Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON

John, the editor of a small Native American tribal newspaper, asked that VOA protect his identity. His paper, like an estimated 72% of media outlets in Indian Country, is owned and funded by the tribal government. And because the government controls the purse strings, leaders say they have the right to control what gets printed.

Thats why my paper is kind of tame, he said.

He writes about community events, school sports, births and deaths, national news that affects the tribe, but said he never reports on tribal affairs unless, that is, it is something that makes the leadership look good.

I wrote something [negative] a few years back and almost lost my paper, he said. Had the tribal government cut funds as theyd threatened, he would have had to shut down operations.

Native media today

Because they have long been overlooked by mainstream media, citizens of the 574 federally recognized Native American tribes in the U.S. have always relied on their tribes for news and information that affect their daily lives.

The 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) made it illegal for tribal governments to make or enforce any law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

Many tribes have laws protecting First Amendment rights, but enforcement may be lax, and because tribes are sovereign, federal courts dont have jurisdiction over civil rights violations.

In a 1998 article, Protecting the First Amendment in Indian Country, the late Yakama journalist Richard LaCourse described a number interfering actions tribal governments may take to stifle press freedom: hiring unqualified reporters on the basis of blood relation or political unity; firing staff; cutting funds; censoring stories before publication; blocking access to tribal government records and proceedings.

In 2018, the Native American Journalists Association, or NAJA, launched its Red Press Initiative, reaching out to members and asking them about the state of press freedom in their communities.

Only 65 media directors and producers responded, along with nearly 400 consumers. While not an exhaustive survey, it demonstrates that press freedom in Indian Country is inconsistent.

About half of the respondents said they faced censorship; a third said they were sometimes or always required to get tribal leaderships approval before publishing stories; nearly a quarter said tribal government records and financial information were probably not open to journalists; and nearly half said they had faced intimidation or harassment by tribal officials or community members.

Today, NAJA says that a handful of tribal newspapers have managed to overcome these challenges and can serve as models for other tribes.

Rocky road to independence

The Navajo Times, based in Window Rock, Arizona, is one of a handful of Native newspapers to have achieved full editorial independence, but it was decades in coming.

The paper began as a monthly newsletter in late 1959 to keep off-reservation boarding school students up to date on happenings back home. Over the next two decades, editors came and went, and relations with the tribal government were uneven.

In 1982, Peterson Zah was elected Navajo chief, replacing Peter MacDonald, who had held a stranglehold on the office since 1971. MacDonald was, according to one Navajo Times reporter, a man who didnt like to work openly and honestly with the press.

But Zah felt differently and pledged to restore honesty and accountability to the tribal government, along with press freedom, which he said was absolutely necessary in a true democracy.

Zah lived up to his promises, supporting the paper even when it was critical of his policies.

We were completely independent, if not downright ornery, former editor Mark Trahant would later tell the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.

But Zah lasted only one term. MacDonald was reelected chairman in 1986 and shortly afterward closed down the Timeswhich had publicly endorsed his opponentfiring most of its staff. It relaunched four months later as a weekly paper.

Turning point

In 1989, a Senate Indian Affairs committee investigating corruption in Indian Country heard testimony that MacDonald was siphoning tribal money to fund his expensive lifestyle.

It was a time of great turmoil and political divisiveness, said Navajo Times CEO and publisher Tom Arviso, Jr., who had come to the paper as a sports writer in 1983 and by 1989 had been promoted to editor. We just tried to tell the story of what was going on with the leadership and let readers decide for themselves.

The Navajo Times covered it all, said Arviso, provoking anger among MacDonalds supporters.

People threatened me and some of the reporters with physical harm, Arviso said. A group of them actually marched to our office, telling me to come out and face them.

On July 20, 1989, MacDonald announced he was taking back power. With his encouragement, several hundred of his supporters, armed with baseball bats and wooden clubs, stormed tribal offices in Window Rock. In the riot that followed, two people died and 11 were injured, including several police officers.

MacDonald was subsequently convicted on federal fraud, racketeering and conspiracy charges including inciting the riot. He was sent to prison.

Cutting purse strings

In 2000, Arviso was selected for a John S. Knight Fellowship in Journalism at Stanford University, where he studied newspaper publishing and business management.

And that's how we came up with the plan to incorporate the Navajo Times, break away from the government and organize [it] as a for-profit corporation, he said. The bylaws state that the actual owners of the newspaper are the Navajo people themselves.

The tribal council approved the plan in October 2003, and on January 1, 2004, the Times began operating officially as a publishing company.

The tribe has asked that we make a return on the investment that the government has made, he said. But we don't just write a check and say, Heres $50,000. We give it back in services to our people.

Today, the Times serves 23,000 paying subscribers and generates substantial advertising income. But what about smaller tribes, which could never hope to generate that kind of revenue?

Legislative route

When former newspaper reporter and publisher James Roan Gray was elected chief of the Osage Nation in Oklahoma in 2002, he was determined to shake things up. A century earlier, the U.S. government had passed a law restructuring the tribes government and membership qualifications.

We were stuck in an old tribal council structure that really didn't give us much self-determination at all, he said. The BIA [Bureau of Indian Affairs] agreed with us.

Gray envisioned an overhaul of the Osage government, and in 2003 took his case to Washington. H.R.2912, a bill to reaffirm the inherent sovereign rights of the Osage Tribe, passed and was signed as Public Law No: 108-431 in 2004.

The law allowed us to reorganize our government, determine citizenship and chart a future of our own design, Gray said.

After extensive consultation with tribe members, the Osage Nation drafted and approved its first constitution in almost a century. It contains language barring tribal government from making or enforcing any laws restricting a free press.

The tribe passed an independent press act, naming the Osage News as its official newspaper.

Gray also issued an executive order tasking the newspaper to report without bias the activities of the government and the news of interest to foster a more informed Osage citizenry and protect individual Osage citizens right to freedom of speech or the press.

He didnt get everything he wanted: Gray had hoped that the executive branch would have sole control in naming the three-man editorial board. The tribes supreme court, however, ruled that tribal legislators would have equal say in the matter.

We've all learned to live with that structure, he said.

Since then, the tribe has amended the law to protect journalists from being forced to reveal their sources and prohibit leadership from defunding the newspaper.

Raising trust

Bryan Pollard, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, piloted the 2018 Red Press Initiative during his tenure as NAJA president. He cautions against making assumptions.

Its not always because there's an authoritarian regime that wants to control the message, although that exists in some cases. Sometimes, its simply because a tribe doesnt have the capacity to develop the structures and institutions necessary for press freedom, Pollard said.

Today, NAJA works with tribes and Native journalists to educate them on methods of achieving press freedom, and the ways in which it benefits both the tribal leaders and citizens.

Society is better if it is informed, said Gray. Press freedom benefits the tribe if the tribal leadership values the trust of the people.

Some tribal leaders don't trust their own citizens, he added, so they tell them what they think they want to hear in hopes that it will get them reelected.

And if folks don't trust the contents of the tribal newspaper, then no matter what you put out, they're not going to believe youor at the very least, they'll be skeptical, Gray said.

Read the original:
How Native American Tribal Papers Are Forging a Path to Press Freedom - Voice of America - VOA News

Pam Taylor| The Daily Telegram

By the time this appears in print, two things are sure Kyiv, Ukraine, one of Europes oldest cities, will be changed forever, and the lives of all of us will be touched in some way.

Ukraine, the breadbasket of Europe, is rich in the natural resources coveted by others oil, gas, minerals, abundant arable land, clean waterand a warm-water port on the Black Sea.Its history is marred by war and suffering.Yet its strong, resilient people and its cultural traditions survive.

The invasion by the fascist autocrat Vladimir Putin is no surprise. Hes always been transparent about his goals break up NATO and the European Union, weaken the U.S.and rebuild the old Soviet Union.By adopting the anti-gay rhetoric of extremist Russian Orthodox clergy, he retains control through the same kind of unholy alliance between religious leaders and rulers that exists in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia and goes back through the Crusades and the pharaohs of Egypt to the beginning of human history.

Religion provides the fervor (maybe the promise of 72 virgins, eternal glory for hastening the biblical End Times, or some other cosmic reward) and bodies for tyrants to use to gain wealth and power. Fortunately, our Constitutions First Amendment says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….

To achieve these goals, Putin smashed cities in Chechnya and Syria and attacked Georgia. Before Donald Trump invited him to become campaign manager in 2016, Paul Manafort spent a decade as consultant for Ukraines oligarch-backed, anti-NATO Party of Regions and its former Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych. In 2014, Ukrainians tired of Yanukovychs corruption and his turn away from western democracy.They overthrew the Russian puppet government, and Yanukovych fled to Russia.Shortly afterward, Putin annexed Crimea.

Manafort succeeded in removing U.S. support for supplying weapons to Ukraine from the 2016 Republican Party platform.In 2018, Russian operative Marina Butina pleaded guilty to conspiring to infiltrate Republican-affiliated groups and events, including the National Rifle Association and the National Prayer Breakfast, to push Putin's agenda. The NRA allegedly illegally funneled Russian money to Mr. Trumps 2016 election campaign and paid for Republican legislators trips to Russia.

Trump was impeached after he tried to extort Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky by asking him to find dirt on political opponent Joe Biden in return for Trumps release of Congress-approved weapons. Putins supporters here in the U.S. continue to advocate for his version of fascist pseudo-Christian nationalism.

Besides direct military action, the threat of mutually assured destruction, and cyberwarfare, the Russian use of social media to undermine America has been very effective.

Tracked Russian trolls and bots are burrowed in on platforms everywhere, spreading nonsense like this:Mainstream media is fake news; Democrats are leftist murderers and pedophiles who support child trafficking; Hunter Biden something-laptop-Ukraine or China; George Soros (code word for Jews) is behind a New World Order plot to dominate the globe; crisis actors, woke people, elites, public schools and universities, Black Lives Matter, Antifa and the Deep State are in on the plot; lies and quackery about the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and especially about Dr. Anthony Fauci; and the biggest lie of all, that the 2020 U.S. presidential election was somehow stolen. The latest is that there are secret U.S. bioweapons labs in Ukraine, which are used for nefarious purposes.

A shocked talk show host commenting on Ukrainian refugees exclaimed, They look just like me! (Shes white.) Confirmed reports coming out of Ukraine are horrifying. I thought about refugees from wars in the Middle East and Africa, Myanmar, the Uyghurs in China, those fleeing gang wars in Haiti, Central and South America. As many as 68 million, by some estimates.

When it ends, when this madman is finished and theres no food, no water, no clothing, no shelter, no place to lay ones head, I wonder about the survivors. What will become of them?

Pam Taylor is a retired Lenawee County teacher andan environmental activist. She can be reached at ptaylor001@msn.com.

More here:
When the invasion is over, what happens to the survivors? - Monroe Evening News

Let me be perfectly frank. For far too many years, we have been subjected to what Johnny-Come-Latelys want to believe they know about the thoughts, hearts and souls of persons deceased long before Johnny was even a glimmer in his or her mothers expecting eye.

Good literature of our childhood has been pulled from the library shelves because someone now has decided that the author (from then) meant something derogative being hotly attested today. Historical monuments are being pulled off their bases because the subject happened to be a leader of a movement now frowned upon; not considering that said individual had the blessing of the opportunity to examine the advanced understandings may well have made a different choice.

Point being, no one except the good Lord Himself knows the thoughts and meanings of another without intimate knowledge of and opportunity to question the subject themselves, and without the history, advanced understanding rarely comes.

I was stirred up while watching the State of the Union Address. A speech well delivered, whether I agree with the politics behind it or not. However, during the evening, we were subjected to yet another celebrity endorsement of an idea founded on the very principle that persons today believe they can speak to the thoughts, minds and souls of persons of the past to the point that the rest of us should be chastised and driven to their way of thinking.

I suppose the spokesperson was chosen because his father was once the speaker of the annual event, and this should somehow add authority to his words. Once again, the idea of Separation of Church and State has been forced upon us. I want to finally lay this beast (the idea, not the spokesperson) to bed. This notion has been debated for as long as the Constitution of the United States was first signed, or at least since the adoption of the First Amendment in 1791.

I read five of the historically documented arguments in the debate arguing for the notion that the founding fathers intended there to be a separation of church and state. In each argument, without fail, and I quote, the words separation of church and state do not appear in the Constitution, nor the First Amendment.

Each of the arguments went on to say, in one fashion or another, that the idea of its intent was derived through other writings by these same founders. In fact, the most noted document in the history of this debate, a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which the phrase wall of separation was included, happened to have been written to a church convention explaining that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was purposed for the protection of the church against government interference.

The basic premise was that the government would not choose any religion to be the official religion of the country. All statements in accordance with the Establishment Clause were carefully worded to protect each persons right to practice the religion of their choice or no religion at all.

The only fact repeated in these arguments, and therefore known, is that the Constitution of these United States in no way suggests that there should be no reference to religious understanding within the walls or establishments of our government.

This argument that there is has done nothing but scare people away from moral lesson or comment within our government institutions, further eroding the already natural human condition that leads to chaos.

There appears to be, at least based upon the reports of those trying to do important work from within, a serious erosion of basic respect and decency that is vitally important in our schools; the very government institution through which most of our impressionable minds funnel through.

Now I, from personal experience, can tell you that this erosion has been seriously sliding since the 80s and the penalties for those who seek to do the right thing by expecting order and rule in the classroom have stiffened to the point, they just want to throw their hands up and find other career opportunities.

But they hesitate because of their love for their role and the knowledge that should they leave, the chaos would only worsen since, the proverbial monkeys would be in charge of the zoo.

Religion is not an evil word. Religion is applicable for all citizens, for all religions typically have a book for the guidance of those who believe. And, though I only know from one of those books, I can say that the scriptures are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

So even if you are not a believer, there is excellent instruction for morality that would benefit the whole of society.

Please read the following, (ideas and quotes taken from a study book written by Dr. Derwin Gray).

Society is a family of sorts. There are families who understand there is an unstated rule

Dr. Gray is speaking of rules of behavior unwritten, but understood based on traditions, rules and accepted behaviors. Dr. Gray goes on to state, Every family has practices and behaviors that are part of their culture.

Well, religious persons have their own families with their own set of guidelines for behavior. And the family of God is no different.

If there was a poster on the refrigerator in the kitchen of Gods house, stating the rules of acceptable behavior, it would have family rules like these listed:

Be gentle and humble; love each other with patience; use your God-given; abilities ; grow up in spiritual maturity; be generous; speak truthfully; deal with anger and conflict; do not take what belongs to others; watch your words; show compassion; forgive like Jesus forgave you; respect others to earn respect

With rules such as these, who can argue that religious behavior or speech is detrimental to social institution.

Our schools need to return to the days when great advances in science and math were commonplace with moral respectful behavior. This is necessary, so that education can return to the forefront of the institute.

An excellent place to start is to spend more time focused on what needs to be accomplished and less on what wants to be done. Quit starting a civil war with rhetoric based upon fallacy.

Written by the Rev. Robert Henry, Senior Minister Living By Faith Ministries and member of the Pickaway County Ministerial Association for The Circleville Herald.

Here is the original post:
Values for Living: Let us finally put this thing to bed - Circleville Herald

Opinion: Rep. John Kavanagh says his bill outlawing most filming of police will help prevent 'misunderstandings.' Really, it's about giving cops all the say.

Nobody could ever forget police officer Derek Chauvin pressing his knee on George Floyds neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds.

That image will forever be etched on our minds thanks to a bystander who filmed the slow killing, which later sparked racial protests across the nation and ledto a reckoning onpolice brutality in America.

In Arizona, Rep. John Kavanagh and fellow lawmakers backing his House Bill 2319 want to make sure that never happens again.

No. They arent talking about saving the lives of people like George Floyd who had no chance to defend himself in court over the $20 billthat led him to the police encounter.

Instead, theyre seeking to protect cops like Chauvin from losing their jobs or landing behind bars.

HB 2319, which already passed the House and got the green light from a Senate panel this week, would criminalize filming cops on the job. Penalties would include up to 30 days in jail.

It specifically prohibits a person from making a video recording within 8 feet of the officer without that officers permission.

Can you imagine Chauvin actually giving the bystander permission to record the 8 minutes and 46 seconds it took him to kill Floyd?

Laughable, right?

But thats exactly the intent of this bill. Kavanagh, of course, argues that hes just trying to prevent violence and misunderstandings.

He also told the Arizona Mirror that this is to prevent the destruction of evidence and preventing police officers from harm.

Only Republicans keen on protecting the men and blue at all costs believe that. If that were true, Kavanagh and his fellow Republicans supporting the legislation should welcome any and all recordings.

What better way to prevent misunderstandings than having a video to show exactly what happened, just like in Floyds case?

But thats it. They want to keep things under wraps and at the discretion of officers.

The legislation does provide for some exceptions but even those are laughable.

The 8-foot requirement wouldnt apply to indoor situations, but only if the person recording is in an adjacent area or room.

And, oh, the person or persons being questioned could make a video of the encounter as long as they dont interfere with lawful police actions, including searching, handcuffing or administering a field sobriety test.

Do you see why critics say this whole thing is designed to give cops all the say? Thats clear. Criticsalso say the legislation is unconstitutional, notingthat theFirst Amendment protects the publicsright to record police.

First Amendment Watch of New York University noted in discussing Kavanaghs legislation thattheU.S. Court of Appeals in the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh (circuits) have all ruled that the right to record police in public places is protected by the First Amendment.

No doubt Kavanagh's legislation would end up in court shouldit become law.

Not all cops are like Chauvin, who was convicted and sentenced to more than 22 years in prison.

Id say most are good people with good intentions of protecting the public from criminals. I count my nephew patrolling the streets of a northern California town among the good ones.

Not all cops would ever consider pressing their knee on somebody for 8 minutes and 46 seconds.

But cops like Chauvin do exist, and they are the reason why we must not criminalize filming their actions.

Elvia Daz is an editorial columnistfor The Republic and azcentral.Reach her at 602-444-8606 orelvia.diaz@arizonarepublic.com. Follow her on Twitter,@elviadiaz1.

Subscribe to get more opinions content.

Read more:
Film a police officer within 8 feet? You could soon be thrown in jail - The Arizona Republic

Save Yamhill County organizers say commissioner's goal was to misdirect voters days before ballots were mailed

Less than a week before ballots began arriving in mailboxes across the county, attorneys for Commissioner Lindsay Berschauer demanded that the organization seeking her recall, Save Yamhill County, retract statements made on the petitions circulated over the past several months. The embattled commissioner's attorneys threatened legal action if the statements were not retracted.

"On the recall petition filed Nov. 18 during subsequent circulation of that petition, and likely in other subsequent communications, you have made numerous allegations about Commissioner Berschauer without providing factual support," attorney Steve Elzinga of the Portland firm Sherman Sherman Johnnie & Hoyt wrote on Feb. 25.

It appears the threat of legal action was without teeth.

"Despite her promise in her March 4 Facebook Live video to bring a lawsuit against Save Yamhill County, chief petitioner Phil Fovre and myself, we have heard nothing further from either the commissioner or her attorney, and don't expect that she will follow through with her threat," Lynette Shaw, the co-petitioner on the recall effort, said in an email. Berschauer defeated Shaw in a 2020 race for Position 2 on the commission.

Shaw dismissed the threatened lawsuit as a political ploy to distract voters from the real issue: Berschauer's fitness for office.

"Instead of answering the concerns of her constituents or talking with the community about what troubled them enough to call for her resignation, the commissioner has, from the very first day the recall was filed, followed a strategy of casting doubt on the recall effort with lies and mischaracterizations and, even more disturbing, making repeated personal attacks on her constituents who have supported her recall. The threatened lawsuit is just more of the same," Shaw said.

Berschauer countered that her intent in threatening a lawsuit was to maintain the integrity of county governance.

"My purposes in pursuing legal action against this fraudulent recall effort are not only to protect taxpayers from having to pay for these unwarranted and unlawful pursuits in the future (this is costing county taxpayers $80,000), but to also reinforce that recalls should be reserved for egregious and unlawful behavior, not differences of opinion over public policy decisions," she said in an email. "I have also incurred considerable costs in having to defend myself against this unlawful recall attempt, therefore economic damages would be pursued as well."

Berschauer further argued that the wording on the petition, circulated during the first of the year and garnering more than 7,000 signatures, differed significantly from the petition circulated in November that was disqualified by the county on a technical error. She said her team had concerns about the statement on the first petition, but its disqualification rendered it unnecessary to retain an attorney to question its legality.

"When Mr. Fovre filed the second petition, we were shocked to see that his statement changed considerably," Berschauer said. "The language and accusations were markedly different from 'round one.'"

At that point Berschauer hired an attorney, who suggested that the statements were fundamentally false and could be proven as such.

"The statute says that the individual must have known at the time that their statements were false," said Berschauer, who owned and operated a political consulting firm prior to being elected. "We believe, given that Mr. Fovre had spent months on this effort, that he and Save Yamhill County knew the statements provided in the recall petition were false."

Shaw explained that the wording on the petition, technically called a "recall statement," was approved by County Clerk Brian Van Bergen, which allowed SYC to begin circulating the petition and collect signatures.

"That approval happened for this recall on Nov. 18," Shaw said. "The petition is a public document and has been accessible to Commissioner Berschauer and her legal counsel since Nov. 18. We never heard anything from the commissioner or her counsel about the wording on our statement until well after our signatures were submitted for certification and ballots were soon to be delivered to voters."

Shaw said Berschauer's goal was misdirection, plain and simple.

"We believe the commissioner's threat of a lawsuit was intended to harass and intimidate our recall effort," Shaw said. "It's a political strategy she has used with us before: threaten and claim violations of some sort, but never follow through because the damage is done with the threat and misleading messaging that she stands up around it. It's a hardball political tactic, and it has no place here in local politics, especially when used against members of the community."

Shaw responded to Berschauer's threat of legal action with a promise: "If a suit is ever filed, it will most definitely be met with an anti-SLAPP motion. It's highly doubtful she'll take it further, because she understands that this is a classic SLAPP suit, denying us our First Amendment rights, and it's not winnable."

SLAPP is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation and is intended to silence critics by forcing them to mount a costly legal defense. Anti-SLAPP laws were adopted in Oregon and many other states more than a decade ago to protect individuals and organizations from litigation while protecting their First Amendment rights.

Berschauer argued that SYC's actions violated state statute that make it illegal to complete and file a recall petition with reckless disregard and that it contains false statement of material fact related to the public officer subject to the recall.

"We also believe that their actions won't qualify for anti-SLAPP protections given the statute's clear language."

You count on us to stay informed and we depend on you to fund our efforts.Quality local journalism takes time and money. Please support us to protect the future of community journalism.

Read the original post:
Berschauer threat of legal action not carried through - Portland Tribune