Blood Money? As Divestiture Movement Heats Up, Sudan Government Pays
Close to $1 Million for New York Times Supplement Advocating Investment
and Praising "Peaceful, Prosperous and Democratic Future"
Monday, March 27th, 2006
Blood Money? As Divestiture Movement Heats Up, Sudan Government Pays
Close to $1 Million for New York Times Supplement Advocating Investment
and Praising "Peaceful, Prosperous and Democratic Future"
Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase
Video/CD
As a student-led campaign urging divestment from companies doing
business in Sudan gains momentum in the U.S., the Sudanese government
pays close to $1 million for an eight-page supplement in the paper. The
ad advocates investing in companies operating in Sudan. In response,
Sudan activists flooded the New York Times with demands for an apology.
[includes rush transcript] On Saturday, the government of Sudan urged
the United Nations to stop sending what they called "negative signals"
to rebel groups in the country's Darfur region. While anti-Khartoum
rebels have long urged UN involvement to counter what many consider
state-sponsored genocide, the Sudanese government has claimed a UN
presence would only worsen the conflict. Over the past three years tens
of thousands of people have been killed in the region and over two
million displaced. The violence in Darfur has worsened in recent
months, and has now crossed into the neighboring country of Chad.
While the international response has been criticized as lethargic, it
was recently exposed that a man accused of being a key architect of the
Darfur genocide met secretly with senior British and American officials
in London earlier this month. Major-General Salah Abdullah Gosh was
granted a British visa to receive "medical treatment" but it was later
acknowledged that while in London Gosh met with U.S. and British
officials.
Meanwhile, a largely student-run divestment campaign is gaining
significant momentum. The mutual fund Citizens Advisers recently became
the first US fund to back a growing campaign urging divestment from
companies doing business in Sudan. The decision followed the University
of California's decision two weeks ago to divest from all companies
working with the Sudanese government.
* Iain Levine, program director of Human Rights Watch.
* Jason Miller, a graduate student at the University of California
San Francisco and co-director of the UC Sudan Divestment Taskforce.
There's at least one company that apparently has not joined the Sudan
divestment campaign. Last week, the New York Times ran an eight-page
advertisement taken out by the Sudanese government. The ad advocates
investing in companies operating in Sudan. It appears as a news article
with a small disclaimer across the top of the page. It praises Sudan's
"peaceful, prosperous and democratic future" and complains about
international media coverage that is "focused almost exclusively on the
fighting between rebels and Arab militias" in Darfur.
In response, Sudan activists flooded the New York Times with demands for
an apology. They have so far refused. The New York Times also declined
to appear on Democracy Now!, but did give us this statement: "The Times
has vigorously reported on the Sudan and our editorials have condemned
the actions the Sudanese government has taken against its citizens. We
accepted this special advertising section, however, in our strong
belief that all pages of the paper's news, editorial and advertising
must remain open to the free flow of ideas. In accepting it, we do not
endorse the politics, trade practices or actions of the country or the
character of its leaders. Just as we print advertisements that rebut
New York Times editorials, news articles or critical reviews, we print
ads that differ from our editorial position. We do so in the belief
that it is in the best interests of our readers for our pages to be as
open as possible."
The ad cost close to a million dollars, and was produced by the PR
company Summit Communications. Summit claims to hold an exclusive
agreement with the Times, where it has ran ads for several foreign
governments.
* Felix Salmon, writer and media critic. Covered the relationship
between the New York Times and Summit Communications on his weblog,
www.FelixSalmon.Com.
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us
provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV
broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
AMY GOODMAN: Joining us to discuss the situation in Sudan and the
response here in the U.S. is Iain Levine, program director for Human
Rights Watch. Joining us on the phone from San Francisco, Jason Miller,
a graduate student at the University of California and co-director of
the U.C. Sudan Divestment Task Force. We welcome you both to Democracy
Now! Iain, let's start with you. Can you talk about the latest in
Darfur, in the significance of Ghosh coming to London?
IAIN LEVINE: The situation on the ground remains extremely grave. War
crimes and crimes against humanity are being committed daily, attacks,
killings, rapes, are continuing. Major General Salah Abdullah Ghosh has
been named by us and others as being one of the architects of the
atrocities being committed. So the fact that he's being received in the
U.K. and the U.S., supposedly because he's providing extremely important
intelligence on counterterrorism, is somewhat troubling. We know that
his name has been recommended by a U.N. sanctions panel, for targeted
sanctions against him, and we very much want to see those sanctions put
into place.
AMY GOODMAN: What is the latest in Darfur?
IAIN LEVINE: Well, the latest in Darfur is extremely critical. The
conflict spills over into Chad. The humanitarian access is worsening.
The Undersecretary General for Humanitarian Affairs recently said that
he was extremely concerned about the ability of his workers to access
the millions of people now in need of humanitarian assistance, and as
you said in your introduction, the Sudanese government continues to
block the idea of a U.N. force that would provide effective protection
for civilians. We currently have 7,000 African Union troops on the
ground, who are doing a good job, but they can't possibly, in an area
the size of Texas and extremely remote and isolated, provide the kind
of effective protection needed by over two million displaced people.
AMY GOODMAN: Let's turn to one of the students who has led the
divestment campaign in this country, Jason Miller. You are with the
University of California. Talk about what you've done.
JASON MILLER: So, back when I first learned about the genocide, I wanted
to think about effective ways to counter the Sudanese government's
actions, and on a historical review, it looked like Sudan had been
largely unresponsive to political pressure regarding the Darfur
situation, but history had shown that it had been responsive to
economic pressure, and since I was part of a University of California
system which included ten campuses and the largest endowment of any
university system in the world at $66 billion, I was interested in
knowing what our university's involvement were in the companies doing
business in Sudan.
And through about a year-long process, we discovered that there were
indeed several companies that we were invested in, that heavily
contributed to government revenue and provided minimal benefit to
ordinary Sudanese citizens, outside of government circles, and so we
engaged in a what we called a targeted divestment campaign. Instead
of just divesting from every company doing business in Sudan,
recognizing that some companies were doing substantial good, we tried
to investigate what each company was doing, understand how it
contributed to both the government's ability to perpetrate genocide,
but also to the general infrastructure development in the country, and
then divest from only those companies that we felt were most
contributing to the genocide.
AMY GOODMAN: Jason Miller, can you talk about other universities in the
country that are involved in different stages of students pushing their
universities not to do business with companies in Sudan?
JASON MILLER: I think the exciting part about this divestment movement
is actually, as you've implied, has gained true national momentum. In
fact, it's probably arguably now the largest divestment movement since
the South Africa divestment movement, and it encompasses dozens of
universities, several of which have already divested, including
Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Brown, Dartmouth, Amherst, but also, multiple
more that are interested in divesting. And this also extends to the
state level, where the states of New Jersey, Oregon and Illinois have
already divested. Maine is extremely close, and there are many other
states that are considering or have divestment legislation pending at
the current moment.
AMY GOODMAN: Jason Miller with the University of California, which is
the first university to divest from companies doing business in the
Sudan. Well there's at least one company that apparently has not joined
the Sudan divestment campaign. Last week, the New York Times ran an
eight-page advertisement taken out by the Sudanese government. The ad
advocates investing in companies operating in Sudan. It appears as a
news article with a small disclaimer across the top of the page. The ad
praises Sudan's, quote, peaceful, prosperous and democratic future and
complains about international media coverage that has, quote, focused
almost exclusively on the fighting between rebels and Arab militias in
Darfur.
In response, Sudan activists flooded the New York Times with demands for
an apology. They have so far refused. The New York Times also declined
to appear on Democracy Now! but did give us this statement: The Times
has vigorously reported on the Sudan, and our editorials have condemned
the actions the Sudanese government has taken against its citizens. We
accepted this special advertising section, however, in our strong
belief that all pages of the paper's news, editorial and advertising
must remain open to the free flow of ideas. In accepting it, we do not
endorse the politics, trade practices or actions of the country or the
character of its leaders. Just as we print advertisements that rebut
New York Times editorials, news articles or critical reviews, we print
ads that differ from our editorial position. We do so in the belief
that its in the best interests of our readers for our pages to be as
open as possible. That statement was given to us by the New York
Times.
Well, the advertisement, which is really a special ad supplement of the
New York Times, cost close to $1 million. It was produced by the P.R.
company, Summit Communications. Summit claims to hold a, quote,
exclusive agreement with the Times, where it has run ads for several
foreign governments.
We're joined on the line by Felix Salmon. He is a writer and media
critic who has covered the relationship between the New York Times and
Summit Communications on his weblog at felixsalmon.com, speaking to us
from New Mexico. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Felix.
FELIX SALMON: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain how this works? I mean, this supplement
and weve seen it before is an eight-page looks like a section of
the Times. At the top, though, it says, in small letters "Special
Advertising Supplement," big words "Sudan," and then it says "The Peace
Dividend, Prosperity Could Lie Ahead After Years of Conflict," and it
looks like an article.
FELIX SALMON: Yes, that's the idea, that while, obviously, media
sophisticates in New York are well aware that this is an advertisement,
there is confusion among a certain proportion of the New York Times
readers as to whether or not they dont really stop to think whether
it is an ad or not.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain then what happens. This Summit Communications has
on its website it has an exclusive relationship with the New York
Times.
FELIX SALMON: Summit Communications is essentially parasitical on the
New York Times. As far as I can make out, their only business is
placing advertising in the New York Times. This is a business which
many publications around the world do in-house. They go out to foreign
governments or other entities and produce advertising sections to be
inserted into the publication. Those advertising sections are not
produced by the editorial side of the publication, but they are
produced by the advertising side of the publication. The New York
Times, were it to do that, would thereby be dealing directly with the
governments of Sudan and taking the government of Sudan's money, and
that would look a bit nasty. So, what they've managed to do is place
themselves at one removed, by accepting money, instead, from Summit
Communications.
AMY GOODMAN: Iain Levine, of Human Rights Watch, this section, this
supplement came out last Monday in the Times. How did you see it?
IAIN LEVINE: I found it deeply, deeply shocking that the Times has been
one of the few media outlets in this country which has done a good job
in covering Sudan and Darfur and has pointed out what's going on. For
them to take nearly a million dollars, for money, much of which
obtained through violations of human rights, since the oil work in
Sudan has involved forced displacement of civilians, massive killings,
seems extremely troubling. This really is blood money, and it's
surprising that the Times chose to take it.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to read from the content guidelines of the New
York Times for ads, what they'll take and what they won't take. Just a
few of the guidelines: Number one, general advertisements that contain
fraudulent, deceptive or misleading statements or illustrations, attacks
of a personal nature, advertisements that are overly competitive or that
refer abusively to the goods or services of others, too offensive to
good taste, indecent, vulgar, suggestive or other advertising that in
the opinion of the New York Times on the web may be offensive to good
taste. And then it goes on from there, refers, for example, Guideline
eight, endangered species advertisements offering furs or products made
from the furs or hides of animals included on government endangered
species lists.
IAIN LEVINE: It's extraordinary that the Times is concerned about
endangered animal species but seems to show much less concern for
endangered human beings. So much of the money that the Sudanese
government is making from the oil industry, is being channeled into the
military budget. Back in 2001, it was something like 60%. So to be
concerned about animals and not to be concerned about the impact of oil
revenue on the people of Darfur seems to be a somewhat misplaced concern
there.
AMY GOODMAN: How many letters do you understand have gone to the Times?
Or do you know?
IAIN LEVINE: I know that last week, the Save Darfur Coalition, which
really mobilized its supporters on this, mobilized something like 2,600
letters in the space of 24 hours. I had a chance to see some of them,
and they were very powerful, very moving, many of them. They're not
written by kind of professional human rights activists, but by people
who just care about what's going on. So it's interesting that the Times
has still not chosen to reply properly.
AMY GOODMAN: You saw them by reading in the Times, the letters?
IAIN LEVINE: No, no, sorry. I saw from the Save Darfur Coalition.
AMY GOODMAN: Did they appear in the New York Times?
IAIN LEVINE: No, to my knowledge, I have not seen one yet in the New
York Times, and the only response I've seen from the Times, is, in
fact, the one that you read out earlier.
AMY GOODMAN: I'm looking at a piece in something called Pacific
magazine, thats a kind of tourism magazine, and I wanted to ask you
about this, Felix Salmon. It says, P.N.G. New York Times to Expose
P.N.G. Abroad. The Morobe Province of Papua New Guinea will be featured
prominently in the New York Times Magazine this year, the National
reports. Two reporters, Aida Velon and Luke Heine, from Summit
Communications told the Morobe governor yesterday that it would give
P.N.G. the opportunity to improve its image, which has been tarnished
abroad. Summit Communications is a multimedia organization linked to
the New York Times, and it goes on from there. What are they talking
about when they say reporters?
FELIX SALMON: They're talking about people who write the copy for Summit
Communications. They are certainly not talking about reporters for the
New York Times, but frankly, it's in Summit Communications' best
interest to confuse that distinction, when they're trying to sell ads
to people like the government of Papua, New Guinea.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, is that the Times responsibility, Felix Salmon?
FELIX SALMON: Summit Communications could not exist without the New York
Times, so the Times works extremely closely with Summit Communications,
or at least it should, in order to insure that what Summit
Communications does does not bring the New York Times into any kind of
disrepute. On the other hand, the Times does get many millions of
dollars from Summit Communications and is, therefore, financially
interested in Summit selling as many of these supplements as it can.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, you, Felix Salmon, work for a publication called Euro
Money?
FELIX SALMON: Yes, I do.
AMY GOODMAN: How does that operate? And does it have similar supplements
that are paid for by, well, governments like the Sudan?
FELIX SALMON: It has supplements, which are paid for by governments; I'm
pretty sure that Sudan is not one of them.
AMY GOODMAN: And does it work in the same way?
FELIX SALMON: It does most of its -- well, most of its supplements come
against editorial. So if there's going to be a supplement on a country,
the advertising is going to appear against independent editorial about
that country.
AMY GOODMAN: In the same issue?
FELIX SALMON: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: So, they look at the ad, and they respond to it in the
magazine?
FELIX SALMON: There's independent journalism about the country, and then
there is also the advertising about the country, and they appear
together.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about how you feel the New York Times is
different?
FELIX SALMON: The New York Times is different because it does not feel
any need to match editorial content against advertising, which in many
ways is a good thing, because it means that the editorial content is
dictated entirely by the views of the editors about what is newsworthy
and not so much by the contents of the advertising. On the other hand,
that means that if you get these supplements about countries like Sudan
or Libya or whoever, then they appear on their own, without any
enveloping context explaining that this is really just government
propaganda and that there is another side to the story.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, presumably these ads are approved by, you know, by the
Times in an editorial division, whether its in the publisher's office
somewhere, because they do make decisions. The Times rejected a
religious ad, saying many readers would find it offensive in 2002. In
2004, the Times rejected an artistic commentary on race and gender, by
citing a policy that all advocacy ads must clearly state an opinion.
Just this month, the Times rejected a theater advertisement for its
depiction of two cupids engaging in a sex act. Iain Levine of Human
Rights Watch, do you think the Times should refuse to take money from
the Sudanese government? I mean, specifically, it's probably Sudanese
government pays Summit Communications, who then pays the Times, though
I'm not sure how it works.
IAIN LEVINE: I'm assuming that is the case. If the Times feels that two
cupids engaging in a sex act is offensive to its readers, I think it
should be really much more careful about taking money from a government
which many have accused of genocide, others have accused of war crimes
and crimes against humanity. It's extremely offensive to the people of
Sudan, to human rights activists anywhere. They are providing a
propaganda space for the government of Sudan, and it's a very important
propaganda space. This is not any paper. This is the New York Times, and
for the New York Times to be providing such a platform for the
government is deeply offensive.
AMY GOODMAN: And their argument that might be that you look at reporters
like Nicholas Kristof who writes very harshly of what's going on in
Sudan?
IAIN LEVINE: Well, Nick Kristof has done great work, and all credit to
Nick. He's pushed and pushed and pushed on Darfur and on Chad, and hes
really helped to keep the flame alive for those who have been working on
this issue, but to cite Nick as a justification for running eight pages
of very questionable propaganda with a lot of falsehoods, that's -- I
don't think that makes up for the fact that they're putting out this
supplement, and it's wrong.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you, Iain Levine, for joining us from
Human Rights Watch; Felix Salmon, felixsalmon.com is his blog; and Jason
Miller at University of California, though not the first university to
cut off dealings with companies doing business with the Sudan, was one
of the largest, and it just happened.
To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here
for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.
_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet
% UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------
