Catastrophe

Further catastrophe for GE-NBC, for MS[Microsoft]NBC, for Viacom-CBS, for Disney-ABC, for Time Warner-CNN

After the incident at Amritsar that lost India for Great Britain, the General responsible went home and was lauded and feted The real title of the following Human Rights Watch piece is: "GE-NBC, Viacom-CBS, Disney-ABC, Time Warner-CNN Culpable in Genocide Against Christians in Sudan." This section is mis-titled. It should be called Supra-Catastrophe.
From the Los Angeles Time, April 28, 2004 headline: "Another Africa Calamity - Will Media Slumber On?"
	COMMENTARY Another Africa Calamity -- Will Media Slumber On? By Carroll Bogert Carroll Bogert is associate director of Human Rights Watch. April 28, 2004 The international media don't send reporters to cover genocides, it seems. They cover genocide anniversaries. We've just finished a spate of front-page stories, television docu-histories and somber panel discussions on "Why the Media Missed the Story" in Rwanda, pegged to the 10th anniversary of one of the most shocking tragedies of last century, or any century. More than 500,000 people were killed in a small African country in only 100 days, and the world turned away. But even as the ink was drying on the latest round of mea culpas, another colossal disaster in Africa was already going uncovered. Nearly a million people have been displaced from their homes in western Sudan; many have fled into neighboring Chad. They report that militias working with the Sudanese government have been attacking villages, ransacking and torching homes, killing and raping civilians. These armed forces are supposedly cracking down on rebel groups based in the Darfur region, but in fact they are targeting the population. The rainy season comes to western Sudan in May. If farmers don't get back to their villages by then, the crops will not get planted this year — and that could mean mass starvation as well. But no one will go back as long as the janjaweed (literally, "armed horsemen") militias remain in the area. So where are the journalists? At the annual meeting of the Overseas Press Club last week, I took a random and admittedly unscientific survey of foreign editors. Top "Do you have anyone in Darfur?" I asked. "We did have someone there!" said one editor brightly. "But she's been covering all of Africa." He changed the subject to authoritarian trends in Putin's Russia. "We're covering the Washington angle this week," said another, referring to the Bush administration's conundrum of how to wrap up a peace agreement between the government of Sudan and rebels in the southern part of the country — just as Khartoum is attacking another set of ethnic groups in the west. "I think we have a stringer now in Chad," offered a third. If few editors could find Rwanda on a map 10 years ago, fewer still have found Darfur today. Of course, Khartoum isn't giving visas to camera-wielding international TV crews. But although Darfur is hard to get to, it isn't impossible. A Human Rights Watch researcher just spent three weeks sneaking back and forth to Sudan from Chad, and she brought back with her solid evidence of what's happening on the ground. For Human Rights Watch to adequately cover the tragedy in Darfur, we have to take people away from their regular jobs — following the Lord's Resistance Army in northern Uganda, the worsening civil war in Ivory Coast and other global tragedies. But if we can do it, with the scarce resources of a nonprofit, then why not the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times? Top Part of the answer is Iraq. The Chicago Tribune's Cairo bureau chief, for instance, who could be covering north Africa, just got bundled off for another tour of Baghdad. The war is a story that involves Americans — our men and women in uniform — and Americans are understandably preoccupied with it. (Ten years ago, the media were transfixed by the O.J. Simpson trial — so maybe you can call this progress.) Covering the war in Iraq has depleted foreign news budgets, and sending reporters into Sudan is not cheap either. Reporters have begun trickling to the scene. The Los Angeles Times has a correspondent en route to Darfur, as does the New York Times. But the fact is, with or without a war in Iraq, American journalists are generally slower to cover mass death if the victims are not white [added: or are Christians]. The Rwandan genocide is a case in point. The tragedy in Darfur may not cross the genocide threshold, but should that really make a difference? Thousands of civilians have been killed, and the pattern and intent behind these massive crimes must be carefully mapped and loudly broadcast around the world if there is to be any hope of stopping them. We need more information and more firsthand reporting. We need reporters at the scene, making this disaster real to their audience by telling the stories of individual victims. It's the media's job to inform us. They should do it, and quickly — because 10 years from now there won't be any excuse for another round of hand-wringing. Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bogert28apr28,1,47454.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions Top
The Culture War
	The long simmering culture war that has been underway, with only one side articulating its horror of the other and how hopelessly haplessly stupid is the other, and only one side fighting, and only one side determined to win, is now going to be fought with both sides fighting. The stakes in this culture war are greater by far than in any other - domination of the first and only truly global power that has ever existed. Top
The Dreaded "C" word - costing GE-NBC $3,000,000 a day
	Except for Carroll Bogart/Human Rights Watch's characteristic internal mental horror of mentioning the dread "C" word, the article is, um, kind of pregnant. It is also an article that is costing each of the television network and CNN's parent corporation $3,000,000 a day (a billion a year). Let our friends on Wall Street take note. Media-stock analysts, stay in contact, if you care to. The Largest Boycott in History requires that these corporations contribute a $100,000,000 Perpetual Trust to be run by Largest Boycotts that is to be somewhat like Human Rights Watch. Title: Human Rights That Include Protestants, Catholics and Jews HRTIPCJ, Los Angeles-based, will not have the internal horror and fear of mentioning mass murder of Christians that is seen in (1) Human Rights Watch and in (2) the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and its executive director, Samantha Power. Harvard University currently: often anti-Semitic, often anti-Christian. And here we thought that Harvard hated only America. We suggest a name change, to Harvard Secutopia University. Nor will have HRTIPCJ have the internal mental horror of mentioning depredations against Christians and Jews that is seen in a majority of the members of the United Nations. You see, they fear that the world's near 2,000,000,000 Protestants and Catholics will awaken, become all riled up. And become ................. dominant. On the planet. And become 3,000,000,000 coherent. Top
Senator John McCain's Million Dollar a Day Remark Senator John McCain said that the Genocide Against Black Africans in western Sudan was "genocide."
	Senator McCain so said on CNBC on the Dennis Miller show, July 5, 2004. Maybe NBC Weekday Anchor Brian Williams and NBC CEO Bob Wright should watch CNBC. It's part of the NBC family. TLBH is charging each of (1) GE-NBC-Universal-MSNBC[Microsoft]/CNBC-Telemundo (2) Viacom-CBS, (3) Disney-ABC and (4) Time Warner-CNN until they have begun LBH-acceptable nightly news reportage from both killing fields of Sudan: 1. The Genocide Against Christians in southern, Christian Sudan, and, 2. The Genocide Against Black Africans in western Sudan. LBH-acceptable means: all the reporters are as determined to prosecute this matter to the end as were the national media reporters after Watergate. Top