appointee, a past chairman of the board of America's Public Television Stations and present CPB vice chairman. Currently she also serves on the boards of Satellite Educational Resources Consortium, the Organization of State Broadcasting Executives, the National Forum for Public Television Executives, and the National Educational Telecommunications Association along with other appropriate credentials for her re-appointment.

In its May/June 2004 "Extra" report, FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) asked "How Public Is Public Radio? Writers Steve Rendall and Daniel Butterworth quoted past head Kevin Klose saying:

"All of us believe our goal is to serve the entire democracy, the entire country."

Not according to FAIR on "every on-air source quoted in June 2003 on four of (NPR's) news shows: All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Weekend Edition Saturday and Weekend Edition Sunday." Each guest was classified "by occupation, gender, nationality, and partisan affiliation." Combined, 2,334 sources from 804 stories were quoted.

FAIR found that NPR relies on the same dominant sources as the major media that include government officials, professional experts, and corporate representatives nearly two-thirds of the time.

Spokespeople for public interest groups accounted for 7% of total sources, and ordinary people appeared mostly in "one-sentence soundbites."

Male guests outnumbered women about 4 - 1, and those quoted most often came from the same elite categories as men.

Overall, NPR represents the same dominant interests as the major commercial media - conservative, pro-business, pro-war, pro-Israel, and very much against the public interest while pretending to support it.

FAIR analyzed PBS's flagship NewsHour guest list and drew similar conclusions. Like NPR, it's ideologically right and usually censors progressive content and public interest programming. In a 1990 NewsHour evaluation, FAIR compared its content to ABC's Nightline and found that it presented "an even narrower segment of the political spectrum." It then conducted an October 2005 - March 2006 analysis of all of its programs, got similar results, and determined that NewHour is even more ideologically right than NPR that tilts far in that direction itself.

FAIR concluded that NPR and NewsHour content "overwhelmingly represent those in power rather than the public" they're obliged to serve. While masquerading as public programming, they betray their listeners and viewers by offering the same propaganda and "junk food news" as the dominant corporate media. Considering their funding sources, what else would they do.

An October 6 NPR story is typical of most others. It charged Hugo Chavez with "Targeting Opponents For Arrest." Reporter Juan Forero claimed "dozens of university students" went on hunger strike outside OAS headquarters in Caracas on September 28 along with others "across the country....in support of Julio Cesar Rivas, a student who was arrested during an anti-government demonstration in August...."

Rivas is the coordinator and founder of Juventud Activa de Venezuela Unida (United Active Youth of Venezuela - JAVU). Earlier, he was part of a staged, violent street protest against Venezuela's new Education Law. The government says JAVU acts as "shock troops" in opposition protests and is liberally funded by the National Endowment of Democracy (NED), International Republican Institute (IRI), and US Agency or International Development (USAID) to disrupt internal Venezuelan affairs. It's a familiar scheme, repeated numerous times in the past, to discredit and disrupt the Chavez government in hopes of eventually ousting it.

JAVU has about 80,000 members in most Venezuelan states, and its blog site calls for bringing down the government and supporting the Honduran military coup.

Rivas was released on September 29, but must appear for trial. He's a Washington-funded provocateur, charged with resisting arrest, instigating crime, conspiracy, inciting rebellion, damaging public property, and using "generic" weapons.

While in custody, Venezuela Public Defender Gabriela Ramirez assured him in person that his full constitutional rights will be protected. Street protests still continue and have been countered by pro-Chavez ones calling for "peace and tolerance." According to the Federation of Bolivarian students' Carlos Sierra:

Opposition "students are being used and manipulated by the top leadership of the irrational opposition, which, via the (dominant) media, send them to generate violence and terrorism in the country" much like on previous occasions.

But according to NPR's Forero, Rivas was "sent to one of Venezuela's most infamous prisons" where other government opponents are held as political prisoners. Chavez "has been jailing dozens of key opponents - some of them students, some of them veteran politicians" in citing unnamed "human rights groups and constitutional experts (claiming) Venezuela is increasingly singling out and imprisoning its foes in politically motivated witch hunts."

Forero didn't mention that Rivas fomented violence. Others arrested also broke the law. No one is a political prisoner, and all Venezuelans get fair and equitable trials, unlike in America where real political arrests, prosecutions and convictions happen regularly against innocent targeted victims - a topic NPR and PBS won't touch except to vilify them publicly on-air.

Nor do they report truthfully on Occupied Palestine. On October 12, 2009, on NPR's Morning Edition, reporter Renee Montagne practically extolled Israeli racism in stating:

"There is a new enemy for some Israelis: romance between Jewish women and Arab men, (so) vigilantes have banded together to fight it." She means from "Jewish settlements" that "have sprung up (in) traditionally Arab" East Jerusalem, but won't admit they're on stolen Palestinian land.

NPR's Sheera Frankel joined a patrol, implied Arabs are inferior to Jews, and suggested they pose a danger to Jewish women and girls. She described vigilantes on the lookout for "Arab-Jewish couples (to) break up their dates," suggesting it's the right thing to do, but never questioning the legitimacy of settlements, vigilante violence in East Jerusalem, its lawless disregard for the law, or great harm to innocent people. Instead she called "mixed couples a growing epidemic" of miscegenation - typical of NPR's racism and one-sided support for Israel.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ)

The WSJ is Dow Jones & Company's flagship publication, now a News Corp. one since Rupert Murdoch bought it in August 2007. Stating its ideology up front, it says it supports "free markets and free people" as well as "free trade and sound money; against confiscatory taxation and the ukases (edicts) of kings and other collectivists; and for individual autonomy against dictators, bullies and even the tempers of momentary majorities."

In October 2007, FAIR bemoaned the Murdock takeover because of his "penchant for using his holdings as vehicles for his personal (views) and business interests." Earlier FAIR and the Columbia Journalism Review criticized its editorial page for inaccuracy, extreme bias, and dishonesty.

The Journal is unapologetic in saying its philosophy "make(s) no pretense of walking down the middle of the road. Our comments and interpretations are made from a definite point of view....We oppose all infringements on individual rights, whether (from) private monopoly, labor union monopoly or from an overgrowing government.(We're) not much interested in labels but if we were to choose one, we would say we are radical."

Radical can be revolutionary and beneficial when it backs fundamental progressive change and reform. Webster defines it as:

"marked by a considerable departure from the usual and traditional: extreme; tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions; of, relating to, or constituting a political (or perhaps business) group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change; (or) advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs" such the radical right represented by the WSJ's management and editorial writers.

Critics agree that they're on the far right extremist fringe, a supporter of voodoo economics, tax cuts for the rich, a staunch defender of executive privilege, and disdainful of anything to the left of their views as witnessed daily by some of the most outlandish, one-sided, pro-business commentaries countenancing no alternatives, with the rarest of rare exceptions showing up to make the paper look fair, which it's not.

Consider editorial board member Mary O'Grady in her weekly Americas column on "politics, economics and business in Latin America and Canada." Her extremism is unmatched. Her style is agitprop; her space a truth-free zone; her language hateful and vindictive; her tone malicious and slanderous; her style bare-knuckled thuggishness; and her material calculating, mendacious, and shameless. Yet she's a WSJ regular and an award-winning op-ed writer, but surely no journalist according to Webster's definition:

"writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation."

O'Grady fails on both counts. She's a kind of print version of Fox News' Glenn Beck, who promotes himself on glennbeck.com looking arrogant in a uniform reminiscent of the Nazi SS.

Consider O'Grady's support for the Washington-backed June 28 Honduran coup ousting a democratically elected president. It was followed by months of mass arrests, disappearances, killings, targeting the independent media, suspending the Constitution, declaring martial law, and threatening the Brazilian embassy's sovereignty where President Manuel Zelaya took refuge after returning.

In one of her many pro-coup articles, O'Grady (on July 13) headlined "Why Honduras Sent Zelaya Away." In a "perfect world," according to her, he "would be in jail in his own country right now, awaiting trial. The Honduran attorney general (part of the coup regime) has charged him with deliberately violating Honduran law and the Supreme Court (stacked with pro-coup justices) ordered his arrest in Tegucigalpa on June 28," the day of the coup.

"But the Honduran military whisked him out of the country, to Costa Rica," to save itself the embarrassment of jailing a democratically elected leader whose lawful actions were endorsed by the majority of Hondurans wanting progressive constitutional change and a president willing to give it to them.

Yet according to O'Grady, "Mr. Zelaya's detention was legal, as was his official removal from office by Congress....Besides eagerly trampling the constitution, Mr. Zelaya had demonstrated that he was ready to employ the violent tactics of 'chavismo' to hang onto power. The decision to pack him off immediately was taken in the interest of protecting both constitutional order and human life."

In fact, Zelaya neither espoused or practiced violence, and his call for a public June 28 vote on whether to hold a referendum for a new Constitutional Convention at the same time as the November elections lawfully asked for a "yes" or "no" on one question:

"Do you think that the November 2009 general elections should include a fourth ballot box (the other three were for candidates) in order to make a decision about the creation of a National Constitutional Assembly that would approve a new Constitution?"

According to Article 5 of the 2006 Honduran "Civil Participation Act," government officials may hold non-binding inquiries (referenda) to determine popular support for proposed measures. Gauging sentiment for a National Constituent Assembly for a new Constitution is legal.

Yet in her June 28 article titled, "Honduras Defends Its Democracy," O'Grady falsely claimed Zelaya planned "a constitutional rewrite (following) a national referendum" only the Congress can approve. In fact, Zelaya called for a vote to assess public sentiment, pro or con, on whether Hondurans want a Constitutional Convention, an act no different from a public opinion poll that's perfectly legal or should be anywhere. But according to O'Grady, Zelaya "decided he would run the referendum himself." It's typical O'Grady truth reversal that earns her weekly space on the WSJ's op-ed page.

The BBC's Long Tradition As An Imperial Tool

State-owned and funded, it's tradition is long, unbroken, and disturbing as the world's largest and most influential broadcaster reaching global audiences in 32 languages. From inception in 1925, it's been reliably pro-government and pro-business, or as its founder Lord Reith wrote the establishment: "They know they can trust us not to be really impartial." Neither he or his successors disappointed on topics mattering most, including war and peace, corporate crimes, US-UK duplicity, labor rights, democratic freedoms, human and civil rights, social justice, and Western imperialism.

They're consistently distorted, suppressed, marginalized or ignored throughout decades of misreporting despite claiming "honesty (and) integrity (is) what the BBC stands for (because it's) free from political influence and commercial pressure."

As a propaganda service, its record is uncompromisingly anti-union, pro-business, and dependably safe for Whitehall and its allies. It moralizes Western aggression, bashes independent democratic leaders, and cheerleads for the powerful at the expense of providing real news and information for millions believing BBC is credible. For over eight decades, it's record is solid and predictable - betraying the public trust to reliably serve the powerful. The tradition continues.

Prominent TV Demagogues

Among the many, consider a select few. For example, CNN's Lou Dobbs, "Mr. Independent" he calls himself. Critics use more descriptive terms, yet according to his loudobbs.tv.cnn.com bio:

He's "anchor and managing editor of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight (and also anchor of) a nationally syndicated financial news radio report, The Lou Dobbs Financial Report...." In addition, he writes a weekly CNN.com commentary, is an author and award-winning "journalist," most recently in 2005 when "the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences awarded (him) the Emmy for Lifetime Achievement" for serving the usual special interests nightly on prime time TV.

In June 2004, he also won "the Eugene Katz Award for Excellence in the Coverage of Immigration from the Center for Immigration Studies for his ongoing series 'Broken Borders,' which examines US policy towards illegal immigration." Little wonder in an August 2006 article, this writer called him CNN's Vice President of Racism. He's also a paid liar and in America wins awards.

In May 2008, a Media Matters Action Network report titled, "Fear & Loathing in Prime Time: Immigration Myths and Cable News" highlighted undocumented Latino hatemongering by Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck, each claiming:

-- an alleged connection between undocumented Latinos and crime; in fact, clear evidence shows they're no more likely to break laws than American citizens;

-- how they exploit social services and don't pay taxes; in fact, undocumented immigrants are ineligible, without proof of legal status, for Medicaid, food stamps, State Children's Health Insurance (SCHIP) and welfare; they do pay income, payroll, property, sales and other taxes and are entitled to public education; according to the National Academy of Sciences, immigrants provide a net annual gain of up to $10 billion to US GDP; according to Rand Corp. economist James P. Smith, the "net present value of the gains from those immigrants who arrived since 1980 would be $333 billion."

-- the "reconquista" myth about a supposed Mexican plot to take over the US Southwest; and

-- an epidemic of Latino voter fraud that, according to Dobbs' incessant drumbeat, puts America's "democracy absolutely in jeopardy."

He also propagates the myth that undocumented Latinos caused an increase in US leprosy (or Hansen's disease). In an on-air April 2005 report (among others), correspondent Christine Romans quoted "medical lawyer" Dr. Madeleine Cosman saying:

"We have some enormous problems with horrendous diseases that are being brought into America by illegal aliens (including) leprosy...." Romans added that, according to Cosman, "there were about 900 (US) cases of leprosy for 40 years. There have been 7,000 in the past three years."

According to a May 2007 "60 Minutes" report, the National Hansen's Disease Program (NHDP) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reported that "7,000 is the number of leprosy cases over the last 30 years, not the past three, and nobody knows how many of those cases involve illegal immigrants." NHDP added that from 2002 - 2005 (the timeline of Cosman's claim), only 398 cases occurred. To that, Dobbs responded: "If we reported it, it's a fact."

Founded in 1971, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is internationally known for its activism against hate groups and scoring legal victories against white supremacists. It says Dobbs regularly features inaccurate racist reports and features anti-immigrant hatemongers like:

-- Glenn Spencer, head of the anti-immigration American Patrol, whose web site highlights anti-Mexican vitriol and the idea that Mexico plans a secret takeover of the Southwest;

-- Joe McCutchen, head of the anti-immigration Protect Arkansas Now group, that Dobbs calls "a terrific group of concerned, caring Americans;"

-- Paul Streitz, co-founder of Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control, who once denounced Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. for "turning New Haven into a banana republic;"

-- Barbara Coe, leader of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform who routinely calls Mexicans "savages;" and

-- Chris Simcox, co-founder of the Minuteman Project and a leading anti-immigration figure.

SPLC explains that Dobbs "doggedly explores and supports the anti-immigration movement (and) won't report salient negative facts about anti-immigration leaders he approves of...."

Instead, he falsely claims that:

-- "just about a third of the prison population in this country is estimated to be illegal aliens;"

-- states have been "overwhelmed by criminal illegal aliens;" and

-- US borders are "unprotected" allowing "criminal illegal aliens (to) murder police officers."

In 2007 alone, the connection between illegal immigration and crime was discussed on 94 episodes of Lou Dobbs Tonight, and dozens more focused on an "army of invaders," immigrants not paying taxes, draining social services, and threatening our white Anglo-Saxon culture.

CNN reporters Casey Wian, Bill Tucker, Kitty Pilgrim and others present a steady diet of subtle and overt racism to incite viewers to believe it. Through constant repetition, it propagates the myth, and according to the Media Matters Action Network report:

Dobbs "is hailed by the entire spectrum of immigration opponents, from the reasonable to the unreasonable. And the degree to which extremist elements see (him) as an ally indicates at the very least that they believe he is helping their cause" because they feel he's a populist crusader.

Yet according to a July 30 New York Observer report, recent Nielsen data showed that after Dobbs began reporting (on July 15) that Barack Obama's birth certificate was fraudulent (an apparent stunt to increase ratings), his viewership dropped significantly - 15% overall and 27% in the valued 25 - 54 age category.

Fox News Channel (FNC)

When it debuted in 1996, one of its on-air hosts said:

The "Channel was launched (because) something was wrong with news media....somewhere bias found its way into reporting....Fox....is committed to being fair and balanced (covering) stories everybody is reporting - and....stories....you will see only on Fox."

Later the Columbia Journalism Review said several former Fox employees "complained of 'management sticking their fingers' in the writing and editing stories to cook the facts to make a story more palatable to right-of-center tastes." But it hasn't hurt ratings.

As of Q 1 2009, FNC was the second highest rated cable channel in prime time total viewers. CNN ranked 17th and MSNBC 24th. The O'Reilly Factor has been #1 rated on cable news for 100 consecutive months and gained 27% more viewers year-over-year. Glenn Beck increased 90% over the previous year. Overall, FNC topped CNN and MSNBC combined in prime time total audience.

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) said "Fox's signature political news show, Special Report with Brit Hume (now with Bret Baier) was originally created as a daily one-hour update devoted to the 1998 Clinton sex scandal." In the past year, it gained 39% more viewers.

As for accuracy and being "fair and balanced," FAIR (in summer 2001) called FNC "The Most Biased Name in News," yet according to Murdoch in March 2001:

"I challenge anybody to show me an example of bias in Fox News Channel."

In FAIR's Seth Ackerman article and later ones, FNC's blatant manipulation of the news is exposed. For example, Bret Baier's "Political Grapevine" is a right-wing "hot sheet" featuring a "series of gossipy items culled from other right-wing" sources. It and other reports are blatantly partisan propaganda against "liberal media bias," progressives, environmentalists, anti-war activists, civil rights groups, and others to the left of their views.

According to FAIR, the commentary on political punditry programs like The O'Reilly Factor, the Sean Hannity Show, and The Beltway Boys is so slanted that it's like watching "a Harlem Globetrotters game (knowing) which side is supposed to win."

FNC's Bill O'Reilly

His official bio calls The O'Reilly Factor "a unique blend of news analysis and hard hitting investigative reporting dropped each weeknight into 'The No Spin Zone." He also hosts a syndicated radio show, writes a weekly column carried in over 300 newspapers, and authored several books that according to New York Times writer Janet Maslin were "either (done) with a collaborator or (O'Reilly) was born with a ghostwriter's gift for filling space with platitudes...." With good reason, Maslin called him "one of the most controversial human beings in the world...."

In an October 2008 report titled "Smearcasting," FAIR called him an "Islamophobe" for spreading "fear, bigotry and misinformation" along with 11 other popular figures, including Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin (another FNC regular), David Horowitz, and Pat Robertson.

After 9/11, FAIR said O'Reilly proposed attacking a list of Muslim countries "if they did not submit to the US - starting with Afghanistan."

On air he said:

"The US should bomb the Afghan infrastructure to rubble - the airport, the power plants, their water facilities and the roads....If they don't rise up against this primitive country, they starve, period."

Iraq must also be destroyed he said, and "the population made to endure yet another round of intense pain." As for Libya, "Nothing goes in, nothing goes out....Let them eat sand."

FAIR called his penchant for attacking Muslim countries "an O'Reilly trademark", and "his disregard for Muslim civilians is matched by the anti-Muslim sentiments he frequently expresses on both his nationally syndicated radio show, the Radio Factor," reaching 3.5 million listeners, and his top-rated FNC show.

Some of his hateful comments include saying:

-- areas of London are "just packed with just dense Muslim neighborhoods, which breed this kind of contempt for Western society. Why do they let them in;"

-- "We're at war with Muslim fanatics. So all young Muslims should be subject to (special) scrutiny, (saying it's not racial, just) "criminal profiling;"

-- "the most unattractive women in the world are probably in Muslim countries;" and

-- in Iraq, he blamed killing on Islam: "They're all Muslims, and they're doing what they do. They're killing each other. And they're killing Americans."

O'Reilly is equally racist about Latino immigrants with frequent comments like:

"The extreme elements in this country want open borders, blanket amnesty, and entitlement for foreign nationals who have come here illegally, and generally want to change the demographics in the USA so political power can be assumed by the left. That is the end game." He also argues that "Low-skilled immigrant labor costs the taxpayers today $19,000 to (subsidize) people who are using the hospitals (and) the education system....These are rock-solid stats," but O'Reilly won't say from where.

They're blatantly false and may be from a May 2007 Robert Rector/Christine Kim (right-wing think tank) Heritage Foundation paper titled, "The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Immigrants to State and Local Taxpayers."

O'Reilly spreads daily misinformation, innuendo, and hateful demagoguery to millions of his daily faithful. Like the others above, they're paid liars delivering what passes for today's major media journalism. It's why so much of the public is misinformed and the reason more hate groups than ever proliferate.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), they numbered 926 in 2008, up from 602 in 2000 and are "animated by the national immigration debate." Since Obama took office, they're also driven by their hatred of a black president, exacerbated by a growing economic crisis that's easy to blame on the undocumented and a non-white head of state.

These groups are ideologically vicious and extremely dangerous when motivated by racist right-wing media commentators reaching far larger audiences than more saner voices drowned out. It's more evidence of social decay and the urgent need for change.

The Right-Wing Media Attack ACORN

Founded in 1970, ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) "is the nation's largest grassroots community organization of low and moderate income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in about 75 cities across the country."

As the nation's preeminent community organizing group, it backs a living wage, opposes predatory lending and foreclosures, supports affordable housing, better public schools, welfare reform, voting rights, rebuilding New Orleans, and other social and economic justice issues.

For many months as a result, right-wing extremists have tried to discredit its successes online and through the media. Led by Fox News, Lou Dobbs, and others, it's accused of financial corruption, massive voter fraud, and other indiscretions, mostly fabricated to destroy the group's credibility, cut off its funding, and harm other community organizing efforts. However, compared to corporate fraud and abuse scandals, ACORN's occasional missteps are minor, insignificant, and undeserving of inflammatory media headlines.

Nonetheless recent news stories featured false accusations that ACORN engages in prostitution nationwide. The supposed evidence came from two right-wing filmmakers (Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe) posing as prostitute and pimp, conveniently videotaped for airing. In prime time especially, Fox News, Lou Dobbs and others featured it nightly.

On September 14, Dobbs reported "another pimp and prostitute scandal at the left-wing activist organization ACORN. For the third time, ACORN workers for the left-wing advocacy group (got) caught on hidden camera breaking the law. Now calls from Congress to investigate and cut off public funding are growing."

According to Fox News Bill O'Reilly, "With more than 30 criminal 'convictions' on its resume, the organization cannot be trusted." Based on no credible evidence, other FNC reports accuse ACORN of "operat(ing) as a criminal enterprise," including prostitution, running a prostitution ring, filing false documents with taxing and other government authorities, bank fraud, violating immigration laws, transporting women and children to America for immoral purposes, and impairing the welfare of minors.

More evidence of reprehensible innuendo, distortion, deceit, and misinformation from major media paid liars. It's why web sites like this one gain followers.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen.blogspot.com.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Australia’s Predatory Education

By Ghali Hassan

There are more than half a million international students in Australia. Despite the exaggerated “benefits” they allegedly bring to Australia, international students are eroding Australia’s education system at the expense of Australians.

The purpose of this article is to demystify the so-called Australia’s international “education export industry” and sheds light on its profound effects on Australia’s education system and its ability to serve the Australian community. Australia has the highest proportion of international students in tertiary education at 19 per cent of the sector in 2008, compared with an OECD average of 7 per cent. About half of international students in Australia is overwhelmingly (46.3 per cent) in vocational courses, Vocational Education and Training (VET). The number of Asian students in VET courses (services, hospitality and transportation) has grown markedly because they have fewer requirements and designed specifically for people to gain permanent residency.

In 2009, 72 per cent of international students were from Asia, predominantly from wealthy and middle class socio-economic backgrounds – the elites. The main sources are China and India. Together, they account for more than 42 per cent of Australia's 547,600 international student enrolments, with annual growth rates at 18 per cent and 38 per cent respectively. “[Their] main purpose in coming to Australia is to obtain permanent residency. Take that lure away and the main reason why tens of thousands [of Asian students] are prepared to outlay up to AUD$20,000 (US$16,000) every year disappears”, wrote Geoff Maslen, a reporter on education for University World News. By contrast, in the US and the UK, perceived quality of education, is the primary attraction for international students to study there. "The perceived quality of the education available in the US and the UK remains the predominant reason overseas students travel there for education", according to a report by the UK-based research organisation, The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

Only in the U.S. and Japan universities and colleges charge more tuition fees than in Australia. But only in Australia, international students have an ‘automatic’ right to apply for permanent residency and continue to live in Australia. Those who failed to obtain permanent residency remain in the country unlawfully. Indeed, Indian and Chinese students are ranked among the highest risk groups of visa violations alongside Bangladeshis and Cambodians (Department of Immigration and Citizenship [DIAC]).
The fierce competition among universities removes any admission requirement for international applicants. International students are recruited for universities and private colleges as “cash cows” that have no benefit to Australians. Once applicants paid their fees, they are guaranteed admission and visa. Most, if not the majority of international students who are admitted to courses in Australian universities and vocational colleges had failed to gain admission to universities in their own countries. In addition, most international students are admitted with little English.

According to Bob Birrell, co-director of the Centre for Population and Urban Research and a reader in sociology at Monash University, more than one-third (40 per cent) of international students who received permanent residency in Australia after graduating from an Australian university lack the required language skill in English to be awarded a place in an Australian university, let alone manage a professional job in Australia. To put it another way: international students who gained a permanent residence visa in 2005–2006 after graduating from an Australian university did not achieve the ‘competent’ band 6 English standards on the International English Language Testing system (IELTS). [1] Today, the majority of these so-called “graduates” are working in a variety of Australia professions, including Australian universities and Australia’s debilitating health care system.

Moreover, universities around Australia awarded thousands of degrees, including PhDs and Masters to students who still unable to speak English, let alone write a thesis in English. With many universities have become “Third World” sweatshops of mass-production of (mostly) Asian “graduates” with higher degrees (this writer can personally attest to have witness sweatshops education for international students in universities around Australia). In Asia, they are called “fake Kangaroo” degrees bought in Australia.

The so-called ‘Global Education’ currently embarrassed by universities in Australia is one of many advertising campaigns designed to lure fee-paying international students (mostly Asians) to enrol in Australian universities at the expense of young Australians and Australia’s education reputation. It is a campaign to generate money, nothing more, nothing less. A “predatory” education with dire consequences is how a Canadian academic rightly described Australia’s current education system.

The effects on teaching quality are more immediate. The average student staff ratio has almost doubled since the mid-1980s, up from about 11:1 in the mid 1980s to about 21:1 now. The results are; larger universities; much larger classes, much less contact between students and their teachers and less education going on. The consequence of this is, as Bob Birrell told Annabelle Quince of ABC Radio National; “With more than 50 per cent or more [of classes] made up of overseas students, so their needs dominate the form of instruction and in essence what's happened is that teachers have had to adapt their teaching strategy to the qualities of students that they're dealing with and as a consequence they tend to diminish the work that requires essay-writing or seminar discussion and go to tests which overseas students can manage, and so I think we have seen a deterioration of standards as a consequence”. Put simply, quality is no longer relevant; quantity is. Of course, genuine students gain nothing from unworthy education. A worthy education is an education that “international students can take back to their country of origin with profit”. [2]

Furthermore, plagiarism is widespread among international students in Australian universities. It is not only tolerated, but also encouraged. Academic staff are put under enormous pressure by university administrators to keep the level of testing international students as low as possible and not to challenge students found plagiarising and cheating in order to make Australian an attractive alternative to many Asian students. The aim is to make more money, and fast.

In 2003, the University of New Castle reprimanded a lecturer and accused him of “insensitive to “other” cultures for objecting to plagiarism, as if plagiarism is cultural. Fifteen Malaysian students were allowed to pass an assignment after they were found to be engaged in blatant plagiarism. The scandal cost the University’s vice-chancellor (Roger Holmes) his job. And in 2004, the masters program in information technology at the University of New England “turned out 220 plagiarised theses of the 230 that were checked. The degree made attractive to Indian students hoping for permanent residency in Australia as “skilled” immigrants. The academic who blow the whistle was “pooh-poohed” and told to “go away” by his supervisors (The Australian, July 29, 2009).

It is important to note that the scandal of plagiarism is not confines to a few Australian universities; rather it is widespread and remains unexposed. According to data obtained under the freedom of information law by the Sydney Morning Herald, “some of the state’s [New South Wales] most highly regarded universities have recorded the most incidents of student misconduct”. “It is estimated almost 3500 students – mostly postgraduate international and commerce students – have been caught plagiarising or cheating across eight universities since 2001” (Sydney Morning Herald, November 20, 2006). Other universities remain silent and refusing to release information on plagiarism. Speaking-out is considered misconduct, and those who dare to speak-out have paid dearly. It works very well. Australia is the most authority-obedient society. The silent complicity in academia and in the media (on any issue) has turned Australian society into a tapestry of complete passivity. “In Australia, we are trained to respect this censorship by omission ... It did not happen. Even while it was happening it did not happen it did not matter. It was of no interest”, said John Pilger, recently.

Fuelled by self-interest and short-term gain, “Australia’s lust for high-dollar international students has led to a thriving black market in sham marriages, forged English language exams and bogus courses, and turned a once-respected international education sector into a recognised immigration racket”, reported The Australian (July 14, 2009). Recent investigations have revealed widespread corruption with thousands of students enrolled in colleges that have few facilities but which charge huge fees by offering fast-tracked ways of gaining permanent residency. It is a “flawed policy with major scams and rots being discovered on a regular basis”, wrote John Sutton, the secretary of Australian Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU). The policy benefits the wealthy and affluent bogus students at the expense of genuine refugees and humanitarian program immigrants fleeing real persecution and Western-imperialist wars of aggression.

The flood of international students has incited strong resentment and animosity among local Australian students and many (marginalised) Australians. On university campuses segregation is real and resentment is simmering. International and local students do not mix and do not cross each other’s path. The recent a spat of violent assaults on Indian students in Melbourne and Sydney by Australians is a case in point.

While racially-motivated violence against students and all forms of racism must be strongly condemned, it is important to note that violence and racism were forged into the Australian national character. From the outset, violence and racism formed the foundation of Anglo-Australia, and remain so today alive and thriving.

Meanwhile, universities have rejected the Indian students’ claim that the attacks were racially-motivated and accused the students of using the protests to manipulate the system and gain the sympathy of corrupt education bureaucrats and immigration officials. According to Professor Paul Rodan, Director of Intercultural Education Research Institute at Central Queensland University, the protests by Indian students are linked to students’ motivation to secure permanent residency and less to do with racism because they (the protests) always occurred near the end of semester. It sounds like a plausible explanation to most people.

It is ironic that Indian students, the Indian media and Indian politicians are protesting against racism in Australia, not against the virulent racism and violence in India. While both countries practise institutional and structural racism and are ranked very high on the list of most racist countries in the world, India is the most unequal society on the planet. More than half of India’s population is living in absolute poverty “pitted against a juggernaut of daily injustices”. India is rightly described by the Indian author Arundhati Roy as, a violent police state, a “barbaric society” ruled by a corrupt Western-oriented ‘Ruling Caste’. It is marred by continuing racial violence (Hindu violence against minority Muslims and Christians). India of course, is also home to Hindu Fascism or Hindutva – a variant of the anti-Muslims Fascism that is spread by Israel and pro-Israel Zion-fascists in many parts of the world, including Europe, Australia and North America. In India, the disease is spread by the fascist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – which is known for its bigoted thugs Narendra Modi and Varun Gandhi (no relation to Mahatma Gandhi) –, the Indian media and bigoted thugs in India’s corrupt Ruling Caste. [3]
The Indian protests gave Australian politicians, pundits and the racist media rusty ammunition to rant about Australia’s “tolerance”, “multiculturalism” and the fabricated “friendly” images. Australia, they argue is “free of racism”. Some have accused the police of neglecting their duties to tackle street crimes, as if Australia’s deeply-entrenched racism has suddenly evaporated.

When it came to the issues of racism and discrimination, members of the Australian Muslim community (1.7 per cent of the population) are living in fear, and Australian Muslim students are a prime target by many Australian universities. Encouraged by deep-seated racism and prejudice against Muslims in the Australian political and the racist media establishments, and draconian anti-Muslims laws masquerading as “anti-terror” laws, Australian universities have become anti-Muslims think-tanks and breeding grounds for the most indoctrinated and racist islamophobes.

There is ample evidence that some Australian universities are deliberately employing and nurturing the most virulent and racist bigots in the country, with deep racial contempt for students from Muslim backgrounds. It is seen as part of Australia’s systemic racism in education and employment, and there is no better place to enforce a racist system than in educational institutions.

Meanwhile, the AUD$15 billion annual “education export industry”, as it is often referred to by university bureaucrats, education agents and politicians, is an inflated rhetoric promoted by universities and overseas education agents to gain economic/political mileage. ‘The best we can say is up to a half of this so-called export revenue is generated through local employment in Australia because we know that most students (use) their right to work 20 hours and often many times more than that because it’s very difficult, if not impossible to enforce’, said Bob Birrell (The Australian, July 01, 2099). So, if their earnings is deducted, the total is believed to be far less than the estimated AUD$15 billion.

Education is not the primary motivation why Asian students come to Australia; economic is. Most Asian students are employed, taking jobs from poor Australian students and Australians from low socio-economic backgrounds (including refugees). As a result, the number of 15-24-year-old Australians in work has fallen by more than 100,000 in the year to June 2009. Furthermore, international students are also putting more pressure on low cost accommodation and forcing local students and low income Australians to “take desperate measures”, including living in abandoned buildings. In the suburbs, international students “are competing for accommodation and living space with predominantly low socio-economic status non-English-speaking-background (NESB) communities”. [2]

In addition, this kind of “education export industry” brought no benefits to ordinary Australians, particularly to those from low-socio economic status who remain under-represented in Australian universities. Indeed, many Australian universities, including the ‘Group of Eight’ (the ANU, Melbourne, Sydney, UNSW, Monash, Queensland, Western Australian and Adelaide) do not welcome students from low socio-economic backgrounds. While “universities have tripled the number of full-fee paying international students since 1995, they are not exactly clamouring for more local places to broaden students participation”, wrote Simon Marginson, a professor of higher education at the University of Melbourne (The Age, February 17, 2008). In fact, universities have adopted a hostile attitude toward local students. Every year, thousands of Australian school leavers – mostly from low and middle-incomes families – face uphill battle trying to get a place to study at university. In 2009, some 18,500 eligible Australian applicants missed out on university place, up from 12,600 in 2008.

In less than two decades, Australia has moved from a system of free tertiary education for all to one of the most expensive systems in the developed world. The biggest losers are Australians from lower socio-income background. Evidence has been presented outlining concerns about equity and participations. “We confirmed that [Australians] of low socio-economic status are about one-third as likely as people from high socio-economic backgrounds to participate in higher education. And the share of places for people from low socio-economic backgrounds – about 15 per cent of places – has remained virtually unchanged for 15 years despite the expansion of access to higher education”, wrote Alan Robinson, the vice-chancellor of the University of Western Australia who took part in a recent Universities Australia study. “That this figure of 15 per cent has remained in place for so long demonstrates that education in Australia need to be invigorated and innovative to break this enduring figure”, he added (Sydney Morning Herald, July 17, 2008).

Unashamed, most Australians live in self-induced illusion and think “their country” is embracing more equality when facts and overwhelming evidence point in another direction, toward greater inequality and inequity. For example, the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous education has widened like never before. According to PISA, the survey of the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds, more than one-third of Australia’s Indigenous students, ‘do not have the adequate skills and knowledge in reading literacy to meet real-life challenges and remain at a substantial disadvantage in their lives beyond school’ (OECD Programme for International Assessment [PISA], 2000-2006). Furthermore, the life expectancy of Indigenous Australians is up to twenty years shorter than white Australians. Indigenous Australians suffer a higher rate of most types of health conditions than non-indigenous Australians. For example, blindness (treatable or preventable eye disease caused by the bacterium Chlamydia trachomatis) rates in Indigenous adults are ‘six times the rates of the rest of Australia’, a comprehensive study, The National Indigenous Eye Health Survey, revealed recently. Australia is the only ‘developed’ country of a World Health Organisation ‘Shame List’ of countries where (80 per cent) of children are still blinded by trachoma. I mentioned health, because education and health are interconnected. “The development of society can be judged by the quality of its population’s health” and education. Hence, equality and “equity [are] central to this premise”. [4]

Today, Australian universities are diverting resources to educate foreign students – because the Australian government reward them by allowing them to discriminate against Australians and enrol as much as international students. And despite the fact that most Australian universities are public universities – though they behave like private corporations –, they are neglecting their primary role to educate Australians.

Meanwhile, Australian universities are fighting tooth and nail to convince the Australian Senate to pass the Student Services and Amenities Bill. The Bill proposes that an annual fee of up to AUD$250.00 to be paid by each Australian student. It is misleading to suggest that the money will be spent to provide services, including legal advice to students. Most universities have sub-contracted their services and amenities (food outlets and sport activities) to corporate businesses that charge premium price and provide no benefits to students. In fact, universities have manipulated the Students Association to campaign for the introduction of the annual fee, but have rejected students’ demand to use part of the fee for cultural activities. More often, a few students are chosen (through fraudulent elections) for the Association, bribed and trained by universities not to “represent” students, but to serve the interests of the universities.

Finally, despite the rise in student numbers and fees, Australia’s “education export industry” has only devalued Australia’s education and encouraging it to descend into an uncertain future. It is true, universities have increased their annual income, but students have not benefited. The University of Western Sydney (UWS) is a good case in point. Education at the UWS, with six campuses in Sydney’s western and south-western regions, has declined significantly. Despite having a large number of international students and receives the largest government handouts (public money), UWS has the highest staff-student ratio in the nation and a history of financial risk, chronic corruption and continuous restructuring, according to a recent study, Overload, sponsored by the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU). One of the researchers, Robyn Moroney, who took part in the study revealed to the media: “Regarding quality, UWS is fast approaching the point where irreparable damage will be done to our reputation”. [5]

Furthermore, in September 2008, a forum organised by the School of Education at UWS and attended by most school principals in the state of New South Wales, concluded that the University’s (money-making) teacher education program “produces too many teachers without the essential teaching skills to teach”. The University’s other programs are just as bad as the teacher education program, if not worse. The University lacks the commitment to teaching and learning. It exists merely to provide privileged employment for its mostly white Anglo Australian staff on campuses in Australia’s most culturally-diverse regions, but with the “[h]ighest levels of racism [and intolerance] by Sydney standards and recognition of Anglo privilege”. [6]

Australian education system – once said to be the envy of many nations – is descending into irrelevancy. The standard of Australia’s education falls sharply. Only a few Australian universities remain on the World Universities Ranking list. According to The Times Higher Education Supplement World rankings, there were 14 Australian universities in the top 200 list in 2004 ranking, only 8 remain today. The Australian National University (ranked at 17) remains the only Australian university in the top 35. Furthermore, in 2009, there are only three Australian universities ranked in the top 100 of the Jiao Tong 500 ranking drawn by Shanghai Jiao University, with the Australian National University ranked 59 followed by the University of Melbourne at 75 and the University of Sydney at 94. It should be mentioned that while these rankings are not an indicator of quality education, the number of world-class Australian universities on the list is shrinking rapidly. Australian universities have become profit-oriented and their credibility and reputation have declined significantly. The result is Australian students lag behind in many subjects, including maths and a science, the country’s prerequisite to remaining competitive.

Furthermore, the emphasis on vocational courses as money maker by many Australian universities has seen a sharp decline in the liberal arts and humanities education at the expense of Australia’s education and Australian students. In other words, the expansion of vocational courses sucks resources away – as resources are diverted to cater for increased number of international students – to the extent that many courses in arts and humanities have been eliminated.
The key question remains, what kind of education is Australia developing? “Australia cannot continue to recruit Chinese and Indian students at such an unsustainable levels in the medium term without compromising [Australia’s] education standards”, said Tony Pollock, chief executive of IDP Education, Australia’s largest recruitment agent of international students. Ultimately, Australian universities have to reduce their reliance on a risky education market of international students and commit to Australia’s future by educating and training Australians and building long-term reputation and excellence in education that has been one of the keys to Australia’s economic success, as argued by many academics.

Simply following a predatory education would have disastrous effects on the quality of Australia’s education reputation and damage the ability of Australian professionals to provide service to the community. Hence, Australia needs a new education, one that makes quality research and teaching for all Australians its principle goal.
The article was first published in German by Axis of Logic.

Notes:
[1] Birrell, B. (2006). Implications of low English standards among overseas students at Australian universities. People and Place, 14(4): 53–64.
[2] Birrell, B. and Perry, B. (2009). Immigration policy change and the international student industry. People and Place, 17(2): 64-80.
[3] Chatterji, P. A. (2009). Violent Gods: Hindu Nationalism in India's Present, Narratives
from Orissa. Gurgaon, India: Three Essays Collectives.
[4] Marmot, M. (2007). Achieving health equity: from root causes to fair outcomes. Lancet, 370: 1153-1163.
[5] Jensen, A. L. and Morgan, K. (2009). Overload. Melbourne: National Tertiary Education Union. Retrieved 26 August 2009 from: www.nteu.org.au.
[6] Forrest, J. and Dunn, K. (2007). Constructing racism in Sydney, Australia’s largest EthniCity. Urban Studies, 44(4): 699-721.

Ghali Hassan is an independent writer living in Australia.

Why the Wire's 'Kima Greggs' stayed behind to find the drugs war in real-life

he latest instalment of our crime reporter's job-swap with his counterpart at 'The Baltimore Sun' focuses on community efforts to tackle the US city's crime problem

Wednesday, 11 November 2009

Baltimore Sun

Sonja Sohn, above, who played Kima Greggs in 'The Wire' with her group, ReWired for Change

Mason puts his hand up to speak. He stands up and then repeats words he has said many times before: "My name is Mason and I am an addict." We are in a ramshackle building behind a supermarket at the corner of Park Heights Avenue and Cold Spring Lane in West Baltimore, the headquarters of the I Can't We Can drug rehabilitation programme.

"Hey Mason," the crowd shouts back. Mason begins to speak but then starts to cry. He is back at the centre for the first time since relapsing. Now he must explain his actions to the group. Once Mason has explained why he has returned to drugs, the group must decide whether or not he should be allowed to rejoin. They hold a vote.

Sat behind Mason is another man. He too has relapsed recently. His punishment is to wear a sign around his neck indicating his regression. "It's a tough-love programme," founder Israel Cason, himself a former heroin addict, explains. "The point is to help these guys develop as people."

The I Can't We Can programme is one of many drug treatment centres in Baltimore, a city where drug use, particularly heroin and crack cocaine, is rife. It is a community-run project where users are not given a drug substitute, such as methadone, but are encouraged to cure their addiction through spirituality. It is one of a number of initiatives set up by members of the community who realise that while Baltimore's problems end in murder they stem from drug-taking and selling and result in turning their city into the second deadliest in the US.

Another of these groups is run by Sonja Sohn, the actress who played Detective Kima Greggs on The Wire. Originally from Virginia, Sohn was so taken aback by the poverty and crime she saw during the five years she spent in Baltimore filming the show, she decided to stay and try to help.

She set up ReWired for Change, a project which takes about 20 youngsters who have been involved in crime and addresses the issues in their lives through the themes explored in The Wire. Sohn said: "We focus on high-risk young people who have been in and out of juvenile detention; young people that a lot of organisations and public institutions have thrown away or put in a basket marked 'too hard'.

"All of them have seen or been involved in shootings or have had people close to them murdered. They have experienced a lot of trauma. They love the show. They all think that the show is based on their lives, as if someone has come into their neighbourhood with a camera." Sohn put her acting career on hold for a year to get the project up and running and put much of her own cash into it. She said: "All my life I have been looking for my purpose and I know this is what I was born to do."

Sohn's interest in helping cure the city's ills is matched by others in Baltimore. Regular community groups meet and walk around their neighbourhood. One such group is in the Southern District, one of nine police districts in the city. More than 20 residents meet once a month and, with police officers, walk the blocks in their neighbourhood.

The idea is to create a visible presence to show locals who have caused a nuisance that the community will not stand for it. While the group accept that walking the street once a month is unlikely to stop more serious crimes, they do help create a hostile environment for dealers. Shannon Sullivan decided to start the walk after her car and house were broken into. She said: "We walk around and look for things like faulty street lights or alleys full of trash and report them to the police officers. If we smarten the place up then criminals won't want to stay here."

The Shomrim group in north-west Baltimore is more militant. Mostly made up of Jewish residents, they decided to start patrolling the streets of their neighbourhood in 2005 after a spate of 31 burglaries. Now they have nearly 50 men who, wearing uniforms, look for criminals in their area and report them to the police. They even have a police radio so they are aware of any incidents and suspects in the Northwestern District. They have a hotline residents can call if they see anything suspicious.

Ronnie Rosenbluth, the group's chair, said: "We tell people that if a crime is being committed they should call the police. But if someone is just suspicious of a person they haven't seen in the neighbourhood before they can call us. There was an incident recently where a woman called us because she thought there was a man in her house. We were able to send six guys round there to secure the house and make sure that if there was someone inside he couldn't escape until the police arrived."

Major Johnny Delgado, police commander of the Northwestern District, said: "They are the only community group that works directly with the police. We share information with them and they help us. Obviously we do not want them to take enforcement action. Basically they act as observers for the police."

The example of community and police working in harmony is not one emulated by all community groups. The Safe Streets group is comprised of 13 outreach workers, many of whom have served time in jail and have a long and violent criminal history. The group works in east Baltimore and tries to mediate in gang disputes before they turn bloody.

Safe Streets' motto is "Stop Shooting, Start Living" and, since they were established in June 2007, they claim to have intervened in 90 conflicts and have five ongoing ceasefires between rival gangs. The group is involved solely in preventing violence and does not explicitly attempt to stem the drug dealing.

Dante Barksdale is an outreach worker and the nephew of Avon Barksdale, upon whom the character of the same name in The Wire is based. He spent 10 years in prison on drug charges. He said: "Everyone in this neighbourhood gets real frustrated when a homicide occurs. But nine times out of 10, one of us will know someone who is linked to it. Either the person who got shot or the person who did it, or someone who knows one of them. We can get messages to people to stop the beef escalating."

Their efforts seem to be working. There were four murders in the year before the group was established. In the 22 months following their inception, there was none. But one thing which marks Safe Streets out among other community groups is their refusal to co-operate with the police. They aim to find out as much about shootings and murders as possible in a bid to speak to the perpetrators and victims and try to prevent any retaliatory attacks.

Gardnel Carter is the group's supervisor. He was convicted of murder and spent 20 years in prison. He said: "Our relationship with the police is that we are doing our job and they are doing theirs. One of the things about Safe Streets is that we cannot have a real relationship with the police because that would undermine everything we are trying to get done. People on these streets know us. Our credibility and reputation gets us in areas the police cannot get into and we can get information real quick. We cannot share that information. The programme would shut down if we helped the police."