“All the NewsrnUnfit to Print” ignsJ of tl)e QEimesirnVol. 2 No. 2 February 2000rn”Spectacular fiasco for the organizers . . .rna damning verdict on globalization that ignoresrnits own consequences” was LernMonde’fi assessment (December 2) of thernWorld Trade Organization summit inrnSeattle. Dozens of dailies all over thernworld concurred. But the reporting of thisrnevent, its background, and the accompanyingrnprotests in the “mainstream” Americanrnmedia provided another depressingrnexample of information management at itsrnmost brazenly manipulative.rnEven before the conference, as tens ofrnthousands of anti-WTO activists accompaniedrn130 trade ministers to Seattle, thernnews coverage anticipating the protestsrnshed little light on the specific chargesrnagainst the WTO. Typically misleadingrnwas a November 1 ailicle in U.S. News &rnWorld Report that equated opposition tornthe WTO with opposition to “trade” inrngeneral—but, happily, “the movementrnagainst free trade seems to have little tractionrnin the United States . . . All majorrnpresidential candidates support free tradernand the WTO.”rnMost pre-summit reports claimed thatrnthe WTO sought to “open up” tradernaround the globe and that its detractorsrnwere “anti-trade” eccentrics. ABC’s PeterrnJennings said that “it seems as though everyrngroup with every complaint from everyrncomer of the world is represented inrnSeattle this week.” The Associated Pressrncalled protesters’ concerns “far-fetched.”rnDan Rather noted that the WTO hadrn”ruled on many environmental issues”—rnthus implying that it was not indifferent tornsuch issues—but did not note that thernWTO has ruled against environmental restrictionsrnin every single case that hasrncome before it.rnFor the real score, one had to go to therninternet. Dean Baker’s feature in FAIRrn(Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting,rnwww.fairorg/err/991108.html) pointedrnout that the WTO’s model of global tradernis anything but “free”:rnWhile i t s rules are designed tornf a c i l i t a t e foreign investment,rnsuch as a U.S. auto manufacturerrnbuilding a factory in Indonesia,rnin other areas the WTOrnhas taken l i t t l e action to facrni l i t a t e trade, while in somernareas i t s rules are intended tornimpede free trade. In the casernof professional services, suchrnas those provided by doctors,rnlawyers and other highly paidrnprofessionals, the WTO hasrndone v i r t u a l l y nothing to facrni l i t a t e international tradernand competition.rnIn his new book, Francis Fukuyama, anrnunabashed fan of the WTO. confirms whatrncritics of the organization have longrnfeared:rnThe WTO i s the only internationalrnorganization thatrnstands any chance of evolvingrninto an i n s t i t u t i o n of globalrngovernance, setting rules notrnonly for how countries willrntrade and invest with one another,rnbut also for how theyrnwill deal with issues like laborrnstandards and the environmentrn.rnThe U.S. media’s agitprop was immediatelyrnexposed by journalists from otherrncountries. “TV networks turn a blinkeredrncamera to the violence” read a headline inrnthe Independent (December 2):rnAnyone who switched on thernt e l e v i s i o n in the second halfrnof Tuesday, wondering what wasrnhappening in Seattle . . .rnwould have been l i t t l e the wiser.rnThe dozens of network andrncable stations that shelvedrnregular programming to showrn. . . the 0 J Simpson carrnchase, the phalanxes of t e r r i ­fiedrnchildren running out ofrnColumbine High School and thernoffice complex in Atlantarnwhere a gunman was on thernloose, offered viewers precrni s e l y nothing. The timernb i l l e d for the World Trade Organization’srnopening ceremony,rnfrequently announced beforehand,rncame and went without thernbarest acknowledgement that i trnhad been postponed becauserndelegates were held up byrns t r e e t demonstrations.rnInstead of showing clips of the demonstrations,rnor an interview with a demonstratorrnor a delegate, hour upon hour ofrnvacuous fill-in programs followed on allrnmajor networks, obviously reflecting arnconscious editorial decision:rnNews b u l l e t i n s were led by thernprevious day’s discovery ofrnsuspected mass graves in Mexico.rnIf the disturbances inrnSeattle figured at a l l , i t wasrnin snatches, lower down thernnewscast. By l a t e evening,rnwhen the governor of Washingtonrns t a t e had declared a s t a t ernof emergency and announcedrnthat the National Guard wouldrnbe dispatched the next morning,rna number of cable newsrns t a t i o n s were showing footage,rnor rather snippets, of thernSeattle mayhem, most of itrnedited. . . . There was nornl i v e , open-ended coverage ofrnthe “battle in Seattle” onrnAmerican television; i t wasrnnot until [a day l a t e r ] thatrnviewers were shown the scale ofrnthe disturbances, by whichrntime i t was history, and edited.rnThat all major networks suppressed thernnews from Seattle was noted at home,rntoo, but only on the internet—and nonerndid so more bitingly than Matt Drudgern{www.freerepiihlic.com, December 1):rnImagine, if you w i l l , that anrnexplosion rocks P r i s t i n a . Yournj u s t know Christiane Amanpourrnwould rush to the airwaves inrnbreaking news urgency, withrnonions under her fingernails.rn22/CHRONICLESrnrnrn