“The Third Chamber in the Netherlands holds Time-Warner-CNN accountable for mass starvation in Sudan. Proceedings to take place in the International Court of Justice in Den Hague”
The above had to do with a proposal for the group “armoedebestrijding” made in May of this year. That was before practically anyone in the world ever heard of Darfur. That was after millions dead in Sudan and many more millions of refugees. That was after 20 years of silence. And then it happened. Some news media somewhere in the world decided to report. Others followed. Not wanting to be left behind in the hype more followed. Dignitaries came to Sudan. More news. The UN got involved. More news.
This little piece of history illustrates the point I wanted to emphasize in my proposal to the ‘armoedebestrijders’. The proposal was not adopted. Check it out and let me know if I’ve gone crazy, or if there is something to it. It may be seen as an expansion of Motion A2 of the Third Chamber of 2003 regarding guarantees for a free and independent press. The misuse of freedom by maintaining silence leads to slavery.
Here it is:
Poverty and the Media
(a proposal for the subgroup “armoedebestrijding”)
The Problem
The Analyses
The indirect causes for extreme poverty may be diverse, as natural disasters and climate change, war, bad governance, insufficient aid, and so forth. The reasons for these, even in many cases that of natural disasters, are that they are man induced. Poverty is created by man. What is the solution? No more war, no more bad governance, sufficient aid, etc. Yes, of course. But how do you realize such? Well, simply by changing the creator of poverty so that there will be less war, more aid, etc. But not so simple. To change man, his mentality must be radically changed. And only the creator of man can radically change his mentality (what Christianity calls conversion, receiving a new heart, a new principle of life). Theoretical arguments based on the view of a self-proclaimed autonomy and the self-sufficiency of the Darwinian man which tries to derive morality from chaos in a time-chance universe are doomed to failure (see on this: World View and Responsibility by G. Baunsen). If there is no basis for morality, then morality dies. Why should you care that more than a billion people live in extreme poverty if your highest Good is yourself and man is nothing more than an accidentally developed piece of primeval slime. Does that then mean that our only hope is conversion? Is there not another way to influence the mentality of man for the good? I believe there is. Morality is written on the hearts of man (Bible: Rom 2: 14,15) which also can be called conscience. And conscience can be influenced. A look in the eye, eye to eye, of extreme poverty, often has more effect on conscience (and therefore mentality) than thousands of words about millions dieing of hunger. At least this is true of many, not all. But not everyone can go, or wants to go, on vacation to places of extreme poverty to look poverty in the eye. Next best is, I believe, pictures of extreme poverty, accompanied by words of explanation. And that is best done by the visual media. Or, I should say, that is done in the worst way by the media. This last statement is the main thesis of this writing. The media is the main cause of extreme poverty in the world because of what it does not do. It does not, or does much too little, influence conscience with respect to extreme poverty, which in turn is the main reason that most people (also people in government) don’t give a shit about millions dieing of hunger. It is also the reason for the poor score given to the international community for the fight against poverty:
[Here an article from Trouw 21-04-04 accompanied this writing when first sent to the group “armoedebestrijding” of the Third Chamber; to illustrate the point: “Dikke onvoldoendes voor bestrijding van armoede”]
The media that is guilty should be held accountable.
It will be the main purpose of this writing to illustrate and support the rather grave underscored assertion above. To do so, several thoughts must be developed.
1. The media has a tremendous influence on people and decision makers. In many ways we are governed by a mediacracy [Here (in the original) attached articles from the CU: “De Media Regeren?” and “Mediacratie” and the interview with Frits Wester].
As a Dutch newspaper has stated, they not only report the news, they determine the news. There is general agreement with respect to this assertion, even by the media itself. The recent pictures of prisoner abuse in Baghdad illustrate the point. Pictures of American defeat in Somalia were the main cause that nothing was done during the Rwandan genocide. Dutch soldiers were sent to northern Iraq only after pictures were shown of Kurds fleeing barefoot in the snow through mountains. The examples could be multiplied. It follows, that when the media remain silent on important events involving mass starvation over a long period of time, that the non-action of individuals and decision makers must for an important part be attributed to this negligence of the media. When the Minister of Development Aid in the Netherlands wants to redefine development aid so that less aid can be given
(see attached artikel (in the original) [from Trouw: “Al veel aanvallen op de zuiverheid van ontwikkelingshulp” and “Hulpgroepen vrezen afkalven steun”])
and when a VVD member of the Second Chamber, by invitation of NCDO (!), proclaims that all development aid should cease and be left up to a subsidized market mechanism, and all emergency aid should stop and be left up to the very inefficient UN, and when, as it seems, 149 members of the Third Chamber give a tremendous applause of approval for the VVD member (guess who didn’t clap), then, I believe, there is much cause for concern. Mediacracy has given birth to mediocrity.
2. If the above is true, then the newsmakers have a tremendous responsibility to report accurate, balanced, and true facts. Also, if the above is true, then newsmakers ought to be held accountable for negligence. Not only should the freedom of the press be held in high regard, but when that freedom is misused, sanctions should follow, especially because of the huge ramifications of negligence. Not only in situations of a personal grievance with the media, as for example:
[Here an article (in the original) in which someone considers a protest against Privé because of a personal misrepresentation]
but also in situations in which we have a grieve-ence for millions of impoverished masses. The fact that the repercussions are often difficult to quantify, or that a direct link from the reporting (or lack of reporting) to specific situations of extreme poverty is difficult to show, does not mean that reporters should be held less accountable. And I think that the one news media would readily blast at the other
[cp. How the Guardian (attached in the original) wants to hold BBC accountable in the article from The Guardian 27-4-04 “Beware the fossil fools”] .
3. The reason that conscience is not pricked to do well with respect to extreme poverty has more to do with what is left unsaid in the media than with what they inaccurately may say. Therefore the media should be held accountable when they purport to give a balanced all-round, world-round coverage of events, but fail to rapport on major world events where hundreds of thousands or even millions of people live and die in extreme poverty related to wars, disasters, or whatever. Perhaps if they reported on such, governments, NGO’s, citizens and relief organizations, would have had their conscience moved, and would have done something about it. Media silence over a large number of years with respect to the Sudan, the Congo, the Karen of Burma/Myanmar, North Korean refugees, Laos, Burundi, Assam, etc., etc. is shocking. These examples might be multiplied. Shame on much of the media.
The Proposition
Hold an important news media consortium accountable in a prestigious court of law in a very clear-cut case of irresponsible omission and silence regarding reporting that should have been done about a very important occurrence of mass starvation in recent history. And add the requested sanctions (not just a short note of rectification and regret printed in the back corner of some newspaper), as for example, the “punishment” of sending a reporter in the near future to a hotspot of extreme poverty. The general media will love it (if they themselves are not the ones who are held to account), and will, I think, give lots of publicity to the idea. And that is exactly what we want, precisely because the media is so powerful. It will do two things: educate the public about the irresponsibility of the media by making them wonder what is not being told or shown, and secondly, it will be a warning to the media in general, hopefully resulting in a little more coverage of major human disasters in the world, which in turn should influence the conscience of the general public and decision makers to do more to alleviate extreme poverty. Imagine the headlines: “The Third Chamber in the Netherlands holds Time-Warner-CNN accountable for mass starvation in Sudan. Proceedings to take place in the International Court of Justice in Den Hague”. Perhaps too pretentious? How about: “The Third Chamber holds the NOS accountable for ……” Or perhaps something else. Winning a court case is not the issue. The Palestinians, just in bringing Israel to the International Court of Justice concerning the “wall”, have scored a victory. So can we. Don’t like court cases? How about government imposed sanctions for the subsidized press (withholding funds) where gross negligence is involved, or government induced incentives (giving funds) to report on major disasters and starvation?
The Realization
To be developed………….
J. Plantinga
The above had to do with a proposal for the group “armoedebestrijding” made in May of this year. That was before practically anyone in the world ever heard of Darfur. That was after millions dead in Sudan and many more millions of refugees. That was after 20 years of silence. And then it happened. Some news media somewhere in the world decided to report. Others followed. Not wanting to be left behind in the hype more followed. Dignitaries came to Sudan. More news. The UN got involved. More news.
This little piece of history illustrates the point I wanted to emphasize in my proposal to the ‘armoedebestrijders’. The proposal was not adopted. Check it out and let me know if I’ve gone crazy, or if there is something to it. It may be seen as an expansion of Motion A2 of the Third Chamber of 2003 regarding guarantees for a free and independent press. The misuse of freedom by maintaining silence leads to slavery.
Here it is:
Poverty and the Media
(a proposal for the subgroup “armoedebestrijding”)
The Problem
- 28 Million children die from easy curable diseases each year
- 17 million children die from malnutrition and starvation each year
- 1/3 of the world population is malnourished
- 20% of the world has no access to safe water at all
- 40% have no sanitation
- 10 million children are involved in the sex industry
- 100 million children are on the streets
- 200 million child labourers
- 1.4 million children under the age of 15 are living with HIV
- 24,000 people die every day due to lack of food
- Etc. etc.
The Analyses
The indirect causes for extreme poverty may be diverse, as natural disasters and climate change, war, bad governance, insufficient aid, and so forth. The reasons for these, even in many cases that of natural disasters, are that they are man induced. Poverty is created by man. What is the solution? No more war, no more bad governance, sufficient aid, etc. Yes, of course. But how do you realize such? Well, simply by changing the creator of poverty so that there will be less war, more aid, etc. But not so simple. To change man, his mentality must be radically changed. And only the creator of man can radically change his mentality (what Christianity calls conversion, receiving a new heart, a new principle of life). Theoretical arguments based on the view of a self-proclaimed autonomy and the self-sufficiency of the Darwinian man which tries to derive morality from chaos in a time-chance universe are doomed to failure (see on this: World View and Responsibility by G. Baunsen). If there is no basis for morality, then morality dies. Why should you care that more than a billion people live in extreme poverty if your highest Good is yourself and man is nothing more than an accidentally developed piece of primeval slime. Does that then mean that our only hope is conversion? Is there not another way to influence the mentality of man for the good? I believe there is. Morality is written on the hearts of man (Bible: Rom 2: 14,15) which also can be called conscience. And conscience can be influenced. A look in the eye, eye to eye, of extreme poverty, often has more effect on conscience (and therefore mentality) than thousands of words about millions dieing of hunger. At least this is true of many, not all. But not everyone can go, or wants to go, on vacation to places of extreme poverty to look poverty in the eye. Next best is, I believe, pictures of extreme poverty, accompanied by words of explanation. And that is best done by the visual media. Or, I should say, that is done in the worst way by the media. This last statement is the main thesis of this writing. The media is the main cause of extreme poverty in the world because of what it does not do. It does not, or does much too little, influence conscience with respect to extreme poverty, which in turn is the main reason that most people (also people in government) don’t give a shit about millions dieing of hunger. It is also the reason for the poor score given to the international community for the fight against poverty:
[Here an article from Trouw 21-04-04 accompanied this writing when first sent to the group “armoedebestrijding” of the Third Chamber; to illustrate the point: “Dikke onvoldoendes voor bestrijding van armoede”]
The media that is guilty should be held accountable.
It will be the main purpose of this writing to illustrate and support the rather grave underscored assertion above. To do so, several thoughts must be developed.
1. The media has a tremendous influence on people and decision makers. In many ways we are governed by a mediacracy [Here (in the original) attached articles from the CU: “De Media Regeren?” and “Mediacratie” and the interview with Frits Wester].
As a Dutch newspaper has stated, they not only report the news, they determine the news. There is general agreement with respect to this assertion, even by the media itself. The recent pictures of prisoner abuse in Baghdad illustrate the point. Pictures of American defeat in Somalia were the main cause that nothing was done during the Rwandan genocide. Dutch soldiers were sent to northern Iraq only after pictures were shown of Kurds fleeing barefoot in the snow through mountains. The examples could be multiplied. It follows, that when the media remain silent on important events involving mass starvation over a long period of time, that the non-action of individuals and decision makers must for an important part be attributed to this negligence of the media. When the Minister of Development Aid in the Netherlands wants to redefine development aid so that less aid can be given
(see attached artikel (in the original) [from Trouw: “Al veel aanvallen op de zuiverheid van ontwikkelingshulp” and “Hulpgroepen vrezen afkalven steun”])
and when a VVD member of the Second Chamber, by invitation of NCDO (!), proclaims that all development aid should cease and be left up to a subsidized market mechanism, and all emergency aid should stop and be left up to the very inefficient UN, and when, as it seems, 149 members of the Third Chamber give a tremendous applause of approval for the VVD member (guess who didn’t clap), then, I believe, there is much cause for concern. Mediacracy has given birth to mediocrity.
2. If the above is true, then the newsmakers have a tremendous responsibility to report accurate, balanced, and true facts. Also, if the above is true, then newsmakers ought to be held accountable for negligence. Not only should the freedom of the press be held in high regard, but when that freedom is misused, sanctions should follow, especially because of the huge ramifications of negligence. Not only in situations of a personal grievance with the media, as for example:
[Here an article (in the original) in which someone considers a protest against Privé because of a personal misrepresentation]
but also in situations in which we have a grieve-ence for millions of impoverished masses. The fact that the repercussions are often difficult to quantify, or that a direct link from the reporting (or lack of reporting) to specific situations of extreme poverty is difficult to show, does not mean that reporters should be held less accountable. And I think that the one news media would readily blast at the other
[cp. How the Guardian (attached in the original) wants to hold BBC accountable in the article from The Guardian 27-4-04 “Beware the fossil fools”] .
3. The reason that conscience is not pricked to do well with respect to extreme poverty has more to do with what is left unsaid in the media than with what they inaccurately may say. Therefore the media should be held accountable when they purport to give a balanced all-round, world-round coverage of events, but fail to rapport on major world events where hundreds of thousands or even millions of people live and die in extreme poverty related to wars, disasters, or whatever. Perhaps if they reported on such, governments, NGO’s, citizens and relief organizations, would have had their conscience moved, and would have done something about it. Media silence over a large number of years with respect to the Sudan, the Congo, the Karen of Burma/Myanmar, North Korean refugees, Laos, Burundi, Assam, etc., etc. is shocking. These examples might be multiplied. Shame on much of the media.
The Proposition
Hold an important news media consortium accountable in a prestigious court of law in a very clear-cut case of irresponsible omission and silence regarding reporting that should have been done about a very important occurrence of mass starvation in recent history. And add the requested sanctions (not just a short note of rectification and regret printed in the back corner of some newspaper), as for example, the “punishment” of sending a reporter in the near future to a hotspot of extreme poverty. The general media will love it (if they themselves are not the ones who are held to account), and will, I think, give lots of publicity to the idea. And that is exactly what we want, precisely because the media is so powerful. It will do two things: educate the public about the irresponsibility of the media by making them wonder what is not being told or shown, and secondly, it will be a warning to the media in general, hopefully resulting in a little more coverage of major human disasters in the world, which in turn should influence the conscience of the general public and decision makers to do more to alleviate extreme poverty. Imagine the headlines: “The Third Chamber in the Netherlands holds Time-Warner-CNN accountable for mass starvation in Sudan. Proceedings to take place in the International Court of Justice in Den Hague”. Perhaps too pretentious? How about: “The Third Chamber holds the NOS accountable for ……” Or perhaps something else. Winning a court case is not the issue. The Palestinians, just in bringing Israel to the International Court of Justice concerning the “wall”, have scored a victory. So can we. Don’t like court cases? How about government imposed sanctions for the subsidized press (withholding funds) where gross negligence is involved, or government induced incentives (giving funds) to report on major disasters and starvation?
The Realization
To be developed………….
J. Plantinga
