Norman Solomon

When

thousands of protesters converge on Seattle at the end of this month to

challenge the global summit of the World Trade Organization, they’re unlikely to

get a fair hearing from America’s mass media.

Consider

how one of the nation’s most influential newspapers framed the upcoming

confrontation as November began. The Washington Post reported on its front page

that the WTO has faced "virulent opposition" — an assessment not

quoted or attributed to anyone — presumably just a matter of fact.

"Virulent"?

According to my dictionary, the mildest definition of the word is

"intensely irritating, obnoxious or harsh." The other definitions:

"extremely poisonous or pathogenic; bitterly hostile or antagonistic;

hateful."

Don’t

you just love objective reporting?

Headlined

above the fold on page one of the Post, the Nov. 2 article went on to quote four

pro-WTO sources: the organization’s president, a top executive at the Goldman,

Sachs investment firm, the U.S. trade representative and a member of the British

House of Commons. In contrast, quotations from foes of the WTO were scarce and

fleeting.

Such

coverage of trade issues is significant because it’s routine. For much of the

U.S. news media, the virtues of economic globalization are self-evident, like

motherhood and apple pie.

Overall,

in recent years, journalists depicted the NAFTA and GATT trade pacts as steps

toward rationality and global progress. Opponents have been frequently discussed

— but not often heard. The media "debate" over globalization has

resembled the sound of one side clapping.

Many

of the anti-WTO activists who’ll soon be heading to Seattle have gained in-depth

knowledge about key aspects of trade and the global economy. They will bring a

wealth of information and deep concern about the environment, labor, human

rights and economic justice.

Meanwhile,

in the halls of corporate power, strategists are worried.

The

Nov. 8 issue of Business Week features a downbeat piece by Jeffrey Garten, a

former undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration, who declares:

"In late November, Seattle is likely to be the scene of a big test for

global capitalism. That’s when more than 1,000 nongovernmental organizations

(NGOs) are planning to disrupt the kickoff of a new round of global trade

negotiations."

Similar

concerns are being voiced by many other media commentators. What are they afraid

of? Undue democratic participation in decision-making. NGOs "have

skillfully exploited the void between shrinking governments unable to cushion

the impact of change on ordinary citizens and multinational companies that are

the agents of that change," Garten writes.

Translation:

Huge firms have been able to bend and shape government policies, while

"ordinary citizens" have suffered dire consequences. Rather than

passively accept the results, activist groups are resisting — and what’s worse,

they’re getting somewhere.

"While

governments and chief executives bore the public and the media with sterile

abstractions about free markets," Garten adds, "NGOs are sending more

nuanced messages sensitive to the anxieties of local communities around the

world. At the same time, they are preparing sophisticated strategies to

influence television networks, newspapers and magazines."

Translation:

Activists are threatening to usurp the prerogatives of big money to determine

the main media messages.

"If

Washington and Corporate America don’t move decisively," Garten warns,

"NGOs could dominate public opinion on global trade and finance."

Translation:

Washington and Corporate America must make sure that they continue to dominate

public opinion.

But

the fears of some are the hopes of others: During the week after Thanksgiving,

events in Seattle could signify a breakthrough for advocates of democratic

processes. The surfacing activism could create a new dynamic powerful enough to

shift the terms of public discourse.

Throughout

this decade, as government leaders and corporate execs have marched to the beat

of multinational drums, grassroots oppositional movements have taken root and

flowered in many communities. Gradually, since the founding of the World Trade

Organization five years ago, they have developed ways to monitor the secretive

WTO’s activities and to work together — across boundaries of race, class,

language, culture and nationality.

Truly

democratic procedures — not unelected WTO officials — should determine the

rules of the global economy. The implications are profound: for human rights,

workers, public health and the environment. With a worldwide movement emerging

to challenge the corporate globalizers, we’ll see how much of its message can

get through the media filters during the historic Seattle summit.

 

Norman

Solomon is a syndicated columnist. His latest book is "The Habits of

Highly Deceptive Media."