Bias Claim Against Reporters Group (Cuba - Reporters W/o Borders

[guajira]

Some of us have noticed this going on for a long time. It's great to see someone spell it out!!

snippet:
The international journalists' organisation Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has been accused of receiving money from the US state department and Cuban exile groups and of pursuing a political agenda.
The claims of political bias, published in a report in Washington this week, were denied by the group yesterday.
snippet:
She claimed that RSF was failing to follow the non-partisan example of Médecins sans Frontières - Doctors Without Borders - and suggested that it was part of a "neocon crusade against the Castro regime". The reports suggested that RSF had highlighted Cuba rather than countries that were more dangerous for journalists, such as Colombia.

Barahona also claimed RSF was "on the payroll of the US state department" and had received money from the Centre for a Free Cuba, an exile group. The reports suggested that Mr Menard had campaigned to have Cuban government accounts at European banks frozen in the same way as "the bank accounts of terrorists".
more...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1487015,00.html#article_continue

[punpirate]

1. I wouldn't condemn RSF outright...

... because they've taken money from questionable sources. But, damn, they're reporters--they must know how NED expects it money to be used, if only because the RSF has associated reporters in Venezuela, for example.

It's a bad practice, of that there is no question. If one takes highly partisan money, the organization is open to charges of partisanship. it's that simple.

[IChing]

2. Look reporters without border at their analysis of the United States media

It is pathetic: 'the revelation in April of US torture of Iraqi detainees at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison pulled the US media out of the patriotic lethargy that had gripped it since the 11 September attacks. Since the attacks, criticising US policy in Iraq had been considered unpatriotic in a country united behind its president in fighting terrorism. "
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=13220&Valider=OK


vs their analysis of any north or south american government


, but they do some good, but I really wonder about their true agenda.
"

[punpirate]

3. I don't think they've said...

... anything in that assessment about the US press that hasn't been said independently here, in spades. If anything, the real situation with the press in the US, particularly with regard to its tendency to self-censorship, is even worse than they describe.

One has to balance that assessment of relative press freedom against what the government says and does with regard to it. We're supposed to be a highly democratic country, and yet we have some strikingly undemocratic tendencies. That's why that assessment may read as it does.

By contrast, in Honduras or El Salvador, for example, one might expect some intimidation of the press, so if there's less of it than expected, the natural tendency is to assess press freedom as better than expected.

[Mika]

4. And much less in Cuba than most assume.

Cuba has many real voices of domestic/home grown publications of/for political dissent, as well as a wide range of political parties and activities. All legal and allowed.

The so called "independent journalists" and "independent libraries" are nothing more than US fronts and organizational points for the plan to overthrow the (system of) government of Cuba.


Here's what the ALA has to say about the so called "independent libraries" funded by the US (as well as US funding from "exile" groups in Miami and Washington) in Cuba..

The Last Word on Cuban 'Independent Libraries'
http://www.lisnews.com/article.php3?sid=20010314225701

In October 1995, President Clinton presented a $500,000
government grant to Freedom House for publishing and distributing
pamphlets and books in Cuba.(2) The funds were also devoted to paying
for individuals to travel to Cuba as tourists in order to make contact
with dissident groups, organize them and fund them.(3) Robert Kent is
evidently one of these couriers -another propagandist on an illegal,
paid-for mission on behalf of Freedom House. He is not the only
American to be sent on such a mission(4) and be deported. Kent
evidently believes that by acknowledging his sponsor, this somehow
legitimizes his activities. But it only demonstrates the nature of
his campaign as part and parcel of stated US foreign policy intended
to destabilize Cuba.



2. What Are the "Independent Libraries"?

The "independent libraries" are private book collections in peoples'
homes. Mr. Kent and the right-wing Cuban-American propaganda outlets,
call them "independent libraries" and even "public libraries." These
"independent libraries" are one of a number of "projects" initiated
and supported by a virtual entity calling itself "Cubanet"
(www.cubanet.org) and an expatriate anti-Castro political entity
calling itself the Directorio Revolucionario Democratico Cubano. The
Cubanet website describes what the "independent libraries" are, how
they got started and who funds and solicits for them. The index page
says that the organization exists to "assist independent
sector develop a civil society..." This is the wording used in
both the Torricelli and the Helms Burton Acts, both of which require
that the US government finance efforts to subvert the Cuban society in
the name of strengthening "civil society." You will see on the "Who We
Are" page that Cubanet, located in Hialeah, Florida, is financially
supported by the National Endowment for Democracy, the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) and "private" "anonymous"
donors. The "exterior" representative of the "independent libraries"
is the Directorio Revoucionario Democratico Cubano, also located in
Hialeah.(5)

3. Who are the Independent Librarians?

You will read on the pages of Cubanet about the individual
"libraries" and their personnel. Not one of the people listed is
actually a librarian. Not one has ever been a librarian. Most,
however, are leaders or officers of various dissident political
parties, such as the Partido Cubano de Renovacion Ortodoxa and the
Partido Solidaridad Democratica. This is documented on Cubanet,
although Mr. Kent never mentions these party affiliations in his FCL
press releases. We know absolutely nothing about the principles,
programs or activities of these parties, or why they have been
allegedly targeted. We don't know whether their activities are lawful
or unlawful under Cuban law. Kent maintains that their activities are
solely related to their books - but in reality we have no idea whether
this is true and in fact, one of these "librarians" told one of our
ALA colleagues that this was not true! By using the terms
"beleaguered," "librarians" and the buzzwords "freedom of expression"
and "colleagues" Mr. Kent hopes to get the a priori support of
librarians who might not look beneath this veneer. After all, isn't
this the reason that the subcommittee will be considering their case
in the first place? But I wonder if ALA is willing to establish the
precedent that all politicians with private book collections who
decide to call themselves "librarians," are therefore our
"colleagues"?

4. Who funds Cubanet, the Directorio, and the "independent libraries"
- and why is this important?

A recent book entitled Psy War Against Cuba by Jon Elliston (Ocean
Press, 1999), reveals, using declassified US government documents, the
history of a small piece of the 40-year-old propaganda war waged by
our country against the government of Cuba. The US has spent hundreds
of millions of taxpayers' dollars over these years to subvert and
overthrow the current Cuban government - US activities have included
complete economic embargo, assassinations and assassination attempts,
sabotage, bombings, invasions, and "psyops." When even the fall of
the Soviet Union and the devastation of the Cuban economy in the early
1990's did not produce the desired effect, the US embarked on
additional, subtler, campaigns to overthrow the Cuban government from
within. One element of this approach is the funneling of monetary
support to dissident groups wherever they can be found, or created.
This includes bringing cash into the country through couriers such as
Mr. Kent, and increasing support to expatriate groups operating inside
the US, such as the Directorio, Cubanet and especially, the Cuban
American National Foundation (CANF) The website Afrocubaweb
(www.afrocubaweb.org) has gathered information from the Miami Herald
and other sources to document the recipients of this US funding.
USAID, a US government Agency, supported the Directorio Revolucionario
Democratico Cubano to the amount of $554,835 during 1999. This is
the group that supports the "independent librarians" in Cuba and is
listed as their "foreign representative." The money that they send to
Cuba, as well as the "small amounts" of cash that Mr. Kent carried
illegally to Cuba violates Cuban law, which does not allow foreign
funding of their political process. Neither does the United States
allow foreign funding of its own political process - the furor around
alleged Chinese "contributions" to the Democratic Party is a case in
point. The "independent libraries" may be independent of their own
government, but they are not independent of the US government. The US
government is not the only anti-Castro entity that has adjusted its
policy to changing times-- the most right-wing forces in the Cuban
expatriate community have also stepped up their support of dissident
elements inside Cuba over the last few years. The Miami Herald
reported in September 2000 that "the leading institution of this
city's exile community plans to quadruple the amount of money it sends
to dissident leaders on the island..." This leading institution is the
Cuban American National Foundation (CANF), and the article reports
that part of the group's $10,000,000 budget will begin "flowing to the
island through sympathetic dissidents by the end of the year." More
specifically, CANF will, among other declared activities, "increase
funds to buy books for its independent libraries."(6)

5. What is CANF? What is its record on free expression, intellectual
freedom, and democratic rights here in the USA?

The Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) was founded by Jorge
Mas Canosa, a veteran of the Bay of Pigs invasion and CIA operative,
at the behest of the Reagan administration in 1982. It has become the
most wealthy and powerful voice of the right-wing Cuban community in
South Florida and has wielded extraordinary political power for the
last twenty years. It has been connected to violence and terrorism
both in Cuba and in Miami. Its newest tactic, as described above, is
to "support" dissidents in Cuba, including buying books for
"independent" libraries, presumably to support "freedom of expression"
in Cuba. Mr. Kent and Mr. Sanguinetty claim to be proponents of human
rights and frequently refer to the "landmark" IFLA "report." But they
seem to have no problem with their libraries' CANF connection, even
though CANF was the subject of a truly "landmark" report issued by
Americas Watch, a division of Human Rights Watch, in 1992. The
Americas Watch report on CANF is the first that organization ever
issued against a human rights violator in a city of the United States.
It states that "a 'repressive climate for freedom of expression' had
been created by anti-Castro Cuban-American leaders in which violence
and intimidation had been used to quiet exiles who favor a softening
of policies toward Cuba."(7) The executive director of Americas Watch
at that time, said "We do not know of any other community in the
United States with this level of intimidation and lack of freedom to
dissent."(8) The report documents "how Miami Cubans who are opposed
to the Cuban government harass political opponents with bombings,
vandalism, beatings and death threats."(9) A campaign spearheaded by
CANF against the Miami Herald in the early nineties resulted in
bombings of Herald newpaper boxes and death threats to staff.(10)
Pressure from CANF closed the Cuban Museum of Arts and Culture because
it showed work by artists who had not "broken" with Cuba.(11) Anyone
who followed the Elian Gonzalez case this past year noted that
tolerance for dissenting views by Cuban Americans was completely
lacking in Florida and a hostile atmosphere was maintained by CANF
during the duration of the affair. Can you imagine what the life
expectancy of a pro-Castro "independent library" in the middle of
Little Havana would be, given this history? CANF does not respect
freedom of expression or democratic rights in the USA, yet it is a
direct financial supporter of Mr. Kent's independent libraries.
Neither Mr.Kent nor Mr. Sanguinetty have disowned this support - in
fact they haven't even mentioned it! They have not chosen to examine
or criticize the lack of free expression among the very people that
give them succor and publicity here at home, yet they claim to be its
great champions in Cuba!

Much more at.. http://www.lisnews.com/article.php3?sid=20010314225701

[geek tragedy]

14. Opposition parties ARE NOT LEGAL IN CUBA.

Stop repeating lies.

[Mika]

19. Tell that to the Oswaldo Paya's Christian Democratic Party of Cuba (for 1)

geek t, you seem to be on a campaign to personally attack me without any legitimate links or reasonable discussion to back up your attacks. You repeatedly show up on the "Cuba threads" to lob these attacks (some personal) with nothing more than caps and bold typefaces. (I do not hit the alert link on your attacks though, because thay speak for themselves and DUers should note your tactics.)


There are many domestic/home grown political parties in Cuba. Some have been usurped by so called "sister" groups in Miami. The point of that so called "sisterhood" is to try to negate the legitimacy of said domestic political parties because the Miami based groups are intransigent in that they are unwilling to accept any native Cuban political participation (like you, they don't feel that Cubans IN Cuba are capable of forming their own political opposition and/or don't want them to).

Today's Miami Herald story on the dissident meeting in Cuba this weekend illistrates this very point. Note the point being made by the head of Christian Democratic Party of Cuba - Oswaldo Paya - who is head of one of the opposition parties IN Cuba that you falsly & repeatedly claim does not exist.


All eyes are on dissidents' assembly
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/special_packages/5min/11691550.htm

Prominent leader Oswaldo Paya, who sharply disagrees with assembly organizers on their refusal to negotiate reforms with those now in power, issued a statement calling the gathering ''a big fraud against the opposition,'' The Associated Press reported.

The statement also accused assembly organizers of working with Cuban state security and receiving support from Miami-based exiles, to the benefit of Castro's government.

Assembly organizers have acknowledged receiving about $25,000 in donations, primarily from Miami. But they have vehemently denied accusations by the Cuban government and others that the money is from the U.S. government.

www.stopbolton.org

[geek tragedy]

20. I insist on people telling the truth.

The Christian Democratic Party of Cuba conducts its affairs out of Miami, not Cuba.

http://www.pdc-cuba.org/autorida.htm

http://www.pdc-cuba.org/carta-a-bush.pdf

Why?

Because it's banned.

[Judi Lynn]

22. Hi, Mika. I think Payá's party is the "Christian Liberation Movement."

[Mika]

5. And what kind of reporting came out of Ven?

Most all (that I saw) was anti Chavez.


www.stopbolton.org

[punpirate]

8. Well, who controls the press in...

... Venezuela? The right wing. But, nevertheless, it was widely reported that NED funds had gone to groups in Venezuela who were intent on overthrowing Chavez. That was well-known elsewhere, so RSF should have known the intent of the NED money they received, as I said.

[AP]

7. Couple the NED funding with their actions: RSF ignore Iraq and Afghanistan

where reporters are actually getting killed and then they say Cuba and Venezuela are the worst places for reporters when not a single reporter has been killed in either country and you have a pretty convincing argument for not only the appearance of improriety but of impropriety in fact.

[punpirate]

9. Do they, in fact, ignore Afghanistan...

... and Iraq? I found these in about five minutes:

http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=20

http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=43

http://www.rsf.org/special_iraq_en.php3

http://www.rsf.org/country-50.php3?id_mot=269&Valider=OK


Look, I'm not defending bad decisions by RSF, but equally, there has to be some accuracy in how this is viewed, and from what I see, they are addressing the working climate for reporters in Iraq and Afghanistan. The above pages indicate that, whether or not that's reflected in the world summaries they publish.

As for there being no deaths of reporters in Colombia, here's a different account from source distinct from RSF:

http://www.freemedia.at/Death_Watch/d_watch2003.htm

"In the Americas, 17 journalists were killed in 2003, including nine in Colombia, four in Brazil and two in Guatemala. Colombia again proved to be the most dangerous country in the Western Hemisphere in which to practice journalism. Particularly in the provinces, where vast areas are outside government control, journalists who attempted to expose illegal activities and corruption, or report on the country’s civil war, risked being killed by right-wing paramilitary groups, leftist guerrillas, drug traffickers or common criminals."

Cheers.

[AP]

10. Read the Rebellion.org post below.

If you want to engage that piece in a argument, I'll do my best to try to represent the author's side.

I believe the argument is that when it comes to deaths of reporters who get in the way of neoliberalism, RSF's attitude is basically, "woops."

But when there are few or no deaths in countries which are resisting neoliberalism, RSF's argument is that those countries brutalize reporters and that they should open their nations to reporters for big companies who want to make profits.

[punpirate]

11. I wouldn't be inclined to argue the point...

... because, if this article is correct (and some of it needs substantiation and corroboration--particularly in the analysis of their annual funding--it is possible that they are making that money from calendars, and since the source cited is their annual report, that's something that could be checked, and hasn't been), it's obvious that the organization is more compromised than just by some NED and CANF money. I'm disturbed, as well, and surprised by the small amount of their budget going to direct support of journalists in difficulty.

As I mentioned previously, they should be aware of the effects of NED money, particularly in Venezuela--and I'm not giving them a pass on that.

But, your initial assertions--that they ignore Iraq and Afghanistan, and that there have been no reporters killed in Colombia--seem not to be true. What you're really arguing for is the view that RSF spins the information in favor of its financial benefactors and in favor of the prevailing policy of the US and of the EU. On the basis of this single article, I'd agree with you.

Cheers.

[aneerkoinos]

18. Calendars

"The budget for RSF for 2003 was up to 3,472,122 euros. According to annual accounts the revenue came from: 11% from the State, 12% from patrons, 4% from contributions and donations, 15% from the European Commission, 10% from operations, and 48% from the organization’s publications. This last figure is surprising for its importance. The sum of 1,984,853 euros supposedly came from only the sale of calendars. (13) The calendar costs 8 euros, which is the same as saying that the RSF manages to sell more then 249,106 calendars per year, or 680 calendars every day! This figure is much too excessive to be credible.

8) Reporters sans frontières, « Bilan 2004. L’année la plus meurtrière depuis dix ans : 53 journalistes tués », 2005. www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=12232 (sitio consultado el 23 de abril de 2005)."
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1448


I don't know, but it is plausible that big media corporations buy tons of calendars to hand them out to their employees.

[AP]

21. If they're doing that, the only reasons is to "launder" money that the...

...buyers know is going to support activities that serve the donors.

It's like those little books congressmen and women used to sell.

[aneerkoinos]

24. Yes

It's a good scheme, ain't it.

[burrowowl]

13. Here's hoping they are

nt tainted.
Go to their site and look into it.

"A spokesman for the National Union of Journalists in London said yesterday: "It is very dangerous when press freedom organisations get themselves politically compromised by accepting payment from any government. It is really vital that all such organisations are truly independent.""

[AP]

6. Rebellion.org has a really hard-hitting piece on this too.

It was published at Venezuelanalysis.com:

According to the 2004 annual report from the RSF, “at last 53 information professionals lost their lives in the practice of their jobs or for expressing their opinions.” Iraq is, according to this report, the most dangerous country for journalism with 19 reporters murdered. The U.S. Army, who has occupied Iraq since 2003, is responsible for these murders, since they control the country. However, the RSF, far from accusing the U.S. authorities, limits itself to once again taking up the official statement from Washington and describes the shots, which caused the deaths of the various journalists, as “accidental.” However, Iraq is not a priority for Mr. Ménard. (8)

On the American continent, according to the RSF, “twelve journalists lost their lives” in Mexico, in Brazil, and in Peru. Nevertheless, the target of the Parisian organization is again Cuba where, it has to be emphasized that not one journalist has been murdered since 1959. Venezuela is also found in the line of sight while no journalist there has lost their life. There are those who have established a relationship between the targets of the RSF and those from Washington and pointed out the strange coincidence. (9) The reprimands from the Secretary of State, Ms. Condoleeza Rice, were specifically destined towards Mr. Castro and Mr. Chavez, whose growing closeness concerns the United States a lot. (10) Of course it’s not just a matter of personalities (Fidel and Chavez), its the Cuban and Venezuelan societies’ programs in favor of the poor which are being attacked.
Likewise, it is well-known that Mr. Ménard frequently visits the extreme Cuban right in Miami with which he has signed agreements relative to the media war carried out against the Cuban Revolution. (11)

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1448

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Judi Lynn]

15. Reporters Without Borders unmasked: Well-financed arrangement with Otto Re

Reporters Without Borders unmasked: Well-financed arrangement with Otto Reich

......The Work of RSF

The RSF’s work is not a matter of chance nor is it being done for free. It turns out that RSF is on the payroll of the U.S. State Department and has been working tirelessly with the various alumni of the former rightwing militant Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC). The RSF also has directly benefited from ties to Helms-Burton-funded Cuban exile leaders, who have also regularly collected subventions from U.S. taxpayers, courtesy of the anti- Castro Dade County congressional delegation.

As a majority of members of Congress work toward normalizing rational trade and travel with Cuba, the taxpayer-funded and rabidly anti-Castro groups that have dictated U.S.-Cuba policy for almost half a century continue to work indefatigably to maintain a cordon-sanitaire around the island. Their regular funding of RSF is part of this overall strategy.

In his book on RSF’s titanic struggle with the Cuban regime (El expediente Robert Ménard: Por qué Reporteros sin Fronteras se ensaña con Cuba, Quebec: Lanctôt.), Havana-based journalist Jean-Guy Allard examined the pieces of the puzzle regarding Menard's activities, associations and sources of funding, as part of the explanation of what he calls Menard's "obsession" with Cuba. On March 27 of last year, the pieces began to come together: Thierry Meyssan, president of the Paris daily, Red Voltaire, published an article in which he claimed Menard had negotiated a contract with Otto Reich and the Center for a Free Cuba (CFC) in 2001. Reich was a trustee of the center, which is a hardcore group of anti-Castro exiles, who have fattened themselves as a result of White House funding. In fact, this group received much of their funding from U.S. taxpayers awarded under Helms-Burton legislation and disbursed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) as well as through the equally rightwing National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The contract, according to Meyssan, was finally signed in 2002 around the time Reich was serving as an acting Assistant Secretary of State on a recess appointment, after failing to win confirmation from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The initial payment for RSF’s services was approximately $25,000 in 2002, and was doubled by 2003.

Working for the Yankee Dollar in France

.......In September 1998, Menard traveled to Havana to recruit anti-Castro activists to write stories for RSF to publish. He later told Calvo in his interview, "We give $50 a month each to around twenty journalists so they can survive and stay in the country." But one of those who Menard first recruited in Cuba, journalist Nestor Baguer, disputed that description of the relationship in interviews he gave to the government-controlled Havana newspaper Granma, revealing that in fact he had been working for state security while posing as a dissident journalist.

Baguer maintained that RSF was prepared to pay only for articles turned in, and that they had to portray the Cuban government in a negative manner. Baguer did not consider many of his putative Cuban colleagues to be authentic journalists, as few of them had even written a word for public dissemination nor had received any formal journalistic training. He also told how he was forced to edit severely their almost illegible copy—something he called a "terrible penance." Baguer recalled the first conversation he had with the RSF head in the back of a rental car: "What he wanted was for it to come straight from here. It seems before he was getting fed from Miami. But he wanted to have his Cuban source so it would be more credible." Noting the small payments Cubans were being paid for their articles, Baguer speculated Menard was doing a "great business"(Allard).
(snip/...)http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=34529

[aneerkoinos]

16. The Reporters Without Borders Fraud

"The strong suspicions that have surrounded the dubious and partisan activities of Reporters without Boarders (RSF) were not unfounded. For many years, various critics have denounced the largely political actions of the Parisian entity, particularly with regards to Cuba and Venezuela, whose characteristic use of propaganda is obvious. The positions of RSF against the governments of Havana and Caracas are found in perfect correlation with the political and media war that Washington carries out against the Cuban and Venezuelan revolutionaries.

Finally the truth has come to light. Mr. Robert Ménard, secretary general of the RSF for twenty years, has confessed to receiving financing from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an organization that depends on the U.S. Department of State, whose principal role is to promote the agenda of the White House for the entire world. Ménard was indeed very clear. “We indeed receive money from the NED. And that hasn’t posed any problem.” (1)

Former U.S. president, Ronald Reagan, created the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in 1983, during a period in which military violence took the place of traditional diplomacy in order to resolve international matters. Thanks to its powerful ability of financial penetration, the NED’s goal is to weaken governments that would oppose the foreign hegemonic power of Washington. (2) In Latin America, the two targets are Cuba and Venezuela."

More:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1448

[Judi Lynn]

17. Delightful to see more people are looking at these scums!

From the article you posted:

The financing of the RSF also raises some important questions. How can an organization that depends economically on the FNAC, the CFAO, Hewlett Packard Foundation from France, the Hachette Foundation, the EDF Foundation, the Bank of Deposits and Consignments (la Caja de Depósitos y Consignaciones), the Open Society Institution, the Royal Foundation Network, Sanofi-Synthelabo (now Sanofi-Aventis), Atlas Publications, Color Club, Globenet, and Cadena Ser be independent? How can an organization financed by the French state act impartially? It is impossible, and RSF’s positions supporting the coup d’état against president Aristide of Haiti shows it very clearly. (12) How can an organization that expects to defend journalists rejoice at the overthrow of a democratically elected president?

The budget for RSF for 2003 was up to 3,472,122 euros. According to annual accounts the revenue came from: 11% from the State, 12% from patrons, 4% from contributions and donations, 15% from the European Commission, 10% from operations, and 48% from the organization’s publications. This last figure is surprising for its importance. The sum of 1,984,853 euros supposedly came from only the sale of calendars. (13) The calendar costs 8 euros, which is the same as saying that the RSF manages to sell more then 249,106 calendars per year, or 680 calendars every day! This figure is much too excessive to be credible.

When expenses are looked at for 2003, the accounts show that only 7% of the budget is allocated to direct help for journalists with problems.(14) What happens with the remaining 93% of the budget? It is devoted to the job of propaganda and disinformation at the service of the interests of those who finance Reporters without Borders, namely the French state, and the large economic and financial groups, the extreme Cuban right from Florida and the U.S. Department of State.
(snip/...)

[Judi Lynn]

23. Reporters Without Borders appears swayed by government funding

Reporters Without Borders appears swayed by government funding
posted by rtm on Thursday March 24 2005 @ 12:18PM < Govt/War/Propaganda >

by Diana Barahona, The Guild Reporter

Over the past year, U.S. news stories about press freedom increasingly have cited the work of a Paris-based organization, Reporters Without Borders (Reporters sans Frontières, or RSF). Indeed, despite its small size and lack of high-profile principals, Reporters Without Borders has achieved nearly the same name-recognition as the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, which can boast of having Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw on its board of directors.

To be sure, RSF has embraced many causes near and dear to American journalists. For example, it was among the more outspoken organizations demanding a Pentagon investigation of the shelling of the Hotel Palestine, in which two journalists were inexplicably killed. More recently, it has lambasted federal prosecutors for targeting Judith Miller, Matthew Cooper and other journalists in an effort to force them to disclose their sources.

But RSF, unlike the CPJ, is heavily funded by government grants, raising questions about its objectivity. And a closer examination of the battles RSF wages—and those it ignores—strongly suggests a political agenda colored by its choice of patrons. Unfortunately, the organization appears unwilling to address such concerns: RSF’s New York representative, Tala Dowlatshahi, terminated a telephone interview when asked if the organization had applied last year for any U.S. government grants other than one received from the National Endowment for Democracy.

Most notable, perhaps, is the group’s obvious political bias in its reporting on Haiti. RSF expressed its support for the Feb. 29, 2004, Franco-American overthrow of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide at the same time that it received 11% of its budget from the French government (¤397,604, or approximately $465,200 in 2003). According to Haiti-based journalist and documentary film-maker Kevin Pina, the organization selectively documented attacks on opposition radio stations while ignoring other attacks on journalists and broadcasters to create the impression of state-sponsored violence against Aristide’s opponents.

RSF blamed Aristide for the unsolved murders of two journalists, calling him a “predator of press freedom,” then celebrated his departure in a July 2004 article headlined, “Press freedom returns: a gain to be nurtured.” “A new wind of freedom is blowing for the capital’s radio stations,” it proclaimed, adding that Aristide—who had no army—was planning a “scorched-earth ending” to the crisis that began when 300 paramilitaries armed with M-16s invaded from the Dominican Republic.
(snip/...)

http://www.reclaimthemedia.org/stories.php?story=05/03/24/4687391

[Judi Lynn]

25. Kick!

:kick: :kick: