That word would be corruption:

Over at FPA Central Asia, I’ve been tweaking noses concerning the way that Western media reports upon emerging country politics.  The clear, transparent, and honest standard should apply everywhere as a matter of principle, and of course it’s right to take emerging states to task over this significant barrier to safety, progress, and prosperity.  But it would be nice if “the emerged” could also own up to their problems when they start shaking their heads and pointing their fingers.   

Recent news items in the U.S. press appear to confirm that there is no monopoly on corrupt or misleading practices in emerging markets.   

A. In this story by the Washington Post, Karl Rove, soon-to-be-former White House strategist, marshalled adminstration officials, their national visits, and  government projects to aid Republican legislative incumbents, particularly in districts that did not have clear-cut Congressional races.  This would be in contrast to a system that awarded projects according to need, or ease of distribution, or economy of cost.

B.The NYT reports that Wikipedia entries concerning major corporations have been edited by those self-same corporations to either remove blemishes on their record or change the wording to something more favorable.  This link also has examples of corporate edits.  Along the same lines, Mr. Mikkelson at Reuters preceded the NYT by giving examples of edited CIA and FBI edits of Wikipedia entries.  BBC is reporting on Australian edits to Wikipedia entries on Australian issues, and Vatican edits to Wikipedia entries of Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein.

C. And in the U.S., land of the free press, the following: On July 10, Richard Carmona, former Surgeon-General of the United States, testified to Congress that he has been warned to suppress knowledge in the public interest on public health concerning mental health, stem cells, and emergency contraception.  The Federation of American Scientists notes that “political pressure on scientists is not new” but decried the scope and degree of this new pressure from the Bush II Administration.  This also fits in with a story about NOAA, the Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which suppresses  study results on global warming, first in the Washington Post in February of 2006.

D. Former U.S. Senators are allowed to use their campaign chest to further legislation on behalf of their business interests.

Quite frankly, it’s C. the suppression of scientific information/information in the public domain that I consider to be the most pernicious.  Because knowledge is power, and when you can’t access it, or can’t trust what you access, it causes one to operate in a pre-determined ignorance.  I’m just so appalled by it, and by extension, the hypocrisy that determines that “the other” needs to clean house while the self-righteous self sits in the sty.

Advertisements