September, 24 2009, 07:36pm EDT
USA Today, AP Mislead on Honduran Coup
NEW YORK
This week, ousted Honduran
President Manuel Zelaya returned to Tegucigalpa--though not to office.
Unfortunately, press accounts are still misreporting the story behind
his ouster, relying on those who supported the coup to supply the
explanation for their actions.
Some of the most misleading coverage has appeared in the Associated Press dispatches that have run in USA Today. The paper's September 22 edition ran this from the AP:
The legislature ousted Zelaya after he formed
an alliance with leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and tried to
alter the nation's constitution. Zelaya was arrested on orders of the
Supreme Court on charges of treason for ignoring court orders against
holding a referendum to extend his term. The Honduran Constitution
forbids a president from trying to obtain another term in office.
an alliance with leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and tried to
alter the nation's constitution. Zelaya was arrested on orders of the
Supreme Court on charges of treason for ignoring court orders against
holding a referendum to extend his term. The Honduran Constitution
forbids a president from trying to obtain another term in office.
Besides being confusing (is an "alliance" with Hugo Chavez illegal?),
this formulation repeats the unsupported case that pro-coup forces in
Honduras have made: that President Zelaya was seeking to extend his
term in office. While his critics may have accused him of this, there
is no reason why AP should treat their charges as fact.
Indeed, the referendum that Zelaya was seeking in late June was a
non-binding poll about whether to revise the constitution. Zelaya hoped
that a "yes" vote on that referendum would have led to a binding vote
on the November ballot--at the same time voters would be choosing
Zelaya's successor--about whether to hold a constitutional convention.
In other words, there was no plausible way that this process could have
resulted in Zelaya extending his time in office. As Mark Weisbrot of
the Center for Economic & Policy Research (7/8/09) pointed out:
The belief that Zelaya was fighting to extend
his term in office has no factual basis--although most people who
follow this story in the press seem to believe it. The most that could
be said is that if a new constitution were eventually approved, Zelaya
might have been able to run for a second term at some future date.
his term in office has no factual basis--although most people who
follow this story in the press seem to believe it. The most that could
be said is that if a new constitution were eventually approved, Zelaya
might have been able to run for a second term at some future date.
On September 23, USA Today ran another AP
report (appearing on the "print edition" section of its website) making
the same claim: "Zelaya was put on a plane by the military in June for
trying to force a referendum to change the constitution's limit of one
term for presidents." This is simply not what the referendum called
for. In fact, before the coup took place, the Associated Press seemed to know this. On June 26,
the wire service noted that "Sunday's referendum has no legal effect:
it merely asks people if they want to have a later vote on whether to
convoke an assembly to rewrite the constitution."
So when did the AP's understanding of the referendum change, and why? And is USA Today comfortable with publishing such material?
ACTION:
Contact the Associated Press and USA Today and ask them why their reporting on Honduras this week has advanced falsehoods about the removal of President Manuel Zelaya.
CONTACT:
Associated Press
Tom Kent, Standards Editor
tkent@ap.org
USA Today
Brent Jones, Reader Editor
accuracy@usatoday.com
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints.
LATEST NEWS
Despite 100% Pentagon Audit Failure Rate, House Passes $883.7 Billion NDAA
"Instead of fighting the rising cost of healthcare, gas, or groceries, this Congress prioritized rewarding the wealthy and well-connected military-industrial complex," said Defense Spending Reduction Caucus co-chairs.
Dec 11, 2024
Despite the Pentagon's repeated failures to pass audits and various alarming policies, 81 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives voted with 200 Republicans on Wednesday to advance a $883.7 billion annual defense package.
The Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2025, unveiled by congressional negotiators this past Saturday, still needs approval from the Senate, which is expected to vote next week. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Wednesday that he plans to vote no and spoke out against the military-industrial complex.
The push to pass the NDAA comes as this congressional session winds down and after the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) announced last month that it had failed yet another audit—which several lawmakers highlighted after the Wednesday vote.
Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), co-chairs and co-founders of the Defense Spending Reduction Caucus, said in a joint statement, "Time and time again, Congress seems to be able to find the funds necessary to line the pockets of defense contractors while neglecting the problems everyday Americans face here at home."
"Instead of fighting the rising cost of healthcare, gas, or groceries, this Congress prioritized rewarding the wealthy and well-connected military-industrial complex with even more unaccountable funds," they continued. "After a seventh failed audit in a row, it's disappointing that our amendment to hold the Pentagon accountable by penalizing the DOD's budget by 0.5% for each failed audit was stripped out of the final bill. It's time Congress demanded accountability from the Pentagon."
"While we're glad many of the poison pill riders that were included in the House-passed version were ultimately removed from the final bill, the bill does include a ban on access to medically necessary healthcare for transgender children of service members, which will force service members to choose between serving their country and getting their children the care they need," the pair noted. "The final bill also failed to expand coverage for fertility treatments, including in vitro fertilization (IVF), for service members regardless of whether their infertility is service-connected."
Several of the 124 House Democrats who voted against the NDAA cited those "culture war" policies, in addition to concerns about how the Pentagon spends massive amounts of money that could go toward improving lives across the country.
"Once again, Congress has passed a massive military authorization bill that prioritizes endless military spending over the critical needs of American families. This year's NDAA designates $900 billion for military spending," said Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), noting the audit failures. "While I recognize the long-overdue 14.5% raise for our lowest-ranking enlisted personnel is important, this bill remains flawed. The bloated military budget continues to take away crucial funding from programs that could help millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet."
Taking aim at the GOP's push to deny gender-affirming care through TRICARE, the congresswoman said that "I cannot support a bill that continues unnecessary military spending while also attacking the rights and healthcare of transgender youth, and for that reason, I voted NO."
As Omar, a leading critic of the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, also pointed out: "The NDAA includes a provision that blocks the Pentagon from using data on casualties and deaths from the Gaza Ministry of Health or any sources relying on those statistics. This is an alarming erasure of the suffering of the Palestinian people, ignoring the human toll of ongoing violence."
Israel—which receives billions of dollars in annual armed aid from the United States—faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court last month issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The NDAA includes over $627 million in provisions for Israel.
Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), who voted against the NDAA, directed attention to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's proposed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), set to be run by billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.
"How do we know that DOGE is not a good-faith effort to address wasted funding and unaccountable government? The NDAA passed today," Ramirez said. "Republicans overwhelmingly supported the $883.7 billion authorization bill even though the Pentagon just failed its seventh audit in a row."
"Billions of dollars go to make defense corporations and their investors, including Members of Congress, rich while Americans go hungry, families are crushed by debt, and bombs we fund kill children in Gaza," she added. "No one who voted for this bill can credibly suggest that they care about government waste."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who also opposed the NDAA, wrote in a Tuesday opinion piece for MSNBC that he looks forward to working with DOGE "to reduce waste and fraud at the Pentagon, while strongly opposing any cuts to programs likeSocial Security, Medicare, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau."
"We should make defense contracting more competitive, helping small and medium-sized businesses to compete for Defense Department projects," Khanna argued. "The Defense Department also needs better acquisition oversight. Defense contractors have gotten away with overcharging the Pentagon and ripping off taxpayers for too long."
"Another area where we can work with DOGE is reducing the billions being spent to maintain excess military property and facilities domestically and abroad," he suggested. "Finally, DOGE can also cut the Nuclear-Armed Sea-Launched Cruise Missile program."
The congressman, who is expected to run for president in 2028, concluded that "American taxpayers want and deserve the best return on their investment. Let's put politics aside and work with DOGE to reduce wasteful defense spending. And let's invest instead in domestic manufacturing, good-paying jobs, and a modern national security strategy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Another US Security Council Veto, UN General Assembly Votes for Gaza Cease-Fire
The General Assembly also voted 159-9 with 11 abstentions in favor of a resolution supporting UNRWA.
Dec 11, 2024
Following yet another United States veto of a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a cessation of hostilities in Gaza, members of the U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly Wednesday in favor of an "immediate, unconditional, and permanent cease-fire" in the Palestinian enclave, where Israeli forces continued relentless attacks that killed dozens more Palestinians, including numerous children.
The veto by the United States, a permanent Security Council member, came during an emergency special session and was the lone dissenting vote on the 15-member body. It was the fourth time since October 2023 that the Biden administration vetoed a Security Council resolution on a Gaza cease-fire.
"At a time when Hamas is feeling isolated due to the cease-fire in Lebanon, the draft resolution on a cease-fire in Gaza risks sending a dangerous message to Hamas that there's no need to negotiate or release the hostages," Robert Wood, the United States' deputy U.N. ambassador, said ahead of Wednesday's vote.
The 193-member U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) subsequently voted 158-9, with 13 abstentions, for a resolution demanding "an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire, to be respected by all parties," and calling for the "immediate and unconditional release of all hostages" held by Hamas.
The nine countries that opposed the measure are the United States, Israel, Argentina, Czechia, Hungary, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, and Tonga.
In a separate vote Wednesday, 159 UNGA members voted in favor of a resolution affirming the body's "full support" for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. UNRWA has been the target of diplomatic and financial attacks by Israel and its backers—who have baselessly accused the lifesaving organization of being a terrorist group—and literal attacks by Israeli forces, who have killed more than 250 of the agency's personnel.
Nine UNGA members opposed the measure, while 11 others abstained. Security Council resolutions are legally binding, while General Assembly resolutions are not, and are also not subject to vetoes.
Wednesday's U.N. votes took place amid sustained Israeli attacks on Gaza including a strike on a home sheltering forcibly displaced Palestinians in Deir al-Balah that killed at least 33 people, including children, local medical officials said. This followed earlier Israeli attacks, including the Monday night bombing of the al-Kahlout family home in Beit Hanoun that killed or wounded dozens of Palestinians and reportedly wiped the family from the civil registry.
"We are witnessing a massive loss of life," Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia,
toldThe Associated Press.
Since the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, at least 162,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, maimed, or left missing by Israel's bombardment, invasion, and siege of the coastal enclave, according to officials there. More than 2 million others have been forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened by Israel's onslaught.
Israel's conduct in the war is the subject of a South Africa-led genocide case before the International Court of Justice in The Hague. The International Criminal Court has also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as one Hamas leader, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warren Bill Would Stop Companies From Placing Shareholder Paydays Over Worker Rights
"Following the most lucrative election in history for special interests," said the senator, "my bill will empower workers to hold corporations to responsible decisions that benefit more than just shareholders."
Dec 11, 2024
Aiming to confront "a root cause of many of America's fundamental economic problems," U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday unveiled a bill to require corporations to balance growth with fair treatment of their employees and consumers.
The Massachusetts Democrat introduced the Accountable Capitalism Act, explaining that for much of U.S. history, corporations reinvested more than half of their profits back into their companies, working in the interest of employees, customers, business partners, and shareholders.
In the 1980s, said Warren corporations began placing the latter group above all, adopting "the belief that their only legitimate and legal purpose was 'maximizing shareholder value.'"
That view was further cemented in 1997 when the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group that represents chief executives across the country, declared that the "principal objective of a business enterprise is to generate economic returns to its owners."
Now, Warren said in a policy document, "around 93% of American-held corporate shares are owned by just 10% of our nation's richest households, while more than 40% of American households hold no shares at all."
"This means that corporate America's commitment to 'maximizing shareholder return' is a commitment to making the rich even richer, while leaving workers and families behind," said Warren in a statement.
The Accountable Capitalism Act would require:
- Corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue to obtain a federal charter as a "United States corporation," obligating executives to consider the interests of all stakeholders, not just investors;
- Corporate political spending to be approved by at least 75% of a company's shareholders and 75% of its board of directors; and
- At least 40% of a company's board of directors to be selected by employees.
The bill would also prohibit directors of U.S. corporations from selling company shares within five years of receiving them or within three years of a company stock buyback.
Warren noted that as companies have increasingly poured their profits into stock buybacks to benefit shareholders, worker productivity has steadily increased while real wages have gone up only slightly. The share of national income that goes to workers has also significantly dropped.
"Workers are a major reason corporate profits are surging, but their salaries have barely moved while corporations' shareholders make out like bandits," said Warren told The Guardian. "We need to stand up for working people and hold giant companies responsible for decisions that hurt workers and consumers while lining shareholders' pockets."
The senator highlighted that big business interests invested heavily in November's U.S. presidential election.
"Following the most lucrative election in history for special interests," she said, "my bill will empower workers to hold corporations to responsible decisions that benefit more than just shareholders."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular