In every news organization, there's an individual who sets the tone of the place. A classic example is the golden age of television news; for about fifteen years, Fred Friendly defined noble standards at CBS news, far more than celebrated figures such as Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite. While some set high goals, others aim low, even though we don't usually hear boasts about that part in their memoirs. But it would be interesting to know, for example, what publisher at The New York Times began their tradition of taking cheap shots at leftists in their own obituaries.

Previous Monitor editorials described how the NY Times demeaned activist Judi Bari and one of our century's top journalists, George Seldes. Their latest target is Dr. Benjamin Spock, profiled in the Monitor just a few days earlier.

According to the front page June 20 story, the new edition of his famous "Baby and Child Care" book recommends a vegetarian diet and no dairy products after two years old. In quick order, the Times calls the suggestion "demanding," "too extreme," and quotes one pediatrician as dismissing the idea as "absolutely insane." Exactly half of the 28 paragraphs in the story offer sharp criticism of what The Times dubs an "all-plant diet" -- itself a gross distortion. Quotes from five pediatricians criticize the recommendations.

The other half of the article can only generously be dubbed neutral or slightly in favor, paraphrasing ideas directly from the book. Quoted on the pro-Spock side are only his widow and co-author. Even that "neutral" portions of the article works to undermine his views. Much is made of his own "very committed" switch to a vegetarian diet in 1991, winking that he might have had a personal bias.

Of the entire article, a meager four sentences explain why the doctor encouraged a vegetarian diet, and that section was buried near the end, with not a single person quoted in support of a vegetarian diet for health reasons. (June 20, 1998)

An official of Occidental Petroleum (Oxy) has confirmed that the company will not explore for oil on lands claimed by the U'wa people of Colombia. As reported earlier in the Monitor, the 5,000 U'wa threatened mass suicide by jumping off a tall cliff if oil exploration is allowed to take place on reservation lands or on they claim as part of their traditional homeland. The tribe has a cultural tradition of mass suicide, but an Occidental Petroleum spokesperson says the threat had nothing to do with contract renegotiations now underway in Colombia.

Oxy spokesperson Larry Meriage says it has been the position of Oxy from the beginning that, "We have never been on these lands. We had no intention of being on these lands without their express permission...This issue has been grossly distorted by activists in the U.S.," Meriage told Environmental News Service in an interview. "The company has been accused of things of which it was not guilty."

A British Petroleum spokesman told UPI that the areas allocated for oil exploration will be returned to the state in exchange for different areas in the crude rich region.

The U'wa, a highly traditional and unacculturated people, believe that oil is the blood of the earth and that to extract it is equivalent to committing matricide. Los Angeles activists staged a dramatic protest in support of U'wa demands in April at the Oxy corporate headquarters building on Wilshire Boulevard where they inserted an enormous oil pipeline into the lobby and splashed it with fake blood. (ENS June 6, 1998)

Let's play... Economic "Jeopardy!" Here's the quiz: Its economy plunging since last fall, this major Asian power expects billions of dollars from America to prevent total collapse, but the U.S. media doesn't explain the root cause of their crisis. No, it isn't Indonesia (although the scenario fits that country equally well); the correct answer is -- Japan.

As described in the previous 404 report, the American press fumbled recent coverage of Indonesia, failing to report the scope and drama of a historic popular uprising. Instead, U.S. media seemed determined to shield the status quo, playing it merely as a finance story; most attention was given to the IMF bailout, long-term prospects for stability, and other concerns important to nervous investors. Now that Japan faces economic catastrophe, the American press again skims over crucial parts of that story.

If you read the business pages, you know the basic facts: Japan's economic bubble popped in the 1980s and hasn't recovered since. Their stock market index currently is less than half of its 1989 record high, and the yen bobbles unsteadly, sometimes worth as little as 146 to a dollar. On June 17, Clinton pledged to spend $2 billion buying Japanese currency to shore up their economy while reforms are made.

What's behind Japan's problems? Most U.S. articles are fuzzy on details, mentioning only that major Japanese banks have $600 billion in "bad debt" and that "intervention" will probably be necessary to "restructure" the nation's banking system -- although no one's quite sure what that means.

But like the reporting on Indonesia, the Asian press not only provides more coverage but also tells a dramatic story missing in American media. Read Singapore, Thai, or other Asian news or business papers and you'll find widespread corruption often described as part of the underlying problem. One sort is called "crony capitalism," a newly- coined phrase for government officials awarding lucrative contracts to friends. Bankers were also loaning staggering amounts of money on no more collateral than a handshake. And even the influence of the secretive Japanese mafia, the Yakuza, long involved with property development and construction, is being openly blamed.

While such corruption is a serious threat, leaders such as Malaysian premier Mahathir Mohammad insist that their greatest problem is foreign investors -- including many in the U.S. -- who speculate on the value of their currency. Thanks to the computer speed of modern international commerce, foreign exchange speculators and stock funds were able to jerk the rug out from under Southeast Asia last year by transferring billions of dollars in a matter of minutes. Mahathir was widely quoted in the Asian press: "Some of these (Asian) governments are the ones that have developed their economies for 30 years. In June (1997) they were all right. In July, suddenly they were found to be bankrupt."

Once the value of their currency fell, bankers began calling in short-term loans. Their cronies were given special treatment (of course) so it was mainly smaller and mid-sized business that had to quickly find cash or go bankrupt. As a result, thousands of profitable companies were forced to shut down, and an estimated 20 million workers lost their jobs.

What should be done? Mahathir and other leaders say that some sort of regulation on currency speculation is urgently needed, but that unpopular message doesn't appear in the U.S. press. Also avoided are comparisons made to our own S&L crisis, even though the parallels are obvious: Japan's loose banking practices might make even Charles Keating squeamish. (June 26, 1998)

As discussed before, newspapers have taken to Internet bashing as their own circulation figures slip -- is it surprising that the papers are working overtime to trash the credibility of anything found on the Internet? June was a particularly fertile month, with a new swipe every week.

Begin with Matt Drudge's appearance at the National Press Club on June 2. Attacking Drudge was a hostile audience asking leading questions such as, "How much do you embroider or make up in your online items?" That he refused to snivel or apologize seemed to only make matters worse. A few days later, a Washington Post op/ed commented that Drudge might indeed be the harbinger of things to come -- a future where readers must be more skeptical about their news. "This rumbling is what the new E-journalism is all about," wrote James K. Glassman of the American Enterprise Institute. "...Drawing on his own instincts to assess the item's veracity, [Drudge] tells the readers and they can check it out [on linked web pages] ... Let Drudge write his version of truth, and let readers judge for themselves."

Later in June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that AOL wasn't responsible for content posted by its subscribers. Like many papers, the Santa Rosa (California) Press Democrat used it as another opportunity to puff up and croak that they were a trusted source of accurate info: "...newspapers publish articles, opinions and advertising with the full knowledge that they can be held legally liable for every day's contents. But controlling what goes into a newspaper is one thing: controlling what goes on the Internet is quite another... It doesn't take any expertise, knowledge, or permission to put your thoughts out there for all the world to see..."

In between these events, the Internet was blamed for falsely killing Bob Hope. On June 6, the SF Chronicle front page headline was typical: "Bob Hope Is still very much alive: Comedy of errors after mistaken report on the Internet."

But look closely at each of these events and you'll find the stories deceptive. The premature death of the comedian was an accident made by Associated Press, the oldest newswire service around. The only Internet connection was the AP web page where the flub first appeared.

Northern California readers of the Press Democrat know that their newspaper can hardly claim to be a source of great accuracy; as writer Nicholas Wilson describes (once again) in a letter to the editor, that newspaper has repeatedly refused to print accurate and truthful information about the unanimous jury aquittal of "Bear" Lincoln, or correct its errors.

Similarly, the Washington Post has a dreadful record for reporting of late; as explained in the Monitor "Counting Lewinskys" editorial, the Post led the race to the bottom during the early days of the Lewinsky blowup, with the newspaper using anonymous tipsters a whopping 84 percent of the time. "Let readers judge for themselves," indeed.

And making cheap attacks against Drudge's credibility is familiar; in fact, it's almost become a mini-industry among editors and pundits nationwide, as we described in an earlier 404 item. Drudge, however, is nothing new; that same 404 report explains that he's more of a throwback to a kind of journalism practiced fifty years ago.

As for the greater ethical standard of mainstream vs. "E-journalism," it's worthwhile to note that also in June, the publisher of the Los Angeles Times apologized for suggesting that newspaper articles should be "more emotional, more personal, less analytical" in order to attract women readers. (June 27, 1998)