SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
pussy riot
In Berlin, Turkish Newsman and Pussy Riot Risk It All for Freedom of Speech
Dictators crush dissent and honest reporting with the gun, the sword, the noose and the bone saw.
Oct 24, 2018
A couple of weeks ago, shortly before the beginning of the 4th World Conference of Screenwriters in Berlin, several of us involved in its organizing were told that toward the end of the second and final day there would be a lot of additional security.
And so there was. Suddenly, at the appointed hour, several unfamiliar faces arrived, casually dressed but strategically placed around the auditorium and clearly ready to take action if anything bad seemed about to happen.
They were there to protect the Turkish journalist Can Dundar. For the last year and a half he has been hiding in exile in Berlin - a Salman Rushdie without the fatwa, but nonetheless in danger. A noted author, screenwriter and TV personality as well as a newsman, he was arrested by the Erdogan government in November 2015 on terrorism and espionage charges, but freed pending trial after 92 days in prison.
"There's a great big eye wandering over our heads. That eye belongs to a figure known to us all from literature: Big Brother is now in Turkey." --Can Dundar, Turkish journalist living in exile
The following spring, Dundar was sentenced by a Turkish judge to five years and ten months. Leaving the courthouse, he was the target of a failed assassination attempt. He fled to Germany. Should he return home, an outstanding arrest warrant, incarceration and possible death await.
His crimes? In general, enraging the Turkish government with his acute analysis and investigative reporting. More specifically, as editor-in-chief of the Cumhuriyet newspaper, he oversaw an expose that Turkey surreptitiously was sending arms to Syrian rebels, a story headlined, "Here are the weapons that Erdogan says do not exist."
Erdogan, who claimed Dundar's paper was spreading lies in support of Fethullah Gulen, the cleric living in America that the Turkish president accuses of plotting the failed 2016 coup against him, vowed that Dundar would "pay a heavy price." He was accused of leaking official secrets and betraying the state.
But now here he was with us in Berlin, in sports coat, tie and khakis, smiling, bearded and diminutive as his security guards towered over him.
"Imagine you rule as a one party government for a decade and a half," he began. "You've crushed all your opposition and taken over the media... You've commissioned films glorifying your ideology and no one goes to watch them. You've removed 'sinful' sculptures from public spaces but no one turns to look at the fountains you erected in their place. You've had 'immoral' TV series axed but no one watches their replacements."
There is, he continued, a "battle for cultural rule in Turkey," a struggle for freedom of speech and creativity. "Will we work and draw the government's fury or yield to the censor and lose?" he asked.
"When they hear the word culture, they reach for their gun. But fate plays them cruel tricks. They've got nothing else to read but the books that we write, nothing else to watch but the series we produce, and nothing else to sing but our songs. In any contest with oppression, culture always has the last laugh."
Nonetheless, he said, "There's a great big eye wandering over our heads. That eye belongs to a figure known to us all from literature: Big Brother is now in Turkey."
According to the Turkish press freedom website P24, as of mid-October, "There are at least 176 journalists and media workers in prison in Turkey either in pretrial detention or serving a sentence."
The organization Reporters without Borders notes that since the 2016 coup attempt, "A state of emergency has allowed the authorities to eliminate dozens of media outlets with the stroke of a pen, reducing pluralism to a handful of low-circulated and targeted publications. Turkey is again the world's biggest prison for professional journalists, with members of the press spending more than a year in prison before trial and long jail sentences becoming the new norm -- in some cases, journalists are sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of a pardon."
All of which makes it richly ironic, even in the face of tragedy, to see Erdogan in such high dudgeon over the death and alleged dismemberment of dissident and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, murdered at the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul. While he demands a complete and transparent investigation into the killing of Khashoggi, Erdogan keeps reporters and editors - and thousands of dissidents and opponents - incarcerated in his own country. (Not to mention Erdogan's own predilection for rendition, kidnapping Turkish nationals from other countries.)
But as Can Dundar finished his remarks in Berlin, there was another big surprise, another reason for the heightened security. Two members of the Russian dissident group Pussy Riot had arrived and rose to speak.
Pyotr Verzilov and Nika Nikulshina are two of the four protesters who on July 15 ran out onto the field at the World Cup final in Moscow, in front of Vladimir Putin, France's Emmanuel Macron and other heads of state. They spent fifteen days in jail.
Weeks later, after Nikulshina had been held in detention again and Verzilov had waited in a courthouse for her release, he fell ill. "Nika and I returned to our home and it was the anniversary of our relationship," he told us. "I went out to get some flowers and as I was going to the flower shop I looked at my phone and I realized that suddenly I wasn't able to focus closely on what was written on my phone and couldn't really concentrate... I went to sleep for a couple of hours and when I woke up I realized that I was slowly losing my consciousness and my ability to communicate with the outside world.
Nikulshina called an ambulance. "I think if we hadn't found him he would have died," she said. Two weeks and two Moscow hospitals later, "People started to suspect I was poisoned by a military grade agent, some poisonous gas that no one ever knew what it was," Verzilov said. "So we immediately began to become quite suspicious with Russian hospitals because they were not sharing with our lawyer their analysis.
"You can understand that if you're the boss of a huge hospital in central Moscow, and you view your job as very political, obviously you can't give a patient his analysis before checking with some people at the [Russian security agency] FSB."
Pyotr was moved to a Berlin hospital, where he was successfully treated and seems fully recovered: "Gladly, I'm much better now than the last weeks that I just spent in my own magical world so now we are trying to understand what has happened and piece this all into one puzzle, but essentially what happened was the price that you have to pay in Russia if you're going to be political and willing to stand up against Putin."
Why did this happen? Pyotr Verzilov did not say, but at The New Yorker, Masha Gessen recently observed, "[O]ne of Russia's many quasi-anonymous, semi-underground online publications on the publishing and messaging platform Telegram--the contemporary version of samizdat--reported that Verzilov had been working on an investigative story about the deaths of... three Russian journalists, Alexander Rastorguev, Orkhan Dzhemal, and Kirill Radchenko. The three had been in the Central African Republic reporting on a mercenary force linked to a close associate of President Vladimir Putin."
Verzilov was supposed to be on that trip to Africa but had committed instead to the World Cup protest. He had just raised money to investigate the three deaths and was supposed to receive documents relevant to the probe on the day he fell ill.
We know about the other Russian newsmen and women who have died since Putin's rise to power. And worldwide, so far this year, the International Federation of Journalists has recorded the deaths of 72 journalists and media workers. Our conference began just days after Khashoggi's disappearance and shortly after news had come of the rape and murder of Bulgarian reporter Victoria Marinova, the fourth high-profile journalist to be killed in Europe since the beginning of last year.
Many of these are murders perpetrated by those who fight against the freedom of expression, who would shout fake news in the face of honest investigative reporting that seeks the truth, no matter where the facts may lead.
"When everything our president says is a lie, when our country turn its back on the truth, when we do not speak out and use our strength and position to defend a human right as fundamental as speech, unless we push back hard, we're done for."
And they are deaths further exacerbated by America forfeiting its place in the global community, led by a man who mocks and bullies the press - just days after Khashoggi's disappearance praising the Montana congressman Greg Gianforte for bodyslamming journalist Ben Jacobs.
He refuses to take a moral stand on anything, much less defending the right of expression or of taking an opposing position, and has embraced in a bear hug the nationalism, bigotry and populism of the far right. He has declared America First and rejected globalism and international cooperation.
In so doing, the United States now gives carte blanche to those in the world -- Putin, Erdogan, Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman and the rest -- who choose to crush dissent and honest reporting with the gun, the sword, the noose and the bone saw.
When everything our president says is a lie, when our country turn its back on the truth, when we do not speak out and use our strength and position to defend a human right as fundamental as speech, unless we push back hard, we're done for. End of story.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Activists Occupy Greenpeace UK Headquarters--Wait, That Can't Be Right
British environmental activist group says Greenpeace is not radical enough to meet the dire climate situation
Oct 19, 2018
On Wednesday October 17, activists from British environmentalist group Extinction Rebellion (XR) held a sit-in at none other than the UK headquarters of Greenpeace--you know, the worldwide environmentalist org so radical that they've been shot at by the Russians and had their boat blown up by the French. According to XR, however, the renowned non-profit isn't radical enough, given the dire situation painted by the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
XR is a decentralized organization born out of activist group Risingup!. As Risingup!'s largest project to date, XR hopes to spur a massive, non-violent uprising via widespread acts of civil disobedience, which the group sees as the only possible method of averting total climate catastrophe. Beginning with a "Declaration of Rebellion" event on October 31st and followed by a "Rebellion Day" on November 17, anyone who acts according to the principles and values of XR can perform civil disobedience under the banner of the organization.
It's sort of like a Pussy Riot for the end of the world, as caused by a failure of democracy and ecological destruction. In an email, Nils Agger, a coordinator of XR's media and messaging working group, explained that XR's members believe the range of acceptable discussion around climate change and ecological crisis is not broad enough and should "include aspects such as the possibility of human extinction and societal collapse."
"[We are] working on building a rebellion against our broken democracy which is complicit in the ecological crisis we are facing and which is now a real emergency," Agger said. He added, "[The crisis is] a systemic problem rather than something which can be treated through changes in individual consumption."
So, where does Greenpeace fit into this? According to Agger, "NGOs like Greenpeace are part of the problem... since their messaging is a lot more narrow and doesn't tell the truth of the extent of the upcoming ecological crisis. We need a rebellion to tackle the problem we find ourselves in and Greenpeace, with their connections, could have a critical impact on the success of the uprising if they would choose to support it."
To get the non-profit to support such a rebellion, the group delivered cake and flowers to the NGO's employees and occupied the office space for two hours, as part of an action planned autonomously by XR members "who have been having conversations with the organisation for a while," Agger said. It wasn't until Greenpeace management agreed to consider the possibility of more direct action protests that the XR activists agreed to part, according to one Twitter user.
Specifically, XR asked Greenpeace "to encourage their members to participate in mass civil disobedience as the only remaining alternative to avert the worst of the catastrophe," Agger explained. As of 2017, Greenpeace has 2,555 permanent staff, 47,000 volunteers and 13 million petition signatures, but petitions aren't enough, according to Agger. "We are so very nearly out of time and campaigning as usual wont do the job. Greenpeace has a responsibility as an established organisation with resources and contacts to do what is necessary to avert as much as possible of the climate breakdown we are now facing," he said.
\u201chttps://t.co/QTegnNbdb3\u201d— Real Media (@Real Media) 1539854996
Agger hinted that, on October 31st, XR will perform a disruptive act that "will have a strong ceremonial aspect to it" and that "will be dramatic and spectacular". More details about the actions on that day will be released as it approaches. As of right now, we know that The Guardian's resident ecological conscience, George Monbiot, will be speaking at the UK event, but, if more activists participate under the banner of XR, it's possible that we will see actions performed on other parts of the globe.
When asked what XR hopes it can achieve with its civil disruption, Agger said that the group aims to highlight our climate emergency through "telling the truth and acting accordingly", ultimately spurring the sort of rapid societal adaptation that was seen during World War Two.
"If you are in a building which is catching fire and you try to let everyone else know about it who are also in the building, but then go on to act like business as usual then no one is going to believe you," Agger concluded. "The only appropriate response to a government which is complicit in the killing of millions of people is rebellion so that is what we are setting our aims on."
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Clinton and US Government Benefit When New York Times Attacks WikiLeaks
Without any evidence whatsoever, the New York Times published a "special report" tying the operations of WikiLeaks to Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Times reporters strongly suggested, "whether by conviction, convenience, or coincidence," WikiLeaks' document releases, along with statements by its editor-in-chief Julian Assange, have "often benefited Russia at the expense of the West."
Sep 02, 2016
Without any evidence whatsoever, the New York Times published a "special report" tying the operations of WikiLeaks to Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Times reporters strongly suggested, "whether by conviction, convenience, or coincidence," WikiLeaks' document releases, along with statements by its editor-in-chief Julian Assange, have "often benefited Russia at the expense of the West."
This kind of journalism has historically been labeled yellow journalism. It is a crude exaggeration and distorting of reality aimed at sensationalism. Times reporters fuel a manufactured idea that somehow WikiLeaks is a Russian pawn of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in the country's new Cold War against the United States.
In fact, decades ago, the CIA spread anti-communist propaganda and disinformation, which had a way of making it into American newspapers. Perhaps, during that era this type of story would have been planted by the CIA in the Times, however, nowadays the CIA does not need to plant news stories. Journalists willingly adopt their agenda and ideology and publish stories like this one, which have the same effect.
Jo Becker, Steven Erlanger, and Eric Schmitt report, "Among United States officials, the emerging consensus is that Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks probably have no direct ties to Russian intelligence services."
If that is the case, the reporters have no story. Assange and WikiLeaks are probably not conducting operations to serve the interests of Russia. They have no proof, not even a specific nugget from U.S. officials whispering in their ear that they can claim as a scoop.
But the reporters add, "[Officials] say that, at least in the case of the Democrats' emails, Moscow knew it had a sympathetic outlet in WikiLeaks, where intermediaries could drop pilfered documents in the group's anonymized digital inbox."
The Times reporters ask, "Has WikiLeaks become a laundering machine for compromising material gathered by Russian spies?" They ascribe a lot of significance to the fact that Assange sometimes engages in actions when criticizing the United States that "dovetail" with statements made by Putin. Yet, at no point do the reporters recognize that this does not constitute proof of being in cahoots.
Putin recognizes the adversarial position the U.S. government takes toward Russia. Assange recognizes the adversarial position the U.S. government takes toward WikiLeaks. Naturally, this leads to provocative statements from both about the nature of U.S. power that have similarities.
Former collaborators and supporters are granted anonymity to speak, and one former collaborator tells the Times that Assange "views everything through the prism of how he's treated. America and Hillary Clinton have caused him trouble, and Russia never has."
This could easily be the frame for a story about Assange. Although journalists in U.S. media see it more as a vendetta, Assange and WikiLeaks has been targeted by U.S. intelligence agencies and government officials. Is it not unjust and objectionable for a country that holds itself out as the leader of the free world to undermine freedom of the press and target a media organization?
New York Times editors would never green light that story. It would not sell newspapers. What sells is mashing quotes from transparency advocates, who have qualms about how Assange runs WikiLeaks, with insinuations from anonymous officials to bolster the idea that Assange is unwittingly or wittingly serving Putin as he publishes material on Clinton and the Democratic Party.
WikiLeaks itself put out a statement refuting much of the report. It claims Russia never issued a visa for Assange, although that appears in the story. It points out Assange published an anthology of essays based on U.S. diplomatic cables, including one essay on Russia which specifically examined corruption in the country. It highlights the multiple meetings Assange has had with members of the punk rock group, Pussy Riot, who were once political prisoners in Russia.
To undermine the suggestion from the Times that Assange has tried to serve Putin by laying off criticism of Syria, the statement indicates emails from Assad's government, which the organization published, exposed the workings of the Assad regime, and documents on Syrian government spying on Syrian activists were published as well.
In the newspaper's desperation to make the case that Assange is some agent of Moscow, it questions the timing of Twitter postings. For example, in September 2014, "Mr. Assange wrote on Twitter about what he called the 'corrupt deal' that Turkey engineered to force the suppression of a pro-Kurdish television station in Denmark in return for allowing that country's prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, to take the helm of NATO."
"The timing of his Twitter post was curious on two fronts. It relied on a diplomatic cable that had garnered headlines when WikiLeaks released it four years earlier. And it followed a months-long tit for tat between Mr. Rasmussen and Mr. Putin, with the Russian president taking the NATO chief to task for secretly recording their private conversation, and Mr. Rasmussen accusing Mr. Putin of playing a 'double game' in Ukraine by issuing conciliatory statements while massing troops on the border and shipping weapons to the separatists," the Times contends.
It could be WikiLeaks re-shares and promotes older documents as they are topical, like when Rasmussen and Putin have a "tit for tat." This would obviously help bolster the organization's reputation and show the world the value of the documents.
Indeed, the media organization declares, "WikiLeaks has responded to news hooks--as all news outlets do, to draw attention to its archives or to support its anti-censorship or source protection mission."
One could imagine the Times doing something similar, like pointing to a series published some time ago if reforms were proposed to correct an injustice. There isn't anything particularly nefarious about this practice. It is part of running a media organization that runs on a small budget.
Even more ridiculous is how the Times reporters appear to invent metrics to castigate the work of WikiLeaks. The report asserts Russia "has been the most vocal opponent" of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trade In Services agreement, "with Mr. Putin portraying them as an effort to give the United States an unfair leg up in the global economy." (WikiLeaks published drafts of these agreements.)
The Times reporters never include any context that would answer the question: compared to who or compared to what country?
Most Americans probably oppose these trade agreements because they heard Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders, blast the agreements during his campaign, or they have heard Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump criticize them. In other words, what Putin says, and how Assange reinforces those statements, has no bearing on the fact that the agreements supported by President Barack Obama are politically unpopular.
The "special report" is a window into the state-identified mindset of the New York Times as a media institution. Recall, the Times was a leader in selling the Iraq War to the public. At the request of President George W. Bush, it chose not to publish a story that would have exposed warrantless NSA wiretapping before the 2004 election.
The Times hid the existence of a base in Saudi Arabia used by the CIA to launch drone strikes. It helped the U.S. government conceal the real identity of Raymond Davis, who shot and killed two men in Pakistan and was working for the CIA.
Dean Baquet, who is currently the executive editor for the Times, has a record of avoiding journalism that could be upsetting to the U.S. government. He did not think it was significant that NSA data was shared with Israeli intelligence, so reporters at the publication never pursued further details after The Guardian's story in 2013. He saw no reason to prepare anything substantial to mark the tenth anniversary of the Iraq War and advocated for a "low-key approach," even though the paper played a key role in the war and occupation that killed a million Iraqis and thousands of U.S. soldiers.
Incredibly, Baquet has pointed to the publication of disclosures from WikiLeaks to argue the Times is willing to "push back against the government." It now ham-handedly tries to link Assange to Putin, and one must ask: did publishing WikiLeaks disclosures ever unwittingly help Putin and how will the Times atone for its disloyal sins?
To use the words of Times reporters, whether by conviction, convenience, or coincidence, the "special report" dovetails with the interests of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. It dovetails with the agenda of national security agencies--just as propaganda published in the press about NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden being a Russian spy served the agenda of U.S. intelligence.
Has the New York Times become a laundering machine for McCarthyist political and security state gossip? And more broadly, what precisely is the relationship between Baquet and Clinton?
Since this is what the Times considers to be journalism, let's ask the questions. Because the Times endorsed Clinton, Clinton and allies have used rhetoric similar to this report to attack WikiLeaks, and so it is important to figure out where the presidential campaign of Clinton ends and the journalism of the Times begins.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular