The "war on terrorism" has made life easier for President Bush's image handlers, reports Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz, who describes the way journalists have come to "rely on Bush's inner circle for behind-the-scenes color about the tense atmosphere" inside the White House. Bush advisors are feeding reporters "morsels about the president's words, attire and demeanor in an attempt to build a narrative -- one that inevitably rests on a foundation paved by White House loyalists." According to magazine writer David Carr, "There's been a collective decision to re-image the president, and the media is fully cooperating. Journalists are very anxious to help him construct a wartime presidency, because we may be at war and he's the only president we have. When you have people with agendas serving as your eyes and ears, I just don't think you're necessarily getting the truth. It's just a more patriotic version of spin."

The terrorist attacks of September 11 have generated new rhetoric from the White House, using terms such as "crusade," "infinite justice" and "homeland defense." This column by William Safire examines the background of some of these terms.

A front-page story by USA Today reporting that US special forces had already been covertly operating in Afghanistan for two weeks has stirred up controversy for journalists. At issue is whether USA Today's story, which was picked up by AP and CNN, may have endanger US military forces. The Boston Globe writes, "with the administration stressing the need for secrecy and stealth, some of the public reaction [to the USA Today story] accused journalists of unpatriotically divulging covert military action. And as the debate rages over how much reporting can and should be done without endangering Americans, observers say the media - as well as its military - face the daunting challenges of a wholly different kind of war."

As the world focuses on efforts to stop terrorism, some governments are cynically taking advantage of this struggle to justify or intensify their own crackdowns on political opponents or religious groups. Human Rights Watch has begun to compile reports on government statements or actions which use the anti-terrorism campaign as a cover for their own human rights violations.

An editorial in the Dawn, a Pakistan newspaper, notes with approval that U.S. "official utterances and media commentaries to depict the 'war against terrorism' as a clash between western values and Islam or the Muslim countries" have been replaced by "strenuous efforts to correct that impression." However, the United States still has a long way to go if it wants to avoid turning the campaign against terrorism into a wider, religious war. "The September 11 attacks were so horrendous, targeting thousands of innocent civilians, that no one has remained unmoved by the tragedy," writes Tahir Mirza. "But there should not be any confusion in Washington about the kind of support it is getting from Muslim countries. It would be futile to believe that this support is in all cases genuine; in some instances, the countries concerned had no choice but to fall in line. Therefore, if any long-term perspective is not totally outside the ken of America's policy planners, once it has decided on its immediate plans to fight the battle against terrorism, the United States will also have to deal with the direction and drift of its own policies that create simmering pools of discontent in many regions that turn into swamps (President Bush's description) which breed terrorism."

In contrast to the sloppy sentimentality and uncritical cheerleading for the Bush administration that has saturated U.S. news coverage since the September 11 attack, Jane's Information Group, the world's leading commercial analyst of military hardware and tactics, has been offering meticulous and often sobering analysis of the challenges confronting U.S. military planners. Here are some recent examples:

• Who Did It? Foreign Report Presents an Alternative View: Israel's military intelligence service, Aman, suspects that the suicide attacks on the New York Trade Center and the Pentagon were masterminded by Iraq, not by Osama bin Laden.
• Overt Assistance from Pakistan May Bring Dire Consequences: The United States military response to last week's terrorist attacks may undermine the position of Pakistan's unelected military leader, General Pervez Musharraf. If that happens, the consequences — both for the US-led alliance and the entire region — could be potentially catastrophic. Musharraf is already under intense domestic pressure from opponents of U.S. policy including his own armed forces, many of whose members have supported Osama bin Laden and other militant Islamic groups.
• The Surgical Strike is a Myth: An ill-conceived, botched military attempt will be worse than no action at all. President Bush cannot repeat Bill Clinton's tactics when, in response to the destruction of two of his embassies in Africa, he fired off a large quantity of cruise missiles at Afghanistan, only to discover that these managed to destroy a mosque and kill a few goats.

Florida is under a state of emergency, legislators are considering closing committee meetings, and routine public records are being withheld in the name of a massive federal terrorism investigation. In the two weeks since suicide attacks killed thousands, civil libertarians are growing worried that Florida's ironclad Government- in-the-Sunshine Law -- the most open in the nation -- could become collateral damage.

The Associated Press reports "Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld promised Tuesday his department will not mislead the press as part of the campaign against terrorism." That sounds good, but a careful reading of the story indicates that Rumsfeld has left the door wide open to government media manipulation. The public relations industry was in fact born in and grew out of the U.S. government's World War One propaganda campaign, and government propaganda has been critical in recent U.S. wars, as we've shown in our book, Toxic Sludge Is Good For You. According to Rumsfeld, "'There are dozens of ways to avoid having to put yourself in a position where you're lying. ... I suppose you never say never,' he said. 'But all I can say is I cannot imagine a situation where we would be so unskillful that we would be in a position that we would have to do that to protect lives.' " As every skillful PR practitioner knows, outright lying is a desperate act to be avoided. Professional propagandists manage perceptions by spinning rather than telling outright lies.

Peace Action is no new kid on the block. This very serious and well established group dates back forty years to the 'ban the bomb' movement of the 1960s, and led the fight in the 1980s against Ronald Reagan's nuclear build-up. Now, it tackles the current crisis in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

In the discussion about Osama bin Laden, a key point is often omitted: that Mr. bin Laden began his career as a US ally. Indeed, he has followed in the tradition of Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein -- unsavory leaders who began as America's "friends," and later became archenemies. Moreover, from 1994 to 1996, the US encouraged Pakistani aid to the Taliban, which seemed the best bet for protecting Western interests in the region. In backing the mujahideen, US officials knew the risks.

In the round-the-clock U.S. media coverage of the September 11 attacks, one might assume that all angles of the story are being reported. That, however, is not so according to Salon writer Eric Boehlert, who interviewed a number of Islamic and Middle East experts about the media. The good news is that initial coverage after the attacks is generally more informed about the Middle East and Islam than Gulf War coverage of 10 years ago. The bad news, writes Boehlert, "is that the mainstream American press has largely been ignoring what many experts see as the root cause fueling Islamic terrorism: America's own foreign policy. Even as media executives are publicly defending on-camera displays of flags and patriotic slogans, insisting that these fits of patriotic fervor don't affect actual news coverage, skeptics are charging that the press has so far been studious in avoiding serious examination of past American policy failures, and in questioning Bush's rhetoric."

As the United States embarks on a campaign against international terrorism abroad, it is important that we carefully consider what such a conflict could mean for our freedoms here at home. Wars often give rise to conditions of secrecy and suppression of dissent that are antithetical to democracy. Pro-war commentators have been merciless in their attacks on the few vocal dissenters from the Bush administration's anti-terrorism campaign, describing dissenters as a "cult of national suicide," describing them as "fifth column" allies of Osama bin Laden, and calling for action to suppress "anti-American rallies" on college campuses.

During the Vietnam War some peace activists rejected and burned the American flag, embracing instead the flag of Vietnam's National Liberation Front fighting against the United States. When some U.S. peace activists traveled to Vietnam their Vietnamese hosts questioned their turning against their own flag as an unpatriotic blunder that allowed the Nixon government to make the American flag into a symbol of support for the war, marginalizing those who called for peace. Three decades later, will peace activists learn from past blunders and embrace the stars and stripes?

Environmental activist and college instructor Adrienne Anderson has been the victim of an "outrageous" defamation campaign at the hands of the PR department of Colorado's largest sewage plant, and a judge has hit the plant with a $450,000 damage award. According to the Denver Post, the judge has ordered the sewage district "to publicly apologize in a full page ad." The Post notes that the judge "singled out Metro's public relations director Steven M. Frank for harsh criticism, concluding that Frank made false statements under oath." The ruling came after Anderson "claimed that Lowry Landfill accepted radioactive waste from the Rocky Flats (nuclear) bomb plant, material that the district's sewage system was unable to safely treat. Processed wastewater leaving the sewage plant ends up in the South Platte River; leftover sludge is used as fertilizer on a district property east of Denver. Anderson and other activists say the process simply dilutes hazardous waste and spreads it out where the public might be exposed to it." The judge found "there was 'overwhelming' evidence that the district's 'five-year history of illegal and retaliatory action' had damaged Anderson's professional reputation and career."

Coca-Cola has hired the lobbying firm Holland & Knight to ward off Federal restrictions on vending machines in schools, reports O'Dwyer's PR Daily. Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy has introduced a bill that would prohibit schools participating in the national school lunch program from selling soda and candy. Leahy was critical of soda manufacturers for pushing their products at children in a "captive market." He also cited a study linking soda consumption to child obesity and diabetes.

PR trade publication O'Dwyer's PR interviewed PR practioners about what they see the profession contributing in the aftermath of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. O'Dwyer's reports, "The greatest service PR pros can provide in support of the country is to ensure that the consumer continues to buy, says Maureen Lippe, CEO of Lippe Taylor Marketing PR." However, pitches should try to have a "sensitive and mindful" tone and avoid frivolity.

Washington Post staff writer Howard Kurtz writes, "As the administration gears up for what President Bush has described as a new kind of war, many journalists are growing concerned that they will have less information and less access to U.S. troops than ever before. Even the use of deliberate disinformation cannot be ruled out." He continues by quoting President Bush. "Let me condition the press this way: Any sources and methods of intelligence will remain guarded in secret," Bush said. "My administration will not talk about how we gather intelligence, if we gather intelligence and what the intelligence says. That's for the protection of the American people."

One sign of how different this "war on terrorism" is from previous U.S. wars is evident in the campus antiwar movement's use of the Internet. While they have so far received very little media coverage, already tens of thousands of young people in the U.S. are participating in vigils, rallies, fundraisers, teach-ins and other events that mourn the victims of terrorism while calling for military restraint and an examination of the role of the U.S. government itself in terrorism in the Middle East, Central America and elsewhere. There is clearly a spectrum of opinion in the emerging peace movement between those who oppose all military response by the U.S. and those who see the need for careful international action to stop terrorist attacks and bring terrorists to justice.

The U.S. Department of State is under growing pressure from the Central Intelligence Agency to destroy its inventory of an official history of U.S. relations with Greece during the 1960s and to replace it with a new, sanitized version. The book, titled "Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), 1964-1968, volume XVI," has already been printed but has drawn last-minute objections from the CIA because it includes a handful of documents that allude to CIA intervention in the electoral process in Greece some 35 years ago. A CIA proposal to dispose of the existing inventory and reprint the volume without the offending documents "has been bruited for weeks," according to one government historian familiar with the situation. "Every time the subject is raised in my presence, I mention those dread words 'cover up.' Or at least they should be dread words. It seems to me that the existence of the volumes is too well known. Destroying them would be a huge public relations disaster for the U.S. government," the historian said. "Book burning is definitely not a politically correct thing to do."

Rumors continue to circulate through the internet and other sources that CNN used old footage to fake images of "Palestinians dancing in the street" after the terrorist attack on the USA. These rumors have been debunked by numerous sources, including the American Arab Anti Discrimination Committee (ADC). In an action alert, the ADC says it is "convinced that there is no basis for this allegation," which it characterizes as an "internet hoax." A small group of Palestinian in the village of Nablus really did celebrate the bombing. However, ADC objects strongly to "the fact that footage of the small 'celebrations' were aired continuously, while much larger commemorations, candle-light vigils and other expressions of public grief by Palestinians were ignored. ADC believes that a false impression of the reactions of the Palestinian people to the attacks, which was overwhelmingly negative, has been created by this select use of footage, but not by any falsification or recycling of old footage." The ADC itself has condemned the terrorist attacks and has established a special fund to assist the victims. The ADC website lists similar statements condemning the attacks from throughout the Arab world, along with resources to combat hate crimes against Arabs that have subsequently surged.

TV journalists are reacting to a memo sent out to the staff of NY-area cable News 12 that bans displaying the flag while reporting. The memo, sent by News 12 news director Pat Dolan, has journalists "weighing whether wearing the flag during an intense period of patriotism and grief conflicts with their impulse to avoid any appearance of not being objective on a story," reports CNN.

The Wall Street Journal reports, "The U.S. government is expected to launch a new advertising campaign this weekend designed to boost morale and combat negative perceptions about the country. The ads, from the White House and Interpublic Group's McCann-Erickson, will feature First Lady Laura Bush in spots on talking to children about the terrorist attack. A second campaign promoting the United States, but lacking a government sponsor, is to make its debut Friday. The commercial, from Omnicom Group's GSD&M, will promote racial tolerance, showing myriad nationalities living in America in peace. Both campaigns are to be provided to networks by the Ad Council, a public-service group."

A New Jersey Sikh group has hired MWW Group to launch a national PR campaign to educate Americans about the religion that was founded in India more than 500 years ago. There has been at least one hate-based killing of a Sikh and many other reported hate crimes against Sikhs in the aftermath of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. There are 400,000 Sikhs living in North America.

The Air Transport Association, which represents air carriers, hired PR giant Burson-Marsteller to develop issue ads in support of the group's lobbying activities. ATA is seeking from Congress a $17.5 billion rescue package consisting of cash and loan guarantees for the airline industry, in the wake of its collapse following last week's attacks. Airlines are said to be losing $200 million a day because of disruptions in air traffic and the public's general unwillingness to fly. Meanwhile, Boeing hired APCO Worldwide to lobby on its behalf on "regulatory and safety issues" for commercial aircraft.

Author Normon Solomon warns that "more than ever, as journalists report for duty, the news profession is morphing into PR flackery for Uncle Sam. In effect, a lot of reporters are saluting the commander-in-chief and awaiting orders.

Coverage of the September 11th terrorist attack and the pending military response contains clamors for blind and immediate revenge. Media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting has compiled instances of such counterproductive warmongering and will continue to critique what FAIR calls "the media march to war," such as: "Time to Take Names and Nuke Afghanistan" (caption to cartoon by Gary Brookins (Richmond Times -Dispatch, 9/13/01); or "At a bare minimum, tactical nuclear capabilities should be used" (former Defense Intelligence Agency officer Thomas Woodrow, "Time to Use the Nuclear Option," Washington Times, 9/14/01). FAIR commends journalists who "illuminate some of the forces that can give rise to violent extremism." These analysts "contribute far more to public security than do pundits calling for indiscriminate revenge."

In the wake of the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, the U.S. government is preparing for a new war. The Center for Public Integrity asks us to recall U.S. military actions of the 80s and 90s when the U.S. government imposed restrictions on news media. CPI examined the consequences of those impositions in a 1991 report, "Under Fire: U.S. Military Restrictions on the Media from Grenada to the Persian Gulf." The report concluded that "information about Defense Department activities . . . [was] restricted or manipulated not for national security purposes, but for political purposes -- to protect the image and priorities of the Defense Department and its civilian leaders, including the president."

The New York Times today reports that "in interviews with two dozen New Yorkers, most people said the desire for peace outweighed any impulse for vengeance, even among those directly affected" by the September 11 terrorist attack. Across the U.S. tens of thousands of Americans are already participating in peace rallies calling for military restraint and criticizing the U.S. media for poor reporting of U.S. military and foreign policies leading up to the terrorist attack. How will the news media cover and depict this unfolding peace movement and its views? One of the main TV networks, NBC, is a subsidiary of a major military contractor, GE. In every war a nation's media tends to accept some degree of news censorship and to propagandize for victory. Will voices for peace be responsibly included in U.S. media coverage, or will the diverse and growing groups of citizens who are nonviolent critics of U.S. policy be marginalized and denounced in the media as unpatriotic or anti-American?

The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were so calamitous that they threaten to shake us loose from our constitutional mooring. A civil liberties catastrophe looms as citizens surrender to fear, fury and frustration and as lawmakers throw money and shards of the Bill of Rights at the specter of terrorism. Government officials and policymakers want an expansion of law enforcement powers to spy on telephone and Internet traffic, to restrict the use of Internet encryption products that thwart online monitoring of private email, to slow down and divert funds from the declassification of secrets, and to force public libraries to reveal information about patrons' use of their computers. "We must remember that we've gone down this road too many times before," observes Paul McMasters, the Freedom Forum's First Amendment Ombudsman. "We have suspended freedom of speech, press and assembly during wartime and other crises, to the point of sending prominent Americans to jail for long terms for uttering unpatriotic words. And always we've looked back in wonderment that we could have been so stupid, that we could have so easily cast aside our democratic heritage."

Sears and Fed Ex have pulled their ads off of the ABC late-night show "Politically Incorrect" after host Bill Maher called U.S. military strategy "cowardly." According to O'Dwyer'sPR Daily, Maher said lobbing missiles from 2000 miles away was cowardly, referring to the U.S. response to last year's bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. Maher issued a clarification statement which said that he did not think the men and women serving in the armed forces were cowardly.

"The pharmaceutical and biotechnological industries are funneling more and more cash into the pockets of academics who teach and study ethics," observes philosophy professor Carl Elliott, who works at a bioethics center. "Bioethicists have written for years about conflicts of interest in scientific research or patient care yet have paid little attention to the ones that might compromise bioethics itself," he notes, pointing to several cases in which companies like Eli Lilly have used funding to pressure ethicists into censoring or changing their views. "Given enough cases where bioethicists must choose between scholarship and their corporate funders, the funders will eventually win out," he predicts. Ken DeVille, an attorney and historian of medicine at East Carolina University, goes further. "If ethicists are transformed into a bunch of corporate shills who exist only to serve the machine," he asks, "where is the honor in taking part?"

Pakistan hired former Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-Texas, to advise the country on matters regarding its national security. According to O'Dwyer's PR Daily, Wilson is receiving $30,000 a month for his work. As head of the Appropriations Defense subcommittee, Wilson traveled 14 times to Afghanistan and Pakistan during the 1980s, and sponsored secret U.S. appropriations for the Afghan rebel forces in 1982.

For decades opponents of nuclear energy have warned that each reactor and disposal site is a potential bomb capable of causing thousands of civilian deaths and billions of dollars in damage if struck by the type of terrorist attack witnessed September 11th. Such precautionary warnings were given little credence or dismissed as anti-nuclear fearmongering in the past. Now that the unthinkable has occurred, the terrorist threat to nuclear facilities is being generally acknowledged. An article on today's Associated Press wire by William Kole in Vienna, Austria, states that "little can be done to shield a nuclear power plant from an airborne assault. ... A direct hit of a nuclear plant by a modern jumbo jet traveling at high speed 'could create a Chernobyl situation,' said a U.S. official who declined to be identified.

Like everyone else in the United States, the staff at PR Watch has been struggling to understand the horrors of last week and the best path forward. The following stories provide some valuable perspectives that have been largely absent from mainstream media coverage:

• The Atlantic Monthly reported in May 1996 on the U.S. government's own role in training and organizing both the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Another, more detailed report on this history appeared recently in Jane's Defense Weekly.
• More recently, a former CIA operative wrote an article in July 2001 deploring the failings of U.S. intelligence in the region.
• The Independent of London has published a detailed biography of Osama bin Laden, and Esquire magazine has posted a lengthy 1999 profile and interview with bin Laden. (Interviewer John Miller notes that "bin Laden's approach to questions could have been taught by an American public-relations adviser: First, get out your message. Then, if you like, answer the question.")
• The Guardian of London examines the reasons why some people hate the United States, and warns, "for every 'terror network' that is rooted out, another will emerge -- until the injustices and inequalities that produce them are addressed."
• For those who favor a military solution, Robert Fisk paints a chilling picture of the dangers awaiting U.S. ground troops in The Lessons of History: Afghanistan Always Beats Its Invaders. Fisk warns that Bush is walking into a trap, "heading for the very disaster that Osama bin Laden has laid down for him."

"Suddenly, dramatically, unalterably the world has changed," observes Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz. "And that means journalism will also change, indeed is changing before our eyes. The presidency will become a constant focus in ways not seen since the height of Ronald Reagan's struggle against the so-called Evil Empire. Reporting on the military, the spy services, diplomacy and global terrorism will heat up after years of back burner status." Kurtz also thinks that government censorship of the press may see a revival. "During World War II, reporters wore uniforms and submitted to censorship," he writes. "During Vietnam, much of the press turned against that agonizing conflict, fueling the Nixon administration's covert war against the Fourth Estate. ... 'We have lived in an environment where the media in this country has been able to establish an independent and adversarial relationship, even when American lives could be lost,' says Alex Jones, director of Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press. 'I think the government and the military are going to want to renegotiate the deal.' The terms will include 'what is considered fair game, what is considered appropriate lines of questioning, what is reasonable disclosure of embarrassing information. ... There's going to be pressure to get in line -- much more pressure for self-censorship and coerced censorship of any information on what our intelligence capabilities are.' "

Boeing is using Interpublic's Powell Tate unit to build PR support for President Bush's missile defense system. Bush's request for $8.3 billion for missile defense was expected to be sliced due to the vanishing surplus, but now has gotten new life in aftermath of last week's terror attacks. This contradicts Kevin McCauley's prediction in last week's O'Dwyer's PR Daily. McCauley wrote that the terrorist attacks "killed Bush's missile defense program. No Star Wars system would have been effective against the grisly attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. ... The country does not need Star Wars to fight terrorism. It needs better intelligence. America needs agents who can infiltrate terror organizations so they can been destroyed from within."

Smithsonian Institution Secretary Lawrence Small has embraced commercialism and shifted the Smithsonian's mission from "the increase and diffusion of knowledge" to acting as an auxilliary megaphone for corporate marketing and public relations efforts. "Mr. Small, a mortgage banker by profession, is much better suited to the promotion of SUVs or hamburgers than to the management of our nation's most important cultural institution. Mr. Small should be sacked before he degrades the Smithsonian into a Hall of Hucksters," states Commercial Alert, which has assembled a compendium of news stories on Small's controversial tenure.

As might be expected, last week's terrorist bombings have energized some of the most extremist and intolerant segments of American society. Conservative hatchet-gal Ann Coulter wrote a vitriolic column for the National Review, calling for an American jihad against Muslim nations "to invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson mused together on Robertson's TV network that the attack was "probably what we deserve" because of American tolerance for "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians." To get an idea of how Falwell's anti-feminist views match up against those of the Taliban, check out the Feminist Majority Foundation's campaign to Stop Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan.

Common Dreams is one website providing an important alternative to mainstream TV coverage. TV commentators are increasingly fanning flames of war and rapid retaliation. "Americans are anxious to have some sort of retaliation take place," National Public Radio and FOX TV commentator Juan Williams stated today during FOX coverage featuring stirring music videos of Tuesday's attack set to patriotic songs. Actor and action-figure Chuck Norris appeared on Fox to declare that "good is white and evil is black," saying he was "always against eliminating the draft" and has been riveted to Fox TV. Another FOX guest commentator, a retired military officer, declared this "World War Three." In the midst of such rhetoric it is important to remember that after the 1991 war against Iraq researchers from the University of Massachusetts found that "the more television people watched, the fewer facts they knew; and the less people knew in terms of basic facts, the more likely they were to back the Bush administration," as reported by Lee and Solomon in their book Unreliable Sources.

Supporters of the Center for Media & Democracy have just been mailed the third quarter 2001 issue of PR Watch. It examines the strategies employed by corporations such as Philip Morris and BP/Amoco, and their PR firms such as Burson-Marsteller, to defeat environmental activism through partnerships and co-optation. Articles include "Keep America Beautiful: Grassroots Non-Profit or Tobacco Front Group?" by Walter Lamb; "Corporations 'Get Engaged' to the Environmental Movement" by Andy Rowell; and, "Endangered Wildlife Friends Are Here" by John Stauber. The current issue of PR Watch quarterly is only available to contributing members of the Center, but you can use the subscription link on this page to support the Center and receive this and future issues.

During part of Friday, Spin of the Day provided a link to a story by Robert Scheer of the Los Angeles Times titled Bush's Faustian Deal with the Taliban. We have discovered, however, that Scheer's story was misleading and inaccurate. His story, written on May 22, 2001, reported that the Bush administration had given $43 million to the Taliban as "an ally in the drug war. ... The gift ... makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban." While it is true that the Bush administration allocated aid to Afghanistan in May, the aid package (which consisted in large part of surplus U.S. wheat) was intended to prevent millions of Afghans from starving to death. In announcing the aid package, Secretary of State Colin Powell made a point of criticizing the Taliban, not just for failing to cooperate with U.S. efforts to extradite Osama bin Laden, but also for contributing to mass hunger in Afghanistan. Powell said the U.S. aid would be administered by the United Nations and non-governmental organizations and would bypasses the Taliban, "who have done little to alleviate the suffering of the Afghan people, and indeed have done much to exacerbate it." Powell's announcement was supported even by the Feminist Majority Foundation, which of course deplores the Taliban's discrimination against women. The actual facts surrounding this aid package were reported at the time on CNN. For a further critique of Scheer's misleading story, see the critique on Spinsanity.org. We apologize for our role in circulating, however briefly, misinformation at this difficult moment in America's history.

Now that President Bush has declared war in response to Tuesday's horrific act of terrorism, the often impressive reporting of the past few days by mainstream media could, as in previous wars, give way to a resonant drumbeat for revenge. Just when cautious response, political criticism, wise analysis, public education and more just international policies are most needed, diverse voices and opinions may be drowned out or declared un-American. Fortunately, unlike previous U.S. wars, today there exist alternative sources of news, analysis and commentary that are accessible by anyone on the globe with a computer modem. Alternet is one leading source beating the drum for peace, understanding and justice.

Following Tuesday's terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, U.S. television has repeatedly broadcast footage that shows Palestinians celebrating. The Electronic Intifida, which supports the Palestinian uprising in Israel, says this coverage is misleading. "The overwhelming number of Palestinians, like people of all nationalities, were sickened by the events in New York and Washington," it states. "Palestinians with relatives in New York and Washington spent much of yesterday worriedly trying to phone to check they were safe, exactly as many Americans did. Palestinian citizens of the United States will also turn out to be among the victims of the tragedy. Whatever a group of 20-40 Palestinian children happened to be doing yesterday morning in Nablus is no more representative of all Palestinians than the Klu Klux Klan rally -- which happened recently just down the road from where I live, in St. Paul, Minnesota -- is representative of all Americans." The news section of the Electronic Intifada also features statements by U.S. Muslim and Arab groups, condemning the terrorist attacks and calling on Muslims nationwide to offer whatever assistance they can to help the victims.

"If, as appears increasingly likely, groups associated with terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden are found to be responsible for Tuesday's murderous attacks in New York and Washington, the United States would be fully justified in taking vigorous action to apprehend and punish him and to put his terror networks out of business," observes Michael Klare. "The question then becomes: What strategy will best accomplish this objective?" Klare recommends a strategy of "global law enforcement collaboration plus moral and religious combat." The war against terrorism is a war of ideas as well as weapons. "To prevent the recruitment of additional volunteers into bin Laden's networks (or others of their type), we have to successfully portray him as an enemy of authentic Islam," Klare says. "Bin Laden has succeeded in recruiting followers up until now -- volunteers who are willing to sacrifice their lives -- because he has been able to portray himself as the true defender of Islam. Now, we must seek out and ally ourselves with the vast number of Muslims who are repelled and horrified by the death of so many innocent people in New York and Washington. We must encourage influential Muslim clerics to condemn bin Laden as an enemy of true Islamic belief."

The New England Journal of Medicine has issued an editorial describing its new policy designed to guarantee the independence of scientists who publish papers in medical journals. The new policy, which has been adopted simultaneously by members of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, strengthens requirements that the authors of published studies disclose who sponsored the study, and states that participating medical journals "will not review or publish articles based on studies that are conducted under conditions that allow the sponsor to have sole control of the data or to withhold publication." Medical journals are adopting this policy, the editorial explains, because their "precious objectivity" is threatened by "the current intellectual environment in which some clinical research is conceived, study subjects are recruited, and the data are analyzed. ... [C]orporate sponsors have been able to dictate the terms of participation in the trial -- terms that are not always in the best interests of academic investigators, the study participants, or the advancement of science generally. Investigators may have little or no input into trial design, no access to the raw data, and limited participation in data interpretation. These terms are draconian for self-respecting scientists, but many have accepted them because they know that if they do not, the sponsor will find someone else who will." Although this new policy certainly reflects a step in the right direction, it has not yet been adopted by a number of leading scientific journalist, such as Science, Nature and the American Heart Association's journals.

John O'Dwyer of O'Dwyer's PR Services, which is headquartered in Manhattan, has written a firsthand account of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. Anthony Lappé at the Guerilla News Network has also written a personal dispatch, titled Terror from the Skies.

"Terrorism is a new kind of warfare, tailor-made for the Information Age," observes John Rieger. "Terror spreads with the news. It's a war of impressions, of ideas, of symbols." TomPaine.com has also compiled a terrorism reader in an effort to comprehend the incomprehensible.

PR Newswire opened its wires to companies whose crisis communications plans were activated by the attacks on the World Trade Center as a public service. The newswire sent out an e-mail to members at approximately 11a.m. The message read: "For PR Newswire members whose crisis communication plan has been activated by today's World Trade Center and Washington, D.C. crises, we are making the wire available as a public service without charge." Reporters and editors looking for corporate updates on today's tragedies are being directed to a dedicated section of the PR Newswire news file.

The Federation of American Scientists sponsors this project, which works to challenge excessive government secrecy and to promote public oversight. They also publish an email newsletter, the Secrecy News, which provides informal coverage of new developments in secrecy, security and intelligence policies. Recent issues have focused on the recently-defeated "anti-leak" law (informally dubbed the "Official Secrets Act") that would have made even journalists liable for inciting a felony if they obtain classified information from anyone who is not officially authorized to disclose it.

Seattle Times reporter Duff Wilson was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize for his investigative series, Fear in the Fields--How Hazardous Wastes Become Fertilizer, which found that, across the United States, industrial wastes laden with heavy metals and other dangerous materials are being used in fertilizers and spread over farmland. Now Duff has developed the series into a book, Fateful Harvest, revealing the shocking details of American manufacturing industries that dump toxic waste into our soil by passing it off as fertilizer.

"Since the onset of unrestrained Arab violence almost one year ago, no expression has been heard more often than the word, 'hasbara' (explaining Israel's position, or positive public relations)," says pro-Israel media advocate Michael Friedson. Friedson says Israel's spokespersons should stop feeling "compelled to begin briefings with apologies ... for loss of life and property" and should "seize the rage. ... The spokesman who exudes that passion, rage and demeanor, will also radiate righteousness."

Vanessa Leggett, a college English teacher and freelance writer, is languishing in jail after she refused to turn her notes over to the FBI, which is investigating a murder case she is writing about. The FBI rejected her claims of being a journalist because she hasn't published yet. She insists that she is "sacrificing personal liberty" to maintain her "journalistic freedom." But should the FBI be deciding who is or isn't a journalist?

Former President Bill Clinton has agreed to be an unpaid pitchman for the British Tourist Authority. According to O'Dwyer's PR Daily, the BTA will use the former President's picture on its website and in various brochures.

"In war, words are a weapon, we all know that," observes Sam Kiley in this essay explaining his reason for quitting his job as a reporter in Rupert Murdoch's media empire. In the battle between Israel and the Palestinians, "Both sides manipulate the use and meaning of language. ... But in the war of words, no newspaper has been more happy to hand the keys of the armoury over to one side than The Times, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch

MeatingPlace.com, which describes itself as "the premiere information provider for the red meat and poultry industries," reports that "An Oct. 3 'Success Breakfast,' sponsored by the College of Southern Idaho and the Twin Falls, Idaho, Chamber of Commerce and featuring activist Jeremy Rifkin, has been cancelled after officials became worried he might make negative comments about beef and milk, according to The Associated Press. Local farm groups had threatened to boycott the speech, the news story reported." View AP story.

Independent scientists worldwide are finding it harded to exist in institutions increasing funded by corporate dollars. In a Institute of Science in Society report, Dr. Mae-Wan Ho tells the stories of scientists who have lost their livelihoods for going against the grain, calling on civil society and government to take concrete measures to protect independent scientists, and to support independent science that benefit society as a whole rather than big corporations.

CBS's new dramatic series about the Central Intelligence Agency, called "The Agency," brings into question the relationship between the network and the government agency. CBS has received input on scripts and support from the CIA for the program, which premieres this month. Jeff Cohen, founder of Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting and Newsday columnists, compares the new series to the sixties TV-show "The FBI," produced by ABC with the blessing and cooperation of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. Cohen writes, "During the nine years of sanitized hero-worship on ABC -- the bureau was systematically abusing the First Amendment rights of countless civil rights and peace advocates, from grass roots activists to John Lennon and Martin Luther King Jr. 'The FBI' offered no episodes about that FBI."

British author Fay Weldon's latest novel, "The Bulgari Connection," doesn't just happen to have the name of an up-scale jewelry store in its title by chance. The Italian jewerly company paid Weldon an undisclosed amount of money to be prominently featured in her novel. According to the New York Times, the book's US publisher, Grove/ Atlantic, as well as marketing and PR folks are thrilled with the deal. Michael Nyman, president of the PR/marketing firm Bragman Nyman Cafarelli, part of the Interpublic Group of Companies, told the NYT that books were "part of the next wave of product placement." Consumers spend more time and attention on a book than a film or television show, he said. "It is a more personal relationship with a book; you can curl up on a chair with it, you read it before you go to sleep, it is very near and dear to people." See also O'Dwyer's PR Daily's story on the deal.