During the week of May 31 through June 4/10, "The Current" featured segments on the attack on (or, as CBC seems to prefer it, the "confrontation" on, or "interception" of) the six ships in the aid flotilla, an attack that began about 4 a.m. Middle Eastern time May 31, or about 9 p.m. Toronto time May 30. Because I'd been following the progress of the flotilla with keen interest and special concern (in part because a friend from Victoria, BC, was aboard the biggest of the ships, and another friend was on another of the ships), I knew of the attack prior to listening to "The Current" on May 31.

As you began your show, I was struck by the peculiar, even bizarre, angle of the report. The deaths of an undetermined (at the time the estimate was ten) number of passengers in an Israeli raid were reported in a matter-of-fact manner, and attention was rapidly turned to whether this would impair relations between Israel and Turkey, whether it might lead to a response from NATO, and whether there might be repercussions for NATO's campaign in Afghanistan, in which Canada is also involved. (I quote: "...a NATO country, Turkey, in turmoil over an Israeli military action off the coast of Gaza....political fallout...not the only pressing issue facing the Secretary General of NATO") "Political fallout", indeed! The killings of the passengers seemed hardly to register except as a political problem.

The Israeli army had employed deadly force against civilians while seizing control of a foreign-registered ship in international waters, a ship whose passengers and sponsors were attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to an embargoed, desperate, and largely ignored civilian population. Yet the emphasis in your reporting was on the effects the events and the Israeli actions might have on the relations between states, on a multi-state military alliance, and on the prosecution of foreign wars by coalitions of states.

By June 1 you had decided to pair former Canadian diplomat Paul Heinbecker--who was, I must say, really quite good--with one Jonathan Schanzer, VP for Research [sic] for the so-called Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Schanzer seems to lack both a conscience and imagination. Schanzer parroted the official Israeli line, repeating the "talking points" I'd seen outlined May 31 in a statement from the Canada-Israel Committee. I should add that Schanzer was a M.A. student at HUJ during the time I studied there, and until the start of the Second Intifada at the end of September, 2000, he seemed liberal, reasonable, and humane. After September 2000 he swung sharply in another direction, insisting to me, through clenched teeth and with averted eyes, that "Arafat and the Palestinians" had plotted to attack Israel and that Israeli force, not dialogue or concessions, were what was justified and required. It seems Jonathan has since sought security, money, and status, and is now with an organization that, at the least, should be described as right-wing and pro-Israeli. And even that last term is misleading and insufficient, as Israel's zealous propagandists are supporters and proponents of the most extreme policies and actions toward the Palestinians, and, on occasion, the people of Lebanon (and perhaps in future other countries in the region).

I'm glad that later in the June 1 show you spoke with Palestinian MD, activist, and politician Mustafa Barghouti, and gave some attention to conditions in and restrictions on Gaza. But by Wednesday, June 2, the story seemed to have disappeared from your view. On Thursday June 3 we heard, briefly, from former US diplomat Edward Peck, whose statements may have taken Hana Gartner by surprise. And although it was "mail day", no letters were read on air. Did your program receive no correspondence on the topic? By Friday June 4, the story, with its many ramifications and with much left unexplored, seemed no longer to matter to "The Current".

One role of journalists is to uncover and reveal what those who have, or seek, power, would prefer to hide, or distort, or minimize in importance. It is increasingly evident that the CBC, which has purported to be a serious news-gathering organization, and which, unlike other commercial networks, is supported by Canadian tax dollars, is evading most of the really hard work, is playing it safe. The 'alternative' media, available via the Internet, or small or independent radio and tv stations and newspapers and magazines, is doing more and more of the risky and valuable work. They're digging out the stories that the powerful want left untold, presenting the perspectives that the powerful want kept hidden. One of the best examples of this probing reporting is on Amy Goodman's daily one-hour program, "Democracy Now!". And meanwhile, where are you in all this? Are you hoping to win favour with those who are shakers and movers? Anna Maria, you once were based in Jerusalem. You should know better. And your audience deserves much better.

I wish you courage, and discernment.

Harry Berbrayer, Duncan BC
(and member, Independent Jewish Voices, Canada)

[NOTE: had to email this from the website of "The Current", as an email address is not provided]

AND THE RESPONSE:

Below is the message I received 11:45 a.m. June 9, in response to the email I sent June 8 to CBC Radio One's "The Current", criticizing their inadequate and slanted coverage of the Israeli attack on the Free Gaza flotilla. By the way, today's show, in its last half hour, was worth hearing: an interview with the Vice-Chair of Turkey's Council of Forensic Medicine, on the wounds of those killed, and with Ron Ben-Yishai of Israel's Yediot Aharonot newspaper and YNET, one of a number of journalists who were embedded with the armed forces on a boat near to the action. Ben-Yishai mentioned that some of the journalists were "international", whatever that means.

For what it's worth, I now have an email address for the show. It's TheCurrent@CBC.ca.