Be very afraid, please

Reuters

AMERICA and Israel often hint at military action to stop Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons programme. The latest rumblings, however, may be more serious. The atmosphere has been charged by a combination of factors: Iran’s expanding uranium-enrichment programme, faltering diplomatic efforts to halt it, a dying American administration and a nervous Israel. Throw in the latest war games by Israel, America and Iran—and Iran’s apparent rejection of the latest international incentives to halt its nuclear work—and some reckon the sparks could soon fly.

On July 9th Iranian television showed the test-firing of nine missiles (see picture), a day after an aide to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, threatened to “burn” Tel Aviv and American ships in the Gulf, and strike at America’s “vital interests around the globe”, if it were attacked. More tests took place on July 10th.

This was a response to Israel’s demonstration of its own long arm in June, when about 100 Israeli jets took part in exercises that appeared to rehearse the bombing of distant targets. Western officials were struck by helicopter sorties of more than 800 miles (1,290km), about the distance from Israel to Iran, to simulate the rescue of downed pilots. Israel conducted the exercise with Greece, rather than its traditional partner, Turkey, maybe because Greece has some of the Russian SA-20 anti-aircraft missiles Iran recently bought.

In the Gulf, meanwhile, American, British and Bahraini ships are involved in a joint exercise to protect gas and oil installations. This seems to be a reaction to Iran’s threats to retaliate against any attack by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the passage for roughly 40% of the world’s traded oil, and striking at neighbouring countries.

Does this public bellicosity really make military action more likely? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president, dismissed the idea this week as a “funny joke”. And, yes, Israel could well be bluffing, waving its big stick in order to make the rewards the Europeans, Americans, Russians and Chinese are offering Iran in return for an end to uranium enrichment look more tempting. But whether or not Israel has frightened Iran, it has clearly rattled others.

France’s Total, an energy giant, said this week it was giving up plans to invest in Iran because of the risk. A top British government official puts the chance of an Israeli strike at 30%. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of America’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, was worried enough to say publicly that a third war (after Afghanistan and Iraq) would be “extremely stressful, very challenging, with consequences that would be difficult to predict”. As to whether Israel might act alone, he said: “This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don’t need it to become more unstable.”

One uncertainty is how close Iran is to being able to make a nuclear weapon (an aspiration it vehemently denies). America’s controversial National Intelligence Estimate, made public in December, said that Iran had indeed run a weaponisation programme but seemed to stop it in 2003. The Iranians continue (despite UN sanctions) to enrich uranium, but most Western experts think they have much to learn before being able to make the high-enriched variety for a bomb. America’s estimate is that the soonest Iran could make enough for one device would be the end of 2009, but that it could take five or more years longer.

Israeli officials are less sanguine. So far Iran has produced only a small amount of low-enriched uranium, but this could eventually be converted to the bomb-making sort. For all its sabre-rattling, Israel still says that diplomacy is preferable to war. But a number of political and military considerations may yet convince Israel to act alone—sooner rather than later.

One of these is the departure of the friendly Bush administration and the possible advent of a President Obama, who has promised to do “everything” to stop Iran getting a bomb but who is distrusted by many Israelis. Another is that Iran’s Russian-built reactor at Bushehr is due to start working in October. This is less worrying than the underground enrichment facility at Natanz. But if Israel intends to bomb it, it would be best to do so before it is loaded with nuclear fuel. Finally, it would be easier for Israel to act before Iran deploys its SA-20s, which may happen in early 2009.

That said, an effective attack against Iran’s buried and dispersed nuclear facilities would not be easy, even if Israel knew where all of them were. There will be no element of surprise, as when Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981, and a Syrian facility which America said afterwards was a secret reactor last September.

Another unknown is whether Israel would dare to strike Iran without a green or at least an amber light from the Americans. Without one, flying to Iran the direct way—through American-controlled Iraqi airspace—would be fraught with danger. An unauthorised Israeli strike that added to America’s miscellaneous woes in the Middle East would test even the closest alliance, jeopardising Israel’s relationship with its vital patron and armourer.

Against this must be weighed Israel’s visceral sense of vulnerability, sharpened not only by the Jewish state’s history but also by the implacability of Iran, whose government rules out any accommodation with the “Zionist regime” and repeatedly predicts its disappearance. Nobody can be quite sure that in a corner, confronting what it believed to be existential peril, Israel will not act—alone if necessary.

Zoom in on Iran Zoom out on the Middle East

Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, made headlines again yesterday, with a speech calling for the downfall of both Israel and the United States. Of Israel, the Iranian leader said, “the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime . . . has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene.”

Of the United States, he said, “the time for the fall of the satanic power . . . has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has begun.”

Amid such animosity, we decided it was time to zoom in on Iran. So today, we’ll measure the nation by the numbers and place it squarely on your mental map. Then, tomorrow and Thursday, we’ll retrace Iran’s history, from Alexander the Great to the rise of the current regime.

ran, By the Numbers

1935 - The year Iran asked the West to stop labeling the place “Persia” and to start using the name natives use: “Iran.” The language is still called Persian, though, or Farsi–from the modern province Fars (ancient Parsa, called Persis by the Greeks). Today, Persian is written in Arabic script, a holdover from medieval times, when Persian rulers fell to Islamic caliphs in Damascus and Baghdad.

1979 - The year an Islamic revolution forced Iran’s western-supported shah (”king”) into exile and Iranians voted overwhelmingly to establish an Islamic republic. In the republic, all adult citizens can vote, but clerics can veto laws and candidates deemed un-Islamic.

636,300 - Iran’s total area, in square miles (1,648,000 sq km). That’s slightly larger than the state of Alaska, and nearly four times the size of Iraq. The country sits on a vast waterless plateau, ringed by forbidding mountain ranges. Most of the population lives at the foot of these mountains.

70 million - Iran’s total population. That’s more than France or the United Kingdom, but less than Germany or Turkey. It’s a youthful country–about half of its people are under 25–and increasingly urban. In 1950, about a quarter of the population lived in cities. Now, more than 60 percent do.

7.7 million - The population of Tehran, Iran’s largest and capital city. More than 13 million people live in its metropolitan area, at the southern foot of the Elburz Mountains, not far from the Caspian Sea. More than half of the country’s growing industry is based there.

89 - Percent of the population that is Shi’a Muslim. Nearly everyone else is Sunni Muslim. The Shi’ite branch of Islam is the official state religion, and the nation’s post-revolution constitution guarantees Islamic principles of government.

85 - Percent of government revenues that come from oil. Only Saudi Arabia exports more crude than Iran, which is also one of the world’s leading natural gas exporters.

Iran, On the Map

Get a printable map of Iran’s mountainous geography:
http://knowledgenews.net/moxie/pdf/iran_physical.pdf

Get a printable map of Iran’s mixed ethnicity:
http://knowledgenews.net/moxie/pdf/iran_ethno.pdf

Get a printable map of Iran’s population centers:
http://knowledgenews.net/moxie/pdf/iran_pop.pdf

–Michael Himick

What’s new in Kathmandu

Nepal’s newly elected Constituent Assembly began meeting this week, bringing renewed hope for a democratic future to the Himalayan nation. The Constituent Assembly is charged with governing Nepal while it rewrites the country’s constitution–and hopefully, puts an end to more than a decade of intermittent civil war.

First up on the Assembly’s agenda: toppling Nepal’s 240-year-old monarchy and putting a republic in its place. Unfortunately, changing the government may prove easier than actually governing. Here’s a frame-by-frame replay of Nepal’s recent past to put its current events in perspective.

Instant Replay
Nepal’s Re-Return to Democracy

1990 - Leftist political parties join with the centrist Nepali Congress Party in the “Movement to Restore Democracy”–though democracy had previously existed in Nepal for just 18 months, from 1959 to 1960. Massive demonstrations and strikes compel King Birenda to give up absolute power and become a constitutional monarch.

1991 - Nepal holds parliamentary elections. The Nepali Congress Party carries the day, and Girija Prasad Koirala becomes prime minister.

1994 - Dissension within the Nepali Congress leads to the dissolution of parliament. New elections follow, but no party wins a majority of seats. A minority government led by the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist-Leninist) takes over, making Nepal, for a time, a communist monarchy.

1996 - The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) launches a violent insurgency. Its goal is to topple the monarchy altogether and establish a “people’s republic.” Over the next 10 years, the insurgency will claim more than 13,000 lives and assume de facto control over much of rural Nepal.

1999 - The Nepali Congress again wins a majority of seats in parliament, but party infighting again prevents stable governing. Early in 2000, Girija Prasad Koirala again takes over as prime minister, forming the ninth new government in 10 years. None lasted, and many were corrupt.

2001 - The Maoists spearhead a general strike that shuts down much of the country. King Birenda and other members of the royal family are murdered in a palace massacre. Birenda’s younger brother Gyanendra assumes the throne.

2002 - With more Maoist attacks and another nationwide general strike, King Gyanendra dissolves parliament. A few months later, he fires his council of ministers and calls off parliamentary elections. Instead, he appoints a royalist prime minister of his own.

2004 - In August, the Maoists blockade Kathmandu, preventing supplies from reaching the city for a week. Commentators argue that the Maoist insurgency has led to military stalemate. Nepal’s army doesn’t have the muscle to defeat the Maoists, but the Maoists can’t win either.

2005 - In February, King Gyanendra assumes direct power and suspends civil liberties, citing the need to defeat the Maoists. In September, the Maoists declare a unilateral ceasefire. In November, opposition political parties make a deal with the Maoists designed to restore democracy.

2006 - After three weeks of general strike, King Gyanendra gives up absolute power and reinstates Nepal’s parliament, which promptly strips much of the king’s remaining power. The hard work of putting Nepal back together then falls on a coalition of seven political parties–instigators of the largely peaceful uprising–and on the Maoists.

2008 - Nepalis go to the polls to pick a Constituent Assembly. More than 50 parties field candidates in the election. Maoist party candidates win the most seats, but not enough for a Maoist majority. Nepal’s new rulers will have to succeed where their elected predecessors have failed–in building and maintaining coalitions.

–Steve Sampson

No peeking

Congress and the White House continue to wrangle over a new version of the law that covers the nation’s wiretapping program. The question of the moment is whether people should be able to sue private telecom companies who cooperated with the government after 9/11 and may, in the process, have violated their customers’ privacy rights.

The bigger question, though, is just how far the people’s right to privacy goes–and how to strike a balance between that right and the needs of national security. After all, privacy is every U.S. citizen’s constitutional right, right?

Well, maybe. The U.S. Constitution never specifically says that citizens have a right to privacy. Yet it does say they have rights that aren’t specifically mentioned in the Constitution–and the Supreme Court has ruled that privacy is among them.

Never Enumerate Your Rights

How can the Constitution protect rights it never names? Well, the framers were clever fellows. They realized people might read an enumerated list–like, say, the Bill of Rights–and assume the list was supposed to be exhaustive. So, to make sure their list wasn’t read that way, they wrote a rule against doing so and added it to the list. That rule is the Constitution’s Ninth Amendment, which reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Some scholars read those words strictly as a prohibition that prevents the government from doing whatever it wants as long as it doesn’t violate your enumerated rights. Others argue they imply positive constitutional protection for one or more unenumerated, yet important, rights–such as the right to defend yourself, the right to move from one place to another, and the right to privacy.

Private Penumbras

Many of the Constitution’s amendments are privacy-related. The First Amendment preserves your right to practice your religion and speak your mind. The Fifth Amendment preserves your right to remain silent and your right to private property. The Fourth Amendment preserves “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

In a 1965 privacy rights case, Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court ruled that these “various guarantees create zones of privacy.” Striking down a Connecticut statute that forbade the use of contraceptives even by married couples, the Court held that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” (A penumbra is a partly shaded region at the edge of a shadow.)

Basically, the Court held that the spirit of one of the Constitution’s amendments, or several together, can cast shadows long enough to cover a right–such as marital privacy–that the Constitution doesn’t mention. And, under the Ninth Amendment, such rights are “retained by the people” without being enumerated. Future rulings extended Griswold’s notion of privacy beyond marriage, to strike down fornication and sodomy laws.

Penumbral Problems

Critics of Griswold argue that penumbral privacy rights are a fiction conjured from constitutional shadows. Even some privacy proponents stay away from penumbras, arguing instead that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees privacy by promising not to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Privacy, they say, is essential to liberty.

In fact, the Supreme Court followed that line of reasoning in the most controversial privacy-related case of all: 1973’s Roe v. Wade. According to the majority opinion in Roe, “this right of privacy . . . founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” Clearly not everyone agrees with that argument, either.

–Steve Sampson

The ghosts of campaigns past

Voters in Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and Rhode Island go to the polls on Tuesday to choose their preferred presidential candidates from both major parties. With 444 Democratic delegates at stake, and 265 Republican ones, it’s a big day for both parties.

But what if you’re fed up with all of your current political party options? What it you want to tell Republicans and Democrats alike to take a hike? And what if you don’t like Ralph Nader, or smaller groups like the Greens, the Libertarians, or the Constitution Party, either.

Never fear. We’ve scoured American history to find you four more major political party options. If only you’d been born in another time, you might have found a home in one of these other, now defunct, packs of partisans. Then again, a quick look back might convince you that your current options really aren’t the worst imaginable ones.

Anti-Masonic Party

Born: 1826
Died: 1838
Most members became: Whigs

Mission: To stop the purported subversion of America’s public institutions by the secretive society of Freemasons, to which President Andrew Jackson belonged (Anti-Masons were generally anti-Jacksonians). The party got its start in a scandal following the mysterious disappearance of a New York bricklayer, who was purportedly preparing to reveal the Freemasons’ secrets.

Claim to fame: First “third party” in U.S. history. It was also the first party to hold a national nominating convention and to present voters with a party platform.

Perfect for: People who distrust Microsoft, the CIA, or any other secretive organization that might just be bent on total world domination.

Free-Soil Party

Born: 1848
Died: 1854
Most members became: Republicans

Mission: To prevent the spread of slavery into territories acquired by the United States in the Mexican War (1846-48). In 1846, Pennsylvania congressman David Wilmot introduced his “Wilmot Proviso,” which would have banned slavery from the southwest. The proviso never passed Congress, but it helped launch the Free-Soil Party, whose members believed in “free soil, free speech, free labor, and free men.”

Claim to fame: The Free-Soilers won multiple congressional seats in 1848 and helped swing that year’s presidential election to Whig candidate Zachary Taylor. During the 1850s, the budding Republican Party, which adopted the Free-Soil mission as one of its major planks, largely absorbed the party.

Perfect for: Decent slavery-hating human beings–especially those who know how to farm.

Know-Nothing Party

Born: 1849
Died: 1860
Most members became: Republicans in the North,
Democrats in the South

Mission: To prevent “foreigners” and Catholics–basically, the newly arrived immigrants of the time–from gaining equal rights. In 1849, the anti-immigrant Order of the Star Spangled Banner set up shop in New York City. Soon the secretive order was opening new branches all over the United States. When asked about the organization, members were told to reply that they knew nothing (hence the name).

Claim to fame: Perhaps the largest and most politically effective organization of xenophobes and anti-Catholics in U.S. history. In 1855, 43 members of Congress were Know-Nothings (insert your own joke about how many members of Congress know nothing now). The party was ultimately undone by the same sectarian strife that led to the Civil War.

Perfect for: Racists, xenophobes, and other people who actually know nothing.

Bull Moose Party

Born: 1912
Died: 1916
Most members became: Republicans, when the party’s central figure, Teddy Roosevelt, rejoined the GOP

Mission: To enact the direct election of senators, women’s suffrage, controls on monopolies, restrictions on child labor, and tariff reform. The party formed when progressive Republicans split with the more conservative wing of the GOP, led by then-president William Howard Taft.

Claim to fame: Fought for progressive policies that, for the most part, everyone else has since taken up. The Bull Moosers nominated Teddy Roosevelt for president in 1912 and won 25 percent of the popular vote. That was more than enough to split the GOP, and Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson won.

Perfect for: People who are highly progressive by early 20th-century standards (or those who advocate the return of Teddy Roosevelt to politics).

–Steve Sampson

It used to be part of Yugoslavia. Now it wants independence from Serbia.

Kosovo declared its independence on Sunday. Depending on whom you ask, it is now either a new nation in the Balkans or a renegade province that belongs within Serbia. The United States, the United Kingdom, and France were quick to recognize Kosovo as a country. Serbia, Russia, and China were quick to deny that it’s any such thing. Clearly, it’s time for us to ask some Kosovo questions.

A provisional government handles many of Kosovo’s daily affairs (and proclaimed its independence). But the region has been under UN administration since 1999, when a NATO bombing campaign forced Serbian security forces out. Those forces had been battling an armed revolutionary group, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), since 1996.

While NATO’s bombs ended the Kosovo War, they didn’t resolve the underlying issue. Ethnic Albanians–the vast majority of Kosovo’s population–want independence from Serbia. The Serbs, however, insist that the Kosovars can’t just carve up Serbia to start their own country.

The news often says that Kosovo is “culturally important” to the Serbs. Why it that?

Eight centuries ago, Kosovo was the center of a Serbian empire–the heart of Serbia during what many Serbs consider a golden age. Ever since, the region has been home to important Serbian Orthodox religious sites, including the Decani Monastery, a UNESCO World Heritage site.

Still, for most of the intervening years, Kosovo was not a part of Serbia. In 1389, the Ottoman Turks defeated the Serbs and their allies at the “Battle of Kosovo.” Serbia did not retake Kosovo from the Ottomans until 1912.

How did the heart of an old Serbian empire become a home for mainly ethnic Albanians?

During the Ottoman era, ethnic Albanians–who are mainly Muslim but not Turks–began to migrate into Kosovo. As they moved in, many ethnic Serbs moved out.

Over the years, there was a good deal of ethnic ebb and flow, especially after Serbia retook Kosovo. Yet the overall demographic trend, even after 1912, saw the local Albanian population continue to grow. Today, ethnic Albanians account for about 90 percent of Kosovo’s people.

What’s Yugoslavia got to do with it?

At the end of World War II, many ethnic Albanian Kosovars wanted to unite with Albania. Instead, a new Balkan nation, the “Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,” absorbed Serbia and compelled Kosovo to remain within it as an “autonomous province.” The new nation didn’t last 50 years. In 1991, Yugoslavia began to disintegrate into its constituent republics (all the colorful states on the map above).

Ethnic Albanians in Kosovo again called for separation. But they crashed headlong into a tide of Serbian nationalism. Before long, the KLA formed and went to war against Serbian forces. Serb reprisals led to charges of ethnic cleansing and to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians. Eventually, NATO intervened, and after 11 weeks of bombing, Serbian forces withdrew from Kosovo.

What’s Russia got to do with it?

In addition to being a longtime ally of the Serbs, Russia is worried about the example an independent Kosovo might set for secessionists across the former Soviet Union–including the ones in Chechnya. It isn’t alone in this fear, either. Along with China, other countries facing separatist movements have also come out against Kosovo’s declaration of independence, including NATO members Spain and Greece.

Judah Ben-Hur knew which sport was super

Tens of millions of viewers tuned in last night to watch the Super Bowl–the biggest “big game” on America’s sports calendar. Amid all the bone-crushing competition and superfluous spectacle, we couldn’t help but think about the most brutal and popular game in ancient Rome.

If you’re thinking gladiatorial contests, we have a surprise for you. Yes, the gladiators were popular, but the real action was down the road–in the Circus Maximus. That’s right. The Romans’ biggest “big game” was chariot racing.

ast Times at the CircusRoman chariots raced on tracks called “circuses” (because of their oval shape). The greatest of these, the Circus Maximus, started out simply as a flat space between two hills on which spectators sat. Eventually, it was ringed with bleachers–first of wood, then of stone. Admission was free, and there were seats for as many as 250,000 people. By comparison, the Colosseum sat no more than 50,000.

Most races featured quadriga teams–four horses yoked to each chariot. Up to twelve chariots per race took off from an elaborate starting gate, then sped along a sandy track. The chariots were lightly constructed of wood and, with four horses pulling together, they moved like lightning. But there were seven laps in a race (totaling three or four miles), and the corners were tight, so drivers had to rein their teams just right if they hoped to win–or even live to race another day.

Death Before Defeat

High-ranking Romans weren’t allowed to race in the Circus, so drivers tended to be low born–most were former slaves. With a cash purse riding on every contest, chariot racing was a way for talented men to make a lot of money and climb the social ladder.

Chasing wealth and glory, drivers often threw caution to the horse-sped wind. They wore helmets and wrapped leather around their chests for safety. But they also tied the reins around their waists to free their hands, and that could spell trouble. If a chariot capsized and a driver found himself dragged behind his team, his only chance was to cut the reins with a special curved dagger he wore for that purpose.

With so many teams taking tight turns at high speeds, it wasn’t unusual to see a driver get hurt. The Roman poet Martial wrote a verse in honor of the charioteer Scorpus, who won more than 2,000 races. His career ended abruptly when he took a turn too fast, flipped his chariot, and died.

Curse You, Ben-Hur!

Now, what could make chariot racing even more thrilling? Try team rivalries. Every chariot driver in the Circus Maximus belonged to one of four stables, known by their colors: red, green, white, and blue. Each stable had a star driver, and his teammates worked hard to make sure he won.

Fans identified strongly with favorite teams, and did what they could to cheer its star to victory (or heckle a hated rival to defeat). Archaeologists have even found ancient curse tablets in which fans tried to sabotage their favorite team’s rivals by means of the dark arts.

With so much passion invested in the sport, it’s no wonder that politicians found a way to exploit it. The famous phrase “bread and circuses” refers to the Roman method of distracting disaffected folk with free food and spectacular races at public expense. Better to pay for racing than put down revolt.

In front of a half-tough crowd

President Bush will deliver his final State of the Union address tonight. Well, maybe not his final one. After all, nothing in the Constitution says the State of the Union has to be an annual affair. Article II, Section 3 just says the president “shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

Nothing in there about doing it once a year. Nothing in there about making a speech, either. In fact, presidents from Thomas Jefferson to Woodrow Wilson put their statements in writing. So, how did the State of the Union address get to be the way it is? It all started with George Washington.

Precedents for Presidents

In 1790, President Washington delivered the first State of the Union speech to a joint session of Congress convened in New York City (then the nation’s capital). At 1,085 words, Washington’s address is among the shortest ever. After hearing the president’s proposals, Congress debated, drafted, and delivered a courteous reply promising its cooperation.

So such speeches went until 1801, when Thomas Jefferson became president. Jefferson thought Washington’s approach reeked of royalty. (In fact, the idea for the State of the Union address did derive from a British tradition in which the king opened Parliament with a “Speech from the Throne.”) What’s more, Jefferson thought the Congress had better things to do than debate replies to presidential speeches.

Rather than speaking, Jefferson submitted his message in writing–saving Congress from “the bloody conflict which the making an answer would have committed them.” The next 24 presidents followed Jefferson’s lead rather than Washington’s, delivering written “information” instead of speeches.

Memorable Moments

In 1823, James Monroe used his written message to Congress to lay out the Monroe Doctrine, which declared that “the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.”

In the midst of the Civil War, in 1862, Abraham Lincoln used his message to propose emancipation of the slaves. “The fiery trial through which we pass,” he wrote, “will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation. In giving freedom to the slave we assure freedom to the free–honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve.”

Finally, in 1913, Woodrow Wilson decided to follow Washington’s lead and not Jefferson’s. He gave a speech to both houses of Congress–reestablishing, as he put it, that “the President of the United States is a person, not a mere department of the government hailing Congress from some isolated island of jealous power.”

Media Darlings

Ten years after Wilson’s speech, Calvin Coolidge delivered the first State of the Union address to be broadcast by radio. But most agree that the master of the radio address was Franklin Roosevelt, who in 1941 famously looked forward to a future founded on four freedoms: “The first is freedom of speech and expression. . . . The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way. . . . The third is freedom from want. . . . The fourth is freedom from fear.”

President Harry Truman delivered the first televised State of the Union speech in 1947, but he didn’t do it in prime time. The first president to take full advantage of the power of prime-time TV was Lyndon Johnson, in 1965. The following year saw the first televised opposition response immediately following the address. So much for carefully debated replies.

Events in Pakistan matter to the world.
In this special reference issue, we’ll show you why.

A Peek at Pakistan

Pakistan makes world news headlines all the time. You know that the nuclear-armed nation is both a key U.S. ally in the fight against al-Qaeda and a major base for al-Qaeda. But what else do you know about it?

Find out what you should know now
Get the PDF

Pakistan, By the Numbers

With nearly 165 million people, Pakistan is the world’s sixth most populous country. Only China, India, the United States, Indonesia, and Brazil have more people. Among mainly Muslim countries, Pakistan is the second largest (after Indonesia), and the only one with nuclear weapons.

Put Pakistan squarely on your mental map–
with our summary of its key stats

Pakistan, On the Map

The news often talks ominously of “instability in Pakistan.” With our Pakistan slideshow, you’ll understand why. We’ll show you–using seven different maps–how the nation emerged from British India just 60 years ago and why it faces challenges from practically every side now.

Learn visually about Pakistan–
with our slideshow of detailed maps

Why Kashmir Gives People the Sweats

For 60 years, India and Pakistan have been on the brink of war in Kashmir. Why have both nuclear nations been willing to risk the ultimate conflict? The territorial tiff goes back to Britain’s imperial shrinkage after World War II. Yet the conflict’s cultural roots go far deeper.

Learn why India and Pakistan fight
Get the PDF

Where in the World Is Osama bin Laden?

Who knows! But lots of experts think he’s holed up somewhere in the arid, punishing, mountainous terrain along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border–hiding in a tiny crack in colonial history. Here’s how that crack came to be.

Learn why Pakistan has “tribal areas”
Get the PDF

What would Ben Franklin think?

//

Friends, America’s Federal Communications Commission voted on Tuesday to let media companies own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the nation’s 20 largest media markets. The controversial decision reverses a longstanding ban on such cross-media conglomeration.

Opponents of the change say the old rule helped prevent major media companies from becoming too dominant. Supporters say the new rule simply recognizes a changing media landscape, in which newspapers are struggling to find readers and more folks find the information they need online.

Either way, we say it’s a good time to look back at American media’s roots–to a time when local voices like Ben Franklin’s dominated. After all, before he messed around with lightning or charmed French royalty, old Ben was a newspaperman.

An Ink-Stained Wretch

Back then, printers did it all–interviewing recently arrived ship captains for out-of-town news, writing articles, plagiarizing stories from other newspapers, selling ads, printing the pages, and distributing the final product. In fact, most colonial newspapers sprang from small printshops that employed just the owner and his teenage apprentice.

Ben Franklin started in the printing trade as an apprentice to his older brother, James, who ran a small printshop in Boston. Working there exposed the young Franklin to different kinds of writing and gave him a chance to borrow books on the sly from booksellers’ apprentices.

In those days, printers had to be smart and strong. Composing the pages was a mental feat–type was set letter by letter, using little blocks of metal, and for the page to appear correctly when printed, every line had to be composed in reverse. (Many printers were as adept at reading backward as forward.) After the pages were made, the printer personally pulled the lever on the heavy wooden press to stamp the image–one page at a time. No wonder few colonial newspapers had a press run of more than 300.

The Life and Times of Silence Dogood

James Franklin wanted his publication, the New-England Courant, to be more than the usual collection of 6-month-old news that appeared in other colonial newspapers. So he solicited articles. In 1722, 14 letters appeared in the New-England Courant signed by “Silence Dogood.” The middle-aged widow had a lot to say about the clergy, fashion, and political matters, and people loved it–even if they didn’t know who the Widow Dogood really was.

Using a pen name was common at the time, so everyone knew “Dogood” wasn’t her real name. But no one knew that 16-year-old Ben had actually written the letters, sliding them under the printshop’s door at night.

A year after the Silence Dogood letters were published, Ben ran away from his brother’s employ. (Things got rough for James after he was thrown in jail for suggesting the local authorities were in cahoots with pirates.) Still in his teens, Ben apprenticed with a Philadelphia printer before sailing for London and working there for two years. By 1729, he was back in Philadelphia and publishing his own newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette.

All the News Ben Could Print

The Gazette was like most newspapers of its day–no headlines, few illustrations, and it ran only four pages. What set it apart was Franklin’s lively version of local news. He filled the columns with anecdotes like this one: “And sometime last Week, we are informed, that one Piles a Fidler, with his Wife, were overset in a Canoo near Newtown Creek. The good Man, ’tis said, prudently secur’d his Fiddle, and let his Wife go to the Bottom.” The Pennsylvania Gazette became one of the most successful newspapers of its time.

Colonial newspapers had no separate editorial pages, but they were packed with opinions. Just as he had done in his Silence Dogood days, Franklin often wrote an article in the voice of a fictional citizen. In 1735, he printed a letter purportedly written by an elderly gentleman, who encouraged his fellow Philadelphians to establish a volunteer fire department. The imaginary old man described leaping out the window of a burning house. By the end of the year, the Union Fire Company of Philadelphia had formed.

“Poor Richard” Makes Ben Wealthy

Franklin’s most successful editorial alter ego was “Poor Richard” Saunders, the pen name Franklin used for the 25 years he published Poor Richard’s Almanack. In the colonies, practically every printer published an annual almanac. These thick pamphlets, showing the phases of the moon and predicting the weather, were moneymakers because most literate households purchased one every year.

In 1732, Franklin threw together a 24-page publication with a first-person preface signed by Richard Saunders. The “author,” a destitute stargazer whose shrewish wife threatened to burn all his books and astronomy instruments if he didn’t “make some profitable use of them,” admitted the reason he wrote the almanac was to make a little money and get her off his back.

From 1732 to 1757, Poor Richard’s grew in popularity as readers found more than the usual astronomical charts and tidal tables. Tucked into this almanac were proverbs such as “Early to Bed, and early to rise, makes a Man healthy, wealthy and wise.” Franklin said he saw the almanac as a way to educate folks who might not buy any other books and so “filled all the little spaces that occurred between the Remarkable Days in the Calendar, with Proverbial Sentences, chiefly such as inculcated Industry and Frugality.”

Some years Franklin sold 10,000 copies. Combined with good investments and lucrative printing contracts, the profits from the almanac allowed him to retire from printing at the ripe old age of 42. Of course, Franklin’s “retirement” was more active than many a person’s working life. And though he was hailed as a scientist, diplomat, patriot, and philosopher, at the end of his days, Franklin was still proud of his printshop roots. When he wrote his will at the age of 82, he began: “I, Benjamin Franklin, printer, . . . “

Newspapers around the world searchable from one location online.

Newseum

Ideally, our media would exist to provide quality entertainment as well as useful information that fosters a healthy democracy. But too often it doesn’t, because most of our media only exist only to generate profit.

Here’s how it works: Commercial media generally make their money from advertising. Advertisers pay more to place ads in publications or programs that reach more people — and to reach the people with the most money. So media companies create content (shows, articles, etc.) that attract the biggest and wealthiest audience for advertisers instead of content that serves the interests of the public.

For example:

• Controversial issues are ignored to keep advertisers and corporate parents happy.
• Entire segments of our population — minorities, working people, rural populations and others — are ignored (or misrepresented) because they’re not a “target market” for advertisers.
• Local political affairs, viewed as a ratings “loser,” are ignored.
• TV networks rely on violent or sexually explicit programming to grab the most “eyeballs” and get the highest ratings.
• News becomes just another source of profit, which leads to cost-cutting measures and, in turn, lower-quality news reporting and less quality journalism.

As Lowry Mays, CEO of radio giant Clear Channel Communications, said: “If anyone said we were in the radio business, it wouldn’t be someone from our company. We’re not in the business of providing news and information. We’re not in the business of providing well-researched music. We’re simply in the business of selling our customers products.”

People from all backgrounds and political beliefs are concerned about the state of our media system. Many citizens complain that news media have drifted toward “infotainment” and local interests and standards aren’t adequately represented by local media. Others complain that entire segments of our population are misrepresented in the media, and still others note that broadcast content has coarsened.

Whatever the complaint, however, one thing is for certain: There are underlying structural issues at work that give rise to these problems. Attacking a single symptom — such as indecent programming — does not cure the disease. We must look deeper at the root causes — and solve them.

Our media system is no accident. It’s not the result of “market forces.” It’s the direct result of conscious policy that determines how the “media game” is played.

The key players that make the rules include:

• The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
  • Regulates broadcasting, telephone, cable and satellite companies
  • Charged with ensuring those who use airwaves serve the public interest
  • Enforces regulations and laws passed by Congress
• Congress
  • Enacts media laws (mainly through the Senate Commerce and House Energy & Commerce
  • Appropriates funding for public broadcasting
  • Can overrule FCC decisions and regulations
• The Courts
  • Judge whether FCC regulations meet congressional mandates
  • Decide constitutionality of laws passed by Congress
  • Interpret First Amendment rights
• The President
  • Appoints FCC Commissioners, directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and others
  • Sets policy goals for the FCC, proposes media-related budgets
  • Can veto legislation affecting media
• State and Local Governments
  • Decide which companies are allowed to provide cable and telecom services to a community
  • Negotiate contracts with cable companies that can provide public access TV channels
  • Can create (or block) Community Internet projects providing high-speed access through a public entity

If someday we have a world without journalists, or at least without editors, what would the news agenda look like? How would citizens make up a front page differently than professional news people?

If a new crop of user-news sites—and measures of user activity on mainstream news sites—are any indication, the news agenda will be more diverse, more transitory, and often draw on a very different and perhaps controversial list of sources, according to a new study.

The report, released by the Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ), compared the news agenda of the mainstream media for one week with the news agenda found on a host of user-news sites for the same period.

In a week when the mainstream press was focused on Iraq and the debate over immigration, the three leading user-news sites—Reddit, Digg and Del.icio.us—were more focused on stories like the release of Apple’s new iphone and that Nintendo had surpassed Sony in net worth, according to the study.

The report also found subtle differences in three other forms of user-driven content within one site: Yahoo News’ Most Recommended, Most Viewed, and Most Emailed.

The question of whether citizens define the news differently than professionals is becoming increasingly relevant. It started with offering visitors a sense of what others found interesting: what news stories were most emailed and most viewed?

Soon, establishment news sites like CBSNews.com allowed users to make their own newscasts. Then, names like Digg, Reddit and Del.icio.us emerged as virtual town squares that became a way to measure the pulse of what the web community finds most newsworthy, most captivating, or just amusing. The trend continues, as even Myspace, the social networking site popular among 20-somethings, has launched a news page (http://news.myspace.com).

Indeed, these user-driven sites have entered the news business, or perhaps more accurately, they have entered the news dissemination business. Reporting is not a part of their charge. Instead, they turn to others for content and then they bestow users with the task of deciding what makes it on the page.

What do individuals do with that power? What kind of events or issues do they choose to highlight? And how does it differ from the news the mainstream press offers?

To find out, PEJ took a snapshot of coverage from the week of June 24 to June 29, 2007, on three sites that offer user-driven news agendas: Digg, Del.icio.us and Reddit. In addition, the Project studied Yahoo News, an outlet that offers an editor-based news page and three different lists of user-ranked news: Most Recommended, Most Viewed, and Most Emailed. These sites were then compared with the news agenda found in the 48 mainstream news outlets contained in PEJ’s News Coverage Index.

A total of 644 stories from the three user-driven sites and Yahoo News’s three most popular pages were coded for the study and then compared to 1,395 stories from the same time period in PEJ’s News Coverage Index. The report first compared the content of the user-sites to that of the mainstream press. Next, it compared the three user-sites to each other. Finally, the study looked at the three user-oriented pages on Yahoo News, comparing them to Yahoo’s editor-selected news page, to the other user-sites, and to each other.

Some key findings include: