From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: Origins of activ-l and MAP: The PACH Project (autopost)
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: PACH
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 08:30:05 GMT

	     Progressive Alliance ClearingHouse -- Part I

	(Part II is available using the GET command (see bottom) on
	the file PROJECT  PACH-2)

       =======================================================
       T H I N K I N G   A B O U T   E F F E C T I V E N E S S
       =======================================================

In thinking about the role of the media and access to information, a
good starting point, I think, is to ask the following two easy
questions: How many Americans out there are aware of the fact that,
according to Amnesty International, the so-called Salvadoran
``death-squads'' are in fact made up of regular Salvadoran army and
security forces, acting under orders, and who have murdered since 1980
on the order of magnitude of 1% of the civilian population? The second
question is even easier: How many Americans would tolerate the current
U.S. policy in that country if they were made aware of these facts?

The central issue is the assertion that the primary -or, a primary-
obstacle to achieving fundamental change is getting "the facts" out to
the American public. Other such obstacles include the inherent power
structures in America; however, not only are these structures related
to the systems of information (or "info-tainment") delivery in
place, which effectively pacify the population into accepting the
truth and policies of the power-elites, but more basically, if we
intend on changing these structures, a necessary first step is to have
an informed populace which would be on "our side"; then we would have
to face the obstacles of achieving the popular will which are present;
but first and foremost the structures *controlling* the popular will
need to be changed.

So the assertion is that *information*, not a lot of "convincing
arguments" is what is both necessary and, essentially sufficient to
affect the necessary fundamental change, as suggested by the second
question. In particular, what would be neither particularly necessary
nor sufficient are strategies which do not directly channel
information to the public; this includes writing letters to the
editor, or sending news-clips to newspapers, and more generally
attempts to "reform" the media. It isn't that reform is impossible, or
that these strategies don't affect any positive change whatsoever. It
is that the changes, the reforms needed are so deep, so fundamental
-we are talking about changing such deeply rooted practices as having
"respect" for (i.e., not questioning) authority, and the *defining* of
what "news" is to be essentially what those in authority, those in
power say, or do, or suggest- such fundamental changes would require
years and decades, at least; and hence such a "reform" strategy is not
what a rational Left ought to be engaged in while mutilated corpses
continue to be regularly and unceremoniously dumped on the streets of
the "democracies" which "we" support.

As for this rejection of media "reform" (as a central strategy), it's
worthwhile to consider why it is that the media has been and is so
quiet about these "death squads" which are supported by their readers'
tax-dollars; or, if they are interested in selling papers, why so
quiet about about findings that 90% of their readers are paying more
taxes than they did 12 years ago (while the very rich pay less) --
surely a selling issue.

In emphasizing the assertion that getting information -this includes
images of the consequences of US policy as well as human rights
reports and interviews with any of a multitude of sources outside the
narrow circle of "experts" and "leaders" which form the acceptable
spectrum in the mainstream media- in asserting that getting "pure
information" to the public is the primary obstacle, and the primary
goal, as suggested by the two opening questions, it is perhaps useful
to consider some substitutes for the first question; i.e., how would
the public's acceptance of and reaction to US policies be different if
they were aware of...

* The overwhelming international acceptance of the fairness of the '84
Nicaraguan elections (or the assessment of $17 billion in damages
against the U.S. by the World Court finding for Nicaragua)?
* The US's standing vis a vis the rest of the western industrialized
world in terms of infant mortality, or national health care, or use of
the death penalty, or a multitude of other areas?
* The extensive data documenting the massive transfer of wealth from
the poor and middle class to the rich during the 1980s?
* That according to many respectable (in the sense of the
establishment) sources, $100,000,000,000 would be more than adequate
for defense (how "radical" this proposed 66% cut seems, when >10% is
"liberal" to "leftist" in the national arena of discussion?)
* The details of the proposed covert operations "reform" bill;
* Or that Ollie North, Rob Owen, the former US ambassador, and
other Iran-Contra characters have been declared "persona non grata" by
the Costa Rican legislature due to the criminal activities they were
engaged in? Or the amble documentation of CIA involvement in drug
dealing, assassination, etc, etc.

Another point regarding effectively disseminating information is that
even *within* the Left these avenues are very rusty, at best. I hadn't
been made aware of the basic findings of Amnesty's report until I
ordered the report myself; receiving leaflets from CISPES in college
and other involvements in "activism" -even going to a lecture by Ungo-
non of these had disseminated the essential information on the subject
to me. Of course, we can't open every article on Central America or El
Salvador with one of the key quotes from Amnesty, but other avenues
need to be found -there's nothing wrong with including the statement
and such references in each article, for example- and, again, it is
this which is crucial, not writing lengthy, clever, "persuasive", or
emotional articles (not that emotion should be eliminated by any
means.) Another disturbing question is: what percentage of the
progressive/liberal public invests or even knows about socially
conscious money funds? All this relates to the observations that the
American Left is fractured, disorganized, and ill- coordinated; that
the overall situation is that most "components" of this Left, lacking
coherent central communication, often have little or no idea as to
what the other components are saying, or are up to.

Finally, in regards to insufficient understanding of -or lack of
attention to- the effects and functions of the mass media, there is
lacking the sort of self-examination which evaluates the "bang per
buck" of activism: how much effort X are we putting into a given
project, and how much "results" Y are we getting in return? The
following example illustrates this problem:

  ...the American Left continues to spend much of its resources on
  relatively unproductive actions, in the sense of not making gains on
  the central issues -e.g. "democratizing the media"- which must be
  dealt with before any structural, any fundamental change can be
  affected.  An example of this is the well-intentioned March on
  Washington to commemorate Romero's assassination. Predictably, there
  was very little coverage, and what little coverage I heard told the
  gentle listeners what the protesters were commemorating, and, perhaps,
  that these marchers were demanding a cut-off in aid to El Salvador.
  Romero had been assassinated by "a suspected right-wing death-squad",
  the reports said, of course.

  In other words, zero percent of Americans hearing media reports of the
  event came out knowing *anything* about the basic reasons these people
  were out protesting, and why they were demanding a new policy, and
  which. The media was quite "safe" reporting what was being called for
  since the crucial information necessary to understand why a change
  of policy was called for was being suppressed. It is sad, then, to
  think of the amount of time, money, energy, and general resources
  that were put into that event, which could have gone towards pushing
  for fundamental change...

  The Left is spending, it seems to me, too many resources on trying to
  promote positive change through democratic avenues, democratic
  channels/institutions, which *do*not*, in fact, exist, to any
  meaningful extent. Resources need to be spent on *creating*, such
  democratic channels. The sad fact is, there *is*no* free press in this
  country, and so long as this continues, the minds of the public will
  continue to be under the strong influence of the elites (and the
  media's informational "filters"); they will continue waving flags as
  Panamanians are slaughtered; continue talking about the dangerous
  `communism' to be fought (i.e., the need to send `death squads' to
  take care of unruly peasants.) So long as this status quo -the
  monopolizing, distortion of, and insulation of the public from
  information (reality)- continues, *no* *fundamental* *change* can
  begin to occur.

In particular, we must start viewing such actions as carrying signs
and marching, and writing letters to the editor or to Congress (which
are sometimes important, which sometimes do some good); these should
be viewed as *symptoms* of the fact that there doesn't exist true
democracy in this country today; if your government is spending your
tax-dollars on mass-slaughter, and has been for years, and the most
you can do about is stand outside with a sign or write letters, that's
a symptom of the lack of real, genuine democratic channels for
governmental response to the will of the people. That doesn't mean we
pack up our bags and go home. It means we spend our time and energy
and resources on *creating* democratic avenues; and in a country where
the population is very efficiently indoctrinated, a key first step is
to "de-program" the population, since creating democratic channels is
difficult enough a challenge for an entire population when such don't
exist, let along for a small minority.

Finally, there is the tendency within the activist community to work
on "issues" while ignoring the underlying, key power structures; if we
get some form of National Health Insurance, how deep a victory is that
likely to be if these power structures are in place, and hence will
continue to protect their intere$ts, so that we know, a priori, that NHI
would be undermined, just as environmental laws, on the books, have
had some positive effect, but the intere$ts and power of corporations
has meant the subversion of these laws... Laws alone don't equal
progress; certainly not fundamental progress.  Similarly for Gay
rights, women's rights, etc; getting legal protection is important,
but what is this in relation to the existence and perpetuation of the
power/money concentrations and the elite circles which have the real
power, which are not only protected by, but are effectively above the
Law?

Let's conclude with some concrete, albeit long-term goals with respect
to the issues of cooperation and communication within the peace
movement and getting information out to the public; and, inevitably,
to talk seriously of these, the creation of the solid financial base
(more about which in the second file) needed for any such major
undertaking, especially outside the establishment.

Concrete Goals:
===============

1)Increase ten-fold, say, the number of people who have access to
alternative sources of information, e.g. PeaceNet, Ralph Nader's
Citizen's for Tax Justice, Fairness and Accuracy In Media (FAIR)
reports, Amnesty reports, foreign news sources, etc. For example, some
specific goals:

* Locally, then nationally, create *genuinely* "public" TV
* A national progressive cable channel (on firm financial ground!)

2)Increase ten-fold the circulation of some progressive publications,
e.g. The Nation, In These Times, Zeta, etc.; possibly a national
progressive newspaper as well.

3)Increase ten-fold, say, the amount of money in development/
human-needs related (rather than profit-related) investments; e.g.
increase significantly the amount of money held in socially
responsible funds like Working Assets Money Fund, in Co-ops, Credit
Unions, etc. It is critical that at the same time emphasis be placed
on increasing democratic control (and democratic decision making
mechanisms) over such funds.

4)More generally, increase substantially the financial pool
available for activist/progressive projects/causes.

5)Create a central network allowing efficient communication within the
progressive/peace movement and enabling efficient coordination of
national actions/projects, while maintaining the autonomy of the
various "components."

HB, spring 1990
------------------------------------------------------------------

    ======================================
    To get a file named FILE NAME from the
    archiver (files are two words  separa-
    ted by a space), send the 1-line message

    GET FILE NAME ACTIV-L

    to: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET
    [or: LISTSERV@UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU]
    ======================================

    Use GET with the file ACTIV-L ARCHIVE for a listing of
    files available with the GET command.

e.g., send GET ACTIV-L ARCHIVE ACTIV-L to LISTSERV@UMCVMB.BITNET to be
emailed the index of archived files.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

feedback --> pach@pencil.cs.missouri.edu is always welcome (if or more
general interest, CC to activ-l@umcvmb.bitnet). It is suggested that
you read part II first, however.

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive