fox, e. i was outnumbered, out shouted and finally terminated. now i am free. since we are not constrained within the mainstream media, we can freely discuss the elephant in the room. the issue that explains why other countries can have free college education, universal health care, but our country can't afford it. the problem that may be bigger than all other problems in our country because it so exacerbates all those other problems. it is a problem that martin luther king focused on before he was assassinated 45 years ago this week. it has only gotten worse since. that was the height of the vietnam war. i'm talking about the problem

of militarism and perpetual war. king called the united states the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. he said, a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. we are gathered here today to discuss the unmentionable. the elephant in the room. msnbc host scan yell at fox news host and vice versa, but when the obama administration expanded the hopeless war in afghanistan, the shouting heads on both channels went virtually silent. as his drone more expanded, there was little shouting on either of those channels or cnn or cbs or abc or so-called public broadcasting, npr and pbs. we can have raging debates in the mainstream media on all sorts of issues like gun control, minimum wage, gay marriage. when the elite of both major

parties agree on a military intervention as they so often do, then anyone in t mainstream media who goes out on the limb to question or the knowledge that in the middle of the room there is an oversized creature known of militarism or interventionism. disappearikely to faster than you can say phil donahue. i worked with phil donahue. i know a little bit about journalists being silenced for questioning bipartisan military ventures. i was with him at msnbc in 2002-2 thousand three when bush was revving up the invasion of iraq with the support of joe biden, john kerry, hillary clinton, harry reid. thec terminated us for crime of jwi. that is journalism during wartime while independent. ini may be a crime mainstream media, but it is the

kind of unauthorized, on embedded coverage that you get from the authors and journalists that we have assembled on this panel. it is the kind of coverage you get from the jeremy scandals -- skahills, and the independent media outlets that are so featured at this conference this weekend. many liberal journalists who were vocal about war and human rights and civil liberties during the bush area seem to have lost or muted their voices during the obama era. it says something about the lack of serious national debate about so-called national that last month, one of the loudest mainstream tv news questioners of the president's right to assassinate americans was sean hannity at fox. that is obscene. it says something about mainstream tv that the toughest and most consistent questioners are not on a news channel.

they are on the comedy channel. afew weeks ago, i watched passionate john stuart taking on u.s. military spending. he said, we already spend more on defense than the next 12 countries combined, including china, including russia. we are like the lady on jerry springer who can stop getting breast implants. and of course, he put up a photo of the jerry springer guest. what our media obediently calls the war on terror is experienced in other countries as a u.s. war of terror. kidnappings, night raids, torture, drone strikes. the killing and maiming of innocent civilians that just creates more enemies for our country. you can get that reality in some of the mainstream media of our allied countries in europe.

mainstream media in our country. it is our country that is waging this global perpetual war. in a democracy, that should be the subject of a raging debate. we have assembled this panel because all of our panelists have rigorously subjected u.s. war policies to questioning and debate, no matter who is in the white house. they have worked hard to describe the elephants of the room. i will introduce the now. each will make a short opening statement. then we will have some brief panel discussion here and open it up to the whole room, elephants included. you can send your questions or comments up on cards. those will be passed out shortly. our first presenter, many of you know her as the host and executive producer out of k ps k los angeles, the uprising

radio show. solidarityn doing work with afghan women since 2000, before the 9/11 attacks and the u.s. invasion and occupation. she has visited afghanistan and it led to a book called, "bleeding afghanistan," she has a masters of science degree from the university of hawaii. -- in astrophysics. she also has a two-month-old baby. let us welcome her. [applause]

>> thank you. a two-month-old and a five-year- old. i want to address a few of the major issues that journalists struggle with when covering the afghanistan war. the first of the wars on terror and the longest war that the u.s. has ever fought and the war i am most familiar with. much of the coverage of the afghanistan war is not totally unique. it is similar to the coverage that other u.s. wars have gotten. it does not question very much the government's rhetoric or motives. it does not pay much attention to those most affected by our policies think and feel about the war. we are familiar with the case made initially for invading and occupying afghanistan in 2001. we were told it was a moral imperative to free them the tyranny of the taliban while exacting revenge for the 9/11 attack. at that time, mainstream media did a stellar job of echoing the bush administration's line about the invasion and occupation. i remember the jingoism was so

thick at the time, an essay published by the university of texas possessor -- professor critical of the war was met with such a mob of angry responses, it threatened to derail his academic career. thepiece was quite exception in the mainstream media. independent media, they were criticizing the rush to war. washe mainstream media, he one of the exceptions. then when telephone fell, they were quite -- rarely questioning what the u.s. did in afghanistan. if anyone question the wisdom of empowering these criminal warlords, they were countered with the notion of we want peace he for justice. -- a for justice. the "new york times" had a great piece about the northern

alliance in quest for women's right and painted them as feminists compared to the taliban. we know how feminist they are today. there was more coverage about the northern alliance, these men that the u.s. was proud to put into power. desperate appeals to not give them government positions. there was a statement put out, by the oldest women's rights organization in afghanistan. they put out a statement saying, the people of afghanistan do not accept donation of northern alliance. he did not get quoted in the "new york times." the the end of the bush era, a lot of talk about increasing troops to afghanistan before we can decrease them. troop surge got a lot of news coverage.

it was pretty well discussed in terms of the amount of coverage that it got. most of the coverage centered on things like how effective it would be, whether there were enough troops in place. many examples, but one that comes to mind is the publishing of an article that made a moral argument i why there should be more troops. one saying that 40,000 extra troops was not enough. the guardian newspaper in britain, the mainstream outlets of our allies had much more critical coverage. the guardian was there to publish the piece by the afghan women's rights activist who i have worked with, her op-ed titled a troop surge can only magnify the crime against and.n -- afghanistan.

the u.s. government, significantly march the afghan war on the ground have been these deadly night raids. american soldiers have gone in and raided afghan villages, arrested and detained men and boys and women. ofre was a lot of coverage the deadly shooting, mass shooting by staff sergeant robert bales that seemed to open the eyes of the mainstream media that these nitrates or even happening. aside from that one incident, no critical coverage of the majority of night raids in the protest against these on the ground. there were exceptions like one independent journalist who has been based in afghanistan who wrote extensively about the chilling effect of the night raids. he wrote that on dispatch.com.

she has been one of the few independent journalists covering what the regular afghan reactions are to the war. and we have the one strikes. consequently, they were common in the border region between afghanistan and pakistan. today i becoming increasingly more upon inside afghanistan as we draw down troops. there has been coverage of the drone program, extensive coverage, most of it has been focused on how effective it is or whether it is legal or not. not whether it is moral or not or what the actual effect on those who have these bombs rained upon them has been. one exception in mainstream media that i do want to call out, a writer for the associated press. she was one of the few mainstream journalists that has done good work on afghanistan. she has been covering it for decades and living there. she wrote a piece that was the

exception, titled "afghan villagers flee homes, blaine u.s. drones." whenfor a moment on afghans are quoted, even when they do interview afghans, they do so with very little regard for who they are. i have had first-hand or into this myself. i get calls from journalists all the time requesting interviews about what is happening inside afghanistan. they often mistake me for being afghan. when i told him i am not, i am indian. sometimes the interview get canceled. they want authentic afghan voices, but any afghan will do. i had to correct broadcasters on live interviews when i have referred to me as afghan. they don't care who they interview. it does not matter if it is a u.s. educated afghan american who has worked in the karzai administration versus an afghan

activist on the ground living in the community of and experiencing firsthand the effect of the u.s. policies. it does not matter. any afghan will do. that is similar to the u.s. approach to installing afghans in power. any will do. is that the manpower -- just put them in power. no distinguishing between afghans of different economic classes, different perspectives. it leads to a lot of misunderstanding. it is a form of misunderstanding. if someone came cover the occupy wall street movement and grabbed the first american they could find, it might be a very skewed view of what is happening. one of the most difficult questions i think they grapple

with here is over what the consequences of the impending u.s. withdrawal and the. many familiar with the time magazine cover of august 2010, the woman whose nose had been cut off by the taliban. and the headline said, what happens if we leave afghan? should have said, what is happening while we are occupying afghanistan ? it is true. the misogynists will be emboldened once the u.s. forces leave areas the context of that message is greatly over simple fight. it has not taken into account how the u.s. has empowered exogenous warlords as a deliberate war strategy on the ground. also a anti-fundamentalist activists would like to see and do in their own country. many of the women i work with would rather achieve women's rights on their own, knowing full well the destruio that

western emancipation in afghanistan of women has been like. unless there is deep journalism, an investigation of who is supporting whom, what the effects of our policies are, we are not going to know what is happening in that can stand on what will happen in the future. there needs to be the distinguishing of -- those who want freedom for women, men, children, freedom of the press, freedom from foreign occupation and invasion. real democracy. those are two different the able. -- sets of people. oft said, the challenge facing afghan journalist inside afghanistan outweigh any concerns that american journalists face. it is difficult today to be a journalists inside afghanistan. doubly if you are a woman.

afghan journalists who do distinguish between activists and those in power, they see reality -- firsthand to are the perpetrators. they report on it. they face a dizzying array of degrees that make it difficult for them to do their work and are often imprisoned and tortured by the government or hunted down and murdered by the taliban. a woman who started radio peace in afghanistan was shot in bed in the middle of the night with her toddler a few years ago. it is not clear who assassinated her, because she was critical of the taliban and the u.s. backed government. if journalists can courageously cover what is really happening with very real risk to their lives, then american journalist can do far better than what i have been doing so far. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you. our next speaker is marjorie, columnist, author, longtime criminal defense attorney. a professor at the thomas jefferson school of law in san diego. she testified before congress in 2008 about the bush administration's torture policy. she testified as an expert witness at military hearings about war, illegality, and the duty to disobey unlawful orders. her latest book is "the united states and torture." her upcoming book is about drones and targeted killings. marjorie cohen. [applause] >> thank you jeff and my fellow panelist's. i am delighted to be here with you today. with so many places to get information, all claiming to

have the truth, there is no objective truth. during the vietnam war there were three networks. no cable, no internet. every city had a democratic newspaper and a republican newspaper. even if they disagreed, there was a general court belief in perception. until 1968, the media dutifully served the government's narrative of the war until the tet offensive in 1968. status is when the national liberation front attacked all the major cities and 44 venture capitals and took over control of two thirds of the country of vietnam. reported,r that was

no serious person could believe that the war could be won. walter cronkite went to vietnam and said, this war is a stalemate. he was the most trusted man in news. the antiwar movement led to questioning of the entire society, culture, music, free love, drugs and distribution of power. today, the wars in iraq and afghanistan have been monumental failures by any objective standard. it took years to get a consensus against the iraq war. we have expanded coverage, we have diversified coverage, but so has the other side. with the proliferation of cable tv, the left got more channels and so did the right. newshave become corporate. has become opinion. analysis analysis has become a cover for opinion. there are big rewards for pundits who are paid by the cable channels. hard reporting, journalism, suffers because it is not as somatic as taking extreme positions. a reporter covering the war has a harder time creating

consensus because society is so polarized. there is such a diversity of opinions on public issues, there is no truth. polarization prevents a national consensus on issues of war and peace. we don't have a draft, which made a huge difference in turning public opinion against the vietnam war. the problem is reaching people who don't go on left westside -- websites or tv or radio. we are preaching to the choir. many on the left don't like to hear criticism of obama, and that is another challenge that we face. [applause] lawrence o'donnell pointed out that all of the cable news stations combined are watched by only one percent of the viewers. the fraction of viewers watching fox, msnbc and cnn, it is a meaningless number in terms of the politics of the country. rachel maddow can't have the impact of a walter cronkite, because that is one third of one percent.

msnbc being roughly one third. cronkite would raise issues and congress would hold hearings. that is both positive and negative. pushing a story to get those who care about it and pick it up also galvanizes the opposition. an issue resonates with millions of people who see it on the tv news. now it is gone unless it is covered by everyone. the alternative media has some effect on the corporate media. torture led to some hearings, but it never became central on the public agenda. drones are becoming a big issue. not because we are illegally killing people in other countries off the battlefield, but because a paper was leaked that indicates the government may kill u.s. citizens on u.s. soil. because the bush administration and now the obama administration, through the

n so successful in terrorizing the american public about the so- called threat of terrorism, most people don't care about foreigners being killed. much of the terrorism propaganda is fueled by racism. of the 366 u.s. drone attacks that have killed 3581 people in pakistan since 2002, 316 were launched by the obama administration. less than two percent of those killed were high-profile taliban militants. most of them were civilians. since then 11, there have been no official figures on how many people have been killed by drone strikes and other kinds of targeted killing, because of the extreme secrecy. lindsey graham's figure is 4700 people killed by drone strikes. only four of whom were u.s. citizens. for a long time, independent

media and antiwar activists criticize the drone more. the bureau of investigative journalism documents million casualties. generals like mcchrystal, former diplomats, foreign policy at -- experts are talking about blowback from drones. the in advisability, the political fallout. the leak of the white paper and rand paul's filibuster focused attention on the killing of u.s. citizens. not on the killing of other people. the house judiciary committee held hearings, but again, just focused on u.s. citizens. although targeted killings, not just drones. a gallup poll released about two weeks ago showed that 65% of americans think we should use drone strikes in other countries against suspected terrorist. that was done to 41% of people who favor tags in other countries against u.s. citizens

living abroad and down to 25% who favor strikes against suspected terrorists living in the united states. only 13% of the people surveyed believe that we should use drone strikes against u.s. citizens in the united states. >> when many americans think of u.s. citizens, they do not think the people who look like al- awlaki and his son. they think of white people. we all know about the hype of weapons of mass destruction. many bus were covering it at the time, saying this is not a reality. we should not rush to war. there is no reason to. we are seeing a similar kind of hype with the chemical weapons narrative by the syrian government. to an attack lead on syria. recently inbama

israel, his big signature victory was getting israel to apologize to turkey for the killing of nine turks in the flotilla. i'm wrapping up. in conclusion, two pieces of advice for independent journalists. did your head down and do not believe what government officials tell you. thank you. [applause] thank you, marjorie. that's also the advice we got from the late izzy stone. is executivelist producer of democracy now, amy goodman. amy has built up one of the most important daily newscasts in the history of our country. few other news sources cover the issues of war, peace, civil rights as the mop -- as doggedly as democracy now. she also has a weekly syndicated column.

her fifth and latest book with silence andahan is " majority." she will be signing books right after this panel right in the exhibit hall along with dennis moynahan. amy goodman. [applause] >> thank you, jeff. it is an honor to be here with all of my colleagues and to peter at the national conference on media reform is critical right now. especially on this weekend, 45 years ago, april 4, 19 68, dr. martin luther king was gunned down in memphis, tennessee. he had gone there to organize with sanitation workers. for that crime, he had lost his life. a year to the day before he was

killed, april 4, 1967, dr. king spoke at riverside church in new york city. he uttered those words about the united he loved, about states, that it is the the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. was speaking out against the vietnam war, something even his closest inner circle warned him against. he said you are the most powerful person on earth, you got the civil rights act, you got him to agree with you, why would you alienate him now? dr. king said, this was all a seamless web, this concern about human rights at home and abroad. for the next year, he was increasingly outspoken about war. , fromsponse of the media the "new york times" to "the

whatngton post," decrying he said at the riverside church, calling it propaganda that sounded like it was from hanoi. i think we have to look back 45 years ago and assess where we are today 45 years later. where is the media today? how would they deliver dr. king 's message today? marchhe iraq war began, 19, 2003, a few weeks before, the organization that jeff: hennded -- jeff coehn

founded did a study of colin powell's speech at the un, speech that general powell would later call a state of his career.- a stain on his that speech was the final nail in the coffin for so many. he had been hesitant about the war. he had a great deal of credibility. he said, yes, the evidence is in. there was final proof that there were weapons of mass destruction. of the twostudy weeks around that address and look at the main nightly news outlets. in that two-week. period,that two week these were the agenda setters -- as is extremely important because this is the time when america is making up their mind -- half of the population was

opposed to the war, half of the population was for the war -- in those two weeks, there were 390 interviews. guess how many were with antiwar users -- viewers? 400. of almost that is no longer a mainstream media. that is an extreme media beating the drums for war. that is a disservice to a democratic society. i really do think those that are deeply concerned about war, those who are concerned about the growing inequality in this country, those who are concerned about climate change, the state of the planet, are not a fringe minority. not even the silent majority. but the silenced majority, silenced by the corporate media -- is why we have to take it back. the democracy now team and my colleagues are filming and

interviewing people and it is wonderful to be part of a team of people, and my colleagues in the broader family -- we came into denver a few days ago and we came to the airport and there were some soldiers there from buckley, and they were picking up a general who is coming into town. i thought they were waving at the general behind me. i thought that was a general there. i came back. they were in uniform. i said to them, you know democracy now? yes ma'am, they said. i said, do you watch every day? why? they said, because you're talking about war. it isn't because you are for the war or against the war. it's that we cover war. , ifs on the front pages you will, of democracy now, even though it is a radio and tv daily grassroots global broadcast. you can read it as well. there is no more serious

decision a country can make them go to war, and whether you agree with that or not, we must cover this everyday. ine wast hero i in our midst, the youngest of the little iraq nine. -- little rock nine. she and eight other young students -- she was 14 years old -- stood up to an angry mob of 1000 people as she walked into central high in little rock to get an education, surrounded by national guard. when she was here speaking yesterday, she said she was inspired then. what were the lessons she learned? she was inspired by the story of till, a 14--- emmit

year-old boy who died the year before this. sent to get out of the city for the summer. he went to mississippi and was sleeping in his aunts and uncles with his cousins, and he was ripped out of bed by a white mob and they tortured him and beat him, and he ended up at the bottom of the river. his body was dredged up and sent back to chicago for the funeral. his mother maney was not an activist at that time, but she understood something very deep. she once said she wanted the casket of emmit (the funeral and she wanted the world to see the ravages of racism. dozens came by his task it and saw it. magazine," the same

werecation she said covering her issues -- she described a group of black journalists who dare to cover the little rock nine being beat to death during he was a former marine -- to death. he was a former marine. there was a may need tell. she understood how important it was for the world to see the images. magazine published the images of his distended, mutilated head. mamie till have something to teach all of us today, to teach the press today, show the pictures. show the imges. -- images. could you imagine for one week we saw the images of war? , every top of every

radio and television newscast we did, on everybody's facebook wall, in a sense everybody is a journalist -- every story was about a soldier dead or dying or a woman with her legs blown off either by a cluster bomb or a drone attack. if the top story above the fold of every surviving newspaper in this country showed a baby jet on the ground with an actual story naming her, telling us the story of her family, if every tweet, every e-mail told one of .he stories americans are compassionate people. they would say, no, war is not the answer to conflict in the 21st century. democracy now. [applause]

thank you so much, amy. our next panelist is the co- author of a dozen books, including the memoir "made in walove: got war?" director ofer and the institute for public dr. c -- public accuracy, norman led three-piece seeking trips to iraq before the u.s.'s envision. he also led a couple of fact- finding missions to iran and afghanistan. for 17 years, he wrote a nationally syndicated column of media criticism. now he focuses on politics or

websites, such as common dreams and truth out. we cofounded the online activism rootsaction.org, which is circulating that petition to the -- nobelze committee peace prize committee advocating that they grant this year's prize to bradley manning. [applause] >> we are gathering here in a political context that includes givingor political party faith a bad name, and the other major political party has given hope a bad name. but the reality is that we cannot get very far removed very -- or move very

forward without faith in a secularist democracy. we also cannot get very hot -- very far without the hope that compassion for each other will get us very far. i think the possibility for creating a better world needs grow in journalism and in journalists and their institutions. andthrives on abstraction propaganda. i have often said it is so exciting to work on a story sometimes that you can forget the house is really burning. e reminded us that there are lives in the balance, that there are people not only under fire, but who are suffering, living, and dying the failuresces due to the

of journalism to serve the interests of the public, rather than serving the interests of the state and corporate power. when we look at the context that we are living in today, it's got a be said and did knowledge and confronted that we live in a acknowledged -- and confronted that we live in a warfare state. belief in and commitment to perpetual war is essential to what the u.s. government is about, and acceptance of the perpetual war is central to what the mainline media of this country are about. thatear virtual consensus crosses the aisle on capitol hill for the so-called war on terror mirrors and is mirrored

by the mass media, the corporate owned media, the purportedly public media that you will hear on all things considered and morning edition and the pbs news hour. that and war on terror has become the of the echo chamber for almost a dozen years. , we've liv very long, for one war after another for decades in this country, aided and abetted by for what passes for journalism. if we look at what war thrives ,n, and we look at abstraction is thely part of that basis for the ongoing war of this warfare state, which recognizes no boundaries or .alendars

war as an abstraction is based .n two tears of grief theirs and ours. the inconsequential and the profound. an apartheid of emotional devaluation of human beings that grimes the lens through which we are supposed to see the world. that is a reality that is combined with the propaganda , what was described as doublethink. what would we think if it was done to us? what would we think if another country exercised impunity to drones, aerial vehicles across our borders to strike at will?

who senator wayne morse believed in international law was among the few in congress during the buildup to the vietnam war challenge that kind of impunity -- challenged that kind of impunity. that impunity has been institutionalized by the mass culture of our country. the media's relationship with the warfare state is central to the plowing of huge quantities of resources, financial, industrial, and human into warfare. while meanwhile, our cities are dying, as dr. king said. the bombs in vietnam explode at home. the cruise missile fired at pakistan are exploding in our own country where we cannot and do not provide health care, education, housing, helping children, helping the elderly,

while our lauded president, the neoliberal president is slashing against the court of the social compact social security and welfare -- and medicare. antidote is independent journalism. we are at this conference, and people around the country are working everyday, to sustain those possibilities, make them more real, make them more vibrant. thatat we can serve antidote of the warfare state and create something that is worthy of the term journalism. if you use the metaphor of the body politic, what happens to the human body without circulation? you have blockage. you have coronaries.

our potential democracy is suffering grievously from the blockages, the arrears of circulation -- the failures of circulation of ideas and information and freewheeling debate. here we are with the imperative , theallenge the compulsion compulsive disorder to spin cycle for war, and now it is hard to keep track of the various phases that we are in. you cannot withdraw from afghanistan "too fast." that is one part of the spin cycle. another is the slow burn of building the agenda for war or attacks on iran. thater is the doublethink tries to justify the scenario of a possible attack on north korea. wereou imagine if wargames and along thet to

borders of united states of america, including simulating a nuclear attack, what our reaction would be in this country? yet the paranoia of the north korean regime is being said and fueled by the double standards that are also inherent in u.s. media coverage. whether it is iran or north korea, again and again, ratified, ratcheted up by the mainline media in this country. do as we say, not as we do. very convincing. when i met people in afghanistan ,r iran, not very convincing do as we say, not as we do. people pay attention to the rhetoric, but the reality. let me close on this note. , andhallenge of journalism

the challenge of civic engagement, holds a special responsibility to scrutinize the actions of our own government and the consequences. it's not only that we should cover those actions and those consequences, that we have a special responsibility to especially make sure that we cover those actions and consequences, that we can build attention to independent , asnalism that says american journalists, as american citizens, we are not going to accept the double standard that we will watchdog and bird-dog and scrutinize and challenge the actions of our own government. war worldemplate this we live in, often i think as we try to track often overwhelming

news, it can feel very disorienting sometimes, like maybe we are losing our bearings, losing our sense of core. what often, we might feel, is the through line, what keeps us going? i believe that human rights has to be a single standard that helps us to not get lost, to not have the abstractions of coverage or the propaganda of coverage blow us off course. there is no expression among some musicians -- you may feel like you're getting lost, but you won't if you know the blues. i think we may feel like we are getting lost, but we won't if we have a single standard of human rights, if we remember

that when martin luther king jr. announced the madness of militarism, unfortunately what he spoke of was not just about what was ori7, but what is occurring right now. right now, the u.s. government totinues with impunity search its prerogative with its military might to wage war across boundaries as it wishes. what is up for grabs is whether we can insist on living in a democracy, not as people who tune into the news, but civic we engaged people who create it -- civically engaged people who create it for the better. [applause] >> thank you, norman solomon.

i want to ask a quick question for final comments. a bunch of us have touched on it already, the problem of journalists putting partisanship ahead of principle. that is the idea that if you have a president you prefer over the other guy and that president is in power that perhaps you need your voice. any final comments on that problem? when michael tore wrote an open letter president obama about the escalation of the afghan war. it was a surprise. respectivese greatly of michael's work, but i think many on the left were mistakenly caught off guard by obama's escalation of the afghan war. he campaigned on it. that was the central aspect of his foreign-policy platform when he first ran for office,

escalating the afghan war while drawing down the iraq war. i think we should not have been in any way surprised, saddened, disappointed when he did exactly that. in one sense, he's broken many promises, but he kept that one promise he made. i also want to mention that when i was talking about the folks who did do very good coverage of the afghanistan war when it was first unfolding, and it is still unfolding -- amy interviewed myself and my co-author, and the radio was there among independent journalists who did the kind of coverage and have continued to do it under obama. >> anybody else who wants to make a final,? comment? i know jeremy's cahill -- he wrote, jeremy schedule pledges to be the same journalists under

the obama administration that he was under bill clinton and george bush's presidency. he talks about how he got some of the most vicious hate mail from democrats more so than in all the years he was exposing bush and bush hospira trip. question from the audience -- bush's torture, -- bush's torture. >> does anybody here not want to be critical of the democrats? wantshink everybody here to be critical of democrats. do we encourage people here to do to build media, to challenge mainstream media? what are specific things we call on our active people here and our bloggers and journalists to do? , to dig deep.job it is not about who is president. whether the president is

republican, democrat, made maybe in the future and independent or green -- it is about going beyond the words. so much of politics today is debating what is meant by particular words. it is our job to evaluate the actions. also, most importantly, not just to give voice to those in power, but to be there at the target anend, especially here in the united states as american journalist, of u.s. foreign policy. on the 10th anniversary of iraq -- the iraq war, we did special programming all week. i didn't think what we did would be so revolutionary, to have one day having on an iraq the american blogger, and then activist,aqi feminist

deeply concerned about what is happening in her country. make no mistake about it. .or iraq iis, the war is not ovr i do not think that was a big deal. when you look at the rest of the media in this country, to hear i voice was highly unusual. yet that is our job, to go to where the silence is. whether their assessment of their country right now 10 years later. we just have to get back to basic principles of good journalism. let people speak for themselves. for them torum debate and discuss the most important issues of the day and tell their stories when they cannot, until they can tell their own. [applause] >> those basic principles have to include independence from the

state, those in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. the failures have involved failures just to do that. if you look at what we have suffered in our life times we have seen difference to those in power. and this segways back to the previous question, it's very difficult sometimes to watch fox news. it's also difficult sometimes to watch msnbc for the same reasons. because in both cases those networks are dominated by journalists and commentators who generally favor toward the leaders of one major political party and villainize the leaders of the other. that's not journalism or any

sense of debate. the other answer to that question is we need to build and sustain our independent media outlets, tv, radio , online web sites, independent producers of documentaries. that requires support from individuals, foundations, all sorts of configurations so that we have the capacity to build our own independent media while we confront and challenge the main line media. >> i just want to add one example sort of to broaden out what you are saying, the example of the keystone pipeline. if you think that doesn't relate to war, it does. because what is the keystone pipeline about? it's bringing this very dirty oil from canada down to the gulf.

why? well, it's about the tremendous hunger for fossil fuels and think about why we wage wars. the joke of the little kid talking about iraq turning to his dad and saying what is our oil doing under their sand. but if you look just go back a few weeks ago there was the largest environmental protest in history in washington, d.c. i tuned in to msnbc that night to look at the coverage. they cover what is happening in the world and especially on that day each day digesting the news. i did not see -- i didn't watch it non-stop all night but i watched a lot of it, to see if there was coverage of this environmental protest because it was protesting the obama administration. right now president obama is in

the midst of deciding whether to allow the keystone excel pipeline to be built. and there is this exxon mobile oil spill in arkansas. i tuned in to msnbc to see how they were covering it. they talked about the oil spill outside of little rock that has drown a subdivision in arkansas. but they are talking about this is happening in the midst of president obama making this decision about the larger keystone pipeline. if you tune to fox they would cover the environmental protest, they would just slam it. but at least you know it happened. you can read between the lines. >> i just want to pick up on what amy was talking about, two things during her talk and also in the q & a about the impact of showing images of people for example in iraq being killed and

telling the stories, showing the targets of these policies and also letting them tell their stories and telling their stories. during the civil rights movement david writes about the power of television when people, when black people were being hosed down by fire hoses and that image and the images of these very, very peaceful children integrating the high school. and how that really turned public opinion in favor of the civil rights movement. during vietnam one of the things in addition to the draft and the g.i. movement which was central to that movement, what really affected people were seeing the body bags coming back.

of course we haven't seen body bags coming back from the afghan and iraq wars. when i was a freshman i was a cheerleader and all of that, the beginning of my freshman year i went to the student union and saw this grainy black and white film and it was that image of that young girl naked running from the napalm after it had been dropped by an american bomb. the decision i made to get involved in the anti-war movement was not an intellect you'll one. it just struck me oh my god is this what we're doing. it's important to tell those stories and show those images but not shun away from stories that might not be popular to

everyone on the left such as what israel is doing to the palestinians. [applause] >> that was indeed a couple of comments on these cards is coverage of israel and palestinians. while we're on the subject of images let's remember what pushed martin luther king over the edge where he had to speak out against the vietnam war and he was the most single powerful individual voice against the vietnam war, he saw the images of young kids victims in vietnam and he saw those images in a radical magazine. he talked about it at length about he couldn't stay silent anymore. when it comes to what people can do out here -- >> for the exact quote responding to that speech he gave time magazine called the speech slander king i diminished his useful tons his cause, his

country, his people. >> one of the action that is people can take out here that are interested in an organized challenge of main stream media bias whether it's afghanistan palestinian is to join the activist list at fair.org. they go after the media outlets that can be moved. how many of you are on the list of fair.org? >> if you are interested in activism you should be on that list. >> we send daily headlines. check it out. and that's for everyone here. it's very important as you talk

about building media, jeff, is we take ipped pent -- it shouldn't be the alternative. as i said, the corporate media is the extreme media. i do think independent media represent it is main stream in this country today. we must protect independent media because that is the really the hope of the future. >> how do we get more balanced coverage of israel palestinian issues? for your information it is strongly tilted in favor of israel? >> it's all about a single standard of human rights. if you insist on a single standard, the reflexive devaluation of palestinian lives that has for so long dominated

u.s. mass media will be challenged directly. it's one thing for a president to talk about seeing things through somebody else's eyes. another thing to on a day in day out basis, not through platitudes but through coverage and public discourse to say we have a single standard of human rights and of grief that the suffering of a palestinian is just as important as the suffering of an israeli. >> i think the tide is turning. public opinion has probably shifted pretty significantly in terms of how palestinians are viewed. there have been some incredible successes recently on college campuses recently. even if the main stream media is not covering it, the public is getting it through social media. the challenge is getting our

politicians to change the way they vote and convincing them that there is not necessarily a political price for standing up to israel. but i think public opinion on that one issue is seeing some slow change that hasn't really happened in a long time. especially after israel's recent incursions and various invasions in the past few years of lebanon and palestinian territories. >> a few of us have talked about it, it led to a question, do we think the main stream network news contributed to ending the vietnam war? if , so what has changed in these intervening decades? >> one of the myths of the united states led the way to ending the vietnam war. the reality is that the mass media of the united states had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the anti-war

movement to do coverage of the vietnam war just as has been the case in the last decade for these proliferated wars. the myth soling something that we need to challenge because it can get into a frame of mind if we can get the mass media to operate properly our job is done. we must insist they do their job properly. >> i think amy is reading the quotes of how the main stream reacted when martin luther king came out against the vietnam war. there was no anti-war voices until 1968 or later that were allowed into the serious main stream. >> i think of danny glover who joked but i think it's serious, he wonders if dr. martin luther king would be

invited to any of the celebrations of his life on the federal holiday that people fought so hard for so many years. >> think about how they reacted to the military whistle blower who brings forward these documents. if you've seen the movie, the documentary, it almost amounted to civil disobedience. when one main stream media was stopped another picked it up. when they were stopped another picked it up. now look how they've reacted to the whistle blower named bradley

manning. this 25-year-old who is facing life in prison. the iraq war logs, the afghan war logs, the u.s. state department and the role they play in atrocities or covering up prosecutions in europe against c.i.a. officers who have engaged in torture or kidnapping. it's like night and day. >> i think it's very important to talk about bradley manning. this about this: this is a young man who was in the army in iraq who has said he did download these documents. he has been held for three years without trial, three years. when it was last time you heard his voice? if you tune into democracy now had you to struggle to hear it but that's because we got a secret recording of him speaking in the courtroom. why is he forbidden of speaking? heard?bidden from being

why can't you hear what it is he has to say? why is it so radical to bring you his voice. someone bravely in the courtroom secretly recording his statement to the judge about why he did what he did. bradley manning and julian who is holed up right now in the ecuador embassy in sweden. he's not as concerned about going to sweden than the possibility of being extradited to the united states. why would he be concerned? does the words bradley manning ring a bell?

this is a serious situation when you think of these documents in a country we are seeing a crack down on information like we haven't seen before. the number of whistle blowers who are being prosecuted under the obama administration, more being prosecuted today than in all past administrations combined. the story of bradley manning is more than the story of this one young man. it is a message to all whistle blowers understand particularly young people in the military who have went and come back and seen atrocities terrified to speak out because they are afraid could they face the same fate. it is our job at journalist to bring you this information. and so for all the bloggers and journalist who are listening and watching and will see this on c- span and other global and national outlets. we have a responsibility. it is extremely serious. [applause] >> you know the efforts to

silence bradley manning for the good of quote national security, are metaphorically both not allowing as much as possible as the government would have it his voice to be heard, but also of course his crime quote unquote was to inform the american public and the world about information that is supposed to be available to the consent of the governed. we're supposed to know what our government is doing in our names with our tax dollars. when it comes to media coverage it is very dismissive in main line media towards bradley manning. i want to mention about ten days ago there was a petition asking the norwegian nobel committee to award the nobel peace prize to bradley manning. and we got coverage on that on pacific co-radio in this country. national public radio wouldn't

touch it. overseas media contacted us and we have 40,000 people who have gone to rootsaction.org to sign that petition to the nobel committee. bradley manning epitomizes the meaning of the nobel peace prize just as martin luther king did. [applause] >> i want to touch on what you were saying in terms of what has changed with media landscape between then and now. certainly as our main stream media has gotten more consolidated, the views have become narrower. 40 years ago we couldn't communicate with one another in the same way that we can now. believe it or not, journalist like myself will scroll our

facebook pages to see what is trending and what fellow activists are seeing as important or reporting. and the nature of journalism has changed. everyone of you is capable of spreading a story, sparking a light to get that story heard. i have on my facebook page not just my fellow activists but moms and dads from my kid's schools. and often times things i post people who don't consider themselves activists pick them up and pass it on. all of us have an ability to do that. rootsaction.org is a website. these are web based strategies that are blurring the lines between advocacy and journalism if there was a line to begin with. that is something we should not forget.

despite how dismal the landscape of media seems, what is considered journalism today is more exciting than ever. which is why we have to keep the internet open and free and not let the cable companies and the telecoms write the legislation that would privatize this global resource that allows us to communicate with each other all over the world. and i want to point out why it's helpful to be here in denver colorado. it's not a figure of our optimistic imagination that there is independent media. this say hot bed of independent media. you have the wonderful radio -- kgnu.kngu. you have colorado public television and denver open media which is pioneering ways of putting together internet and public access.

--ve you community stations. you have azing community station.s s. today i'll be going to a fundraiser for a new radio station that is just about to be established kffr. you can go to kffr.org. we will be there during the dinner break. new ones being established, free speech tv is right here in denver. and link tv is in los angeles. but all of this is community tv. you had rocky mountain media, 150-year-old media that dies. it becomes a one paper town. then the colorado independent pops up. i think this isn't unique. all over the country we have to open our eyes and work together

and join these independent media spaces. >> while we're talking about colorado independent media let's not forget alternative radio . [applause] >> i want to make announcement that the freedom of press foundation is having an event on bradley manning and press freedom at 1:00 in this building. and i think amy said something so important, it's one of the centerpieces of this whole conference had is the need to fight for net neutrality so these four companies which bring us our internet which is a, the and t, comcast and time warner-- verizon, comcast and time warner

need to have legislation passed so they cannot have a two tiered system so the web sites they own are in the fast lane and democracy now is pushed off into say slow lane. when he was campaigning for president candidate president obama said i take a backseat to no one on the issue of net neutrality. we've had five years and his f.c.c. commission chair has basically punted on the issue. it's one of the most important issues we have if we care about building up independent media. [applause] >> let's do a round of a few quick questions. one was what the is latest reports regarding the guantanamo hunger strike which is a central place in the war on terror. the u.s. denying press access to the prison for at least a month.

anyone want to comment on that? >> david reams is one of our co- attorneys. he's assisting us with the trial of the century. hedges et al. versus obama et al.?how many here are familiar with? that is frightening folks. that has not been in our mass media. it has been covered on the front page in the u.k. and guardian and our papers have not covered this vital trial. some of the best journalists are plaintiffs in this suit. a member of parliament from iceland who protected julian and we have had a judge ruling in

our favor and guess what last may happened, the judge was removed from the courtroom by navy sales protecting her and from the courthouse. our plaintiffs have had all kind of threats and we are holding firm. and what must we do as journalists and people who are activist we must support as david does in gauntanamo very effectively and he is saying that it is increasing and that the starvation protest is increasing and he feels that perhaps some coverage is increasing also. lex we haveing firm.

reports that perhaps nearly more than 100 are on hunger strike and have been for many weeks now. this is our responsibility to cover. what message does it send to countries, repressive regimes around the world, that the united states is holding scores of prisoners without charge to have been cleared by the u.s. for release and you are being held indefinitely? check out democracynow.org for the latest. i had the remarkable experience of interviewing and person when we went to doha. he was the only journalist held there.

he was never charged.held for nearly 7 years. he was interrogated more than 100 times, most of those times as he was held.-- as he withheld. he was a cameraman going from pakistan to afghanistan. most of the time, he was questioned about the leadership of al jazeera. anyone who works for any news organization, the big ones, how much do you know about your leaders? but the fact that this is happened over and over again, it's our job to cover it.>> the hunger strikers at guantanamo are being forced fed. they take a tube, stick it in their nose. very painful.no anesthesia. during the bush administration, they did not sterilize

you could see the blood in the bile from the prior prisoner going into your own nose. force-feeding a person who understood the consequences of refusing food amounts to torture. this is going on right now under the obama administration. >> norman is going to get the floor and we will take final statements all the way up the panel. thank you so much for coming out to this session.>> what we've just heard about the last few minutes is part of a hugely important yet relatively small part of what has been called now for almost a dozen years the war on terror. whether it is civil liberties and human rights, or counterinsurgency or whether it is called national security, this has to do with profound decisions that are being made through omission or commission. they have to do with the world that will be existing for the next generation.

i want to announce here plans for a tribunal on the war on terror, 2011-2013, under the sponsorship of an organization i am part of, the institute for public accuracy. i want to ask everybody in this room and everybody not in this room who is hearing this for him -- hearing this forum, to consider helping us launch this tribunal on the war on terror. you can go to accuracy.org to see what we do at the institute and contact us that way. also we have some flyers. we want to do a huge tribunal and washington, dc, with documentary testimony on every aspect of the war on terror and let us use our own capacity to research, organize, and publicize and challenge these policies. >> thank you norman solomon. amy goodman. >> i'm going to be on c-span tomorrow from noon eastern to 3:00.

it will include a lot of e-mail and you can call in. i hope you do. it's a grave for him around the country for different forces-- it's a great forum around the country for different voices. during the time of the iraqi war, you had general colin powell helping to lead that were and michael powell, head of the sec -- fcc leading a war on diversity of voices here at home, pushing for deregulation of the media. the current chair -- the response then was unbelievable. millions writing in. suddenly people became aware. when people learn about what is happening, they respond. they understand that having --wspaper, radio, tv and one and tv in one town owned by the same media mogul is a threat to our democracy. right now, the current head of the fcc has announced he's going

to be leaving. another of the five commissioners has announced he leaving leaving. there are only five commissioners. who heads this agency in what direction president obama gives them to makes an enormous difference for the media landscape in this country. i see the media as a huge kitchen table that stretches across the globe doubly also also the down and debate in the -- debate and discuss the most important issues of the day. anything less than that is a disservice to the servicemen and women of this country. they can't have the debate on military bases. they rely on us to have the discussions that lead to the decisions about whether they lived or died. whether they are sent to kill or be killed. anything less than that is a disservice to a democratic society. >> thank you, amy goodman. now marjorie collins. >> bradley manning was tortured for nine months when he was in

he military break at quantico, virginia, held in solitary confinement. experts have called that torture which can lead to hallucinations and suicide. it was after it was a great public outcry and a letter to he obama administration from many people from civil society that he was moved out of quantico and into fort leavenworth where he is in the eneral population now. he revealed classified information but not top-secret information. dan ellsberg revealed top-secret information and dan has said that bradley manning had access to top-secret information but refrained from the bolting it. now they're going after wikileaks. they are not going after the new york times in the guardian who also picked up the story. only wikileaks. as amy said, the secrecy and the obama administration is unprecedented. james madison said that

sunshine is the best antidote to tear any and it's up to us -- to tyranny and up to us to shed light on what the government is doing in our ame. >> thank you, marjorie cohn. nd now sonali. >> i want to call attention to the fact that because today we do have the ability to hear tories directly by those people who are affected through their own words on websites, you can go and see what those people who are affected by the afghanistan war are saying, thinking, and feeling.

go to these websites, see the statements they put out. see a photograph that they used to document the war. o it yourself. when the war was at its peak about five or six years ago, there was such a clear correlation in my book. my co-author and i did a brief study of how media coverage of the afghanistan war correlated so strongly with attention paid to groups, even if those stories weren't covering both people directly. people found the website of these organizations and these omen and thereby supported them, heard their stories. when the media does not cover them, the attention that these groups and activist get really falls. as he be given -- as we begin our withdrawal of troops, it does not mean the war is ending her that we should forget about people whose lives our tax dollars have directly affected. in addition to supporting independent media, suple opo tt

aking change jury find out hat they are doing and going through. share their documents and interviews on your social networks and keep the word out about how they are dealing with the very real effects of our drone attacks and is very destructive policies that have affected ordinary men, women, and children. we may never get to know their faces and their names and their families but those who do represent them, some of them are out there and they are reaching out to us via the internet. as long as the internet is free, you and i do have access to that the please explore that. >> thank you.

i'm jeff cohen with the park center at ithaca college. i would like to thank the free press for organizing this onference on media reform. ? next a look at the i.r.s. tax exempt unit and the tar getting of groups. . after that a discussion about .s. laws and standards for overseas workers. >> on news makers congressman viss van hollen talks about congressional strategies for dealing with the debt, the different budget plans in the house and senate and future budget cuts related to sequestration. ews makers sunday on c-span.

>> as we look around we have to ask how long have there been chinese in the united states. it's a trick question. there were chinese in what would become the united states before there was a united states. for our purposes everything begins in 1776. 13 col anies proposed to be their own country. they have a war and it last until 1783. right after the war was completed in 1783 the following year it was important, one of the first things they did was accepted out a ship out of new york harbor. it was the emporress of china. why was it so important for them immediately upon surviving the war of independence, why was it important for them to go to china?

tea. everybody drank it. even working class thought they had a right to tea which it was an up scale item. if you drank it you would be drinking it from a porcelain pot. you might have been sitting there in a silk shirt. before world war ii there was no substitute for silk. you might be having a baked scone with cinnamon. that's easy enough to figure out. the question arises what did this country have that china was willing to trade for? >> from demine town, a history of chinese american relations and the chinese immigration experience sunday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. part of history tv on c-span 3.

>> next a discussion about the i.r.s.'s tax exempt unit and targeting politically conservative groups. from "washington journal" this is about 45 minutes. host: michael beckel is here to continue our discussion about the situation over at the irs. the headline in this morning's "washington post," -- your thoughts about what came ut against a possible ways and means hearing. guest: thank you for having me here. yes today was definitely a day f bipartisan theory on capitol

hill. both democrats and republicans are really going after the republicans -- going after the irs yesterday. host: this headline in "the financial times" is emblematic of what we have seen -- does that come as a surprise to you? guest: that poses a question, when exactly did higher-ups' in the chain of command know what was going on? which of these groups were political? which ones deserve special attention? ooner or later somebody up the chain of command knows what is going on and there are a lot of questions still about who, hat, when? host: there's an editorial in this morning's "wall street journal," -- what did you think about that when he said that? guest: the center for integrity as been monitoring these 501

(c)4 groups for a while. their reception 527 for political committees. one of the big questions the irs is asking is are these committees and organizations that are applying to less to political? if they are they should register under section 527 to social welfare organizations and charities are not supposed to be shadow political parties. they are not supposed the shatt a political action committees or candidate committees. they are supposed to exist for the advancement of social welfare. they are allowed to do