On 2 November 2008, the New York Times Magazine headlined “Questions for James K. Galbraith: The Populist,” which was an “Interview by Deborah Solomon” of the prominent liberal economist and son of John Kenneth Galbraith. She asked him, “There are at least 15,000 professional economists in this country, and you’re saying only two or three of them foresaw the mortgage crisis” which had brought on the second Great Depression?

He answered: “Ten or twelve would be closer than two or three.”

She very appropriately followed up immediately with “What does this say about the field of economics, which claims to be a science?”

He didn’t answer by straight-out saying that economics isn’t any more of a science than physics was before Galileo, or than biology was before Darwin. He didn’t proceed to explain that the very idea of a Nobel Prize in Economics was based upon a lie which alleged that economics was the first field to become scientific within all of the “social sciences,” when, in fact, there weren’t yet any social sciences, none yet at all. But he came close to admitting these things, when he said: “It’s an enormous blot on the reputation of the profession. There are thousands of economists. Most of them teach. And most of them teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless.” His term “useless” was a euphemism for false. His term “blot” was a euphemism for “nullification.”

On 9 January 2009, economist Jeff Madrick headlined at The Daily Beast, “How the Entire Economics Profession Failed,” and he opened:

At the annual meeting of American Economists, most everyone refused to admit their failures to prepare or warn about the second worst crisis of the century.

I could find no shame in the halls of the San Francisco Hilton, the location at the annual meeting of American economists. Mainstream economists from major universities dominate the meetings, and some of them are the anointed cream of the crop, including former Clinton, Bush and even Reagan advisers.

There was no session on the schedule about how the vast majority of economists should deal with their failure to anticipate or even seriously warn about the possibility that the second worst economic crisis of the last hundred years was imminent.

I heard no calls to reform educational curricula because of a crisis so threatening and surprising that it undermines, at least if the academicians were honest, the key assumptions of the economic theory currently being taught. …

I found no one fundamentally changing his or her mind about the value of economics, economists, or their work.”

He observed a scandalous profession of quacks who are satisfied to remain quacks. The public possesses faith in them because it possesses faith in the “invisible hand” of God, and everyone is taught to believe in that from the crib. In no way is it science.

In a science, when facts prove that the theory is false, the theory gets replaced, it’s no longer taught. In a scholarly field, however, that’s not so — proven-false theory continues being taught. In economics, the proven-false theory continued being taught, and still continues today to be taught. This demonstrates that economics is still a religion or some other type of philosophy, not yet any sort of science.

Mankind is still coming out of the Dark Ages. The Bible is still being viewed as history, not as myth (which it is), not as some sort of religious or even political propaganda. It makes a difference — a huge difference: the difference between truth and falsehood.

The Dutch economist Dirk J. Bezemer, at Groningen University, posted on 16 June 2009 a soon-classic paper, “‘No One Saw This Coming’: Understanding Financial Crisis Through Accounting Models,” in which he surveyed the work of 12 economists who did see it (the economic collapse of 2008) coming; and he found there that they had all used accounting or “Flow of Funds” models, instead of the standard microeconomic theory. (In other words: they accounted for, instead of ignored, debts.) From 2005 through 2007, these accounting-based economists had published specific and accurate predictions of what would happen: Dean Baker, Wynne Godley, Fred Harrison, Michael Hudson, Eric Janszen, Stephen (“Steve”) Keen, Jakob B. Madsen, Jens K. Sorensen, Kurt Richebaecher, Nouriel Roubini, Peter Schiff, and Robert Shiller.

He should have added several others. Paul Krugman, wrote a NYT column on 12 August 2005 headlined “Safe as Houses” and he said “Houses aren’t safe at all” and that they would likely decline in price. On 25 August 2006, he bannered “Housing Gets Ugly” and concluded “It’s hard to see how we can avoid a serious slowdown.” Bezemer should also have included Merrill Lynch’s Chief North American Economist, David A. Rosenberg, whose The Market Economist article “Rosie’s Housing Call August 2004” on 6 August 2004 already concluded, “The housing sector has entered a ‘bubble’ phase,” and who presented a series of graphs showing it. Bezemer should also have included Satyajit Das, about whom TheStreet had headlined on 21 September 21 2007, “The Credit Crisis Could Be Just Beginning.” He should certainly have included Ann Pettifor, whose 2003 The Real World Economic Outlook, and her masterpiece the 2006 The Coming First World Debt Crisis, predicted exactly what happened and why. Her next book, the 2009 The Production of Money: How to Break the Power of Bankers, was almost a masterpiece, but it failed to present any alternative to the existing microeconomic theory — as if microeconomic theory isn’t a necessary part of economic theory. Another great economist he should have mentioned was Charles Hugh Smith, who had been accurately predicting since at least 2005 the sequence of events that culminated in the 2008 collapse. And Bezemer should especially have listed the BIS’s chief economist, William White, regarding whom Germany’s Spiegel headlined on 8 July 2009, “Global Banking Economist Warned of Coming Crisis.” (It is about but doesn’t mention nor link to https://www.bis.org/publ/work147.pdf.) White had been at war against the policies of America’s Fed chief Alan Greenspan ever since 1998, and especially since 2003, but the world’s aristocrats muzzled White’s view and promoted Greenspan’s instead. (The economics profession have always been propagandists for the super-rich.) Bezemer should also have listed Charles R. Morris, who in 2007 told his publisher Peter Osnos that the crash would start in Summer 2008, which was basically correct. Moreover, James K. Galbraith had written for years saying that a demand-led depression would result, such as in his American Prospect “How the Economists Got It Wrong,” 30 November 2002; and “Bankers Versus Base,” 15 April 2004, and culminating finally in his 2008 The Predator State, which blamed the aristocracy in the strongest possible terms for the maelstrom to come. Bezemer should also have listed Barry Ritholtz, who, in his “Recession Predictor,” on 18 August 2005, noted the optimistic view of establishment economists and then said, “I disagree … due to Psychology of consumers.” He noted “consumer debt, not as a percentage of GDP, but relative to net asset wealth,” and also declining “median personal income,” as pointing toward a crash from this mounting debt-overload. Then, on 31 May 2006, he headlined “Recent Housing Data: Charts & Analysis,” and opened: “It has long been our view that Real Estate is the prime driver of this economy, and its eventual cooling will be a major crimp in GDP, durable goods, and consumer spending.” Bezemer should also have listed both Paul Kasriel and Asha Bangalore at Northern Trust. Kasriel headlined on 22 May 2007, “US Economy May Wake Up Without Consumers’ Prodding?” and said it wouldn’t happen – and consumers were too much in debt. Then on 8 August 2007, he bannered: “US Economic Growth in Domestic Final Demand,” and said that “the housing recession is … spreading to other parts of the economy.” On 25 May 2006, Bangalore headlined “Housing Market Is Cooling Down, No Doubts About It.” and that was one of two Asha Bangalore articles which were central to Ritholtz’s 31 May 2006 article showing that all of the main indicators pointed to a plunge in house-prices that had started in March 2005; so, by May 2006, it was already clear from the relevant data, that a huge economic crash was comning soon. Another whom Bezemer should have listed was L. Randall Wray, whose 2005 Levy Economics Institute article, “The Ownership Society: Social Security Is Only the Beginning” asserted that it was being published “at the peak of what appears to be a real estate bubble.” Bezemer should also have listed Paul B. Farrell, columnist at marketwatch.com, who saw practically all the correct signs, in his 26 June 2005 “Global Megabubble? You Decide. Real Estate Is Only Tip of Iceberg; or Is It?”; and his 17 July 2005 “Best Strategies to Beat the Megabubble: Real Estate Bubble Could Trigger Global Economic Meltdown”; and his 9 January 2006 “Meltdown in 2006? Cast Your Vote”; and 15 May 2006 “Party Time (Until Real Estate Collapses)”; and his 21 August 2006 “Tipping Point Pops Bubble, Triggers Bear: Ten Warnings the Economy, Markets Have Pushed into Danger Zone”; and his 30 July 2007 “You Pick: Which of 20 Tipping Points Ignites Long Bear Market?” Farrell’s commentaries also highlighted the same reform-recommendations that most of the others did, such as Baker, Keen, Pettifor, Galbraith, Ritholtz, and Wray; such as break up the mega-banks, and stiffen regulation of financial institutions. However, the vast majority of academically respected economists disagreed with all of this and were wildly wrong in their predictions, and in their analyses. The Nobel Committee should have withdrawn their previous awards in economics to still-practicing economists (except to Krugman who did win a Nobel) and re-assigned them to these 25 economists, who showed that they had really deserved it.

And there was another: economicpredictions.org tracked four economists who predicted correctly the 2008 crash: Dean Baker, Nouriel Roubini, Peter Schiff, and Med Jones, the latter of whom had actually the best overall record regarding the predictions that were tracked there.

And still others should also be on the list: for example, Joe Weisenthal at Business Insider headlined on 21 November 2012, “The Genius Who Invented Economics Blogging Reveals How He Got Everything Right And What’s Coming Next” and he interviewed Bill McBride, who had started his calculated riskblog in January 2005. So I looked in the archives there at December 2005, and noticed December 28th, “Looking Forward: 2006 Top Economic Stories.” He started there with four trends that he expected everyone to think of, and then listed another five that weren’t so easy, including “Housing Slowdown. In my opinion, the Housing Bubble was the top economic story of 2005, but I expect the slowdown to be a form of Chinese water torture. Sales for both existing and new homes will probably fall next year from the records set in 2005. And median prices will probably increase slightly, with declines in the more ‘heated markets.’” McBride also had predicted that the economic rebound would start in 2009, and he was now, in 2012, predicting a strong 2013. Probably Joe Weisenthal was right in calling McBride a “Genius.”

And also, Mike Whitney at InformationClearinghouse.info and other sites, headlined on 20 November 2006, “Housing Bubble Smack-Down,” and he nailed the credit-boom and Fed easy-money policy as the cause of the housing bubble and the source of an imminent crash.

Furthermore, Ian Welsh headlined on 28 November 2007, “Looking Forward At the Consequences of This Bubble Bursting,” and listed 10 features of the crash to come, of which 7 actually happened.

In addition, Gail Tverberg, an actuary, headlined on 9 January 2008 “Peak Oil and the Financial Markets: A Forecast for 2008,” and provided the most detailed of all the prescient descriptions of the collapse that would happen that year.

Furthermore, Gary Shilling’s January 2007 Insight newsletter listed “12 investment themes” which described perfectly what subsequently happened, starting with “The housing bubble has burst.”

And the individual investing blogger Jesse Colombo started noticing the housing bubble even as early as 6 September 2004, blogging at his stock-market-crash.net “The Housing Bubble” and documenting that it would happen (“Here is the evidence that we are in a massive housing bubble:”) and what the economic impact was going to be. Then on 7 February 2006 he headlined “The Coming Crash!” and said “Based on today’s overvalued housing prices, a 20 percent crash is certainly in the cards.”

Also: Stephanie Pomboy of MacroMavens issued an analysis and appropriate graphs on 7 December 2007, headlined “When Animals Attack” and predicting imminently a huge economic crash.

In alphabetical order, they are: Dean Baker, Asha Bangalore, Jesse Colombo, Satyajit Das, Paul B. Farrell, James K. Galbraith, Wynne Godley, Fred Harrison, Michael Hudson, Eric Janszen, Med Jones, Paul Kasriel, Steve Keen, Paul Krugman, Jakob B. Madsen, Bill McBride, Charles R. Morris, Ann Pettifor, Stehanie Pomboy, Kurt Richebaeker, Barry Ritholtz, David A. Rosenberg, Nouriel Roubini, Peter Schiff, Robert Shiller, Gary Shilling, Charles Hugh Smith, Jens K. Sorensen, Gail Tverberg, Ian Welsh, William White, Mike Whitney, L. Randall Wray.

Thus, at least 33 economists were contenders as having been worth their salt as economic professionals. One can say that only 33 economists predicted the 2008 collapse, or that only 33 economists predicted accurately or reasonably accurately the collapse. However, some of those 33 were’t actually professional economists. So, some of the world’s 33 best economists aren’t even professional economists, as accepted in that rotten profession.

So, the few honest and open-eyed economists (these 33, at least) tried to warn the world. Did the economics profession honor them for their having foretold the 2008 collapse? Did President Barack Obama hire them, and fire the incompetents he had previously hired for his Council of Economic Advisers? Did the Nobel Committee acknowledge that it had given Nobel Economics Prizes to the wrong people, including people such as the conservative Milton Friedman whose works were instrumental in causing the 2008 crash? Also complicit in causing the 2008 crash was the multiple-award-winning liberal economist Lawrence Summers, who largely agreed with Friedman but was nonetheless called a liberal. Evidently, the world was too corrupt for any of these 33 to reach such heights of power or of authority. Like Galbraith had said at the close of his 2002 “How the Economists Got It Wrong“: “Being right doesn’t count for much in this club.” If anything, being right means being excluded from such posts. In an authentically scientific field, the performance of one’s predictions (their accuracy) is the chief (if not SOLE) determinant of one’s reputation and honor amongst the profession, but that’s actually not the way things yet are in any of the social “sciences,” including economics; they’re all just witch-doctory, not yet real science. The fraudulence of these fields is just ghastly. In fact, as Steve Keen scandalously noted in Chapter 7 of his 2001 Debunking Economics: “As this book shows, economics [theory] is replete with logical inconsistencies.” In any science, illogic is the surest sign of non-science, but it is common and accepted in the social ‘sciences’, including economics. The economics profession itself is garbage, a bad joke, instead of any science at all.

These 33 were actually only candidates for being scientific economists, but I have found the predictions of some of them to have been very wrong on some subsequent matters of economic performance. For example, the best-known of the 33, Paul Krugman, is a “military Keynesian” — a liberal neoconservative (and military Keynesianism is empirically VERY discredited: false worldwide, and false even in the country that champions it, the U.S.) — and he is unfavorable toward the poor, and favorable toward the rich; so, he is acceptable to the Establishment.) Perhaps a few of these 33 economists (perhaps half of whom aren’t even members of the economics profession) ARE scientific (in their underlying economic beliefs — their operating economic theory) if a scientific economics means that it’s based upon a scientific theory of economics — a theory that is derived not from any opinions but only from the relevant empirical data. Although virtually all of the 33 are basically some sort of Keynesian, even that (Keynes’s theory) isn’t a full-fledged theory of economics (it has many vagaries, and it has no microeconomics). The economics profession is still a field of philosophy, instead of a field of science.

The last chapter of my America’s Empire of Evil presents what I believe to be the first-ever scientific theory of economics, a theory that replaces all of microeconomic theory (including a micro that’s integrated with its macro) and is consistent with Keynes in macroeconomic theory; and all of which theory is derived and documented from only the relevant empirical economic data — NOT from anyone’s opinions. The economics profession think that replacing existing economic theory isn’t necessary after the crash of 2008, but I think it clearly IS necessary (because — as that chapter of my book shows — all of the relevant empirical economic data CONTRADICT the existing economic theory, ESPECIALLY the existing microeconomic theory).

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Eric Zuesse.

“A gargantuan influence.”
— Chris Hedges

“ … brilliant … unswerving … relentless … heroic.”
— Arundhati Roy

“Preposterously thorough.”
— Edward Said

“[A] fierce talent.”
— Eduardo Galeano

“An intellectual cannon.”
— Israel Shamir

“A lighthouse over a sea of hogwash.”
— Kathleen Cleaver

He had a disarming frankness, a toothy grin, a dazzling mind that never rested.

He always felt completely out of tune with the world. At ten, he published his first article (in the school paper) – a lament on the fall of Barcelona to Franco. At thirteen, he was haunting anarchist bookstores in New York City and working a newsstand with his uncle, eagerly soaking up everything a brilliant mix of immigrant minds had to offer, by far the richest intellectual environment he was ever to encounter. At sixteen, he went off by himself at the news of Hiroshima, unable to comprehend anyone else’s reaction to the horror. At twenty-four, he abandoned a Harvard fellowship to live on a kibbutz, returning only by chance to fulfill an academic career. At twenty-eight, he revolutionized the field of linguistics with his book, Syntactic Structures. At twenty-nine, he became associate professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (and full professor three years later), though his competence with technology was limited to the tape recorder. At thirty-five, he threw himself into anti-war protest, giving talks, writing letters and articles, promoting teach-ins, and helping to organize student demonstrations and draft resistance against the Vietnam War. At thirty-eight, he risked a five-year jail term protesting at the Pentagon, spending the night in jail alongside Norman Mailer, who described him in Armies of the Night as “a slim sharp-featured man with an ascetic expression, and an air of gentle but absolute moral integrity.”[1] At forty, he was the only white face in the crowd at Fred Hampton’s funeral, after the young Black Panther leader was gunned down by the FBI in a Gestapo-style raid.[2]

Such was the early life of America’s greatest dissident intellectual, raised in a deeply anti-Semitic German-Irish neighborhood in Quaker Philadelphia, later awarded an elite linguistics professorship at the center of the Pentagon system at MIT.

Fulfilling a brilliant academic career at the pinnacle of the Ivory Tower, Chomsky railed against his fellow intellectuals’ subservience to power, dismissing pious declarations of Washington’s alleged commitment to freedom, equality, and democracy, with abundant demonstrations of its actual values – greed, domination, and deceit. He forensically examined the claim that the establishment media operate as an objective check on the excesses of the powerful, marshalling overwhelming evidence showing that in fact they are a propaganda service working on their behalf. Laboriously debunking the flood of lies and distortions targeting mass audiences, he transformed dangerous misperceptions of U.S. benevolence into insightful comprehension of imperial reality.

Thus we learned that the Vietnam War was not a noble quest to defend freedom, but a quasi-genocidal assault on a former French colony designed to subjugate a defenseless peasantry; that Israel was not a glorious example of uniquely decent democratic socialism, but a modern Sparta on a path to self-destruction; that the Cold War was not a contest between freedom and slavery, but a shared opposition to independent nationalism, in which a galaxy of neo-Nazi U.S. client states masqueraded as the “Free World.”[3]

Such insights were anathema in academia, and Chomsky quickly earned a reputation as a political crank among his more subservient colleagues (the vast majority), even as he gained considerable stature as a public intellectual in American society at large and internationally. These contrasting perceptions of his credibility made for a striking schizophrenia in how he was evaluated: dismissed as a lunatic by pundits and professors, Chomsky’s political lectures were sold out years in advance to overflow general audiences throughout the world.

Elite commentators who wrote him off as a novice for his lack of credentials in political science contradicted themselves by recognizing him as a genius for his linguistics work, though he had no formal credentials in that field either. Nevertheless, they were right about his genius. When Chomsky first entered linguistics the prevailing model of language acquisition was behaviorist, the assumption being that children acquire language by imitation and “reinforcement” (gratifying responses from others for the correct use of language), which Chomsky immediately realized couldn’t begin to account for the richness of even the simplest language use – obvious from an early age in all healthy children – who routinely manifest patterns of use they’ve never heard before.

When Chomsky subjected the behaviorist paradigm to rational scrutiny it promptly collapsed, replaced by recognition that language capacity is actually innate and a product of maturation, emerging at an appropriate stage of biological development in the same way that secondary sex characteristics not evident in childhood emerge during puberty. Like so many other Chomsky insights, the idea that language capacity is part of the unfolding of a genetic program seems rather obvious in retrospect, but in the 1950s it was a revolutionary thought, vaulting the young MIT professor to international academic stardom as the most penetrating thinker in a field his un-credentialed insights utterly transformed.[4]

At the time, Chomsky appeared to be living the perfect life from a purely personal standpoint. He had fascinating work, professional acclaim, lifetime economic security, and a loving marriage with young children growing up in a beautiful suburb of Boston, an ideal balance of personal and professional fulfillment. But just then a dark cloud called Vietnam appeared on the horizon, and Chomsky – with supreme reluctance – launched himself into a major activist career, sacrificing nearly all of his personal life along the way.[5]

In the Eisenhower years the U.S. had relied on mercenaries and client groups to attack the Vietminh, a communist-led nationalist force that had fought the French and was seeking South Vietnamese independence with the ultimate goal of a re-unification of South and North Vietnam through national elections. Though the U.S. was systematically murdering its leaders, the Vietminh did not respond to the violence directed against them for many years. Finally, in 1959, came an authorization allowing the Vietminh to use force in self-defense, at which point the South Vietnamese government (U.S. client state) collapsed, as its monopoly of force was all it had had to sustain itself in power.

Plans for de-colonization proceeded. The National Liberation Front was formed, and in its founding program it called for South Vietnamese independence and the formation of a neutral bloc consisting of Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam, with the ultimate goal of peacefully unifying all of Vietnam. At that point there were no North Vietnamese forces in the South, and no North-South military conflict.[6] That would emerge later, as a direct result of U.S. insistence on subjugating the South.

To head off the political threat of South Vietnamese independence, President Kennedy sent the U.S. Air Force to bomb rural South Vietnam in October 1962 and drive the villagers into “strategic hamlets” (concentration camps), in order to separate them from the nationalist guerrilla movement Pentagon documents conceded they were willingly supporting. This overt act of U.S. aggression was noted in the press, but without a flicker of public protest, which would only come years later.[7]

When Chomsky first began speaking out on Vietnam, venues were scarce and public support for the effort virtually nil. He was actually grateful for the customary police presence, which prevented him from getting beaten up. “In those days, protests against the war meant speaking several nights a week at a church to an audience of half a dozen people,” Chomsky remembered years later, “mostly bored or hostile, or at someone’s home where a few people might be gathered, or at a meeting at a college that included the topics of Vietnam, Iran, Central America, and nuclear arms, in the hope that maybe participants would outnumber the organizers.”[8] The quality of his analysis was extraordinary and Chomsky placed himself “in the very first rank” of war critics (Christopher Hitchens) from the start, helping to spark a mass anti-war movement over the next several years.[9] Unlike “pragmatic” opponents of the war, who justified U.S. imperialism in principle but feared it would not bring military victory in Vietnam, Chomsky called out U.S. aggression by name, sided with its victims, and urged the war be terminated without pre-conditions.

Though a radical departure from establishment orthodoxy, Chomsky’s positions on the war were always carefully thought out, never blindly oppositional. For example, though he opposed the drafting of young men to fight in a criminal war, he was not opposed to a draft per se. In fact, he emphasized that a draft meant that soldiers could not be kept insulated from the civilian society of which they were a part, leading to what he regarded as an admirable collapse of soldier morale when the anti-war movement exposed U.S. intervention in Vietnam as naked aggression. When the draft was terminated in 1973, the Pentagon shifted to a “volunteer” army, that is, a mercenary army of the poor and low-income, which Chomsky regarded as one much less likely to be affected by popular anti-war agitation, even aside from the more serious issue of unjustly assigning responsibility for “national defense” to the most economically exploited sector of the population. For these reasons he felt that a universal draft was to be preferred to a “volunteer” army brought into being by strongly coercive economic forces.[10]

Unlike his establishment critics, Chomsky did not consider class analysis a conspiracy theory, but rather, an indispensable tool in properly accounting for known facts. For example, while there was no national interest in attacking South Vietnam, there very much was an elite interest in suppressing the contagious example of a successful national independence movement in Southeast Asia, as the failure to do so might encourage other countries in the Pacific to “go communist” (i.e., seek independence), which could ultimately have reversed the outcome of WWII in the Pacific had Japan ended up accommodating the officially socialist world instead of Washington.[11]

Given the unanswerable nature of this type of (anti-capitalist) analysis, Chomsky was kept well away from mass audiences. On the rare occasions he did appear in the corporate media, his overwhelming command of relevant fact meant that he couldn’t be distracted or derailed. When interviewers attempted to get him off track, they were quickly confronted by the soft query – “Do the facts matter?” – followed by an informational tsunami leading inexorably to a heretical conclusion.

Given his mastery of evidence and logic, it was frankly suicidal for Chomsky’s establishment critics to confront him directly, which probably accounts for why so few of them ever did. The handful that tried were promptly obliterated by a massive bombardment of inconvenient fact. Since “facts don’t care about your feelings,” all of the latter group were obligated to examine which irrational emotions had encouraged them to adopt the erroneous conclusions Chomsky showed them they held, but none of them did.

William F. Buckley had his error-riddled version of the post-WWII Greek civil war exposed on his own show – Firing Line. “Your history is quite confused there,” commented Chomsky to Buckley’s face, after the celebrated reactionary referred to an imaginary Communist insurgency prior to the Nazis’ Greek intervention.[12]

Neo-con Richard Perle tried to divert his discussion with Chomsky from U.S. intervention and denial of national independence around the world to an analysis of competing development models, an entirely different topic. With no answer for fact and reason, he was reduced to rhetorically asking the audience if it really didn’t find establishment mythology more plausible than what he called Chomsky’s “deeply cynical” arguments revealing the shameful truth.[13]

Boston University president John Silber complained that Chomsky hadn’t provided proper context when mentioning that the U.S. had assassinated Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero, blown up the church radio station, and cut the editor of the independent newspaper to pieces with machetes. Silber neglected to disclose what context could possibly redeem such atrocities.[14]

Dutch Minister of Defense Frederick Bolkestein dismissed Chomsky and Edward Herman’s thesis on capitalist media as a conspiracy theory and Chomsky’s anarchist convictions as a “boy’s dream.” In the course of their debate, however, Chomsky refuted every one of Bolkestein’s charges, while pointing out their complete irrelevance to evaluating the thesis advanced in Herman and Chomsky’s book, Manufacturing Consent, which was the purpose of the debate.

The term “Manufacturing Consent” derives from the public relations industry, the practices of which more than amply confirm Herman and Chomsky’s thesis that under capitalism the broad tendency of the mass media is to function as a propaganda service for the national security state and the private interests that dominate it. In any case, Bolkestein himself confirmed Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model in his very attempt to refute it, objecting to Chomsky’s allegedly undercounting of killings attributable to Pol Pot (an official enemy of the U.S.) while completely ignoring U.S. client Indonesia’s massacres in East Timor, to which Chomsky had compared the killings in Cambodia. This is exactly what the propaganda model predicts: crimes of state committed by one’s own side will be ignored or downplayed while those of official enemies will be exaggerated or invented, while occasioning great moral indignation, which is never in evidence when one’s own crimes are under discussion.[15]

These four intellectual knockouts by Chomsky appear to have deterred the rest of the establishment pack from even entertaining debating with him.[16] A story told by the late Alexander Cockburn suggests they were actually afraid to do so. “One prominent member of the British intellectual elite,” related Cockburn, warned him not to get into a dispute with Chomsky on the grounds that he was “a terrible and relentless opponent” who confronted central issues head-on and never ceded ground as part of a more complicated maneuver. That was why, explained Cockburn, the guardians of official ideology so often targeted Chomsky with gratuitous vilification and childish abuse: “They shirk the real argument they fear they will lose, and substitute insult and distortion.”[17] (emphasis added)

So unprepared were these establishment mouthpieces to engage in substantive discussion that they actually refused Chomsky the customary right to defend himself even against their repeated personal attacks. After demonstrating that elite assertions about him were no more than vulgar smears, Chomsky found his letters to the editor went unprinted or were mangled beyond recognition by hostile editing.

Rather than take offense, Chomsky shrugged off such treatment as only to be expected. If he hadn’t received it, he often said, he would have had to suspect that he was doing something wrong.

As unperturbed as he was by personal attacks, the same cannot be said of his reaction to propaganda passed off as news. Christopher Hitchens and Alexander Cockburn both told the story of how Chomsky once went to the dentist and was informed that he was grinding his teeth in his sleep. Consultation with Mrs. Chomsky determined that this was not the case. Further investigation found that Chomsky was indeed grinding his teeth, but in the daytime – every morning when he read the New York Times.[18]

The explanation for these disparate reactions is straightforward. Chomsky could see that vilification was infantile and inconsequential and therefore easily dismissed it. But the deadly impact of mass brainwashing made him react with the whole of his being, unconsciously gnashing his teeth at elite hypocrisy.

This fury fed his boundless reading appetite, equipping him with the insurmountable advantage of a lifetime of determined preparation. An avid reader from early childhood, he devoured hundreds, if not thousands, of books growing up, checking out up to a dozen volumes at a time from the Philadelphia public library, steadily working his way through the realist classics – Austen, Dickens, Dostoevsky, Eliot, Hardy, Hugo, Tolstoy, Turgenev, Twain, and Zola – as well as Hebrew literature, including the Bible, and Marxist and anarchist texts.[19]

This insatiable appetite for books continued throughout his life, supplemented by countless other print sources. At home or at work he was always surrounded by enormous stacks of books, more than anyone could read in several lifetimes. The practical results of such a studious life could be amusing. Chomsky himself told the story of how he and his first wife Carol once heard a loud crash at 4:30 a.m., thinking it was an earthquake. In fact, it turned out to be a mountain of books cascading to the floor in an adjoining room.[20]

Though Chomsky could only read a portion of all that he would liked to have read, that portion was of staggering dimensions for any ordinary reader. Aside from the mountain of books he read growing up, according to his wife Carol he read six daily newspapers and eighty journals of opinion, in addition to thousands of personal letters he received from the general public, an important part of his reading load.[21] Before 911, Chomsky spent an average of twenty hours a week on personal correspondence, a figure that probably increased after 911 when interest in Chomsky’s work surged.[22] His longtime personal assistant Bev Stohl confirms that he answered e-mails every night until 3:00 a.m.,[23] while Chomsky himself used to say he wrote 15,000 words a week responding to personal letters, which he drily claimed was “a C.I.A. estimate.” Even subtracting out the writing time for private correspondence, one can see that Chomsky’s reading was beyond enormous, and not at all recreational, a preference that manifested itself early in life when he read a draft of his father’s dissertation on David Kimhi (1160-1236) a Hebrew grammarian,[24] which turned out to be the first step on a complicated path to intellectual stardom sixteen years later with the publication of Syntactic Structures.

Chomsky’s boundless reading appetite appears to have been matched by the public’s appetite to hear him speak. He probably spoke to more Americans in person than anyone else in history, giving political lectures and talks at a staggering rate for nearly sixty years. In the pre-zoom era that meant considerable travel, the demands of which he embraced without complaint, whether driving, flying, or taking the train. In addition to destinations all over the U.S. he also went to Colombia, Palestine, Nicaragua, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, India, Mexico, Britain, Spain, France, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, Japan, Italy, Turkey, and South Africa, among other places activists invited him to visit.

The talks were brilliant, and standing ovations routinely followed them. But the question and answer periods were where Chomsky’s unparalleled mastery stood out. Hour after hour questions were put to him on dozens of different topics, from labor history to union organizing to guerrilla tactics to drone warfare to economic theory to counter-insurgency and popular resistance, and hour after hour he patiently answered with illuminating precision and fascinating detail, at the same time providing an astonishing array of book titles, article summaries, history lessons, revealing quotes, and clarifying context about a seemingly limitless number of political conflicts past and present. His prodigious power of recall was vastly superior to any merely photographic memory, which overwhelms with irrelevant detail, whereas Chomsky always selected from a vast trove of information just what was immediately and historically relevant to a single person’s inquiry, before moving on to the next, and the next, and the next, and the next, in city after city, decade after decade after decade.

The size of his audiences mattered little to him, whether he spoke on a tiny college radio station or in front of thousands at a prestigious university. If anything, the larger audiences – though routine for Chomsky – were less desirable, as they highlighted the discouraging fact that too few intellectuals were willing to take up the challenge of political education and popular organization, a conformist constriction of supply in relation to strong public demand. In short, libertarian socialist Chomsky had no interest in being a “hot commodity,” and the fact that he could be regarded as such represented a failure of the intellectual class to politically engage with the public more than it did any personal merit on his part. Furthermore, as far as merit to his speaking ability goes, Chomsky deliberately refused to cultivate it, shunning oratory and rhetorical flourish in preference for what he called his “proudly boring” style of relying solely on logic and fact. Swaying audiences with emotion, he thought, was better left to propagandists.

This preference for the analytical over the emotionally gratifying was always in evidence with Chomsky. For example, in the early eighties a massive build-up of first-strike nuclear weapons sparked the emergence of the Nuclear Freeze movement, which mobilized enormous popular support for a bilateral freeze (U.S.-U.S.S.R.) in the production of new nuclear weapons by relentlessly focusing public attention on apocalyptic visions of nuclear annihilation.

From the moment the incineration of Hiroshima was publicly announced, of course, Chomsky, too, had recognized the danger of a world wired-up to explode in atomic fury, but he dissented from the view that paralyzing visions of utter destruction were an effective way of achieving nuclear disarmament. On the contrary, Chomsky felt that public attention needed to be focused on imperial policy, not military hardware, as it was policy that produced outcomes.[25] When the Nuclear Freeze movement attracted more than a million people to New York City in 1982 to protest the accelerating nuclear arms race, Chomsky withdrew from the event when no mention was made of Israel’s ongoing invasion and devastation of Lebanon, including the killing of Soviet advisers, a direct incitement to potentially terminal superpower confrontation.[26]

While the Freeze continued to focus laser-like on the awesome destructiveness of nuclear bombs, Chomsky found the approach insultingly simplistic, and expressed no surprise when its efforts were ultimately absorbed into the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, then headed by Kenneth Adelman, who was given the position after saying in his confirmation hearings that he had never given any consideration to the idea of disarmament.

In spite of dissenting in such ways even from the views of popular movements he sought to encourage, Chomsky’s public stature continued to grow. While subject to an almost complete blackout in the corporate media (for years after the end of the Vietnam War his writings could most reliably be found in the pages of the right-wing magazine Inquiry and the worker-owned and managed South End Press), Chomsky nevertheless won widespread acclaim for his analytical brilliance, tireless activism, and unflagging commitment to exposing the truth. Though he himself downplayed personal accolades, he won praise from a dazzling array of admirers, from learned professors and radical journalists to students, activists, authors, spiritual leaders, political hopefuls, movie directors, musicians, comedians, world champion boxers, political prisoners, international leaders, and awestruck fans throughout the world. With their constant compliments ringing in his ears, it’s doubly remarkable that he never lost his humility.

Physicist Lawrence Krauss remembered being deeply impressed by Chomsky’s consistent willingness to spend an hour of his time talking to him whenever Krauss dropped by his office as a young student at MIT, though Chomsky had no professional obligation to students outside of linguistics. “He showed me a kind of respect I wasn’t anticipating,” said an appreciative Krauss years later, while pronouncing Chomsky’s work “incisive, informative, provocative, and brilliant.”[27]

Activist and journalist Fred Branfman was impressed by Chomsky’s apparent ability to X-Ray vast reams of print and extract the essence for immediate practical use. When Chomsky visited Laos in 1970 to learn about refugees of U.S. saturation bombing of the region, Branfman gave him a 500-page book on the war in Laos at 10:00 one night, and was amazed to see him refute a propaganda point in a talk with a U.S. Embassy official the next day by citing a footnote buried hundreds of page into the text. Branfman was also struck by the fact that, unlike many intellectuals, Chomsky retained access to his deepest emotions. While witnessing Laotian peasants describing the horrific effects of U.S. bombing, he openly wept.[28] Overall, Branfman found Chomsky to be intense, driven, and unrelenting in combating injustice, but also warm, caring, wise, and gentle.

A documentary about Chomsky released in 2003 saluted his amazing productivity, calling him “[a] rebel without a pause,” which was the title of the film. After four decades of public intellectual work featuring eighteen-hour workdays, the MIT professor was well-known for working through the night drinking oceans of coffee, yet somehow still making himself available for morning interviews.[29]

Journalist and friend Alexander Cockburn emphasized Chomsky’s provision of a coherent “big picture” about politics, “buttressed by the data of a thousand smaller pictures and discrete theaters of conflict, struggle and oppression,” all the product of his extraordinary responsiveness to injustice. “Chomsky feels the abuses, cruelty and hypocrisies of power more than anyone,” wrote Cockburn. “It’s a state of continual alertness.”[30]

Famed American author and wilderness defender Edward Abbey wrote that Chomsky deserved the Nobel Prize for Truth, if only one had existed.[31]

British philosophy professor Nick Griffin declared Chomsky “extraordinarily well-informed,” and found the experience of simply talking to him “astonishing.” “He’s read everything and remembered what he’s read,” he marveled.[32]

Referring to the dissident classic, American Power and the New Mandarins, historian and gay rights activist Martin Duberman hailed Chomsky’s seemingly Olympian detachment, his tone so “free of exaggeration or misrepresentation,” his avoidance of “self-righteousness,” and his rare ability “to admit when a conclusion is uncertain or when the evidence allows for several possible conclusions.” Perhaps most remarkably, Chomsky was able, said Duberman, “to see inadequacies in the views or tactics of those who share his position – and even some occasional merit in those who do not,” a rare talent in the best of times and virtually non-existent in the frenzied tribalism so prevalent today.[33]

The brilliant Palestinian scholar Edward Said expressed admiration for Chomsky’s tireless willingness to confront injustice and for the awesome extent of his knowledge. “There is something deeply moving about a mind of such noble ideals repeatedly stirred on behalf of human suffering and injustice. One thinks here of Voltaire, of Benda, or Russell, although more than any of them Chomsky commands what he calls ‘reality’” – facts – over a breathtaking range.”[34]

Pantheon editor James Peck noted a kind of intellectual vertigo in reading Chomsky, finding his critiques “deeply unsettling” and impossible to categorize, as “no intellectual tradition quite captures his voice” and “no party claims him.” Always fresh and original, “his position [was] not a liberalism become radical, or a conservatism in revolt against the betrayal of claimed principles.” He was “a spokesman for no ideology.” His uniqueness, said Peck, “fits nowhere,” which was in itself “an indication of the radical nature of his dissent.”[35]

People’s historian Howard Zinn resorted to leg-pulling irony to describe the Chomsky phenomenon: “I found myself on a plane going south sitting next to a guy who introduced himself as Noam Chomsky…. It occurred to me, talking to him, that he was very smart.” Zinn, a popular speaker himself, was sometimes asked for the latest count of the learned professor’s staggering output of books. He would begin his reply with the qualification, “As of this morning,” and then pause for dramatic effect, drolly suggesting that any number he might offer stood a good chance of being abruptly rendered obsolete by Chomsky’s latest salvo.[36] Daniel Ellsberg was of similar mind, once saying that keeping up with Chomsky’s political work was a considerable challenge, as “he publishes faster than I can read.”[37]

Establishment liberal Bill Moyers was impressed by Chomsky’s apparently greater admiration for the intelligence of ordinary people than for the specialized talents of his elite colleagues. In an interview at the end of the Reagan years he told Chomsky: “[It] seems a little incongruous to hear a man from the Ivory Tower of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a scholar, a distinguished linguistics scholar, talk about common people with such appreciation.” Chomsky found no paradox at all in this, replying that his appreciation flowed naturally from the evidence provided by language study itself, which demonstrated overwhelmingly that ordinary people have deep-seated creative intelligence that separates humans from every other known species.[38]

Where paradox does exist is in elite intellectuals’ apparently boundless capacity to pervert natural human intelligence into specialized cleverness at serving the ends of power. However, this makes them not the most intelligent part of the population, as they believe themselves to be, but, on the contrary, the most gullible and easily deceived, a point Chomsky made often.

In Chomsky’s final public years the fruit of using our species intelligence to serve institutional stupidity manifested itself in growing threats of climate collapse, nuclear war, and ideological fanaticism displacing all prospect of democracy, calling into question the very survival value of such intelligence.

Helpfully, Chomsky has left us with sage advice about which direction our intelligence should take and also avoid, in order to escape looming catastrophe. As to the first, he said, “You should stick with the underdog.”[39] About the second, he said, “We should not succumb to irrational belief.”[40]

In June 2023, Chomsky suffered a massive stroke, leaving him paralyzed down the right side of his body, and with limited capacity to speak.

His appetite for news and sensitivity to injustice, however, remain intact. When he sees the news from Palestine, his wife reports, he raises his remaining good arm in a mute gesture of sorrow and anger.[41]

Still compassionate and defiant at 96.

Incredibly well done, Professor Chomsky.

Happy Birthday.[42]

ENDNOTES:

[1]Mailer quoted in Robert F. Barksy, Chomsky: A Life of Dissent, (MIT, 1997) p. 129.

[2] Chomsky’s childhood, see Mark Achbar, ed. Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, (Black Rose, 1994) pps. 44-50. Also, Robert F. Barsky, Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent, MIT Press, 1997) Chapter 1. Chomsky at Fred Hampton’s funeral see Christopher Hitchens, Covert Action Information Bulletin event at the University of the District of Colombia, C-SPAN 1995 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODfic8Z818

[3]On U.S. neo-Nazi client states, see Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, The Washington Connection And Third World Fascism, (South End, 1979), and many subsequent works. On Vietnam, see Noam Chomsky, American Power and the New Mandarins: Historical and Political Essays; (Vintage, 1969); Noam Chomsky; At War With Asia: Essays on Indochina, (Pantheon, 1970); and Noam Chomsky; For Reasons of State, (The New Press, 2003). On the Middle East, see Noam Chomsky, The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians, (South End, 1983); Noam Chomsky & Gilbert Achcar, Perilous Power: The Middle East And U.S. Foreign Policy, (Paradigm, 2007); Noam Chomsky, Middle East Illusions, (Rowman & Littlefield, 2007). On the Cold War, see Noam Chomsky, World Orders Old and New, (Columbia, 1994).

[4]Chomsky appears to never have confused symbols of knowledge (credentials) with knowledge itself, and he had early evidence that the brightest minds were often without credentials. The uncle whose newsstand he helped work was extremely intelligent and well-read, even had a lay practice in psychoanalysis, but never went beyond fourth grade. Similarly, though his mother never went to college, Noam agreed that she was “much smarter” than his father and his friends, who he said “were all Ph.Ds, big professors and rabbis,” but “talking nonsense mostly.” On Chomsky’s uncle, see Mark Achbar ed., Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, (Black Rose, 1994), p. 50. On Chomsky’s mother, see Noam Chomsky (with David Barsamian), Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World,” (Metropolitan Books, 2005), p. 158.

[5]Chomsky found political activism distasteful, and hated giving up his rich personal life. See Mark Achbar ed., Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, (Black Rose, 1994) p. 65-6.

[6]Noam Chomsky interviewed by Paul Shannon, “The Legacy of the Vietnam War,” Indochina Newsletter, Issue 18, November-December, 1982, pps. 1-5, available at www.chomsky.info.net

[7]Noam Chomsky, The Chomsky Reader, (Pantheon, 1987) p. 224-5.

[8]Chomsky quoted in Milan Rai, Chomsky’s Politics, (Verso, 1995), p. 14.

[9]Christopher Hitchens, Covert Action Information Bulletin event at the University of the District of Colombia, C-SPAN, 1995, available on You Tube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODficd8Z818

[10]Peter R. Mitchell and John Schoeffel, eds. Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky, (New Press, 2002) pps. 35-6

[11]See Noam Chomsky, “Vietnam and United States Global Strategy,” The Chomsky Reader, (Pantheon, 1987) pps. 232-5.

[12]“Firing Line with William F. Buckley: Vietnam and the Intellectuals,” Episode 143, April 3, 1969.

[13]“The Perle-Chomsky Debate – Noam Chomsky Debates with Richard Perle,” Ohio State University, 1988, transcript available at www.chomsky.info.net.

[14]“On the Contras – Noam Chomsky Debates with John Silver,” The Ten O’clock News, 1986, transcript available at www.chomsky.info.net

[15]Mark Achbar, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, (Black Rose, 1994) pps. 128-31

[16]There was also a “debate” between Chomsky and Alan Dershowitz in 2005 on the future of Israel/Palestine, although Dershowitz’s performance was not much more than intellectual clowning, with repeated “I” declarations demonstrating his inability to move beyond narcissistic fantasy (“I believe,” “I think,” “I call for,” “I propose,” “I support,” “I have written,” “I can tell you,” “I favor,” “I see,” “I hope,” etc.). He irrelevantly quoted Ecclesiastes, called for a “Chekhovian” as opposed to “Shakespearean” peace, and ignored decades of total U.S.-Israeli opposition to anything remotely like national liberation for Palestinians. Chomsky wryly congratulated him for the one truthful statement he made, i.e., that Chomsky had been a youth counselor at Camp Massad in the Pocono Mountains in the 1940s. See “Noam Chomsky v. Alan Dershowitz: A Debate on the Israel-Palestinian Conflict,” Democracy Now, December 23, 2005

[17]Alexander Cockburn in David Barsamian, Chronicles of Dissent: Interviews with Noam Chomsky, (Common Courage, 1992) p. xii

[18]An understandable reaction given the “Newspaper of Record’s” grotesque distortions. On Chomsky’s teeth-grinding, see Alexander Cockburn in David Barsamian, “Chronicles of Dissent – Interviews with Noam Chomsky,” (Common Courage, 1992) p. ix; Christopher Hitchens, Covert Action Information Bulletin event at the University of the District of Colombia, C_SPAN, 1995, available on You Tube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODficd8Z818

[19]Robert Barsky, Chomsky: A Life of Dissent, (MIT, 1997) p. 13, 19; Mark Achbar ed., Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, (Black Rose, 1994) p. 44

[20]Noam Chomsky in David Barsamian, Class Warfare: Interviews With David Barsamian, (Common Courage, 1996) p. 26

[21] Noam Chomsky: Rebel Without a Pause, 2003 Documentary

[22] Robert Barsky, Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent, (MIT, 1997) p. 45

[23] Bev Bousseau Stohl, Chomsky and Me: A Memoir, (OR Books, 2023) p. 53

[24] Robert F. Barsky, Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent, (MIT, 1997,) p. 10

[25]“A narrow focus on strategic weapons tends to reinforce the basic principle of the ideological system … that the superpower conflict is the central element of world affairs, to which all else is subordinated.” Noam Chomsky, “Priorities For Averting The Holocaust,” in Radical Priorities, (Black Rose, 1984) p. 283

[26]“The conclusion is that if we hope to avert nuclear war, the size and character of nuclear arsenals is a secondary consideration.” Noam Chomsky, “The Danger of Nuclear War and What We Can Do About It,” Radical Priorities, (Black Rose, 1984) p. 272.

[27]“Chomsky and Krauss: An Origins Project Dialogue,” You Tube, March 31, 2013

[28] Fred Branfman, “When Chomsky Wept,” Salon, June 17, 2012

[29]Bev Boisseau Stohl, Chomsky and Me: A Memoir, (OR Books, 2023) p. 92

[30]Alexander Cockburn in David Barsamian, Chronicles of Dissent: Interviews with Noam Chomsky, (Common Courage, 1992) p. x – xi

[31]Edward Abbey, ed., The Best of Edward Abbey, (Counterpoint, 2005), preface.

[32]Quoted in the documentary Rebel Without a Pause, 2003.

[33]Martin Duberman quoted on the back cover of “American Power and the New Mandarins,” 1969 (first Vintage Books edition).

[34]Edward Said, “The Politics of Dispossession,” (Chatto and Windus, 1994) p. 263

[35]James Peck, introduction to The Chomsky Reader, (Pantheon, 1987) p. vii – xix

[36]Howard Zinn, The Future of History: Interviews With David Barsamian, (Common Courage, 1999), pps. 39-40. Though Chomsky’s total book count has ended up around 150 (with collaborations with activist friends still coming out), it’s possible nobody knows the exact figure with certainty. Lifelong activist and friend Michael Albert tells the story of how Chomsky’s immense body of work once convinced a group of activists in Eastern Europe that there were two different Chomskys, one a linguist, and the other a political activist. Given Chomsky’s preposterous output and far from unusual surname in that part of the world, it was perhaps an understandable error. See Michael Albert, “Noam Chomsky at 95. No Strings on Him,” Counterpunch, December 8, 2023.

[37]Paul Jay, “Rising Fascism and the Elections – Chomsky and Ellsberg,” The Analysis News, You Tube November 2, 2024

[38]Bill Moyers, A World of Ideas: Conversations With Thoughtful Men and Women, (Doubleday, 1989). The interview is also available online on You Tube. See “Noam Chomsky interview on Dissent (1988).”

[39]Milan Rai, Chomsky’s Politics, (Verso, 1995) p. 6

[40] Chomsky in Chronicles of Dissent: Interviews With David Barsamian, (Common Courage, 1992) p. 159

[41] “Noam Chomsky, hospitalizado en Brasil,” La Jornada, June 12, 2024 (Spanish)

[42]Chomsky was born on December 7, 1928.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Michael K. Smith.

Democracy Now! is joined by the nephew of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who has endorsed Trump’s Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris. Fred Trump III’s new memoir, All in the Family: The Trumps and How We Got This Way, shares fresh insights into the Trump family and acts as a platform to advocate for individuals with developmental disabilities. Fred Trump’s own son William has a rare genetic disorder that causes severe developmental and intellectual disabilities. He says Donald Trump once told him to abandon William, saying, “He doesn’t recognize you. Let him die, and move down to Florida.” After a meeting in the Oval Office about dedicating more resources to people with disabilities, Fred Trump says his uncle said, “Those people, the costs. They should just die.”

“How could one human being say that about any other human being, least of all your grandnephew?” says Fred Trump, who calls on the next president to support disabled Americans. “The Harris campaign and her positions are ones that I believe. Now, that being said, I have yet to hear anything regarding disability actions … and I will put their feet to the fire on this.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

The administration’s ongoing rehabilitation of the petrodollar kingdom and its de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, widely known as MBS, seems to put realpolitik above Biden’s stated aim of justice for the Washington Post columnist.

The consequences of ignoring this commitment for short term strategic and economic gain are disastrous for journalists and human rights defenders not only in Saudi Arabia but globally.

Even the assertively pro-Saudi Trump administration was moved to act as Turkish intelligence, which had bugged the Istanbul consulate, trickled out details of the October 2, 2018, assassination. 

President Donald Trump imposed sanctions on some Saudis linked to the killing, but stopped short of accusing the crown prince directly even after U.S. intelligence concluded that he had approved the murder.

The following year, candidate Joe Biden vowed during a Democratic Party election debate to seek accountability and make Saudi Arabia a “pariah”. 

On entering the White House in 2021, Biden released the unpublished CIA report but, like his predecessor, Biden balked at sanctioning MBS directly. In November last year, his administration went as far as to declare that the crown prince was shielded by sovereign immunity. That effectively killed a civil lawsuit filed in U.S. district court by Khashoggi’s fiancée, Hatice Cengiz, that sought to hold Mohammed bin Salman and two of his senior aides liable for the death.

Secure in the knowledge that Western governments would take no action against him, Prince Mohammed set about rebranding himself as a tech-friendly millennial and political reformer.

According to The Guardian, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has poured more than $6 billion into international sports deals and sponsorships, a ploy critics call sports washing. It has also wooed Silicon Valley tech companies and plans to spend $500 billion developing a futuristic city along a strip of Red Sea coast as a business and tourist destination.  

The crown prince’s popularity has grown at home as he loosened religious restrictions on social life and allowed women to drive.

But behind the public relations campaigns, the kingdom remains one of the least free countries in the world, according to U.S. rights watchdog Freedom House. Some 11 journalists were in jail as of December 1, 2022, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists’ annual prison census, along with dozens of human rights defenders and social activists. Criticism of the government and the crown prince is dangerous, even when voiced by Saudi nationals who have fled abroad. 

“All of us who have been calling for justice for Jamal feel let down,” Fred Ryan, former publisher and CEO of the Washington Post told me. “A Republican administration concluded that the responsibility for this went all the way to the top of the Saudi government. Candidate Joe Biden described MBS as a pariah. The question is what’s changed?”

The answer, in part, may be Washington’s calculation that it needs Saudi Arabia to counter Iranian and Chinese influence in the Middle East and to ensure greater oil market stability following the upheavals caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine.

The administration is also trying to persuade Prince Mohammed to recognize Washington’s most important regional ally, Israel in a deal, which could be modeled on the Abraham Accords that Trump brokered between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco.

Saudi Arabia is demanding a high price in return, including a mutual defense treaty, and U.S. help building a civilian nuclear program. The unprecedented, deadly assault on Israel on October 7 by Palestinian Hamas and Israel’s response have slowed – if not put paid to – any such ambitious a peace deal.  

But the crown prince’s willingness to even consider such a proposal is a reminder that the United States still has leverage. Washington can promote human rights and still pursue its strategic and economic interests in the region.

If Riyadh wants U.S. security guarantees or Western support in its bids to host major events such as FIFA’s  2034 World Cup or the Olympic Games, then liberal democracies can use those opportunities. They can call for the release of jailed journalists and political prisoners at home and an end to the harassment of Saudi critics abroad.

Washington could give force of law to the visa restrictions of the U.S. State Department’s Khashoggi Ban. It can also back initiatives such as Congressman Adam Schiff’s bill to protect exiled dissidents from their home governments.

Brushing Khashoggi’s murder under some diplomatic rug is a mistake.

“Despots watch how the U.S. responds when fundamental rights that we believe in are violated,” said Ryan. “The signal that they are receiving is not an encouraging one.”

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Robert Mahoney.

The administration’s ongoing rehabilitation of the petrodollar kingdom and its de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, widely known as MBS, seems to put realpolitik above Biden’s stated aim of justice for the Washington Post columnist.

The consequences of ignoring this commitment for short term strategic and economic gain are disastrous for journalists and human rights defenders not only in Saudi Arabia but globally.

Even the assertively pro-Saudi Trump administration was moved to act as Turkish intelligence, which had bugged the Istanbul consulate, trickled out details of the October 2, 2018, assassination. 

President Donald Trump imposed sanctions on some Saudis linked to the killing, but stopped short of accusing the crown prince directly even after U.S. intelligence concluded that he had approved the murder.

The following year, candidate Joe Biden vowed during a Democratic Party election debate to seek accountability and make Saudi Arabia a “pariah”. 

On entering the White House in 2021, Biden released the unpublished CIA report but, like his predecessor, Biden balked at sanctioning MBS directly. In November last year, his administration went as far as to declare that the crown prince was shielded by sovereign immunity. That effectively killed a civil lawsuit filed in U.S. district court by Khashoggi’s fiancée, Hatice Cengiz, that sought to hold Mohammed bin Salman and two of his senior aides liable for the death.

Secure in the knowledge that Western governments would take no action against him, Prince Mohammed set about rebranding himself as a tech-friendly millennial and political reformer.

According to The Guardian, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has poured more than $6 billion into international sports deals and sponsorships, a ploy critics call sports washing. It has also wooed Silicon Valley tech companies and plans to spend $500 billion developing a futuristic city along a strip of Red Sea coast as a business and tourist destination.  

The crown prince’s popularity has grown at home as he loosened religious restrictions on social life and allowed women to drive.

But behind the public relations campaigns, the kingdom remains one of the least free countries in the world, according to U.S. rights watchdog Freedom House. Some 11 journalists were in jail as of December 1, 2022, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists’ annual prison census, along with dozens of human rights defenders and social activists. Criticism of the government and the crown prince is dangerous, even when voiced by Saudi nationals who have fled abroad. 

“All of us who have been calling for justice for Jamal feel let down,” Fred Ryan, former publisher and CEO of the Washington Post told me. “A Republican administration concluded that the responsibility for this went all the way to the top of the Saudi government. Candidate Joe Biden described MBS as a pariah. The question is what’s changed?”

The answer, in part, may be Washington’s calculation that it needs Saudi Arabia to counter Iranian and Chinese influence in the Middle East and to ensure greater oil market stability following the upheavals caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine.

The administration is also trying to persuade Prince Mohammed to recognize Washington’s most important regional ally, Israel in a deal, which could be modeled on the Abraham Accords that Trump brokered between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco.

Saudi Arabia is demanding a high price in return, including a mutual defense treaty, and U.S. help building a civilian nuclear program. The unprecedented, deadly assault on Israel on October 7 by Palestinian Hamas and Israel’s response have slowed – if not put paid to – any such ambitious a peace deal.  

But the crown prince’s willingness to even consider such a proposal is a reminder that the United States still has leverage. Washington can promote human rights and still pursue its strategic and economic interests in the region.

If Riyadh wants U.S. security guarantees or Western support in its bids to host major events such as FIFA’s  2034 World Cup or the Olympic Games, then liberal democracies can use those opportunities. They can call for the release of jailed journalists and political prisoners at home and an end to the harassment of Saudi critics abroad.

Washington could give force of law to the visa restrictions of the U.S. State Department’s Khashoggi Ban. It can also back initiatives such as Congressman Adam Schiff’s bill to protect exiled dissidents from their home governments.

Brushing Khashoggi’s murder under some diplomatic rug is a mistake.

“Despots watch how the U.S. responds when fundamental rights that we believe in are violated,” said Ryan. “The signal that they are receiving is not an encouraging one.”

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Robert Mahoney.

In attacking the Canadian Union of Public Employees for standing in solidarity with Palestinians Robyn Urback tweeted, “Points for alleging a Jewish conspiracy, but if CUPE really wanted to go full antisemitic trope, they should have mentioned something about poisoning the wells.” Below her message Urback quote tweeted a colleague stating, “CUPE Ontario says it’s targeted by ‘trolls’ – ‘a highly organized pro-Israel lobby,’ which targeted [Union president] Fred Hahn and CUPE 3906 for ‘recognition of Palestinians’ rights under international law to resist occupation through armed struggle.’”

But Urback knows full well there are many organizations backed by substantial wealth promoting Israel. This is not a trope. This is reality that is easily fact checked and should have been by any honest journalist.

In a sign of her dishonesty, Urback previously wrote about a lobby sponsored trip to Israel she participated in. Urback went on BirthRight, a program that pays for young Jews to go Israel to become “intellectual ambassadors” for the country.

The preeminent force in the “highly organized Israel lobby” is the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. CIJA has over 40 staff and a $10 million budget. In addition, B’nai B’rith has a handful of offices across the country. For its part, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center Canada’s budget is $7-10 million annually. These groups work closely with StandWithUs Canada, CAMERA, Allied Voices for Israel, Israel on Campus, Honest Reporting Canada and other Israeli nationalist political organizations. Additionally, more than 200 registered Canadian charities assist projects in Israel and engage in at least some pro-Israel campaigning domestically. There are also numerous Jewish private schools, summer camps and community centres that actively promote Israel.

All these groups are backed by substantial wealth. Patron of CIJA, the Jewish federations of Toronto, Montréal, Winnipeg, Windsor, Calgary, Edmonton, Hamilton, London, Ottawa, Vancouver and Atlantic Canada raise $200 million annually and have over $1 billion in assets.

A large amount of private wealth strengthens Israel lobby groups’ influence. Since 2013 the chief fundraiser for the Trudeau Liberals has been Stephen Bronfman, scion of an arch Israeli nationalist family. Bronfman has millions invested in Israeli technology companies and over the years the Bronfman clan has secured arms for Israeli forces and supported its military in other ways. Bronfman openly linked his fundraising for Trudeau to Israel. In 2013 the Globe and Mail reported:

Justin Trudeau is banking on multimillionaire Stephen Bronfman to turn around the Liberal Party’s financial fortunes in order to take on the formidable Conservative fundraising machine…. Mr. Bronfman helped raise $2-million for Mr. Trudeau’s leadership campaign. Mr. Bronfman is hoping to win back the Jewish community, whose fundraising dollars have been going more and more to the Tories because of the party’s pro-Israel stand. ‘We’ll work hard on that,’ said Mr. Bronfman, adding that ‘Stephen Harper has never been to Israel and I took Justin there five years ago and he was referring at the end of the trip to Israel as ‘we.’ So I thought that was pretty good.’

Other notable Canadian moguls have long histories of ensuring ties between Israel and Canada. Worth more than $3 billion prior to his death, David Azrieli was among the richest Canadians. In his youth he served in the paramilitary Haganah group during the 1948 war. His unit was responsible for the Battle of Jerusalem, including forcibly displacing 10,000 Palestinians. Azrieli was also a real estate developer in Israel and in 2011 he made a controversial donation to Im Tirtzu, a hardline Israeli-nationalist organization (deemed a “fascist” group by an Israeli court).

Worth $1.6 billion, Gerald Schwartz and his wife Heather Reisman created the Heseg Foundation for Lone Soldiers, which provides millions of dollars annually for non-Israelis who fight in the IDF.

In recent years Canadian-Israeli billionaire Sylvan Adams has plowed hundreds of millions of dollars into various sports and cultural initiatives to rebrand Israel. 

Other Canadian billionaires Larry Tanenbaum, Mark Scheinberg, David Cheriton, Mitch Garber, Daryl Katz, Seymour Schulich, as well as the Zekelman, Reichmann and Sherman families, all back Israel. Again, none of this a conspiracy theory or antisemitic trope. It is simple reality and easily fact-checked if one is interested.

It is good, not bad, that a union leader mentions powerful lobbyists influencing Canadian politicians to take certain policy positions. Democracy requires shining a light on such lobbying. Is Urback against this very common practice of good journalists?

Canadians politicians express unmatched fidelity to a state all leading human rights groups say is committing the crime of apartheid. Trudeau’s government organized a pizza party for Canadians fighting in the Israeli military, sued to block proper labels on wines from illegal settlements and announced that should Canada win a seat on the United Nations Security Council it would act as an “asset for Israel” on the council. In recent days Canadian politicians have fallen over themselves to express support for Israel as that country obliterates Gaza, kills dozens in the West Bank and bombs Lebanon, Egypt and Syria.

There’s nothing conspiratorial or untoward about citing the role of a “highly organized Israel lobby”. In fact, there would be nothing conspiratorial or untoward to describe it as a “highly organized Jewish Israel lobby”. A slew of self-described Jewish organizations are deeply involved in anti-Palestinian campaigning and no other lobby focused on a country/ethnicity/religion is near as well-resourced or organized as the above mentioned Canadian Jewish groups.

That’s not to say there aren’t other political and cultural forces shaping Canadian backing for Israel. Zionism began in Canada in the latter half of the 1800s as a Christian movement and there’s still Christian Zionist forces. At the turn of the 20th century Canada became staunchly pro-Zionist due to its close ties to the British empire and Washington’s perspective has significant influence today. There’s also a European ‘settler solidarity’ element to Canadian Zionism and Israel advocates wield a unique and powerful stick: The ability to play victim and smear those advocating for justice as racist.

Robyn Urback knows full well there’s a “highly organized Israel lobby”. Her claim that CUPE is anti-Jewish to mention this is ridiculous. It is also bad journalism and most likely a projection of her (perhaps unintentional) anti-Palestinian racism.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Yves Engler.

If there is a rise in robberies in some of Fiji’s urban areas, then something must be triggering it. Unless this is the norm, and robberies are part and parcel of life in these urban centres, something is amiss, and we need to get to the bottom of what’s causing it.

Residents along Raiwaqa’s Falvey Rd, we learn, are living in fear as robberies in the area have become an almost daily occurrence. Biren Pal, 61, a resident of the area for more than six decades, claimed robberies and assaults were a norm.

Last Sunday, Mr Pal was robbed and, in the process, was severely injured in the face when thieves mobbed him before fleeing with his mobile phone. He was walking to a friend’s house when he was pushed to the ground and knocked unconscious.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji crime reports

He only regained consciousness when his friends took him to the hospital. Southern Police Commander SSP Wate Vocevoce confirmed receiving a complaint from Mr Pal.

He said in the past four months crimes committed in the area included four cases of assault, one of burglary and property damage and one case of theft.

In the Lagilagi area in the past six months, police recorded 14 cases of assault, one case each of theft, assault, intimidation, and trespass and two cases of property damage. Now such robberies and assaults on people are harmful for many reasons.

Aside from the pain and suffering it causes people like Mr Pal, there is the negative impact on life itself for those living in the area for instance.

Fear, uncertainty and doubt
There is fear, uncertainty and doubt cast over the area because of the actions of thugs.

The ripple effect on businesses in the area is felt by everyone connected to it.

And we are talking about stores operating in the area, shoppers, staff of these stores and residents living in the area.

There is a sense of fear that may stick to the area because of the robberies.

People will eventually hesitate to travel through the area, to shop there, or visit family and friends for instance. It breeds doubt, with only the brave who are willing to take their chances, visiting it.

When High Court judge Justice Daniel Goundar sentenced a 19-year-old casual labourer for stealing a mobile phone recently, he mentioned that muggings were prevalent.

In the Western Division, we learn that theft, assault, and burglary were among the most reported crimes in the division in the month of August.

Decrease in overall crime
Divisional police commander West senior superintendent of police (SSP) Iakobo Vaisewa said while these criminal acts were at the top of the list, their division has noted a decrease in the overall crime rate though.

“Even if the smallest item is stolen, they are investigated,” he said.

Now that’s a good thing because how else are we supposed to fight this? We look up to the police force to put in place measures that will empower people to assist it in the war against crime.

Fiji needs people who are willing to put their hands up and accept responsibility for their actions. In saying that, we look up to the powers that be to lead the way.

However, it is obvious that we need a united front.

The flip side to that is more crime, and more uncertainty, insecurity, fear and doubt! And those who assault and rob people need to get a life!

This editorial was published in Fiji’s Sunday Times today under the title “We need to work together”. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Sunday — May 14 — was an important date for Fiji.

It is recorded in history as a day set aside to commemorate the Girmitiya.

Sometimes we need a reminder to appreciate the importance of history, and what it means to us as a nation.

• READ MORE: Girmit Day – Overcast skies fail to deter Fijians
• Historic Girmit Day apology accepted as Fiji enters new era of unity and reconciliation
• Other Girmitya reports

We need to be reminded about events that contributed to making Fiji the nation that it is today.

So Sunday was about reflecting on history.

It was about appreciating the role history has in shaping our future.

We live in a country that was shaped through hard work, through blood, sweat and tears and tightly woven in there is the history of our Girmitiya.

It was on 14 May 1879 that the first group of indentured labourers arrived from India, into our waters.

We have grown as a nation and we should be appreciative of the place of the Girmitiya in how our nation has turned out.

It may be difficult to understand what transpired then.

It may be difficult to appreciate the sense of uncertainty, frustration, fear and shock when the first lot of indentured labourers sailed away from their motherland.

They were headed for a new beginning.

Life was very different from what they were accustomed to back home.

There was the weather to contend with, the food, and an environment they weren’t familiar with.

But they survived, and they adapted to a new way of life.

Yesterday was about acknowledging their sacrifice, hard work, and contribution to the development of a young nation.

We remind ourselves of the importance of history because it can help us appreciate what we have now.

History can reinforce our appreciation of who we are as a people, and as a nation.

To move forward, let’s get our bearings through history and take care never to repeat mistakes of the past.

The Girmit era should invoke in us a sense of appreciation of the early years of our economic progress as a nation.

It should also acknowledge the great sacrifices made by every indentured labourer.

History teaches us values.

Today let’s be reminded about something former US President George Bush said in a speech on 17 September 2002 which has deep meaning.

He told Americans: “Our history is not a story of perfection. It’s a story of imperfect people working toward great ideals.

“This flawed nation is also a really good nation, and the principles we hold are the hope of all mankind. When children are given the real history of America, they will also learn to love America.

“Ignorance of American history and civics weakens our sense of citizenship. To be an American is not just a matter of blood or birth; we are bound by ideals, and our children must know those ideals.”

They were powerful words which stood out then as they should today.

They are relevant and should serve as a reminder for us to remember our history.

On Sunday, emotions were on over-drive.

Tears flowed and we captured that on the front page today and inside.

There was a great feeling.

There was acceptance of the need for reconciliation.

There was forgiveness!

We remember thousands of people had an impact on the birth of our nation.

We remember the Girmitiya.

This Fiji Times editorial was published on 15 May 2023 under the original title “Girmit Day – We remember” and is republished here with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

World Press Freedom Day has been marked by journalists around the world, including the Pacific.

Launched by the United Nations in 1998, May 3 is a day of solidarity among the world’s media, in particular with journalists who are being persecuted in autocratic nations and war zones.

It serves as a day of celebrating the development and improvement of media landscapes.

• LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: Media Freedom Day feature
• READ MORE: Timor-Leste makes top ten in 2023 World Press Freedom Index
• World Press Freedom Index 2023 – journalism threatened by fake news industry
• Other Pacific Media Watch reports

Perhaps the biggest trophy for press freedom in 2023 has been the return of press freedom in Fiji via the repeal of the repressive media law — the 2010 Media Industry Development Act.

“It hung over our heads like the sword of Damocles , forever threatening the very foundation of media freedom,” said Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley.

The draconian law introduced by former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama imposed severe restrictions on freedom of expression and the ability of the press to report on any controversies involving the government.

It was a dark era for the independent media, who endured intimidation and the threat of imprisonment.

“Liabilities applied if the ‘content of any media service which is against public interest or order, or national interest, or which offends against good taste or decency and creates communal discord’,” said Wesley.

“An editor was liable for a fine of $25,000 and two years in jail.

“With that repeal we are now free to report freely and to express opinions freely.”

The ousting of Bainimarama’s government in last year’s general election would change everything.

Incoming leader Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka had promised to bring back media freedom, and on April 6 Fiji’s Parliament voted to repeal the act.

“I remember an overflowing of emotions that morning,” said Wesley.

“It was overwhelming, I remember trying to keep the tears away but it was truly emotional, it was like a weight had been lifted off the shoulders.”

PNG journalists threatened with state control
While Fiji’s media has been liberated, their Melanesian counterparts in Papua New Guinea are facing the potential threat of state control.

In March this year, a media act was drafted in PNG’s Parliament, proposing the creation of a state body to replace the independent Media Council of Papua New Guinea which regulates the licensing of journalists.

“We still enjoy media freedom in Papua New Guinea but currently we have a proposal by the government to control the media, but it’s still in the draft form,” said journalist Gorothy Kenneth of the PNG Post-Courier.

Scott Waide, an independent journalist and former Lae-based deputy editor at EMTV, is equally concerned.

“The Media Council is working through this, trying to restructure itself, trying to get everybody on board so that this policy in its current form doesn’t get through,” said Waide.

“I guess the overall picture is that we need a lot of help in terms of welfare of journalists, in terms of training so that is a message we have conveyed to the policy makers.

“We have a relatively free media, we can say what we want, but do we get resistance from various sectors.”

Press freedom flourishing in Tonga
For Tongan journalists, the kingdom’s media landscape is a vast improvement from the past when they endured repressive media laws.

The young democracy has undergone a rocky transition from an absolute monarchy to an unsettled democracy.

Taimi ‘o Tonga editor Kalafi Moala was jailed in 1996 for contempt of Parliament, and his paper was temporarily banned in 2003.

“It’s so much better today, nobody is in jail and nobody has been persecuted for anything,” said Moala.

“There are defamation laws that anybody can take the media to court if they feel there has been irresponsible reporting, but in terms of freedom to speak, freedom to publish and to broadcast — it’s alive in Tonga.

“And we’re enjoying it.”

Samoan journalists hurdle barriers
Media freedom continues to thrive in Samoa but accessibility to information remains a challenge for journalists.

Complaints have arisen over late government media updates, and during the 2021 general election, several villages banned journalists from attending district gatherings.

“Freedom of the press is something that is not a part of our culture,” said Lagi Keresoma, head of the Journalist Association of Samoa (JAWS), who is hoping things will improve.

“We’re still facing barriers in getting information, not only from the government, but from other organisations.”

“We have a new government that we hope will address these issues — they still have open door policies unlike the previous government, but there are still times where they give us the runabout.”

Varied freedoms in Micronesia
For the Micronesian nations, the journalistic landscape varies.

In Nauru, a nation of about 12,000 people, there is no independent media and foreign journalists are required to pay a visa of US$6,000.

In 2018, TVNZ Pacific correspondent Barbara Dreaver was detained by authorities after visiting a refugee camp on the island.

The closed-off environment means there is low transparency of the issues in Nauru and the controversial Australian detentions camps that hold refugees.

It’ is the opposite case for the Marshall Islands where independent media thrives.

Recently two Marshallese MPs proposed greater media regulation, but it was struck down.

“The appreciation of most people, both in government and in the public about media freedom is really good,” said the editor of the Marshall Islands Journal, Giff Johnson.

“It’s meant that we have a fairly robust and open ability to publish what we want to.”

According to UNESCO, 87 journalists and media workers were killed in 2022 around the world — an average of one fatality a day and a 50 percent jump from the previous year.

High profile deaths included Fox News camera man Pierre Zakrzewski covering the war in Ukraine, and Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, a Palestinian covering the Israel occupation in the West Bank.

In the latest World Press Freedom Index issued by Reporters Without Borders, Samoa has been ranked 19th, up from 45th.

Tonga is ranked 44th, Papua New Guinea 59th and Fiji is 89th, up from 102nd last year.

Each year, Reporters Without Borders evaluates the environment for journalism in 180 countries and territories.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The Fiji Parliament has voted to “kill” a draconian media law in Suva today, sending newsrooms across the country into celebrations.

Twenty nine parliamentarians voted to repeal the Media Industry Development Act, while 21 voted against it and 3 did not vote.

The law — which started as a post-coup decree in 2010 — has been labelled as a “noose around the neck of the media industry and journalists” since it was enacted into law.

• READ MORE: Fiji’s longest active newsroom keen for ‘kicking out’ of tough media law
• Other Fiji media freedom reports

While opposition FijiFirst parliamentarians voted against the bill, Fiji’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Professor Biman Prasad said binning the act would be good for the people and for democracy.

Removing the controversial law was a major election promise by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s coalition government.

Emotional day for newsrooms
The news was “one for the ages for us”, Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley, who was dragged into court on multiple occasions by the former government under the act, told RNZ Pacific in Vanuatu.

He said today was about all the Fijian media workers who stayed true to their profession.

“People who slugged it out, people who remained passionate about their work and continued disseminating information and getting people to make well-informed decision on a daily basis.”

“It wasn’t an easy journey, but truly thankful for today,” an emotional Wesley said.

“We are in an era where we don’t have draconian legislation hanging over our heads.”

He said the entire industry was happy and newsrooms are now looking forward to the next chapter.

“The next phases is the challenge of putting together a Fiji media council to do the work of listening to complaints and all of that, and I’m overwhelmed and very grateful.”

Holding government to account
He said people in Fiji should continue to expect the media to do what it was supposed to do: “Holding government to account, holding our leaders to account and making sure that they’re responsible in the decisions they make.”

Journalists ‘can be brave’
Islands Business magazine editor Samantha Magick said getting rid of the law meant it would now create an environment for Fiji journalists to do more critical journalism.

“I think [we will] see less, ‘he said, she said’, reporting in very controlled environments,” Magick said.

“Fiji’s media will see more investigations, more depth, more voices, different perspectives, [and] hopefully they can engage a bit more as well without fear.

“It’ll just be so much healthier for us as a people and democracy to have that level of debate and investigation and questioning, regardless of who you are,” she added.

RNZ Pacific senior sports journalist and PINA board member Iliesa Tora said the Parliament’s decision sent a strong message to the rest of the region.

“The message [this sends] to the region and the different regional government’s is that you need to work with the media to ensure that there is media freedom,” said Tora, who chose to leave Fiji because he could not operate as a journalist due of the act.

“The freedom of the media ensures that people are also able to freely express themselves and are not fearful in coming forward to talk about things that they see that governments are not doing that they [should] do to really govern in the countries.”

MIDA is dead.

A huge win for media freedom in Fiji.

— Dan McGarry (@dailypostdan) April 5, 2023

‘Step into the light’ – corruption reporting project
Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project co-founder and publisher Drew Sullivan told RNZ Pacific that anytime a country that was not able to do the kind of accountability journalism that they should be doing, this damaged media throughout the region.

“It creates a model for illiberal actors in the region to imitate what’s going on in that country,” Sullivan said.

“So this has really moved forward in allowing journalists again to do their job and that’s really important.”

Fiji journalists, Sullivan said, had done an amazing job resisting limitations for as long as they could.

“Fiji was really a black hole of journalism [in] that the journalists could not participate in on a global community because they couldn’t find the information; they weren’t allowed to write what they needed to write.

“So this is really a step forward into the light to really bring Fiji and media back into the global journalism community.”

Korean cult investigation
Last year, OCCRP published a major investigation on Fiji, working with local journalists to expose the expansion of the controversial Korean Chirstain-cult Grace Road Church under the Bainimarama regime.

Rabuka’s government is currently investigating Grace Road.

Sullivan said OCCRP will continue to support Fijian journalists.

“But [the repealing of the act] will allow a lot more stories to be done and a lot more people will understand how the world really works, especially in Fiji.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

The man in charge of Fiji’s oldest newspaper has high hopes for press freedom in the country following the tabling of a bill in Parliament this week to get rid of a controversial media law.

Fiji’s three-party coalition government introduced a bill on Monday to repeal the 2010 Media Industry Development Authority (MIDA) Act.

The MIDA Act — a legacy of the former Bainimarama administration — has long been criticised for being “draconian” and decimating journalism standards in the country.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji media freedom reports

The law regulates the ownership, registration and content of the media in Fiji.

Under the act, the media content regulation framework includes the creation of MIDA, the media tribunal and other elements.

“It is these provisions that have been considered controversial,” Fiji’s Attorney-General Siromi Turaga said when tabling the bill.

“These elements are widely considered as undemocratic and in breach of the constitutional right of freedom of expression as outlined in section 17 of the constitution.”

Not a ‘free pass’
Turaga said repealing the act does not provide a free pass to media organisations and journalists to “report anything and everything without authentic sources and facts”.

“But it does provides a start to ensuring that what reaches the ordinary people of Fiji is not limited by overbearing regulation of government.”

The Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley said he had a sense of “great optimism” that the Media Act would be repealed.

Wesley and the newspaper — founded in 1869 — were caught in a long legal battle for publishing an article in their vernacular language newspaper Nai Lalakai which the former FijiFirst government claimed was seditious.

But in 2018, the High Court found them not guilty and cleared them of all charges.

“After the change in government, there has been a change in the way the press has been disseminating information,” Wesley said.

“We have had a massive turnover [of] journalists in our country. A lot of young people have come in. At the The Fiji Times, for instance, we have an average age of around 22, which is very, very young,” he said.

Handful of seniors
“We have just a handful of senior journalists who have stayed on who are very passionate about the role the media must pay in our country.

“We are looking forward to Thursday and looking forward to the act being repealed and the draconian legislation kicked out.”

He said two thirds of the journalists in the national newspaper’s newsroom have less than 16 years experience and have never experienced press freedom.

He said The Fiji Times would then need to implement “mass desensitisation” of its reporters as they had been working under a draconian law for more than a decade.

He added retraining journalists would be the main focus of the organisation after the law is repealed.

‘Things will get better’
Long-serving journalist at the newspaper Rakesh Kumar told RNZ Pacific that reporting on national interest issues had been a “big challenge” under the act.

Kumar recalled early when the media law was enacted and army officers would come into newsrooms to “create fear” which he said would “kill the motivation” of reporters.

“We know things will get better now [after the repeal of the act],” Kumar said.

But he said it was “important that we have to report accurately”.

“We have to be balanced,” he added.

The bill to repeal the MIDA Act will be debated tomorrow.

While the opposition has already opposed the move, it is expected that the government will use its majority in Parliament to pass it.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

The police murder of Fred Hampton in Chicago in 1969 helped launch a movement more than 50 years ago for community-led police accountability. In a culmination of this campaign, Chicago voters next Tuesday will elect 22 local police councils tasked with community control of the police. Seven members of the councils will be part of a Community Commission for Public Safety and Accountability, a new model of police oversight. We speak with Frank Chapman, longtime activist and field organizer with the Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, about the initiative and how it aims to empower Black and Brown working-class civilians.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

"Taken together, during the first ten months of 2022, renewable energy sources comfortably out-produced both coal and nuclear power by 16.62% and 27.39% respectively," the SUN DAY Campaign noted Tuesday. "However, natural gas continues to dominate with a 39.4% share of total generation."

The new EIA figures show that electricity output from solar alone jumped by more than 26% in the first 10 months of last year. In just October, the SUN DAY Campaign observed, "solar's output was 31.68% greater than a year earlier, a rate of growth that strongly eclipsed that of every other energy source."

Ken Bossong, the campaign's executive director, said that "as we begin 2023, it seems very likely that renewables will provide nearly a quarter—if not more—of the nation's electricity during the coming year."

"And it is entirely possible that the combination of just wind and solar will outpace nuclear power and maybe even that of coal during the next twelve months," Bossong added.

"It is entirely possible that the combination of just wind and solar will outpace nuclear power and maybe even that of coal during the next twelve months."

The encouraging data comes amid the broader context of U.S. failures to sufficiently accelerate renewable energy production and phase out fossil fuel use, which is helping push greenhouse gas emissions to record-shattering levels globally.

Gas production, a major contributor to highly potent methane pollution, likely broke an annual record in the U.S. last year, according to the latest federal data. One recent analysis found that the U.S. is currently pursuing more new oil pipeline capacity by length than any other country.

The Climate Action Tracker (CAT), a site created by a group of scientists to analyze nations' emissions targets and progress, rates the U.S. as "insufficient" overall, arguing the country's "climate policies and action in 2030 need substantial improvements to be consistent with the 1.5°C temperature limit."

On the positive side, CAT welcomes the recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a law that's set to boost the U.S. build-out of renewable energy infrastructure.

"However, while the largest share of the IRA is directed to clean technologies, it also includes several concessions for the fossil fuel industry such as requiring minimum acreages of public lands for drilling leases," CAT notes. "These concessions contradict President Biden's promise on his first day in office to ban new oil and gas drilling on federal lands."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

FijiFirst party general secretary Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum claims they are fighting The Fiji Times and Communications Fiji Ltd — not political parties — in the lead up to the 2022 general election.

He said this while taking a swipe at The Times during a news conference this week at the FijiFirst party headquarters in Suva.

Sayed-Khaiyum claimed the two media organisations were “always parroting” the People’s Alliance and the National Federation Party “without checking the facts”.

• READ MORE: Stop attacking the media, says Ali
• AG accuses CFL and Fiji Times of inaccurate reporting
• Other Fiji media freedom reports

“We are not fighting other political parties, we are fighting two mainstream media organisations — Fiji Times and CFL,” he said.

“The Fijian public know that. This is why we have our live Facebook when we have conferences, because we don’t expect these people to do any justification in terms of what we are saying.

“I urge you if you are serious about your profession and the organisation you work for, are independent, not just say ‘independent’.

“The saying goes [that] the proof is in the eating of the pudding.

“We have a seen a continuous propagation by Fiji Times and by CFL, simply parroting whatever the PAP and NFP says without checking the facts; we have a very sad state of affairs today.”

Sayed-Khaiyum cited as an example that when NFP reported the FijiFirst party to the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption about placing a banner on the Civic Car Park, The Fiji Times continued to publish commentary from NFP general secretary Seni Nabou.

“They have absolutely no idea of what due process means, they have absolutely no idea, neither Fiji Times nor does CFL have any idea what an independent process means.

“They throw these words around, bending these words around, yet not understanding what [they] mean.”

Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley responded that The Fiji Times was being attacked — “as usual” — for doing its job.

“We strive for fair and balanced coverage of the news, especially now as political parties go into election mode,” he said.

“Understandably the pressure is on the government to respond to statements by opposition parties. We offer them a platform to clarify issues and to make statements.

We refer all opposition party criticism to the government for comment. The government rarely, if ever, replies.

“We are not here to make the government look good. We offer a platform for every party to voice their opinions. Some choose to use it and some do not.”

Arieta Vakasukawaqa is a Fiji Times reporter. Published with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Democracy! We may differ in how we understand and value democracy. But what is the essence of democracy?

On this special day, when we are reminded about democracy, perhaps it is apt that we should hear out the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres.

This day — September 15 — is listed by the United Nations as the International Day of Democracy.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific democracy reports

Whatever your take is on this special day, whatever it means to you, and whether there is value in it, perhaps we need the space and time to understand it. Perhaps we may then place appropriate value on democracy, understand it, and appreciate what it stands for.

The UN states this day “provides an opportunity to review the state of democracy in the world”.

In his speech for the 15th anniversary of the day, Guterres said: “Yet across the world, democracy is backsliding. Civic space is shrinking.

“Distrust and disinformation are growing. And polarisation is undermining democratic institutions.”

Raising the alarm
Now, he said, was the time to raise the alarm.

He said it was time to reaffirm that democracy, development, and human rights are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. He said it was time to stand up for the democratic principles of equality, inclusion, and solidarity. He spoke about the media and its place in society.

“This year, we focus on a cornerstone of democratic societies – free, independent, and pluralistic media,” he said.

“Attempts to silence journalists are growing more brazen by the day – from verbal assault to online surveillance and legal harassment – especially against women journalists.

“Media workers face censorship, detention, physical violence, and even killings – often with impunity.

“Such dark paths inevitably lead to instability, injustice and worse.

“Without a free press, democracy cannot survive. Without freedom of expression, there is no freedom.

Joining forces for freedom
“On Democracy Day and every day, let us join forces to secure freedom and protect the rights of all people, everywhere.”

In the face of all that, we remind ourselves of our role as a newspaper company.

We are sure about where we want to be, and the role we can play to move our beautiful country, Fiji, forward. We are comforted by the fact that thousands of people place great value on democracy and on information.

We know we can be a forum where issues that are relevant to our multiracial mix of people can be raised, discussed and debated.

We appreciate the fact that there must be value placed on the dissemination of information that is fair, credible and balanced.

That would mean placing on a very high pedestal the importance of news that will inform, educate, and create awareness of issues pertinent to our various communities, and ultimately nurture or trigger important discussions, irrespective of where it is you sit on the political divide.

Democracy! How important is it in the greater scheme of things? Do we understand it? How much value do we place on it? Today is a special day!

This Fiji Times editorial under the title “Value on democracy” was published on 15 September 2022. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

This content originally appeared on Ralph Nader Radio Hour and was authored by Ralph Nader Radio Hour.