Harvard event spotlights vital role of narratives
The vital role of narratives was highlighted yesterday by an august panel in a Zoom conference titled, “Grassroots Advocacy and Media Portrayals of Race, Gender, and Protests,” sponsored by several Harvard University-affiliated organizations.

I discussed partisan media narratives in the coverage of the recent George Floyd protests. See chart below. My presentation concentrated on three prominent divergences in conservative vs. liberal media narratives that related to depiction of violence, the portrayal of police, and coverage of Antifa.

As I discussed violence, no one in the audience of 70 was surprised to learn that Fox News used the terms “riots” or “rioters” five times more than CNN, or that Fox discussed looting 25% more than CNN. I also illustrated how the “rioters or protester” narrative was displayed on newspaper front pages, the best of which (Kansas City Star, Minneapolis Star Tribune) spotlighted the 99% who were peacefully protesting, while the least responsible (Chicago Tribune, New York Post) sensationalized and spotlighted the violence.

I then presented a small study I recently conducted that looked at narratives about police in the media. I searched four news outlets, two conservative and two liberal, for the terms “police brutality” and “police systemic racism.” Unsurprisingly, the term “police brutality” was used much more by liberal media (292 combined mentions between May 25 and June 2 in the New York Times and Washington Post Blogs vs. 37 mentions during the same period at washingtonTimes.com and the Wall St. Journal). As for “police systemic racism,” the study showed 70 combined mentions in the New York Times and Washington Post Blogs, vs. just 13 combined mentions at washingtontimes.com and the Wall St. Journal.

My presentation then discussed Antifa, Fox News’ favorite fantasy. Two different studies showed Fox playing up Antifa (six times more mentions than on CNN, for example), while exaggerating the purported threat. In reality, I said, the FBI found no evidence that Antifa had anything to do with the violence that accompanied some of the recent protests.

Once I laid out the partisan media narratives, I offered peace journalism as a way to improve this coverage, including reporting counternarratives that show different perspectives on protesters and the police; reporting on “them” with respect and empathy; and giving peacemakers a more prominent voice.

Co-panelist New York Times best-selling author (“All Souls: A Family Story from Southie”) and Northeastern University lecturer Michael Patrick Macdonald also emphasized the importance of narratives. He spoke about the importance and role of personal narratives in healing and the struggle for social justice. Macdonald believes social movements are best led by victims and through, at least at the outset, peer support networks. He said, “Movements begin with the telling of stories” and helping people to reclaim their own stories. Certainly, this reflects peace journalism’s call to give a voice to the voiceless, and to tell counternarratives about marginalized groups.

Social activist Vincent Bish, former operations director for Slack for Good and Obama administration appointee, talked about media stigma, or narratives, about those who have been incarcerated, and the importance of changing that narrative—offering a counternarrative, in PJ parlance. His Slack for Good initiative works to place formerly incarcerated persons in tech jobs by combating “social redlining” that denies  opportunities to those who have been imprisoned. One lesson Bish has learned as an activist is that “no one side is unequivocally good.” This is a valuable lesson, I believe, for journalists, especially those who engage in reflexive hyper-partisanship.

Rachel Brown Pittman, president of the United Nations Association of the U.S., spoke about her group’s grassroots advocacy in encouraging U.S. support and leadership for the United Nations. She said UNAUSA encourages its members to be “vocal and visible” in the media, and to blog, write op-eds, and otherwise actively engage on social media. As peace journalists, Pittman’s presentation should encourage journalists to reflect on offering counternarratives that illuminate the scope and efficacy of the UN, as opposed to the typical media narratives that feature only UN dysfunction.

The event was sponsored by Harvard University Kennedy School Women in Power Conference and Harvard’s UNAUSA and Students vs. Pandemic groups.

READ MORE -

Make MSP a legal right for farmers -- My interview

Pic courtesy: Gorakhpur NewsLine

This is the English version of an interview I gave to the web portal hindi.newsclick.in The link of the Hindi interview is at the end. Please scroll. 

According to you what exactly is the biggest problem confronting Indian agriculture? 

Ans: For several decades now I have seen how agriculture has been deliberately kept impoverished to keep economic reforms viable. To ensure that food inflation remains under control as well as to ensure that the industry gets its raw material at a cheaper price, farm prices have been kept low. When a farmers undertakes crop cultivation what he does not realise is that he is actually going to cultivate losses. As a result of this, he is left with no option but to draw more credit, and thereby live under debt for all times to come. That is why I have always said that the answer to the severe agrarian crisis does not lie in the crop field, but in economics.  

To illustrate, let me share a study that we did some years back. In 1970, the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for wheat was Rs 76 per quintal. At that time, the salary of school teachers was as low as Rs 90 per month. In the next 45 years, in 2015, the MSP for wheat increased to Rs 1,450 per quintal which was a jump of 19 times in a period of 45 years. In the same period, the salary of government employees (only considering the basic pay and DA) increased by 120 to 150 times. The salary of College/University professors/lecturers increased by 150 to 170 times; and the salary of school teachers increased by 280 to 320 times. This tells us very clearly that if farm incomes had increased in the same proportion as other sections of the society, agriculture wouldn’t have faced the kind of crisis that exists today.

Q:  If farmer’s income had increased in the same ratio as that of employees and professors don’t you think food would have become too expensive? How would an average household manage its monthly food bill with such high food prices?

Well, it is clear that farmers are paying the real cost of keeping food prices low. In other words, to ensure that food inflation does not increase, are we not penalising farmers by deliberately paying them a low price? Have we ever thought that a farmer too has a family;  he has to educate his children; meet their health expenses and so on. He also needs a respectable income to sustain a decent livelihood. According to the Economic Survey 2016 the average income of farming families in 17 States of India, which is roughly half the country, stands at Rs 20,000 a year. This comes to less than Rs 1,700 per month. You can’t even rear a cow in Rs 1,700 in month. Have we ever thought how do these families survive? 

By denying farmers their rightful income, we have pushed farmers in a debt trap. It is time we pull them out of indebtedness, and give them a breather in the shape of a monthly income package that they deserve but have been denied. After all, a farmer too needs an assured income every month and it becomes our duty as consumers to ensure that we also stand with the family that struggles so hard to put food on our table.

Q:  You said a farmer too needs an assured income. How is that possible?

Several years back, some 10 to 12 years ago, when I first said that farmers need direct income support there was a strong opposition from economists. They couldn’t understand why I was asking for a direct income support for farmers. My argument was that since farmers have been denied their rightful income all these years it is important to compensate them for the losses incurred. Farm incomes have remained frozen or in the negative for more than two decades now and it is time to correct the income imbalance that has prevailed. Take for instance a study conducted by OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) which comprises the world’s richest trading block. This study in collaboration with New Delhi-based organisation ICRIER has found out that Indian farmers have lost Rs 45-lakh crore between the years 2000 to 2016-17. This was an extraordinary crisis afflicting agriculture but huge crisis being faced by farmers never became a national issue. There was a need for an economic stimulus package for farmers like the industry is given very often but no one talked about.

This tells us how severe is the economic crisis that farmers face. This often happens because of the price fluctuations farmers face. Every now and then we hear of reports of farmers throwing tomato, potato and onions on the streets. There are reports of farmers not getting the right price in the mandis. Price of almost all agricultural commodities continue to prevail low as compared to the Minimum Support Price. To illustrate, maize farmers in Shivani district in Madhya Pradesh have been sitting on a Makka Satyagrah demanding their maize crop to be procured at MSP. But what they are able to sell at is hardly between Rs 950 to Rs 1100 per quintal against the MSP of Rs 1,850 per quintal. These farmers have calculated the loss farmers in the district suffered to the tune of Rs 600-crore. Similarly, a farmer leader from Wardha in Vidharba has calculated the loss cotton farmers across the country have suffered at Rs 26,000-crore this year on account of being denied the rightful price.

It is therefore important to provide farmers with an assured monthly income. This can be by way of an assured MSP price or by adding direct income support or by bringing in some other measures. My suggestion has been to set up a Commission for Farmers Income & Welfare which should ensure that each farmer is able to get an income of Rs 18,000 per month, which equals the basic salary of the lowest level Government employee.  I don’t mean the Government should issue a cheque of Rs 18,000 per month to every farmer. But it has to work out a mechanism to ensure that’s the amount what every farmer should earn in a month.  

How does the Govt believe that amending Essential Commodity Act and bringing in amendments for contract farming will promote agriculture? 

Yes, the Government has brought in three Ordinances. These Ordinances pertain to agricultural marketing, price assurance and contract farming and removing the stock limits under the Essential Commodity Act. The idea that any farmer can sell to anyone, and anywhere, sounds very good but will it help farmers get a better price? Similarly, allowing farmers to sell anywhere in the country by removing all the inter-state barriers specially when 86 per cent farmers have less than 2 hectares land holding, and are unable to sell even within a district seems too optimistic. And finally, encouraging contract farming and hoping price contracts will give farmers a better price too needs to be first evaluated.

It is however good that the government has not diluted the APMC mandi system nor has it said anything about changing the MSP norms.

It was in 2006 when there was a similar kind of excitement. Bihar had gone in for agricultural market reforms and had thrown away the APMC Act. This was hailed as a major reform which was expected to turn Bihar into the future food bowl of the country. Economists had expressed the optimism that with APMC not coming in the way anymore, private investments will flow in, technologically advanced mandis will be set up by the private sector and farmers will get a better price discovery, which means they will get a higher price compared to the MSP the government announces. It has been 14 years since the APMC mandis were removed from Bihar. But all the claims have fallen flat, and nothing like the excitement that was projected at that time, has happened.

In the absence of any provate mandis that economists had talked about, it is some private traders who operate now. Farmers are realising low prices as a result of which every harvest we find unscrupulous traders transporting truck loads of wheat and paddy all the way to be sold in Punjab and Haryana where they at least get an assured MSP.  If only in these 14 years, Bihar had instead laid out a vast network of APMC mandis like in Punjab, its agriculture would have been in a much better condition. There would have been less out migration from rural areas in Bihar if only agriculture had been strengthened.  

According to NABARD 2015 study, the average farm income in Bihar remains low at Rs 7,175 per month. Compare this with the average in Punjab, which stands at Rs 23,133 per household. Much of it is because of a higher price realisation from the MSP system. It is therefore a missed opportunity for which Bihar continues to pay a heavy price.

But it is being said that these reforms will provide farmers with freedom to sell and thereby increase farm incomes ..  

It is important to first understand how have these markets reforms or the freedom to sell has operated in America from where we are borrowing the agricultural marketing provisions. According to the Chief Economist of US Department of Agriculture (USDA) real farm incomes in America, if adjusted for inflation, have been on a steep decline since 1960s. Since there is no APMC market nor an MSP farmers have the right to sell anywhere and to anyone. But over the years American farmers are faced with a severe economic crisis. What had saved farming all these years was the economic support through massive subsidies. If agricultural markets were so efficient I see no reason why In 2018 OECD countries should have provided agricultural subsidies to the tune of $ 246 billion. Further, despite contract farming, commodity trading and the dominance of multi-brand retail, the American Farm Bureau Federation in 2019 said that 91 per cent US farmers are bankrupt and 87 per cent farmers say they are left with no other alternative but to abandon farming.

While India is trying to hook agriculture to contract farming and commodity futures, I wonder why in the US with the biggest commodity stock exchanges, farmers should be carrying a debt of $ 425 billion. If commodity trading hasn’t worked for US farmers and for European farmers where 50% of $ 110 billion agricultural subsidies come in the form of direct income support how it will be a panacea for Indian farmers has not been explained.

So what in your thinking should be the agricultural reform that Indian farmers should be looking at?

What Indian farmers need is a commitment from the government or the industry that they will get an assured price after every harvest. This is only possible if we were to strengthen the agricultural marketing infrastructure. There are at present less than 7,000 regulated APMC markets in India. What India needs is vast network of 42,000 markets if a mandi has to be provided in 5 kilometres radius. The opportunity therefore is huge, all it requires is the ability to take up the challenge and chart a promising direction by first investing in essential infrastructure like mandis, cold chains, storage, grading, transportation etc.

Now comes the issue of price discovery. If markets were so efficient, there is no reason why farmers should be committing suicide in such a large number. After all, as per the Shanta Kumar Committee only 6 per cent farmers in India get MSP. The remaining 94 per cent farmers are dependent on free markets. If markets were so efficient in India also, there is no reason why so many farmers should have committed suicide. Their economic conditions should have improved over the years.

It is therefore time to strengthen the APMC network, and ensure that MSP becomes a legal right in the sense that no trading should be allowed below MSP. I am not against setting up private markets nor am I against competition. Pvt mandis can be set up in Bihar or in eastern UP or where there is a need for a mandi. That will provide a better competition with APMC mandis. But since it is being said that selling to anyone, and anywhere will ensure better prices to farmers, which means a price higher than MSP, I am sure the private sector will not object if MSP is made a legal right for farmers. After all, the private players are already claiming farmers will get a higher price so why not make MSP mandatory in trading for all the 23 crops for which it is announced every year. This of course should be followed by setting up a Commission for Farmers Income and Welfare.

This will not only transform Indian agriculture to meet the vision of Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas but in the process will also become a global model, the world too needs. #

'हमने अन्न उपभोक्ताओं पर ध्यान दिया है अन्न उत्पादकों पर नहीं'. NewsClick. June 25, 2020.

https://hindi.newsclick.in/We-have-focused-on-food-consumers-and-not-on-food-producers?fbclid=IwAR25eFd_ZJqgkZllLdMDu1yMvlYpw6WZC7orKTCuB8GlCbCbv2rKNeV8-x8

READ MORE - Make MSP a legal right for farmers -- My interview

College Discipline: Initial Contact And Investigation Meeting

By Michelle Ball, California Education Attorney for Students since 1995

 

College discipline hearings can be difficult matters, and they all start with the allegation and investigation.  Due to the potential for severe punishment, it is important the initial steps are not mishandled.

Usually the first notice of a discipline issue arrives via the student's official college email, with an attachment telling the student to contact the college in a few days to set up a meeting.  Often this notice indicates that if the student fails to reply, dire consequences may result, such as a hold on their records or a denial of class registration.  There may be reference to a vague or unidentified allegation, so the student may not be sure what they are being accused of.  Students should not ignore this email and should set up any meeting requested.

As the student may have no idea why they are being investigated, a polite inquiry should be made prior to this meeting to attempt to get more detail on the allegations.  If the staff say "you will find out at the meeting," the student should still respectfully ask if they may be provided with information on the context and what codes are alleged to have been breached, if this was not included in the initial notice

The student can also request copies of any "evidence" which has been gathered and if they can obtain such prior to the initial meeting.  

Colleges may have a student advocate office or other similar office which they can contact at the university to get some input and advice about local practices.  This may also be the time to seek input from family members, such as a student's parents (if the student is comfortable with that), or potentially other sources, to be prepared.  Although legal counsel may be denied entry to the investigation meeting(s), they can be consulted outside the meeting.

The student should review the college codes for all relevant areas of possible alleged breach, as well as any discipline policies the college has published.  For example, at the University of California, Davis (UCD), there are many policies on their "Office of Student Support and Judicial Affairs" page, including a link to the current policies and procedures that are applied in student discipline matters.  Not all colleges, unfortunately, have adequate information on line, or even adequate policies, but it is definitely worth the time to learn what may be out there before the meeting.   

It is important to remember that whomever a student may meet with during the investigation has a lot of experience in punishing students and far more knowledge in this area, usually, than the student, so doing anything one can to get prepared is critical.

At the initial meeting, the student will likely be interviewed, and will hopefully be fully informed of the allegation, context, and codes allegedly breached.  The student may even be asked to admit what happened.  Or, they may simply be told that the college will be investigating and will get back to them for a follow up meeting.

It is never certain what will happen with these allegations, but I have found that colleges  tend to believe the accuser, not the accused student, so students should be prepared for  being doubted and cast as someone who has done wrong, despite telling college staff the truth and/or providing an honest, heartfelt denial of any allegation.  

Additionally, even though the staff member who interviews them may seem like a very sweet, kind, and understanding person, that is part of their method of obtaining information and data they may be able to skew or use in a discipline hearing against the student.  It is best not to forget the nice person interviewing them is on the other side, likely trying to prove the student "did it," and is the one who will likely be making recommendations on what punishment the student may face.

It is a bit tricky.

University students may be able to be accompanied to this meeting by a parent or a college advocate, but it is up to the individual school on what they allow.

If faced with a surprise email from your college or university saying to "call us or else!" don't ignore it.  But, do approach it in a methodical and prepared way so you can help yourself navigate these tricky waters and keep pursuing your degree.

Best,

 

Michelle Ball

Education Law Attorney 

 

LAW OFFICE OF MICHELLE BALL 

717 K Street, Suite 228 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone: 916-444-9064 

Email:help@edlaw4students.com 

Fax: 916-444-1209

Website, Blog, Twitter, Youtube, Facebook

 

Please see my disclaimer on the bottom of my blog page. This is legal information, not legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed by this posting, etc. etc.!  This blog may not be reproduced without permission from the author and proper attribution of authorship.

READ MORE - College Discipline: Initial Contact And Investigation Meeting

Dumping by rich countries destroys farm livelihoods in developing countries

Pic courtesy: internet

It was in 2003 that the Heads of State of four West and Central African countries – Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali – wrote a joint proposal to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) asking for scrapping the massive cotton subsidy support being given in the US/EU, which depresses global prices. At the same time, in a signed letter published in the New York Times, these leaders had said: “Your subsidies kill our farmers.” An international uproar erupted, and it virtually led to the collapse of the Cancun WTO Ministerial Conference.

This particular incident, in lot many ways historic, is an important lesson to learn from in the context of the ongoing debate on whether Minimum Support Price (MSP) being paid to farmers is much higher compared to international prices. Also, it allows us to understand there is nothing sacrosanct about international prices. As the West African challenge to the rich developed countries on the contentious issue of cotton subsidies clearly demonstrated how easily market prices were manipulated hitting the livelihoods of farmers in another part of the world.  

Several studies, among them from Oxfam International, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the Catholic social justice organisation CIDSE, had analysed the issue in depth. Accordingly, the US had spent $ 14.8 billion in just four years, between 1998 and 2002, to subsidise a cotton crop valued at $21.6 billion. Some other news reports showed how, in addition, the US provided a subsidy of $ 1.7 billion every year to the textile industry to buy the subsidised cotton. This brought down the global prices pushing cotton farmers in West Africa to suffer economic losses.

If these cotton subsidies were to be removed, studies showed that nearly 25,000 cotton growers in the US (at that time) would have incurred an average loss of $ 871 per acre. On the other hand, imagine the economic loss for the four West African countries (better known as Cotton 4) which had only 4 per cent of the global cotton area but relied heavily on exports. Lower international prices meant lower price realisation for the African cotton growers. What impact the artificially low international prices had on cotton growers from the developing and least developing countries is provided by another World Bank study which worked out that a 40 per cent drop in cotton prices leads to a 21 per cent reduction in farm income. Drop in farm income in turn results in a 20 per cent rise in poverty.

Subsequently, in a case filed by Brazil against the US cotton subsidies, the WTO Dispute Panel in 2005 did acknowledge that some of the cotton subsidies indeed reduced global prices.

In another interesting study, Sophia Murply and Karen Hansen-Kuhn  of the non-profit Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) had worked out the cost of ‘dumping’ agricultural commodities on the global markets for five major crops America exported – wheat, corn, soybean, rice and cotton. This interesting research project, initiated by Mark Ritchie, IATP’s founder, has certainly made a significant contribution in understanding how ‘dumping’ influences global trade. Accordingly, in 2017, the US was dumping wheat at an export price that was 38 per cent less than its cost of production. Similarly, cotton was exported at a price that was 12 per cent less (despite the West African challenge), corn at 9 per cent, and soybean at 4 per cent less. The authors also observed a consistent pattern that America followed in dumping these commodities for over two and a half decades, barring a few years in between.   

Whatever be the ‘dumping’ size, what emerges clear is the role these subsidies, often hidden, have on lowering international prices. In 2018, the OECD countries, comprising the richest trading block, provided agricultural subsidies to the tune of $ 246 billion. Along with unfair trade practices, these subsidies have always played a significant role in protecting developed country farmers against price volatilities. Cotton being a classic case.

More recently, another IATP study entitled ‘Milking the planet’ explains how in a bid to remain competitive, European dairy corporations are dumping cheap dairy products and in turn pushing small dairy farms out of business in developing countries. Along with EU, the US too has been heavily subsidising milk and milk products. In a joint representation before WTO in 2017, India and China have said that dairy (and also for sugar) continues to be in receipt of a high product-specific support in America for over a decade. Similarly, the EU provides a product-specific subsidy support of 71 per cent of the value for its production for butter and 67 per cent for skimmed milk powder (SMP) thereby pulling down global prices.

How the fob prices actually hide the massive subsidies is better illustrated by a careful look at the wheat subsidies being provided in America. As per the non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG), the US has given a subsidy of $ 47.8 billion to wheat growers between 1995 and 2019 (there are 29 heads under which these subsidies on wheat were given, a few of these may have discontinued now). These subsidies actually encourage over production thereby reducing market prices. The big trading agencies gain in the process. Also, what needs to be understood is that if markets were offering a higher price to wheat growers in America, I see no reason why the US should have provided such a huge subsidy support to wheat growers over the years.  

If the US/EU/Canada and other big players can subsidise exports of agricultural commodities or export at prices which are actually below the cost of production why Indian farmers should be penalised for it? International prices should therefore not be treated as a benchmark for fixing MSP for domestic farmers. India must ensure that regardless of the global prices domestic farm incomes grow in the same proportion as other sections of the society. To begin with, make MSP a legal right for farmers, as the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) had earlier recommended. Follow this up with direct income support to fill the income shortfalls so as to realise the dream of Atmanirbhar Bharat. #

A case to make MSP legal right of farmers. The Tribune. June 23, 2020

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/a-case-to-make-msp-legal-right-of-farmers-102423?fbclid=IwAR3UUC9ZP9popmfDLNgUVCxcXde0cea76Tn41VhByxGm_IUkIMK4FW3VZCQ

READ MORE - Dumping by rich countries destroys farm livelihoods in developing countries

A letter to Fox News on their George Floyd coverage

Dear Fox News:

Your coverage of the unrest following the murder of George Floyd has crossed the line from your usual polemical, partisan, irresponsible “journalism” into inflammatory disinformation that could potentially incite violence. 

To paraphrase the take down of another demagogue (Joseph McCarthy) whom you would have no doubt supported: Fox News, have you no sense of decency?

One example of your indecency is your distorted, mendacious reporting and commentary about Antifa, a tiny anti-fascist protest movement (it’s too loosely constituted to even be called an organization) that has sometimes had violent encounters with right wingers and neo-Nazis.

Antifa is your favorite bogeyman. A study shows that from May 27 to June 10, “Fox News programs have mentioned Antifa more than 325 times, per TVEyes. Fox Business: 173+ times. Antifa has come up 67+ times on CNN and 88+ times on MSNBC.”

The truth is that Antifa poses little or no threat. According to the Washington Post, when the group tried to gather nationally, they topped out at a few hundred. On CNN, Historian Mark Bray, who has studied the leftist groups, agreed. He said, "You can see that when these groups in major cities mobilize, they don't get more than a couple hundred people…”

In addition, Antifa had nothing to do with the violence during the recent protests. The FBI found “no evidence that the American militant anti-fascist movement Antifa was involved in violence that erupted during national protests over the death of George Floyd.” Further, a Reuters “examination of federal court records related to the charges and social media posts by some of the suspects and interviews with defense lawyers and prosecutors found mostly disorganized acts of violence by people who have few obvious connections to Antifa or other left-wing groups.” Reuters looked at federal charging documents related to the protests and found “no violent acts are alleged at all” that are attributed to Antifa.

When you weren’t scaring your viewers with a false Antifa narrative, you frightened them with distorted reporting and commentary that emphasized violence over legitimate, peaceful protests and the legitimate reasons behind those protests. A GDELT study  (chart, right) showed that Fox reports used the terms “riots” or “rioters” five times more than CNN, and your reports discussed looting 25% more than CNN. And yes, you discussed Antifa six times more than on CNN.

The result is that your deliberately distorted and demonstrably false narratives have created an atmosphere of irrational fear, a fertile ground into which seeds of disinformation have been planted on social media. Thanks to Fox and fake social media posts, terrified gun-toting small town residents in the Western U.S. have gathered to defend themselves against an Antifa invasion –an invasion, of course, that never came, and will never come. (See recent, excellent articles in the New York Times and Buzzfeed. This is the alt right’s “waiting for the Great Pumpkin” moment, the difference being that Charlie Brown and his friends weren’t armed with AK-47’s. If Fox had reported the truth about Antifa, perhaps the good citizens of small town Montana, Oregon, and Idaho wouldn’t have been so quick to take up arms and contemplate violence.

Fox News, you can and must be better. Start with more honest coverage that does less pandering and more informing. Take my advice from Peace Journalism Principles and Practices, and report on “them” (the “other side”) fairly, respectfully, and with empathy; and report about the invisible causes and effects of the unrest, and not just the visible violence. You must report contextually in a way that reflects that 99% of the protesters were peaceful. Also, report counter-narratives that provide a different perspective on the protesters, the police, and the community (this means avoiding stereotypes like all cops are brutal or all protesters are violent thugs); and report with reconciliation in mind--discuss how healing can occur and what needs to happen for it to begin.

Fox, if you don’t get better, it’s inevitable that you and your allies spreading social media disinformation are going to eventually have blood on your hands, since it’s inevitable that one of your deluded viewers hopped up on Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson wades into a crowd of protesters and starts using the assault weapons you love so much.

Steven Youngblood, concerned viewer

READ MORE -

New grant will fund media literacy and PJ project

I'm thrilled to announce that I have won a Citizen Diplomacy Action Fund Rapid Response award from the U.S. Department of State. The $9300 award will fund a project titled, “Media Literacy for Students: Lessons from Covid-19.”

The project will take place in the greater Kansas City area. It will utilize virtual seminars and projects to educate and inform students about our society’s information challenges as illustrated by disinformation about Covid-19 and other current issues. The project’s activities will be grounded in the principles of effective media literacy training (including media content analysis and critical thinking); and informed by the fundamentals of peace journalism, which seeks, among other things, to debunk propaganda, reject ‘us vs. them’ constructs, give a voice to the voiceless, and facilitate societal discussions about solutions.

The first virtual seminars will be held in September 2020, followed by the creation of a student-produced magazine and podcast discussing and analyzing media. The project will culminate with a Zoom media literacy summit in January, 2021.

Student participants in the project will hail from Center Middle School, Center High School, Johnson County Community College, and Park University. As part of the project, Center Middle and High School students will receive tablets and digital subscriptions to the Kansas City Star.

Beside myself, other project trainers include Lewis Diuguid, journalist and multicultural education consultant in Kansas City; and Allan Leonard, journalist and fact-checking expert based in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

This funding opportunity is sponsored by the U.S. Department of State and implemented by Partners of the Americas in partnership with the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. Alumni of U.S. government-funded exchanges are eligible to apply for Citizen Diplomacy Action Fund Rapid Response grants. Youngblood could apply as a two-time J. William Fulbright scholar (Moldova 2001; Azerbaijan 2007).

For more on the Rapid Response program, see https://www.partners.net/citizen-diplomacy-action-fund-us-alumni 

READ MORE -

Best reforms would be if the APMC mandi network is expanded

Pic courtesy: Indian Express

The year was 2006. There was excitement in the air. Throwing out the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) Act, Bihar had undertaken futuristic agricultural market reforms. With no mandis coming in the way, sarkarieconomists and policy makers were exuberant at the immense possibilities of providing more income into the hands of the farming community thereby turning Bihar into a land of prosperity.

In the absence of regulated mandis, economists had predicted a lot of private investments to flow in thereby helping in the setting up of modern private market yards and purchase centres. Since there would be no APMC mandis there would also be no Minimum Support Price (MSP), which means private players would be able to give farmers a higher price. That is what was said at that time.  

Fourteen years later, Bihar still leads the pack of States that form the BIMARU States. There is hardly a year when unscrupulous traders have not transported truck loads of wheat and paddy to be sold in Punjab and Haryana mandis. The reason why traders found it economical to transport wheat and paddy all the way from Bihar was primarily because the prices private trade offered back home was much less. Against a procurement price of wheat at Rs 1,925 per quintal this year, wheat farmers in Bihar were not getting more than Rs 1,500 to 1,600. No wonder, while Punjab and Haryana farmers have gained from the delivery of MSP year after year, farmers in Bihar continued to suffer. The argument that Bihar farmers could sell to anyone, anywhere within the State failed to pull them out of poverty.

There are two ways of looking at this. First, in the absence of an assured MSP being given to farmers year after year, the average income of a rural household in Bihar remains low at Rs 7,175 per month. Compare this with the average in Punjab, which according to a study by NABARD stands at Rs 23,133 per household. Much of it is because of a higher price realisation from the MSP system. This year alone for the wheat harvesting season, Punjab farmers received a total of Rs 26,000-crore by way of wheat MSP. This has bolstered the rural economy of Punjab. Secondly, a majority of the lakhs of migrant workers who underwent the trauma of walking home or cycling home, or travelled by buses and trains to return home, comprised workers from Bihar. Imagine if instead of dismantling APMC mandis Bihar had in turn laid a strong network of mandisand village roads like in Punjab, perhaps the number of migrants from Bihar would have been far less. If agriculture was profitable in Bihar I see no reason why rural population from Bihar would have migrated in such a big proportion.

The Bihar experiment with agricultural market reforms has failed. If the APMC mandis are gradually dismantled in Punjab, and government subsequently withdraws from procuring wheat and paddy at MSP, will Punjab farmers also become like Bihar farmers? Although Agriculture Minister, Narender Singh Tomar, has clearly said that the series of reforms being introduced through the three Ordinances will not touch MSP and APMC mandis, senior Cabinet Minister Nitin Gadkari has said that MSP is higher than domestic market prices as well as international prices, and the government will need to find a viable solution. This is exactly what the CII and FICCI have been demanding for several years now.

Even though the Minister for Agriculture has said that the government does not intend to dilute the provisions of MSP, the fact that the despite the claims government has in reality come up with ‘One Country, Two Markets’ system whereby traders and private players buying outside the APMC market yards will not have to pay any tax whereas those trading inside the premises will pay 3 per cent manditax and 3 per cent towards rural development fund (total of 6 per cent in Punjab) actually is discriminatory against the APMC network. As the Chamber of Association of Maharashtra and Trade (CMIAT) has said that in the absence of a level-playing field, the APMC mandiswill gradually become redundant over a period of time. This is something that Punjab and Haryana, with a robust APMC mandinetwork, have to be worried about.

Further, let us not forget that a few months back citing the recommendation of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) the Prime Minister Office had written to the Punjab government asking why should the open-ended procurement of wheat and rice not be discontinued, which means the government is keen to reduce procurement thereby also reducing the outgo on MSP. The Chief Economic Advisor had recently called for restricting food procurement for only 20 per cent population as compared to providing rations for 67 per cent population under the National Food Security Act. Reducing procurement automatically means reducing the payment of MSP to farmers.

Over the past few decades, Punjab has built a strong network of APMC mandis. With roughly 1,840 mandis, sub yards and purchase centres spread across the state, along with 70,000 kms of village roads, the vast agricultural marketing infrastructure is certainly neighbour’s envy. Instead of opening these mandis to private competition, the challenge should be to set up private market yards in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and other deficit areas. In 2019, only 3,000 tonnes was procured in Bihar, and in Uttar Pradesh only 7 per cent procurement is undertaken. In Punjab, 128-lakh tonnes of wheat have been procured this season.

In any case, Shanta Kumar Committee tells us that only 6 per cent farmers across the country get the benefit of MSP. In other words, 94 per cent farmers are dependent on the markets. If markets were so efficient, I see no reason why agriculture distress should be so huge. If markets were so efficient farmers wouldn’t have been demanding a higher MSP and also seek more crops to be included under the MSP regime. Considering that India has only about 7,000 APMC mandis, the best reforms would be if the APMC mandinetwork is expanded to 42,000 mandiswith the aim to provide a marketing platform in every 5 kms radius. At the same time, trading should be mandatory on the MSP announced. Even in eNAM mandis MSP should become the modal price. This is the reform that the country’s farmers need.  # 

READ MORE - Best reforms would be if the APMC mandi network is expanded

I want to better educate myself about race, Black Lives Matter

Received from a Park University student of mine several days ago...

Dear Professor Youngblood: 

There is a lot of information floating around on social media about the Black Lives Matters movement and about police brutality. I feel strongly that this is a problem in America but I don’t feel like I know enough to be fully aware of it or how to speak out to help my African American friends. I was wondering if you knew of any news sources or articles from both sides that I could read to better educate myself that would be much appreciated. 

Sincerely, Alyssa

 

Dear Alyssa:

Thank you for your insightful, thoughtful question. I’ll do my best to answer it, with the help of some writers and researchers who have much more expertise on this subject than I. Please follow the links I’ve provided, and analyze the information yourself.

 

Like you, I am still learning.

 

Whether we’re talking about policing, housing, health care, education, or a hundred other domains, what we really should be discussing is systemic racism—policies and practices embedded in societal structures that favor or disadvantage one group. I’ve found a great, Four minute video that explains systemic racism in a way that even I can understand. 

The most revealing article about systemic racism I’ve read is “The Case for Reparations” by Ta- Nehisi Coates, who anchors his argument around housing discrimination. Specifically, Coates draws on a mountain of facts that discuss redlining and how African Americans were and continue to be relegated to “less desirable” neighborhoods. Even today, studies show that racist practices called racial steering by realty companies mean that blacks aren’t even shown properties in “white neighborhoods.” (For details, see Newsday article, and Academic Study). Until the mid-1960’s, government housing loans were systematically denied to African Americans, while mortgage lenders have also traditionally discriminated against African Americans (Coates).

 

Systemic, racist housing discrimination has led to a litany of other problems for black majority communities. Property tax- supported schools in African American areas receive less funding since the houses in these neighborhoods are less valuable. (NPR article) These schools, then, struggle to offer competitive teacher salaries and extracurricular activities compared to their suburban counterparts. Students attending urban schools, who often live in poverty, are less likely to attend and succeed in college. Employment discrimination exacerbates the situation. Poverty is concentrated in inner cities, though it has recently spread as well to smaller towns. Not surprisingly, black unemployment is consistently twice as high as white unemployment. Where schools are poor, jobs are scarce, and poverty is prevalent, crime flourishes. As has been well publicized in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, entrenched racism is manifest in discriminatory treatment of African Americans in the criminal justice system. 

 

Not everyone believes these facts. 

 

Skeptics are quick to fall back on “what-about-isms.” For example, in response to Black Lives Matter,  we hear in traditional and social media, “what about white lives?” According to their website, Black Lives Matter's mission is “to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on black communities by the state and vigilantes,” not to discriminate against any other group. Just because you believe black lives matter doesn’t mean that you think other lives aren't important, too. Why the zero-sum thinking? Incidentally, there is a movement called “White Lives Matter” that is, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, "a racist response to the civil rights movement Black Lives Matter. (It) is a neo-Nazi group that is growing into a movement as more and more white supremacist groups take up its slogans and tactics." 

Another “what about” pops up on Fox News after every police shooting and asks, “what about black on black crime?” Of course, this is a problem, but so is, for example, affordable child care. But what do these have to do with police brutality? Nothing. When discussing racist policing, bringing up black crime or any other subject for that matter is simply a distraction that diverts us from the real issue of systemic racism. At any rate, this black on black crime argument is a red herring, since a report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that most violence occurs “between victims and offenders of the same race, regardless of race.” So, most black crime is perpetrated against other blacks, while most white crime victims are also white, a fact conveniently omitted by the conservative press. 

One other spurious opposing argument/distraction regards Antifa, an anti-fascist protest movement (it’s too loosely constituted to even be called an organization) that has sometimes had violent encounters with neo-Nazis. Antifa is a favorite Fox News bogeyman. During these protests, a study shows that Fox News mentioned Antifa six times more than CNN, even though, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, “The FBI has found no evidence that the American militant anti-fascist movement Antifa was involved in violence that erupted during national protests over the death of George Floyd.”

 

Coverage of recent unrest has generally emphasized violence (the 1%) over legitimate, peaceful protests (the 99%). See my blog below for details. The previously mentioned study showed that Fox has used the terms “riots” or “rioters” five times more than CNN, while Fox has discussed looting 25% more than CNN. 

 

In summary, Alyssa, I hope I’ve provided you some food for thought. I know you wanted “both sides,” but I honestly can’t see another side to systemic racism. Those who defend the status quo and distract with “what-about-isms” are enabling this racism, in my view. As I said, I’m still learning, and look forward to hearing your thoughts as well.

 

Stay safe,

Professor Youngblood

READ MORE -

Markets have failed US/EU farmers

Writing in the Conservative American, Austin Frerick, a director at the Open Markets Institute, had said: “In the 1980s, 37 cents out of every dollar went back to farmer. Today, farmers take home less than 15 cents on every dollar.” Pointing to the increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of a few multinational corporations over the decades to be primarily responsible for the declining farm incomes, he called for fixing the broken food system.

Last week, another article in Financial Times asked: “Is our food system broken?” In fact, a Google search for broken food systems comes up with hundreds of articles, reports and studies, clearly pointing to the desperate need to redesign global agriculture, with the primary focus on adopting sustainable farm practices and the desperate need to make agriculture economically viable. Another search for farm distress and among the top articles to pop-up is from the Time magazine: “’They’re trying to wipe us off the map’. Small American farmers are nearing extinction,” screams the headline. The more you read on farm distress the more you realise how in the name of free markets and the freedom to sell anywhere, to anyone is pushing small farmers off the land.  

That makes me wonder. If after five decades or more of liberalisation of agricultural markets, with no stock limits for big retailers, and commodity futures markets giving an indication of the price at the time of planting, Al Davis, a former Nebraska senator and cattle farmer is left to say: “Farm and ranch families are facing a great extinction. If we lose the rural lifestyle, we have really lost a big part of what made this country great,” isn’t the exuberance being exhibited over the planned liberalising of agriculture markets in India overtly misplaced? After all, if leaving farm prices to markets is the winning formula, isn’t it first time to explain why American and European agriculture is in a severe state of distress.

Ever since the days of Uruguay Round negotiations, and subsequently after the WTO was formed in 1995, monumental agricultural subsidies being paid by the developed countries have remained a contentious issue. Former Commerce Minister Kamal Nath, who represented India at a number of WTO Ministerial conferences, had often said “you cannot expect Indian farmers to compete with the US treasury,” referring to the massive subsidies being doled out in America. Later, Arun Jaitley as Commerce Minister too had echoed the same sentiments at the time of the Cancun Ministerial. Even now, developing countries are asking for re-opening the hotly debated issue of farm subsidies.

This brings me to the essential question. If agriculture markets are so efficient, how come it failed to prop up US/EU agriculture? The US Department of Agriculture has itself acknowledged that the real farm incomes have been on the decline since the 1960s. And that too, despite such heavy subsidy support provided year after year. This is primarily because 80 per cent of these subsidies go to agribusiness companies, and the remaining 20 per cent are cornered by big farmers, as many studies have shown. An UNCTAD-India study in 2007 had shown that if the green box subsidies (protecting domestic support in agriculture) in the developed countries were to be withdrawn, agricultural exports from US, EU and Canada would drop by about 40 per cent.

Even 25 years after the WTO came into existence; OECD countries are still providing a huge producer support for agriculture, touching $ 246 billion in 2018. Of which, in EU-28 countries, the producer support totals $ 110 billion a year, roughly 50 per cent of it being in the form of direct income support. These subsidies are expected to further increase in the post-Covid period.

Repairing the broken food system therefore would urgently require restructuring the agricultural markets. Whether in America, Europe or India, where despite the scale, agrarian distress has been worsening over the years, the proposed agricultural reforms have to be tailored to the need to first make farming an economically viable, and profitable venture thereby restoring the pride in farming. Leaving farmers at the mercy of the markets hasn’t worked in developed countries. Nor has commodity futures trading been of much help. To illustrate, let’s look at the $ 103 billion chocolate industry, where the prices for cocoa beans is largely determined by commodity futures. While Africa alone produces about 75 per cent of the cocoa in the world, what percolates down to farmers is relatively insignificant. With hardly 2 per cent revenues coming to cocoa farmers, millions are living in acute poverty.

For several years, dairy farmers in UK had been protesting at supermarkets demanding to be paid a fair price that protects them against the volatility in prices. The bigger the retailer the more is the tendency to dictate prices. In the quest for higher profits, and at the same time ensuring competitive prices to consumers, big retail has often been known to squeeze on farmer’s margins. If big retailers like Sainsbury and Tesco, with the ability to maintain huge stocks, were providing a higher price to farmers, there is no reason why half of all the UK farms would end up being in business only by supplementing income from non-farm activities.

Providing a fair and assured price to farmers therefore is turning out to be the biggest challenge. All that has been tried, and tested in the developed countries has failed to show any promise. In fact, it has only pushed developed as well as developing country farmers into a severe crisis. Enabling farmers to sell anywhere, to anyone to get a better price is no reason for excitement, unless farmers can be assured of a better price. Instead of pushing what the agri-business industry needs as marketing reforms, let us develop a system that actually helps farmers become economically viable and in true sense atmanirbhar. Developing a food system based on local production, local procurement and local distribution is what India needs.

This is only possible by strengthening the existing networks of regulated APMC markets, and building a robust system of trading where the Minimum Support Price (MSP) becomes the model price. #

The broken food system. The Tribune. May 29, 2020

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/the-broken-food-system-91249?fbclid=IwAR3iLqaJuEjVBZ7Mj8BT8hT3HCebV4w41-KNDf_vyxaHepID2wEqgewRq2c

READ MORE - Markets have failed US/EU farmers

Responsible coverage highlights the peaceful 99%
During a press conference Sunday night, Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas bristled when asked if the sporadic violence seen during KC’s anti-police brutality, pro social justice protests was a “distraction.” He said the headlines Monday wouldn’t be about discussions about how to re-imagine policing, or about the thousands of peaceful protesters who gathered on the Plaza Sunday afternoon. Instead, Lucas predicted the headlines today would be all about the violence—a “few dozen people surrounded by crowds who wanted to cause chaos in our city.”

Was Mayor Lucas right?

When it comes to Monday’s Kansas City Star, it looks like Lucas, no doubt to his relief, was incorrect. The front page did not take the bait that proved irresistible for other media outlets. There were no screaming headlines highlighting riots and looting and pictures of broken windows and burned out cars. Instead, the Star responsibly and correctly displayed a photo of peaceful protesters along with a headline that said, “Kansas City curfew ordered Sunday as protests mount.”

As for other newspapers across the country, Lucas appears to be partially correct. Some chose to highlight the violence or looting rather than peaceful voices. Some examples:
Arizona Republic-Curfew, emergency declared; and 12 arrests, millions in damage after looting
Los Angeles Times-Looters rampage across region
Miami Herald -Anger boils over again

However, many others took a more responsible path on today’s front pages. These include:
Washington Post-US at precipice as demonstrations intensify
Atlanta Journal Constitution-Another day of unease
New York Times-Twin crisis and surging anger convulse US
Fort Worth Star Telegraph-Area protests against police brutality continue for third day

Local television news was up a mix of responsible and sensational coverage.

KC’s TV stations did some exemplary reporting under difficult circumstances, especially KSHB-TV, which conducted several revealing interviews with thoughtful protesters about the importance of making their voices heard. One African American woman told KSHB she was marching for her 17-year old son, and didn’t want him to “become a hashtag.” Still, too much local TV over the weekend consisted of frantic, “jump-from-reporter-to-reporter” coverage that ignored the fact that a much larger group peacefully protested during the day on Saturday and Sunday. Images of these daytime peaceful rallies should’ve  been interspersed with the “tense standoff” live coverage in the evenings to provide valuable context for viewers.

In my textbook Peace Journalism Principles and Practices, I produced a short list of how journalists can cover civic unrest more responsibly. These include:
1.Report on “them” (the “other side”) fairly, respectfully, and with empathy.
2.  Report about the invisible causes and effects of the unrest.
3. Use precise and objective language.
4.  Report proactively to facilitate dialogues before violence occurs.
5. Report counter-narratives that provide a different perspective on the protesters, the police, and the community.
6. Report with reconciliation in mind.
7. Give voice to peacemakers on all sides during and after the unrest. The moving, viral video of Minneapolis rapper Killer Mike appealing for justice is a perfect example of this.

Media have an especially large responsibility in times of crisis and civic unrest, a fact underscored by the mayor at his Sunday night press conference. Let’s hope all media take Lucas’ advice, and not lose sight of the much larger transcendent issues of racial and social justice. 

Worst coverage Award
We have a clear winner: The New York Post. Especially noteworthy is the Satan-like depiction of the guy in the cop car. We expect irresponsible and inflammatory for the Post, yet this front page may be a new low, even for them.

READ MORE -