Words that Saved the World

The Sunday Times (Sri Lanka) asked me to list the best book I’ve read in 2013 (and why); and also for the book I’d like to receive as a Christmas present.

I wrote a short piece in response, which is included in their feature titled ‘Leafing through the best picks’ on 22 Dec 2013.

Here’s my essay in full: it wasn’t easy to pick one good title in a year in which I read many enjoyable and mind-stretching books.

Word power amplifies political power...

Word power amplifies political power…

Words that Saved the World

By Nalaka Gunawardene

Although it lasted only a thousand days, John F Kennedy’s presidency was eventful and memorable in many respects. His legacy has inspired an estimated 40,000 books and films. This year, which marked the 50th anniversary of his assassination, I read an exceptional addition to this (still rising) pile.

To Move the World: JFK’s Quest for Peace (Random House, 2013), by Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs, revisits the extraordinary days from October 1962 to September 1963. That was JFK’s Annus mirabilis (Year of wonders) when he marshalled the power of oratory and political skills to achieve more peaceful relations with the Soviet Union and a dramatic slowdown in the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

During that year, which started with momentous ‘13 days’ of the Cuban missile crisis, JFK he gave a series of speeches where he argued that peace with the Soviet Union was both possible and highly desirable. One delivered to the American University in Washington DC in June 1963 is generally referred to as his Peace Speech. Sachs shows why it was one of the most important foreign policy speeches of the 20th Century – ultimately more consequential than any other by JFK.

If Winston Churchill “mobilized the English language and sent it into battle” during World War II, Kennedy used his mastery of the same language to talk the US and Soviet Union down from the brink of a planetary nuclear war.

What I’d love to get for Christmas is Madiba A to Z: The Many Faces of Nelson Mandela (Seven Stories Press, 2013) just written by my journalist friend Danny Schechter. We can count on Danny, who has spent 40 years chronicling the story of Mandela and South Africa’s struggle for freedom and equality, to provide plenty of depth, nuance and analysis.

Nalaka Gunawardene is a science writer and blogger.

Advertisements

සිවුමංසල කොලූගැටයා #126 නෙල්සන් මැන්ඩෙලා: ගමන නොනිමෙයි!

In this week’s Ravaya column (in Sinhala), I pay tribute to Nelson Mandela whose 95th birthday was on 18 July 2013 — which was marked worldwide as Nelson Mandela Day.
See also my English essay published earlier this week:

Waiting for My Own Mandela…not any longer!

(Note: The two cover similar ground, but I don’t translate myself.)

President Nelson Mandela at UN General Assembly Oct 1995 - UNDPI Photo by G  Kinch

‘‘පිටසක්වල බුද්ධිමත් ජීවීන් රැගත් යානයක් පැමිණ ඔබේ ලෝකයේ නායකයා වෙතට අප යොමු කරන්න යැයි ඉල්ලා සිටියොත් මා නොපැකිලාව කියන්නේ නෙල්සන් මැන්ඩෙලා හමු වන්නට කියායි. ඔහු තරම් අපේ මානව සංහතියේ ඉදිරි දැක්ම හා අපේක්‍ෂා සංකේතවත් කළ තවත් නූතන නායකයකු මට නම් සිතා ගන්නට බැහැ.’’

මා එසේ (ඉංගී‍්‍රසියෙන්) ලිව්වේ මීට දශකයකට පමණ පෙර. එය කියවූ බොහෝ දෙනෙකු එයට එකඟ වූයේ දකුණු අපි‍්‍රකානු නායකයා වැනි පරමාදර්ශී චරිතයක් මුඵ ලෝකයේ ම දායාදයක් වන නිසායි. සියඵ මතවාද පසෙක දමා අප නෙල්සන් මැන්ඩෙලා වෙනුවෙන් එක් සිත් වන්නේ එබැවින්.

මැන්ඩෙලා ජනාධිපති සිටියදී වරක් ඔහුට සජීව ලෙස සවන් දීමේ අවස්ථාව මට ලැබුණා. ඒ 1995 ඔක්තෝබරයේ එක්සත් ජාතීන්ගේ සංවිධානයට වසර 50ක් පිරීම නිමිත්තෙන් අමෙරිකාවේ නිව්යෝක් නුවර එජා මූලස්ථානයේ පැවැත් වූ රාජ්‍ය නායක මහ සමුඵවේදී. ලෝක ව්‍යාප්තව තරගකාරී මට්ටමින් පිරිනැමෙන මාධ්‍ය ශිෂ්‍යත්වයක් ලබා මා ඒ දිනවල සිටියේ එජා සංවිධානය අධ්‍යයනය කරමින් හා වාර්තා කරමින්.

1995 ඔක්තෝම්බර් 22-24 තෙදින තුළ රාජ්‍ය නායකයන් හා ආණ්ඩු නායකයන් 150කට අධික සංඛ්‍යාවක් එහි පැමිණියා. ඒ අතර කියුබාවේ ෆිදෙල් කැස්ත්‍රෝ, පලස්තීන නායක යසර් අර්ෆත් ආදී විචිත‍්‍ර චරිත සිටියත් මා ඉතා  ඕනෑකමින් සවන් දුන්නේ නෙල්සන්  මැන්ඩෙලාටයි.

මෙබඳු විශෙෂ අවස්ථාවල හැම රාජ්‍ය නායකයාට ම ලැබෙන්නේ විනාඩි 5ක් පමණයි. අන් බොහෝ නායකයන් සාම්ප‍්‍රදායික රාජ්‍ය තාන්ති‍්‍රක කථා කරද්දී තමන්ට ලැබුණු තත්පර 300න් මැන්ඩෙලා උපරිම ප‍්‍රයෝජන ගත් සැටි මට මතකයි.

එය දාර්ශනික වූත්, කාව්‍යමය වූත් කථාවක්. සියඵ දකුණු අප‍්‍රිකානුවන්, සියඵ අපි‍්‍රකානුවන් මෙන් ම දුප්පත් හා අසරණ ලෝකයේ සැම තැනෙක ම වෙසෙන සියඵ දෙනා වෙනුවෙන් ඔහු කථා කළා. එසේ කථා කිරීමේ සදාචාරමය අයිතියක් ඔහුට තිබූ බවට විවාදයක් නැහැ.

නිව්යෝක්හි ගත කළ සති කිහිපයේ මගේ කාමර සගයා වූයේ එවකට 25 හැවිරිදි වූ, දකුණු අපි‍්‍රකානු විද්යුත් මාධ්‍ය සංස්ථාවේ (SABC) නිෂ්පාදක ඩාන්ටේ මෂීලේ (Dante Mashile). 1990දී වර්ණභෙදවාදී ප‍්‍රතිපත්ති අත් හිටු වන විට ඔහුට වයස 20යි. මේ නිසා කඵ සමක් සහිතව ඉපදීම නිසා ම සිය මවු රටේ විදින්නට සිදු වූ අවමන් හා අසාධාරණකම් ගැන අත්දැකීම් හා මතකයන් ඔහුට තිබුණා.

මැන්ඩෙලා ඇතුඵ ANC (African National Congress) පාක්‍ෂිකයන්ගේ දශක ගණනක අරගලය නිසා නොවන්නට තමා වැන්නකුට කිසි දිනෙක SABC නියෝජනය කරමින් පිටරටකට යන්නට හෝ තමන්ගේ කුසලතාවන්ට සරිලන රැකියාවක නිරත වන්නට හෝ ඉඩ නොලැබෙන බව ඩාන්ටේ පුන පුනා කී දෙයක්.

1994 වසර ඩාන්ටේගේ රටේ මෙන් ම මගේ රටේත් දේශපාලන සංධිස්ථානයක් සනිටුහන් කළා.

1994.04.27දා පැවැත් වූ, දකුණු අපි‍්‍රකාවේ සියඵ වැඩිහිටියන්ට සර්වජන ඡුන්ද බලය හිමි වූ මුල් ම මහ මැතිවරණයෙන් ANC ජයග‍්‍රහණය කළා. එහි නායකයා හැටියට මැයි 10දා නෙල්සන් මැන්ඩෙලා දකුණු අපි‍්‍රකානු ජනාධිපති ලෙස දිවුරුම් දී වැඩ ඇරඹුවා.

ශී‍්‍ර ලංකාවේ ජනාධිපතිවරණ ඉතිහාසයේ එදා මෙදා තුර අපේක්‍ෂකයකු ලද ඉහළ ම ඡුන්ද ප‍්‍රතිශතය (62%) ලබමින් චන්ද්‍රිකා බණ්ඩාරනායක කුමාරතුංග ජනාධිපති බවට පත් වූයේ ඊට මාස කිහිපයකට පසු 1994 නොවැම්බර් 12දා.

1995 ඔක්තෝබර් වන විටදීත් මේ නායකයන් දෙපළ ගැන අපේක්‍ෂා රැසක් ඩාන්ටේ හා මා වැනි තරුණයන් තුළ පැවතුණා. නිව්යෝක් නුවර වැස්ස හා සීතල මැද්දේ හිමිදිරියේ අපේ දෙරටේ නායකයන් එජා සමුඵව අමතනු අසන්නට අප පෙළ ගැසුණේ ඒ නිසායි. ලෝක ඉතිහාසයේ එතෙක් පැවති ලොකු ම නායක හමුවට දැඩි ආරක්‍ෂක රැකවරණ යොදා තිබුණා.

1994-1999 වකවානුවේ පස් අවුරුදු ධූර කාලයක් නිමා කළ මැන්ඩෙලාට ලෙහෙසියෙන් ම තවත් ධූර කාලයකට නීතමය අවසරය තිබුණා. ජන ප‍්‍රසාදය ද පැවතුණා. එහෙත් බොහෝ අපි‍්‍රකානු නායකයන් මෙන් බලලෝභීව තනතුරේ එල්ලී සිටිනු වෙනුවට ඔහු ගෞරවනීය ලෙස විශ‍්‍රාම ගියා.

ඒ වන විට මුඵ ලෝකයට ම ආදර්ශයක් වන ඉතා ප‍්‍රගතිශීලි නව ව්‍යවස්ථාවක් හා තවත් ජන හිතකාමී රාජ්‍ය ප‍්‍රතිපත්ති රාශියක් ඔහු හඳුන්වා දී තිබුණා. ජනපි‍්‍රයත්වය සඳහා සිල්ලර වැඩ කරනවා වෙනුවට දිගු කාලීනව හිතකර ක‍්‍රමීය වෙනස්කම් කිරීමත්, ඒ සඳහා අවශ්‍ය බහු විධ මත සන්ධානයන් ගොඩ නැගීමත් මැන්ඩෙලාගේ සුවිශෙෂී නායකත්වයේ සළකුණක්.

අඩ සියවසක් තිස්සේ වර්ණභේදවාදී රාජ්‍ය තන්ත‍්‍රයට පෑගී, මිරිකී සිටි බහුතරයක් දකුණු අපි‍්‍රකානුවන් තමන්ගෙන් ඉක්මන් ප‍්‍රතිඵල බලාපොරොත්තු වන බව මැන්ඩෙලා දැන සිටියා. එමෙන්ම ඓතිහාසික අකටයුතුකම් හා අසාධාරණයන් ගැන කල්ගත වී හෝ විභාග කිරීමත්, යුක්තිය ඉටු කිරීමත් අවශ්‍ය බව ඔහු තේරුම් ගත්තා.

එසේ වුවත් දකුණු අපි‍්‍රකාව නිජබිම කර ගත්, බුද්ධිමත් හා කාර්යශූර සුදු හම ඇති විශාල පිරිසක් සිටින බවත්, නව දේශය ගොඩ නැංවීමේදී ඔවුන්ගේ අත්දැකීම් හා දක්‍ෂතා නැතිව බැරි බවත් මැන්ඩෙලා දුරදක්නා නුවණින් වටහා ගත්තා.

මුඵ ලෝකයේ ම ප‍්‍රශංසාවට ලක් වූයේ දශක ගණනක් කඵ ජනයා හිංසනයට හා පීඩනයට ලක් කළ සුදු දකුණු අපි‍්‍රකානුවන් (රාජ්‍ය නිලධාරීන්, ආරක්‍ෂක හමුදා හා පොලිස් නිලධාරීන්, වර්ණභෙදවාදය සාධාරණීකරණය කළ අවස්ථාවාදී විද්වතුන්) සියඵ දෙනාට සමාව දීමේ අසාමාන්‍ය කි‍්‍රයාදාමයයි.

රාජ්‍ය බලය හා පාර්ලිමේන්තු බහුතරය යොදා ගෙන සුදු දකුණු අපි‍්‍රකානුවන්ගෙන් පළි ගැනීමට මැන්ඩෙලාට  ඕනෑ තරම් අවකාශ තිබුණා. වර්ණභෙදවාදය යටතේ දැඩි කොන්කිරීම් හා වද දීම්වලට ලක් වූ ANC පාක්‍ෂිකයන් සමහරුන් ද බල කර සිටියේ එබන්දක් කළ යුතු බවයි.

එහෙත් වෛරීය හෝ ද්වේශ සහගත මාර්ගයක් වෙනුවට සමාව දෙමින් පාඩම් උගැනීමේ මාර්ගයට (forgive, but not forget) අමාරුවෙන් වුවත් මේ විශාල රට යොමු කරන්නට මැන්ඩෙලා සමත් වුණා.

ඔහුගේ නායකත්වය යටතේ මේ ආදර්ශවත් මානුෂීය පිළිවෙත් කි‍්‍රයාත්මක කරන්නට තවත් දේශපාලන හා සමාජ නායකයන් ගණනාවක් ඉදිරිපත් වීම තීරණාත්මක ලෙස බලපෑවා. 1984 නොබෙල් සාම ත්‍යාගය ලද, වර්ණභෙදවාදයට ජීවිත කාලය ම එරෙහි වූ කේප්ටවුන්හි ආච්බිෂොප්වරයා ලෙස කටයුතු කළ ඩෙස්මන්ඞ් ටූටූ (Desmond Tutu) ඒ අතර කැපී පෙනුණා. දකුණු අපි‍්‍රකාවේ සත්‍යය සෙවීමේ හා සංහිදියාවේ කොමිසමේ ප‍්‍රධානියා ලෙස 1995-98 කාලයේ ඔහු දැඩි සංයමයකින් යුතුව මෑත ඉතිහාසයේ මානව හිමිකම් උල්ලංඝනයවීම් විමර්ශනය කළා. (South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission)

මැන්ඩෙලා කිසි දිනක මුණ ගැසී කථා නොකළත් ඔහුගේ කථාව ලොවට කී හා ඔහුගේ අරගලයට සහාය දුන් ලේඛකයන් දෙදෙනකු හදුනා ගන්නට මට අවස්ථාව ලැබුණා. මේ දෙදෙනා ම සමේ වර්ණයෙන් සුදු වීම ඔවුන්ගේ කාර්යයට කිසිසේත් බාධාවක් වූයේ නැහැ.

කි‍්‍රස්ටිනා ස්කොට් (Christina Scott) කැනඩාවේ උපත ලබා පසු කලෙක දකුණු අපි‍්‍රකාවට සංක‍්‍රමණය වූ ලේඛිකාවක් හා රේඩියෝ මාධ්‍යවේදිනියක්. ඇය, මැන්ඩෙලා ගැන චරිතාපදානයක් රචනා කළා. ඔහුගේ ජීවිත කථාව හා නිදහසේ අරගලය ගැන සරල ඉංගී‍්‍රසියෙන් කියැවෙන ඒ කෘතිය සඳහා විවිධ අවස්ථාවල ඇය මැන්ඩෙලා හා ඔහුගේ කාර්ය මණ්ඩලය සමග තොරතුරු ගවේෂණය කළා.

මැන්ඩෙලා හා ANC ගැන 1960 දශකය මැද සරසවි සිසුවකුට සිටින කාලයේ පටන් මහත්  ඕනෑකමින් වාර්තා කරන අනෙක් මිතුරා නම් අමෙරිකානු මාධ්‍යවේදී ඩැනී ෂෙක්ටර් (Danny Schechter). වර්ණභේදවාදයට එරෙහි අරගලය බටහිර මාධ්‍ය වලින් දිගට ම වාර්තා කිරීමේ දී ඔහු ඉමහත් සේවයක් කර තිබෙනවා. South Africa Now නම් ටෙලිවිෂන් කාලීන පුවත් වැඩසටහනක් වසර තුනක් (1988-1991) සතිපතා නිෂ්පාදනය කළ ඔහු මැන්ඩෙලා ගැන ගවේෂණාත්මක වාර්තා චිත‍්‍රපට පහක් ද නිපදවා තිබෙනවා.

ඩැනී කියන්නේ මැන්ඩෙලා සිය දිගු ජීවිතය පුරා යථාර්ථයේ අභියෝගවලට ප‍්‍රතිචාර දක්වමින් පරිනාමය වූ බවයි. තරුණ වියේ රාජ්‍ය හිංසනයට එරෙහිව ඔහු යටිබිම්ගත විප්ලවවාදියකු වුණා. මර්දනකාරී රාජ්‍යයට එරෙහිව සැළසුම් හා ආක‍්‍රමණ කළා. ඉනික්බිති දේශපාලන සිරකරුවකු ලෙස ඔහු වඩාත් තර්කානුකූලව හා සානුකම්පිත ලෙසින් සිය රටේ ගැඹුරට කිදා බැස ගත් බෙදීම්වලට මුල අවබෝධ කර ගෙන විසඳුම් ගවේෂණය කළා.

ප‍්‍රතිපත්තිගරුක එහෙත් ප‍්‍රායෝගික නායකයකු ලෙස මැන්ඩෙලා විවිධ මතධාරී කැරලිකරුවන් හා කි‍්‍රයාකාරිකයන් ඒකරාශී කළා. ඔවුන්ගේ සිතුම් පැතුම් හා අපේක්‍ෂා බිඳ වැටෙන්නට නොදී දිගු ගමනක් ගියා. අන්තිමේ දී මුඵ ලෝකයේ ම සම්මානනීය ජ්‍යෙෂ්ඨ පුරවැසියකු හා සදාදරණීය පරමාදර්ශී චරිතයක් බවට පත් වුණා.

ඩැනී කියන හැටියට: ‘‘මැන්ඩෙලා අංග සම්පුර්ණ මිනිසෙකු නොවෙයි. ඔහුගේ චරිතයේ දුර්වල තැන් තිබුණා. ඔහු සමහර විට නාහෙට නාහන කෙනෙක්. යම් අවස්ථාවල ඔහුගේ ස්ථාවරයන්හි පරස්පර විරෝධතා ද තිබුණා. එහෙත් ඔහුගේ අවංක බව හා කැපවීම පිළිබඳ නම් කිසිවකුත් කිසි විටෙක සැක කළේ නැහැ. තම පාක්‍ෂිකයන්ගේ පමණක් නොව විරුද්ධවාදීන්ගේ පවා ගෞරවයට ඔහු ලක් වූයේ මෙසේ විවෘත මනසකින් සත්‍ය ගරුක වීම නිසා යයි මා සිතනවා.’’

මැන්ඩෙලා තමාට වන්දනාමාන කරන වන්දිභට්ට පිරිසක් (cult) බිහි වන්නට ඉඩ දුන්නේ නැහැ. ඒ වෙනුවට තම චින්තනය හා ඉදිරි දැක්ම ප‍්‍රවර්ධනය කරන ලෝක ව්‍යාප්ත පදනමක් (Nelson Mandela Foundation) හා ජාතියේ මතකය සුරකින ආයතනයක් (Nelson Mandela Centre of Memory) බිහි කරන්නට අනුගාමිකයන් හා අනුග‍්‍රාහකයන් යොමු කළා.

වසර 40ක් පමණ තිස්සේ දකුණු අපි‍්‍රකාවේ සමාජයීය හා දේශපාලන ප‍්‍රවණතා විග‍්‍රහ කරන ඩැනී ෂෙක්ටර් කියන්නේ මැන්ඩෙලා ඇතුඵ ANC පරමාදර්ශවාදීන්(idealists) කලක් තිස්සේ සිහින මැවූ සර්ව සාධාරණ හා සමානාත්මතාවය රජයන දකුණු අප‍්‍රිකාවක් තවම බිහි වී නැති බවයි. සුදු ධනපතියන් පමණක් වෙනුවට සුදු, කඵ හා දුඹුරු ධනපතියන්ට දුගී ජනයා සූරාකෑමට මාර්ගය සැළසුවා යයි ඇතැම් දෙනා මැන්ඩෙලාට දොස් කියනවා.

එහෙත් මහා විනාශයක් අභිමුඛව සිටි සුවිසල් රටක් 1994 මැයි මාසයේ බාර ගෙන, වසර 5ක් තුළ එය දේශපාලන වශයෙන් ස්ථාවර මට්ටමට පත් කිරීම ඔහුගේ ලොකු ජයග‍්‍රහණයක්.

දකුණු අපි‍්‍රකාව යනු අපි‍්‍රකා මහාද්වීපයේ විශාලතම ආර්ථිකයයි. අද එය දියුණු වන ලෝකයේ ප‍්‍රබල ආර්ථිකයන් අතර ප‍්‍රමුඛයි. එහෙත් දුගී දුප්පත්කම, අපරාධ හා ප‍්‍රචණ්ඩත්වය හා වෙනත් බොහෝ සමාජයීය හා සංවර්ධනාත්මක අභියෝග රැසක් ඔවුන් හමුවේ තිබෙනවා.

මැන්ඩෙලා විශ‍්‍රාම ගියේ ක‍්‍රමීය විපර්යාසයන් සිදු කොට, ආයතනික ව්‍යුහයක් ඇති කිරීමෙන් පසුවයි. ඔහුගෙන් පසුව බලයට පත් වූ නායකයන්ට ඔහුට තරම් පුඵල් චින්තනයක් හා අධිෂ්ඨාන ශක්තියක් නැති වීම නිසා යම් පසුබෑමක් හට ගත් බව ඇත්තයි. එහෙත් වෛරීය දේශපාලනය හා බෙදුම්වාදී අන්ත ජාතිකවාදය වෙනුවට කොයි කවුරුනුත් හවුල් කරගෙන යන දිගු ගමනකට මුල පිරීම ගැන මැන්ඩෙලාට සුදු-කඵ හැම දකුණු අපි‍්‍රකානුවෙක් ම ප‍්‍රණාමය දක්වනවා.

පසුගිය දශකය තුළ මා තුන් වතාවක් දකුණු අප‍්‍රිකාවේ සංචාරය කොට තිබෙනවා. සුදු-කඵ-දුඹුරු සම ඇති දකුණු අපි‍්‍රකානුවන් රැසක් මුණ ගැසී කථා බහ කොට තිබෙනවා. තම රටේ බරපතල සමාජ හා ආර්ථික ප‍්‍රශ්න ඇතත් ඔවුන් හැම දෙනකු ම අනාගතය පිළිබඳ අපේක්‍ෂා සහගතයි.

යටත්විජිතවාදයෙන් හෝ සුඵතර සුදු පාලනයකින් හෝ නිදහස් වූ වෙනත් අපි‍්‍රකානු රටවල් ගිය මගට වඩා සමබර වූත්, තිරසාර වූත් මාර්ගයකට තම රට යොමු කළේ මැන්ඩෙලා බව ඔවුන් පිළි ගන්නවා. මැන්ඩෙලා ඉතා අමාරුවෙන් පීලි මාරු කොට, මහා ව්‍යසනයක් මග හරවා යොමු කළ සහජීවන මාර්ගයේ දිගට ම යාම බහුවාර්ගික, බහු ආගමික රටක් හැටියට දකුණු අපි‍්‍රකාවට ඇති හොඳම විකල්පය බව ඔවුන් දන්නවා.

1995 මැන්ඩෙලා ලියූ ස්වයං චරිතාපදානයට ඔහු දුන් නම Long Walk to Freedom (නිදහසට ගිය දිගු ගමන). ඒ ගමන වර්ණභේදවාදය හමාර කොට ප‍්‍රජාතන්ත‍්‍රවාදී රටක් වීමෙන් පමණක් නතර නොවන බව ඔහු නිතර මතක් කළා.

ඔහුගේ එක් ප‍්‍රකට ප‍්‍රකාශයක් වූයේ මෙයයි. ‘‘නිදහස කරා යන කිසිදු ගමනක් ලෙහෙසි වන්නේ නැහැ. අප ප‍්‍රාර්ථනා කරන කඳු මුදුනට ළගා වීමට පෙර මරණයේ සේයාව පතිත වූ බියකරු නිම්න හරහා අපට යළි යළිත් ඇවිදින්නට සිදුවනු ඇති….’’

දකුණු අපි‍්‍රකානුවන්ට තව බොහෝ දිග ගමනක් යන්නට තිබෙනවා.

‘Cheque-book development’: BBC World News editorial air time being sold to development agencies?

The BBC Trust – an independent body which safeguards the values of the publicly funded British Broadcasting Corporation – recently faulted the BBC Panorama series for faking child labour footage in India, apologised to the corporate house falsely implicated, and returned a prestigious TV award won by the 2008 programme concerned.

This was certainly a welcome move. But there is much more that the guardian of BBC values can and should investigate, among them the conduct of the BBC’s global TV broadcasting arm currently branded as BBC World News (earlier called BBC World TV). In this context, I want to draw attention to an op-ed essay I wrote in August 2007 that flagged an on-going practice where publicity-hungry development agencies were paying intermediaries who are apparently selling editorial coverage on BBC World. This is unethical and possibly illegal. I called it ‘Cheque-book development’.

The essay originally appeared in MediaChannel.org, an outspoken media-watch website produced from New York by the highly respected ‘News Dissector’ and media activist Danny Schechter. MediaChannel.org has since experienced funding difficulties and their online archive is currently not accessible. My op-ed also appeared, in full, at Asia Media Forum where it is still available.

Excerpts of the essay were featured in my blog post of 15 August 2007: ‘Cheque-book Development’: Paying public media to deliver development agency logos

I am reproducing the full text of my op-ed essay without any changes so it is more widely available. Despite expressions of dismay from fellow media watchers, there was no reaction of any kind from the BBC at the time. Let us hope the BBC Trust will now consider it worth looking into.

‘Cheque-book development’ corrupting the media?

By Nalaka Gunawardene (August 2007)

BLURB: In their ceaseless efforts to keep their organisations in the media spotlight, spin doctors of development agencies are distorting news values and corrupting the media, turning issue-based communication products into ‘logo delivery mechanisms’.

There is a new kind of ‘tout’ accosting development and humanitarian agency officials at international meetings.

These smart and well-heeled persons are not looking for a supply contract. In the age of spin, they are offering agencies ‘product placement’ – in the globalised news media.

“I can get your agency on BBC World,” is a common claim. In some quarters now, Al Jazeera International (AJI) is also being mentioned.

This is not an over-enthusiastic journalist looking for a scoop. These intermediaries are peddling the jealously-guarded access to highly visible news and current affairs TV channels.

Some are freelancers or stringers, while others are film production company executives. Their media access is hard earned: they all have track records of producing TV news features or documentaries to international broadcast standards.

There is only one problem: they are not supposed to sell this media access to the highest bidder.

But it happens more frequently than we suspect.

I have personally witnessed this kind of offer being made. Worryingly, the development community does not find anything ethically or morally wrong with this practice.

One possible reason: the competition among development and humanitarian organisations for public recognition has intensified in the past decade. Their communication officers are under tremendous pressure to raise the profile of their organisations -– and in some cases, of egotistic bosses.

So when a cash-for-media coverage opportunity comes along, it is too good to be missed.

The obvious question is hardly raised: how come access to a trusted news outlet is being marketed? Instead, many development professionals simply ask: how much?

The answer depends on how many precious seconds of air time, on which broadcast outlet and for what kind of story. But we are not talking about small change: some of these deals involve fifty or hundred thousand US dollars.

And those funds are drawn from the already tight communication budgets of development and humanitarian agencies.

At Asia Media Summit 2006 in Kuala Lumpur, the regional communication chief of a leading UN agency told me how she’d worked with such an ‘access peddler’ to get a post-tsunami story on BBC World TV. The few minutes of coverage almost drained her budget – but the agency management was highly pleased with their ‘few minutes of fame’.

I found that it was not a BBC staffer but a freelancer who was involved. Money had exchanged hands, though I didn’t find out how much, or on what kind of contractual arrangement it was done.

This is not an isolated incident. As development organisations compete more intensely for external funding, they are increasingly adopting desperate strategies to gain higher media visibility for their names, logos and bosses.

Communication officers in some leading development and humanitarian organisations have been reduced to publicists. When certain UN agency chiefs tour disaster or conflict zones, their spin doctors precede or follow them. Some top honchos now travel with their own ’embedded journalists’ – all at agency expense.

In this publicity frenzy, these agencies’ communication products are less and less on the issues they stand for or reforms they passionately advocate. Instead, the printed material, online offerings and video films have become ‘logo delivery mechanisms’.

The access peddlers know this weakness very well, and have turned it into a veritable cottage industry.

It’s not just the development sector’s vanity that fuels this process. Many 24/7 news channels are struggling to fill their hours inexpensively. Some turn a blind eye to ethical sourcing as long as they can have a steady supply of subsidised content.

Some media outlets are harder to penetrate than others. CNN International regulations prevent access peddling by its staff or intermediaries. The Public Broadcasting System (PBS) in the United States does not allow interviews with representatives of any entity sponsoring the production or broadcast of a programme.

Sadly, not every broadcaster is as careful.

This practice is wrong on two counts. One, allowing intermediaries to sell access to the airwaves is a form of corruption. Two, every time this happens, it siphons off tax-payer supported development funds intended for combating poverty and suffering in the majority world.

It is the reverse of cheque-book journalism, where some media organisations pay celebrity or other sources for exclusive access to their stories. When development agencies are paying sections of the media to get promotional or favourable stories aired, we must call it ‘cheque-book development’.

Some practitioners might argue that the end justifies the means. But beyond narcissism, the development benefit of logo-delivery media coverage is highly debatable.

Journalistic stories, whether on development, humanitarian or any other topic, must earn their place in the media on their intrinsic value. Despite greater corporatisation of the media, a good story can still stand up on its own.

Attaching cash to a development story seriously distorts those news values, making it harder for other development players to get rightful media coverage for their stories.

The origins of this unhealthy trend dates back to at least the 1970s, when the World Bank and some UN agencies started buying air time on public television networks to broadcast promotional films. Throwing money was a lot easier than working with producers to generate sustained coverage on issues of public interest. This spoilt the chances for others who were not willing or able to buy airtime but had public interest content to offer.

Paradoxically, the same development agencies take to the moral high ground on transparency and corruption in the global south. But as they broker more cash-for-media coverage deals behind the scenes, we are left gasping at the hypocrisy of it all.

Nalaka Gunawardene writes on media, development and society. The views in this essay are entirely his own. He can be reached on and he blogs at https://movingimages.wordpress.com

Waiting for Mandela: Film maker recalls momentous week in Feb 1990

Updated: 6 Dec 2013 Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (1918 – 2013): Thank You and Goodbye!

Nelson Mandela at a 2005 charity concert branded after his prison number, 46664.

This week marks the 20th anniversary of Nelson Mandela’s release after 27 years in prison.

Ending his long walk to freedom on 11 February 1990, he gave a speech which ended with these words from the defence statement he’d made during his trial for treason 27 years previously: “I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for, and to see realised. But my Lord, if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

My friend and inspiration Danny Schechter wrote an interesting piece recalling the week 20 years ago when his hero (and mine) finally walked free after being the world’s most celebrated political prisoner for over a quarter century.

American journalist and film maker Danny was a long and persistent supporter of the struggle against Apartheid: in all, he has made six films with and about Mandela. Here are his reminiscences in full, borrowed from his News Dissector blog:

WAITING FOR MANDELA, by Danny Schechter

Danny Schechter with Nelson Mandela

Twenty years ago during this very week, I was leading the production team of Globalvision’s inaugural TV series, South Africa Now. We were all consumed by the rumors that best known political prisoner in the world, Nelson Mandela, the leader and symbol of the African National Congress, was about to be released from prison in South Africa after 27 years.

It was exciting and nerve-wracking to contemplate what would come next—but with all the joy and anticipation, there was a fear too, fear that Mandela would be freed into an unfree society with power still in white hands dominated by their pro-apartheid Generals and securocrats. No one was sure what would happen. Would he be going from one jail to another? Would he be assassinated? Would it even happen?

Back then, we were rushing to finish a South Africa Now PBS special slated to air in prime time on Sunday February 11th. PBS correspondent Charlayne Hunter Gault, later to become first NPR’s and then CNN’s bureau chief in South Africa, had agreed to anchor it, and we were busy putting the final touches on the show which we had titled WAITING FOR MANDELA.

It was all rush, rush. We wanted to be timely but we were covering all bases because we weren’t sure if he would be freed or not. On Friday, February 9th, we went into the studio at the old WNET–Channel 13 in New York to record our studio introductions. We finished our graphics. Charlayne prercorded her open. She was great, We were ready to go. All that remained was for the special to be packaged and aired.

But then, late on Friday Night or was it Saturday Morning, we heard that South African President DeKlerk was going to make a special announcement, a key speech to mark the opening of their Parliament. He was considered a liberal Afrikaner and had been part of a process or internal coup that ousted hardline pro-apartheid president. P.W. Botha known there as “the crocodile.”

What would he say? What would he do?

The next day, were glued to our TV sets and saw DeKlerk shock the world. He announced that Mandela would be freed the next day, on Sunday. He was then in Victor Verster prison in South Africa’s wine country north of Capetown. It was happening!

Not only that. DeKlerk announced that the ANC and the South African Communist Party and all other banned organizations would be, after decades, unbanned and allowed to participate in South African politics. This meant that the ANC leaders and their MK guerrilla fighters would be able to come home from so many years in the pain of exile.

The world was upside down. ANC people worldwide had to pinch themselves to see if they really heard what he said.

It was mind-blowing. We screamed. We cried. And then, we panicked. Our TV special was now out of date. The Waiting for Mandela was over. We had a little more that 24 hours to come up with a new TV hour with virtually no budget. We had won a hour of prime time TV. We couldn’t allow it to go to waste.

The world media was rushing to the scene. They had satellites, crews, reporters galore. What could we do that was different? We had been covering the situation there on a weekly basis and had all sorts of footage the networks didn’t. We had contacts and context. But we couldn’t go there because there wasn’t enough time. And besides, we were, in effect, banned there working with South Africans. (The ANC would be unbanned before us!)

We went to work, re-editing, tapping into a South African broadcasting company feed, and setting up the first televised exchange between the ANC and a government that refused to recognize the liberation movement.

We worked around the clock. Two editors collapsed in reworking the material under pressure. We just made air, as TV people say, by minutes. We believe our special was the best on TV.

The program was now called MANDELA: Free At Last. And we have tapes for anyone interested!

Read more memories and reflections by Danny Schechter on the News Dissector blog

Huffington Post, June 2008: Danny Schechter’s 90th birthday tribute to Nelson Mandela

Walter Cronkite (1916 – 2009): And that’s the way it was…

Walter Cronkite (1916 - 2009): The man who ruled American airwaves

Walter Cronkite (1916 - 2009): The man who ruled American airwaves

Walter Cronkite, the broadcast journalist and newscaster who redefined television news of his generation, has just signed off for the very last time. A leading light in the history of moving images is gone. What a light…and what a voice.

The New York Times reported the loss as its front page lead: “Walter Cronkite, who pioneered and then mastered the role of television news anchorman with such plain-spoken grace that he was called the most trusted man in America, died Friday at his home in New York. He was 92.”

Cronkite was best known as anchorman for the CBS Evening News for 19 years (1962–81). He was at the helm at a time when television became the dominant news medium of the United States. His influence spread well beyond one network, one medium and one generation.

America's favourite uncle...

America's favourite uncle...

Danny Schechter, the News Dissector and head of MediaChannel.org, said in a tribute: “He figuratively held the hand of the American public during the civil rights movement, the space race, the Vietnam war, and the impeachment of Richard Nixon.”

His own former network, CBS, noted in a tribute: “Known for his steady and straightforward delivery, his trim moustache, and his iconic sign-off line – ‘That’s the way it is’ – Cronkite dominated the television news industry during one of the most volatile periods of American history. He broke the news of the Kennedy assassination, reported extensively on Vietnam and Civil Rights and Watergate, and seemed to be the very embodiment of TV journalism.”

The New York Times report added: “On the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Mr. Cronkite briefly lost his composure in announcing that the president had been pronounced dead at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas. Taking off his black-framed glasses and blinking back tears, he registered the emotions of millions.”

Walter Cronkite announces death of President John F Kennedy: 22 November 1963

He is especially remembered for publicly opposing the Vietnam War. In 1968, he traveled to Vietnam, where he called the war a stalemate and advocated a negotiated peace. “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America,” President Lyndon B. Johnson said after seeing the broadcast, according to Bill Moyers, an aide to the president at the time.

In July 1969, Cronkite anchored the historic 32-hour CBS broadcast that covered the first Moon landing, which became the most widely watched live broadcast event worldwide up to that time. When Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon, Cronkite exclaimed, “Oh, boy!” — another rare show of emotion for the leading anchorman of his era who chose to keep his opinions separate from the news he covered and presented.

Cronkite missed the 40th anniversary of Apollo only by a few days. He will be sadly missed when astronauts and space buffs mark the event.

In this excerpt from for a 4-hour interview filmed for the Archive of American Television in 1998, Cronkite explains the origin of “That’s the way it is”– his signature sign-off:

New York Times has compiled some of his most memorable TV News moments.

The true professional he was, he never retired. Long after leaving CBS News, he remained fully active, engaged and supportive of good journalism in the United States and around the world. He lent his name to educational and charitable causes nurturing investigative journalism.

Danny Schechter writes in his blog: “In his later years, Walter Cronkite abandoned the pretense of only being above the fray and started speaking out as an internationalist for arms control and world federalism, and on many other global issues. He supported progressive causes but never too blatantly. He was very conscious of his image and reputation and identification with the media and power elite. He lived up the street from the United Nations and was often a speaker at UN events.”

Reproduced in full below is the endorsement Walter Cronkite gave our friends at MediaChannel.org, an online media activist group that keeps the spotlight on the media. In the dark during our own war, and in the days since the war ended, I have often found solace, inspiration and courage in his words.

* * * * * *

Walter Cronkite On The Media­ And The MediaChannel.


Good evening, I’m Walter Cronkite. I really wanted to be with you in person tonight for Globalvision New Media’s launch of the new Internet site the Media Channel, but unfortunately I was called out of the country. Yet the issues that led to the creation of this unique global resource, and the crisis that’s facing all of us who work in and care about journalism and the media, are so profound that I simply felt compelled to tape this message so that you would know that I am with you in spirit at least.

As you know, I’ve been increasingly and publicly critical of the direction that journalism has taken of late, and of the impact on democratic discourse and principles. Like you, I’m deeply concerned about the merger mania that has swept our industry, diluting standards, dumbing down the news, and making the bottom line sometimes seem like the only line. It isn’t and it shouldn’t be.

We report, you decide...

We report, you decide...

At the same time, I’m impressed that so many other serious and concerned people around the world are also becoming interested in holding media companies accountable and upholding the highest standards of journalism.

The Media Channel will undoubtedly be worth watching and taking part in. I am intrigued by its potential, and its global reach. The idea that so many leading groups and individuals around the whole world have come together to share resources and information about a wide range of media concerns is very promising, and I urge you to make the Media Channel your media ‘bookmark’ and your portal to the Internet.

I’m particularly excited about one aspect of the Media’s Channel’s work: its encouragement to people inside the media to speak up ­to speak out about their own experiences. Corporate censorship is just as dangerous as government censorship, you know, and self-censorship can be the most insidious form of pulling punches. Pressures to go along, to get along, or to place the needs of advertisers or companies above the public’s need for reliable information distort a free press and threaten democracy itself.

I’m pleased that the Media Channel opens an immediately available resource for media whistle-blowers. Anonymity will be protected, of course­ if their stories check out, of course. And, of course, are backed up with the facts.

We have all been supportive for years of dissidents around the world who take great risks to stand up for what they believe in. But here at home, in our own industry, we need to make it possible for people to speak out when they feel they’ve been wronged, even if it means shaming newsrooms to do the right thing. Journalists shouldn’t have to check their consciences at the door when they go to work for a media company. It ought to be just the reverse.

As I’ve said on other occasions, the strength of the American system is possible and can be nurtured only if there is lively and provocative dissent. In a healthy environment dissent is encouraged and considered essential to feed a cross-fertilization of ideas and thwart the incestuous growth of stultifying uniformity.

We need to encourage and support those among us who face either overt or covert threats­ or even a more subtle absence of encouragement to search out the truth. We all know that economic pressures and insecurities within news organizations have reduced the scope and range of investigative reporting. Sometimes projects are spiked with just a simple phrase: “It’s not for us.”

We’re always ready to speak out when journalists are at risk. But today we must speak out because journalism itself is at risk. That’s why I’m speaking out and reaching out to you tonight, to tell you that I like the idea of the Media Channel and want to encourage your participation.

And that’s the way it is.

Walter Cronkite interviews President Kennedy - Photo courtesy Associated Press

Walter Cronkite interviews President Kennedy - Photo courtesy Associated Press

Now on MediaChannel.org: Good communications to combat swine flu?

They turn the spotlight inwards...

They turn the spotlight inwards...

MediaChannel.org has just published my latest op ed essay titled: Good communications to combat swine flu?

7 May 2009: New Age newspaper in Bangladesh has reprinted the essay

24 May 2009: The Hindu newspaper in India has reprinted the essay in its Sunday Magazine

In this essay, I have expanded some points originally made in two recent blog posts, on 30 April and 1 May 2009.

Here’s an excerpt:

“Flu shots, quarantine measures and hospital care alone cannot counter the current flu outbreak. While medical doctors and researchers spearhead the public health response, we need the mass media and other communicators to mount the public awareness response. Ideally, they should reinforce each other.

“For the first time in history, we now have the technological means to quickly reach out to most of humanity. More than four billion mobile phones are in use, a majority of them in the developing world. Nearly a quarter of the world population (over 1.5 billion people) have access to the web, even if at varying levels of bandwidth. Thousands of radio and TV channels saturate the airwaves – these still are the primary source of news and information for billions.

“Can these information and communication technologies (ICTs) help disseminate the right kind of flu awareness? How fast can we mobilise 24/7 media outlets and telecom networks to inspire preventive and curative action? What can the blogging, texting and twittering new media activists do in such efforts?”

Stop the virus, but not the news!

Stop the virus, but not the news!

Looking for models of communicating against an infectious epidemic, I recall the Asian experience with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) . I summarise in this essay the public interest roles played by Asian media during the SARS crisis, which has been studied and analysed in considerable detail.

I then return to one of my favourite points about communicating disasters and crises: the need for credible messages and credible messengers. This was a core theme in the Asian book on Communicating Disasters that I co-edited in 2007. I also highlighted it in this interview given to APC in early 2008.

Here’s how my essay ends: “Whether it is SARS, HIV or tsunami, many Asian governments have suffered from a credibility gap in managing information about emergencies. For example, the initially slow and guarded media reporting on SARS allowed the virus to spread quickly in China, with devastating results. We cannot afford to repeat these mistakes with the latest flu pandemic.

“Nearly a century ago, British author H G Wells talked about human history being a race between education and catastrophe. In the coming weeks, we would find out if humanity has what it takes to outrun and outsmart a stubborn virus.

Read the full essay at MediaChannel.org

Read my op ed essay in SciDev.net in Dec 2005: A Long Last Mile: The lesson of the Asian tsunami

MediaChannel have published my op ed essays before. They were the first to publish, in June 2006, my global call for the broadcast industry to recognise poverty as a copyright free zone. And when Al Jazeera English channel was launched at the end of 2006, MediaChannel carried my essay on ethical news gathering as the biggest challenge for the new global TV network.

My latest essay is a humble birthday present to MediaChannel.org as it completes 10 years. Unique among websites, MediaChannel.org holds the rest of the media accountable with the best of the world’s media criticism and analysis — offering news, diverse global perspectives, and commentaries tracking international news flows. They cover breaking controversies, showcase change-makers, trends and cutting edge issues that you need to know about – produced by journalists for journalists and citizens.

MediaChannel’s co-founder Danny Schechter is one of my media heroes – he was Moving Images Person of the Year 2008.

“Our survival alone is a cause for celebration – a decade of growth and impact is impressive in ‘Internet years’,” wrote the website’s founders in a special 10th anniversary message. They added: “Over the past 10 years, we have survived financial crises and organized hack attacks. We have managed to remain relevant and on the cutting edge in a quickly evolving online landscape when many other sites and organizations have come… and gone.”

The team is making an urgent appeal for donations to keep this excellent service going. I’m very happy to amplify this – few services can deliver better value for money, and our troubled times and troubled media sure need the soul-searching constantly provided by MediaChannel.org

Ten years of kicking ass!

Ten years of kicking ass!

Untold story behind the story: “Barack Obama: People’s President”

A film to reveal what the old media didn't show...

A film to reveal what the old media didn't show...

When Barack Obama and his running made Joe Biden won the US Presidential Election held on 4 November 2008, they not only beat the Republican duo McCain-Palin but also a host of other also-rans. It’s too soon to tell, but that date might also mark the beginning of the end for the old media, also called the mediasaurus, who have been dominating the public’s access to news, information and commentary for over a century.

But how did it all happen? Who can tell us the real story as it happened, and why, without filters and biases so rampant among the mediasaurus?

On this blog, we have watched with deep interest and some fascination the rise of Barack Obama from relative obscurity to become the President of the United States. On 6 November 2008, soon after the election results were confirmed, we noted how Obama had just been elected ‘President of the New Media world’. I explained: “Obama’s rise has epitomised change in many ways. Among other things, he is the first elected leader of a major democracy who shows understanding and mastery over the New Media World, which is radically different from the old media order.”

On 20 January 2009, when he was inaugurated, we wrote: “For four or eight years, Obama’s every move, word and gesture will be captured, dissected and debated to exhaustion by admirers and detractors alike. And his administration will be under scrutiny by thousands of citizen journalists who don’t share much except the digital platforms and social networks on which they post their impressions. Welcome to the New Media Presidency. The hard work – and real fun – begin now!”

And now, one of the world’s leading new media activists, Danny Schechter, is about to release a new documentary on how the Obama campaign rode the new media wave to the White House — and more importantly, how the same new media can help the American public to keep Obama Administration accountable.

The film “Barack Obama, People’s President”, (slated for DVD release later this month by ChoiceMedia.net), documents the online and on the ground techniques that were used to win the highest office in the land.

As the film’s advance promo blurb says: The one story that most TV outlets didn’t tell in the 2008 election was the most important one -how did a young and relatively unknown candidate become President? If you voted for Barack Obama or not, this is a story you will want to know because it shows how the face of presidential politics changed forever. Barack Obama used techniques never seen before in a nationwide election — his grassroots mobilization and use of the internet was unprecedented, inspiring and effective. You have seen the rest of the coverage — now see the real story.

The film goes inside the official and unofficial campaign to show how Barack Obama was turned into a political brand to appeal to young first time voters. It shows how social networking on the internet — blogs, Facebook, texting and other techniques — were used carry the message to the masses and to raise tens of millions of dollars for the campaign. Popular online videos such as “Obama Girl”, along with those created by regular yet passionate supporters to engage their own communities, became one of the most important tools in the campaign’s success.

Watch the trailer of “Barack Obama, People’s President” directed by Danny Schechter:

Emmy award winning film-maker Danny Schechter, who is also blogger-in-chief at MediaChannel.org that keeps a critical eye on the media, just wrote this explaining why he made this film:

“It is hard to remember that two years earlier Obama was barely known, registering on the radar screen for just 10% of voters. He was also hardly a brand name as a first term Senator who spent more time in state politics in Illinois than on the national stage. Moreover, he was young and a man of color — not qualities that usually prevail in a presidential arena which tends to draw far older, far whiter, and far more centrist candidates. The thought that he would beat frontrunner Hillary Clinton in the primaries was, quite frankly, unthinkable to most of the elite.

“And yet he prevailed, as he used a phrase appropriated from labor organizer and Latino legend Caesar Chavez. Obama turned the farm workers Spanish language slogan “Si Se Puede” into “Yes We Can.” Rather than focus on specific political issues, he built a campaign on the promise of “Hope.” Rather than just rely on traditional fundraising — although by the end, he was plush with it — he reached out over the internet for smaller donations from millions of donors.

Perils of the New Media Generation...

Perils of the New Media Generation...

“Few in the major media gave him a chance, but he was not discouraged because he had created his own grassroots media operation using sophisticated organizing and social networking techniques to build a bottom-up movement, not the usual top-down apparatus. While his campaign ran the show, he encouraged independent initiatives including citizen-generated media, music videos, personalized websites, twittering and texting, etc..

“This is the new direction our politics has taken. It is a story that may be somewhat threatening to old media – and older activists – who prefer a one to many approach to communication, as opposed to forging a more interactive empowering platform. There is no question that young people — especially those mobilized by Obama — prefer online media and that choice is making it harder and harder for traditional outlets to sustain their influence and, in some cases, even their organizations. Old media may be on the way out.

“This is why our film is, in my mind, so important, not just as a record of how Obama won and what happened in 2008, but in what will happen, can happen, and is happening in the future. This is why I believe its critical for Americans to see it — and others in the world as well — to recognize how Obama represents more than just another politician, but a whole new approach to politics. That old adage is worth remembering: “It’s not the ship that makes the wave, it’s the motion of the ocean.”

“Obama, for all his shortcomings, which are becoming more obvious by the day, has pioneered the way change must be won — not by people on the top, but by all of us. It remains for “us” to hold him accountable. We live in a culture of amnesia – it is important to learn the lessons of the recent past.”

Read the full comment: New Film Tells Unreported Story of Obama’s Election on MediaChannel.org