Hide and Sneak
Multinational Corporations Plotting World Domination? Mexican Death Squads? Radioactive Birth Control? NaaahNobody Wants To Read About That Stuff!
By Gabriel Roth
APRIL 19, 1999:
HEARD ENOUGH ABOUT Monica Lewinsky's blue dress over the
past year? Sick of the "lifestyle" features and giant
color photos that seem to occupy more and more front pages in
the daily press?
Here's what you didn't read while the papers were full of blow
jobs and fluff:
Genetic engineering is threatening the world's food supply and
might be contributing to a dramatic outbreak of infectious diseases.
Your government trained death squads in Mexico and sold weapons
to Saddam Hussein; money you spent at a gas station helped soldiers
kill nonviolent protesters in Nigeria. Your eyeglasses, silverware
and contraceptive devices might be made of "cleaned"
radioactive metal--and that's the way the Department of Energy
And the governments of the world's richest countries spent 1998
discussing the idea of turning the planet over to multinational
Those are all on Project Censored's 23rd annual list of the year's
most underreported news stories. The program, based at Sonoma
State University, combs the media for news that didn't make the
news. Some of the stories got a little play in the dailies, but
none received the prominent, ongoing coverage they deserved.
Project director Peter Phillips says censorship can take more
subtle forms than an outright government ban. Some of the stories,
he says, may have been squelched by editors unwilling to offend
powerful advertisers or corporate overseers. But he also blames
the mainstream press' blind spots on ever-shrinking newsroom budgets,
a result of media consolidation.
"With downsizing in the mainstream media, fewer reporters
are writing and producing more news stories on tighter deadlines,"
Phillips says. "As a result they're growing increasingly
dependent on P.R. sources for news. Today in the United States
there are more P.R. people spinning stories for government agencies
and private corporations than there are journalists--and many
of those stories are being reprinted verbatim in newspapers."
Those whitewashed stories, Phillips says, are taking column space
papers once used to challenge official sources. Many of this year's
Project Censored selections, he says, are about "powerful
people--governments and corporations, hand in hand--making decisions
about our lives undemocratically and sometimes secretly. Those
are the stories journalists used to go after."
Ben Bagdikian, former dean of UC Berkeley's Graduate School of
Journalism, has been a judge for Project Censored since it was
founded in 1976. "As usual, a group of the stories are ones
involving corporate power and objections to it," he told
us. "Some of the choices are ones having to do with the covering
up of unjustified government policy or stories that disclose corporate
wrongdoing. That has been happening year after year after year.
There is a tendency [in the mainstream media] to accept the government's
explanations for things."
Mainstream media veteran Frank McCulloch, who has been managing
editor of the San Francisco Examiner and the Sacramento
Bee, agrees that the press has failed to do its job. The 10
stories on Project Censored's list have been underreported, he
says, "but we could create a list of 100 if we wanted to.
We don't do anything close to the job we should be doing."
He cited "all the fundamental issues facing Congress and
the White House, from saving Social Security and health care to
Star Wars to campaign finance" as other issues that haven't
gotten the serious scrutiny they deserve.
He blames the shoddy coverage on a preoccupation with sleaze
and scandals. "Little by little, it's all becoming tabloid,"
he says. "This year [daily papers] were concentrating 80
percent of their energies on Monica stories."
To find the stories the mainstream missed, Project Censored volunteers
read hundreds of pieces from mainstream, alternative and specialty
publications, both print and online. Faculty and student evaluators
whittle them down to a list of 25, which are ranked by a panel
of authors, scholars and media experts from around the country.
One of those judges, Nancy Kranich, is the associate dean of
New York University's library system. She told us that media blackouts
of important stories don't just deprive the public of news it
needs--they weaken the historical record. "Historically,
we're going to need this information," she said. "We
can't even rely on libraries if no one publishes this stuff. If
it's not published, it's not going to be in our history."
Phillips brought up a disturbing trend that seems to be accelerating:
"When reporters take risks and write stories that threaten
advertisers or friends of the [newspaper's corporate board of]
directors, they find that their careers are in jeopardy,"
he said. "They get fired for writing controversial stories."
He cited TV journalists Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, whose report
on the dangers of hormones fed to cows to increase milk production
was suppressed by a Fox affiliate in Tampa, Fla.; Mike Gallagher,
who reported for the Cincinnati Enquirer on the unsavory
business practices of Chiquita; April Oliver and Jack Smith, whose
CNN investigation found that the U.S. military used nerve gas
on American defectors; and Gary Webb, whose "Dark Alliance"
series in the San Jose Mercury News exposed connections
between the CIA and Los Angeles drug dealers. All six reporters
lost their jobs as a result of the controversy surrounding those
"Journalists want to do stories about Watergate; they want
to expose powerful people," Phillips said. "But if it
comes down to whether or not you're employed, you think about
your family and you often take an easier route."
Phillips has a raft of suggestions for improving the situation:
a tenure system to protect reporters who write hard-hitting stories,
bigger budgets for investigations, and a stronger fire wall between
editorial and advertising departments. Without those reforms,
Project Censored--and the alternative publications that break
the news the mainstream won't touch--will have no trouble finding
vital stories that go underreported. As Phillips said, "It's
Following are Project Censored's top 10 underreported stories
- Secret international trade agreement undermines the sovereignty
Joel Bleifuss, "Building the Global Economy,"
In These Times, Jan. 11, 1998.
Bill Dixon, "MAI Ties," Democratic Left, Spring
Miloon Kothari and Tara Krause, "Human Rights or Corporate
Rights?," Tribune des Droits Humains, April 1998.
THE UNITED STATES and other developed countries have spent
the past three years negotiating a treaty that would usher in
a new era of globalized trade--an era in which governments are
powerless to intervene in the decisions of multinational corporations.
The treaty, called the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, would
ban almost any law that could interfere with investors' profits.
The effects would be staggering. Laws that would be struck down
under MAI include preferences for companies that hire minorities,
restrictions on logging or mining, and bans on toxic dumping.
Programs to boost local industry or small business would be forbidden.
Had the MAI been in force in the 1980s, the United States would
have been unable to implement the sanctions against South Africa
that helped end apartheid.
The MAI was first discussed at meetings of the World Trade Organization
(WTO). After early drafts drew flak from developing countries,
the negotiations were moved to the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development, made up of 29 of the world's richest countries.
The OECD kept details of the treaty secret until January 1997,
when a draft was leaked to a French activist group.
Since then, labor, environmental and human rights advocates around
the world have been building opposition to the MAI, and
in December 1998 the OECD announced it was ending negotiations
and scuttling MAI. Its opponents didn't have time to celebrate
the victory: economic superpowers and multinational corporations
are still pushing for MAI-like regulations in a number of forums,
including the WTO, the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas
and the International Monetary Fund.
For more information go to www.citizen.org/pctrade/mai/maihome.html or www.preamble.org/MAI/maihome.html.
- Chemical corporations profit off breast cancer
Peter Montague, "The Truth about Breast Cancer," Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly, Dec. 4, 1997.
Allison Sloan and Tracy Baxter, "Profiting off Breast Cancer,"
The Green Guide, October 1998.
EVERY OCTOBER, the sponsors of National Breast Cancer Awareness
Month roll out a massive publicity campaign encouraging women
to have their breasts X-rayed. The message of activities such
as the Race for the Cure is a simple one: breast cancer can be
beaten by pouring money into research and by getting regular mammograms.
Official propaganda for Breast Cancer Awareness Month never mentions
the environmental causes of the disease. Breast cancer rates have
crept up by 1 percent a year since 1940--a period in which tens
of thousands of new chemicals have been introduced into the environment.
That's bad news for women. But it's good news for the chemical
and technology companies that sponsor Breast Cancer Awareness
The event was founded in 1985 by British multinational Imperial
Chemical Industries, now known as Zeneca Group. The firm manufactures
Nolvadex, the drug most often prescribed for breast cancer, and
runs 11 cancer treatment centers in the United States. The company
also makes acetochlor, a pesticide thought by the EPA to cause
Many of the event's other sponsors also profit from cancer. General
Electric makes mammography machines, and Du Pont makes the film
used in those machines. During Breast Cancer Awareness Month,
younger women are encouraged to get screened by those machines
regularly--although exposure to X rays, including those used in
mammography, increase their chances of contracting breast cancer.
You're unlikely to learn that from Breast Cancer Awareness Month
publicity, though. Zeneca has veto power over any material used
to promote the event.
For more information contact the Toxic Links Coalition at (415)
243-8373, ext. 305.
- Monsanto's genetically modified seeds threaten world food production
Leora Broydo, "A Seedy Business," Mojo Wire,
April 27, 1998.
Chakravarthi Raghavan, "New Patent Aims to Prevent Farmers
from Saving Seed," Third World Resurgence, April 1998.
Hope Shand and Pat Mooney, "Terminator Seeds Threaten an
End to Farming," Global Pesticide Campaigner, June
1998, and Earth Island Journal, Fall 1998.
Brian Tokar, "Monsanto: A Checkered History" and "Revolving
Doors: Monsanto and the Regulators," the Ecologist, September-October
FOR 12,000 YEARS farmers have followed a simple process:
save the best seed from each harvest and use it to plant the next
year's. Seed saving lets farmers cultivate the most useful and
robust strains, improving the food supply. The plants we eat today
were produced by thousands of years of human selection.
That could all be over in the next decade, thanks to the biotechnology
industry and the United States Department of Agriculture.
In March 1998 the USDA and cottonseed giant Delta and Pine Land
Co. announced a new patent: a genetic technology that stops plants
from reproducing. Soon seed companies will be able to breed the
gene, which some call the "terminator," into their products.
Those seeds will produce crops that don't reproduce, forcing farmers
to buy new seeds every year. Seeds with the terminator gene should
be on the market by 2004.
Biotechnology companies produce the strongest, highest yielding
seeds. When they add terminator technology to their products,
farmers who hope to compete will have little choice but to purchase
new seeds every year.
Melvin J. Oliver, the USDA scientist who developed the terminator
gene, told Global Pesticide Campaigner why the U.S. government
wants to stop farmers from saving seeds: to fatten the profits
of American seed companies. "Our mission is to protect U.S.
agriculture," he said.
Two months after the announcement, agrochemical conglomerate
Monsanto bought Delta and Pine for almost $2 billion. Monsanto
is a world leader in bioengineered crops; with the USDA's new
technology, it will be able to create an endless market for its
Farmers in the developing world will feel the terminator's harshest
effects. The gene will allow commercial seed producers to profit
from self-pollinating crops, including rice and wheat. As the
seed industry continues to consolidate, the ability to produce
those two crops, the staple foods for three-quarters of the world's
poor people, could depend on a private monopoly -- thanks
to the U.S. government.
Censorship takes many forms: The Ecologist's printer of
26 years refused to release the magazine's special issue on Monsanto
and discarded 14,000 copies, citing fears of a libel suit.
For more information, go to www.rafi.org.
- Recycled radioactive metals may be in your home
Anne-Marie Cusac, "Nuclear Spoons," the Progressive,
WHAT DO YOU do with millions of tons of radioactive metal?
If you're the Department of Energy, you let scrap companies collect
it, clean it up and sell it to manufacturers to be made into ordinary
consumer objects: pans, silverware, eyeglasses, dental fillings,
The government already issues some companies licenses to sell
radioactive metal for reuse. But a new plan proposed by the DOE
and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would do away with the permit
process--and increase the amount of radiation in your home a hundredfold.
According to the NRC itself, the lax standards those agencies
have proposed could cause nearly 100,000 cancer deaths in the
current United States population.
The radioactive metal-processing industry is lobbying hard for
the changes and mounting a P.R. campaign to quell public concern.
Processing companies sterilize radioactive surfaces with carbon
dioxide, but tough standards for allowable doses of radiation
are cutting into their bottom line. The DOE's plan would raise
those thresholds, allowing the industry to increase its output
Companies are already making big bucks selling radioactive metals
to Asian countries, which have a high demand for metal and more
lax radiation standards than the United States.
- U.S. weapons of mass destruction linked to the deaths of half
a million children
Dennis Bernstein, "Made in America," San
Francisco Bay Guardian, Feb. 25, 1998.
Bill Blum, "Punishing Saddam or the Iraqis," I.F.
Magazine, March-April 1998.
Robert M. Bowman, "Our Continuing War Against Iraq,"
Space and Security News, May 1998.
THE UNITED STATES government cites Iraqi president Saddam
Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" as justification
for repeated bombing raids and sanctions. What the government
doesn't say: many of those weapons were built by U.S. firms and
sold to Iraq with the explicit support of the White House.
The Reagan administration chose to support Iraq over Iran in
their bloody war. As a result the U.S. government issued export
licenses allowing companies to ship U.S. technology directly to
Iraqi weapons facilities. In the five years before the Gulf War,
the Department of Commerce licensed more than $1.5 billion of
strategically sensitive American exports to Iraq.
The government wasn't blind to Saddam Hussein's goals. U.S. intelligence
reports from the 1980s vividly documented Saddam's mass gassing
of Kurds and Iranians. At a 1989 briefing CIA officials reported
that Iraq "is interested in acquiring a nuclear explosive
capability." The following year, the agency informed the
government of Saddam's ties to terrorist groups.
That didn't stop Bush administration officials from helping arm
Iraq--and they may have violated federal law in doing so. In 1992,
20 members of the House Judiciary Committee asked the attorney
general to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate. Despite
a 27-month congressional investigation, whose findings blasted
the administration, no special prosecutor was appointed and no
officials were indicted or even forced to testify.
Details of U.S. complicity in building up Saddam Hussein's arsenal
are available in government documents. But the mainstream media
never chose to investigate--even when that arsenal was turned
against Kuwait, and then against U.S. soldiers.
- United States nuclear program subverts U.N.'s Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty
Bill Mesler, "Virtual Nukes--When Is a Test Not a Test?,"
the Nation, June 15, 1998.
IN 1996, PRESIDENT Clinton signed the U.N.'s Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which bans countries from test detonations
of nuclear bombs. Congress hasn't yet approved the treaty. But
already the United States is violating the spirit, if not the
letter, of that agreement and drawing harsh criticism from foreign
powers--although not from the domestic press.
In 1998 the Department of Energy conducted five "subcritical"
nuclear tests--tests in which a "controlled nuclear reaction"
is produced but the bombs don't fully explode. Though subcritical
tests may not technically violate the CTBT, other countries accuse
the Clinton administration of making an end run around the agreement.
On May 11, the day India carried out an underground nuclear test,
the Indian government announced it would sign a test-ban treaty
that banned subcritical experiments. The European Parliament passed
a resolution saying U.S. tests "violate the spirit"
of the CTBT and warning that they could provoke India and Pakistan
to carry out full-scale tests. Officials in China and Japan also
blasted the government.
Some critics say subcritical testing is just one element in the
Stockpile Stewardship Program, a comprehensive nuclear armament
program that's costing the United States more than it spent on
nukes a year during the Cold War. Others see the testing as
a cynical move to convince nuclear contractors not to oppose the
CTBT. To pass the test ban treaty, they suggest, the administration
had to demonstrate that it didn't plan to let that treaty interfere
with nuclear stockpiling. One anonymous Clinton administration
official called subcritical testing "the cost of the test
ban. In order to get the treaty through Congress, we had to buy
off the labs."
For more information contact Peace Action Network at (202) 862-9740.
- Gene transfers linked to dangerous new diseases
Mae-Wan Ho and Terje Traavik, "Sowing Diseases, New
and Old," Third World Resurgence, no. 92.
Mae-Wan Ho, Hartmut Meyer and Joe Cummins, "The Biotechnology
Bubble," the Ecologist, May-June 1998.
AT LEAST 30 new diseases, including AIDS, ebola and other
deadly viruses, have emerged in the past two decades. Existing
infectious diseases, such as cholera, malaria and tuberculosis,
are returning in force. And more and more bacteria are developing
resistance to antibiotic treatment.
Despite this mounting public health crisis, one contributing
factor has gone largely unconsidered by the media and the international
health establishment: the emerging genetic engineering industry.
Biotechnologists invent new plant and animal species by inserting
genetic material from one species into another. To combine genes
from species that can't interbreed, they have to break down the
defense mechanisms that inactivate dangerous foreign genes. In
doing so, they may be increasing the spread of antibiotic-resistant
While the biotechnology industry risks increasing the prevalence
of infectious diseases, regulators are stepping out of the way.
The Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization
have forbidden countries from banning imports of genetically altered
foods that conform to WHO's lax standards. And the European Commission
is giving generous grants to scientists to promote public acceptance
Meanwhile, the scientific and economic assumptions on which the
field is founded are beginning to collapse. Genetic engineering
is a dangerously imprecise science: When you insert a foreign
gene into an organism, you never know exactly what the effect
will be. Animals engineered for strength and size have turned
out blind or unable to breathe. Genetically altered crops have
produced substandard yields. And most disastrously for the industry,
very few genetically engineered lines reproduce properly.
The biotechnology firms that have invested billions in these
new technologies are desperate to recoup their losses. In Europe,
industry group EuropaBio hired crisis-management specialists Burson
Marsteller to refurbish its image. San Francisco apparently isn't
worried: last year the city handed over Mission Bay to the University
of California for a biotechnology research center.
- Catholic hospital mergers threaten reproductive rights for
Christine Dinsmore, "Women's Health: A Casualty of
Hospital Merger Mania," Ms., July-August 1998.
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC Church is now the largest private health
care provider in the United States, with more than $44 billion
in assets. But the church isn't content to run its own hospitals.
Increasingly, Catholic hospitals are forming partnerships with
secular hospitals and HMOs. And those partnerships are making
it increasingly difficult for women to get reproductive care.
The Catholic Church imposes rules on its hospitals covering abortion,
contraception and sterilization, among other procedures. When
Catholic hospitals are competing with secular ones, women who
don't want their health in the hands of the church at least have
somewhere to go. But as the HMO system cuts into hospital revenues,
competing hospitals have an incentive to merge or partner, often
forming a local monopoly. Catholic hospitals, with the resources
of the church's health care network behind them, are frequently
the more powerful partner--and they use their leverage to insist
that secular hospitals sign away their right to provide reproductive
These partnership agreements take many forms. Some secular hospitals
agree to conform to church doctrines; others continue to offer
contraception but not abortion. Some agreements allow an independently
run women's health clinic--forcing women to go to more than one
provider and offering antiabortion extremists an easier target
than a consolidated hospital.
The hardest hit are poor women, who depend on hospitals for reproductive
care when local physicians won't take Medicaid, and who have more
difficulty traveling to hospitals far from their homes.
In a few communities, women's health advocates have taken on
the Catholic Church and won. But across the country the church
is taking control of more and more medical facilities. And women's
health care is usually the first victim.
For more information go to www.mergerwatch.org.
- U.S. tax dollars support death squads in Chiapas
The Slingshot collective, "Mexico's Military: Made
in the USA," Slingshot, Summer 1998.
Darrin Wood, "Bury My Heart at Acteal," Dark Night
ON DECEMBER 22, 1997, 45 indigenous men, women and children
were shot in the village of Acteal, in the Mexican state of Chiapas.
Their bodies were dumped into a ravine. Throughout Chiapas indigenous
people were kidnapped, tortured and killed.
Soldiers from the Mexican Army Airborne Special Forces Groups
(GAFE)--a paramilitary unit trained by U.S. Army Special Forces--were
charged with the killings by local officials.
Massacres in Chiapas are one of the dirty secrets of U.S. foreign
policy: under the guise of the war on drugs, the United States
supports brutal counterinsurgency measures by Central American
states. The U.S. government's real motive, indigenous activists
in Mexico say, is the protection of foreign investment.
The GAFE massacres were led by Lt. Col. Julian Guerrero Barrios,
a graduate of the infamous U.S.-sponsored School of Americas (SOA);
some of the soldiers in his command were trained at U.S. bases.
The number of Mexican military officers and personnel receiving
U.S. specialized training has increased significantly since 1996.
Clinton's 1998 budget earmarked more than $21 million to fight
drug trafficking in Mexico--including $12 million for Pentagon
training. Anti-drug efforts continue to focus on the Chiapas region.
According to a Feb. 26 Washington Post report, the United
States is now training 1,067 Mexican officers a year.
- Environmental student activists gunned down on Chevron Oil
facility in Nigeria
Environmental Rights Action--Friends of the Earth Nigeria,
"Chevron in Nigeria-- ERA Environmental Testimonies,"
A-Infos News Service, July 10, 1998.
Amy Goodman and Jeremy Scahill, "Drilling and Killing: Chevron
and Nigeria's Oil Dictatorship," Democracy Now, Pacifica,
Sept. 30, 1998.
ON MAY 25, 1998, 121 indigenous Nigerian activists occupied
Chevron's Parabe oil platform and barge in the Niger delta. The
activists say pollution from Chevron's oil operations is ruining
fishing and farming conditions, depriving their communities of
On May 28, Chevron employees flew soldiers from Nigeria's Navy
and Mobile Police to the platform in the company's helicopters.
The soldiers opened fire, killing two protesters, Jola Ogungbeje
and Aroleka Irowaninu, and wounding several others. Eleven activists
were held by the government for three weeks.
During his imprisonment, one activist said, he was handcuffed
and hung from a ceiling-fan hook for hours after he refused to
sign a statement written by Nigerian authorities.
On July 10, the anarchist news service A-Infos released the testimony
of protest leader Bola Oyinbo, recorded by Environmental Rights
Action. Pacifica reporter Amy Goodman and producer Jeremy Scahill
investigated the story and recorded Chevron spokesperson Sola
Omole acknowledging that Chevron managers had asked the Nigerian
military to intervene in the demonstration and had transported
the soldiers to the platform.
Although the San Francisco Chronicle ran a front-page
article Nov. 19, the rest of the mainstream media didn't think
a U.S. company's role in the killing of indigenous Nigerians merited
Project Censored judges
Dr. Donna Allen, president, Women's Institute for Freedom
of the Press Ben Bagdikian, professor emeritus, Graduate
School of Journalism, UC Berkeley Richard Barnet, author
and journalist Susan Faludi, author and journalist
Dr. George Gerbner, dean emeritus, Annenberg School of Communications,
University of Pennsylvania Juan Gonzalez, journalist
Aileen C. Hernandez, president, Urban Consulting Dr. Carl
Jensen, founder, Project Censored Sut Jhally, professor
of communications, University of Massachusetts Nicholas
Johnson, professor, College of Law, University of Iowa
Rhoda H. Karpatkin, president, Consumers Union Charles
L. Klotzer, editor and publisher emeritus, St. Louis Journalism
Review Nancy Kranich, associate dean, New York University
Libraries; director, American Library Association Judith
Krug, director, Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library
Association Frances Moore Lappé, cofounder and codirector,
Center for Living Democracy William Lutz, professor of English, Rutgers University Julianne Malveaux, economist and columnist Jack
L. Nelson, professor, Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University
Michael Parenti, author and lecturer Herbert I.
Schiller, professor emeritus of communication, UC San Diego
Barbara Seaman, lecturer and author; cofounder, National Women's
Health Network Erna Smith, chair, journalism department,
San Francisco State University Sheila Rabb Weidenfeld,
president, D.C. Productions Howard Zinn, author; professor
emeritus of political science, Boston University
Project Censored's other selections for 1998
11. Private prison expansion becomes big business. Eve Goldberg
and Linda Evans, Turning the Tide
12. Millions of Americans received contaminated polio vaccine
between 1955 and 1963. Vicky Angelos, Chicago Life;
Harold Stearley, www.sightings.com
13. China violates human rights in Tibet. Natasha Ma, Toward
14. Political contributions compromise American judicial system.
Sheila Kaplan, the Nation
15. SWAT teams replace civilian police, target minority communities.
Peter Cassidy, Covert Action Quarterly
16. Mercenary armies in service to global corporations. Pratap
Chatterjee, Covert Action Quarterly and Multinational
17. U.S. media promotes biased coverage of Bosnia. Thomas Deichmann,
Covert Action Quarterly; Diana Johnstone, Covert Action
18. Manhattan Project covered up effects of fluoride toxicity.
Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson, Waste Not
19. Clinton administration lobbied for retention of toxic chemicals
in children's toys. Charlie Gray, Multinational Monitor
20. Developers build on flood plains at taxpayers expense. Marc
Herman, Mother Jones
21. Global oil reserves alarmingly overestimated. Colin J. Campbell
and Jean H. Laherrere, Scientific American
22. Academia at risk as tenured professors vanish. Barbara McKenna,
23. Bureau of land management charged with human rights violations
against the Shoshone Nation. Pat Calliotte, News from Indian
24. Coca-Cola fails to meet recycling pledge. Marti Matsch, Earth
25. ABC broadcasts slanted report on Mumia Abu-Jamal. C. Clark
Kissinger and Leonard Weinglass, Refuse and Resist and
This article originally appeared in the San Francisco Bay Guardian.