SOMETHING that always amuses me is those stories in the entertainment papers where American celebrities are given some superlative title, particularly the acceptance of these titles, not just by local media houses but by international news organisations as well. For example, the Reuters report on People magazine naming Julia Roberts as topping the list of the ‘world’s most beautiful people’ virtually endorses the legitimacy of that list.
The curious thing for me is not only the presumption of the legitimacy of that list from the source, People, but the acceptance of that legitimacy worldwide.   I am sure that there is some UN volunteer worker in some war-torn part of the globe who could easily surpass Roberts, both in terms of physical beauty and commitment, in making the world a better place.
Little mention is made of the fact People is owned by Time Warner, the world’s largest media conglomerate, and hence a major player within an American movie industry in which Julia Roberts is one of the more bankable stars.

Quote: ‘The rapid parroting of this judgment in the local media, without question, shows how much background checks are done with regard to the pronouncement by various organisations, from the Heritage Foundation, to Transparency International, to Amnesty International’

While we might see the entertainment industry reference as light or meaningless, we should take note of two things.  The first is that the average studio in the US operates with budgets that rival our GDP, and much of their income streams from the sale of their products in developing countries such as ours.  The second thing is that this very same methodology of authoritatively pronouncing on some issue, while failing to disclose an ulterior motive, is applied in other situations, and with much greater implications than some money spent on the latest Julia Roberts DVD or Jennifer Lopez’s cologne.
For example, the American think tank, the Heritage Foundation, recently released its 2010 Global Economic Freedom Report, ranking Guyana as 153rd on its economic freedom list, 1 being the highest rank.  The introduction to Guyana’s ranking reads:
“Guyana’s economic freedom score is 48.4, making its economy the 153rd freest in the 2010 Index. Its overall score remains the same as last year because improvements in three of the 10 economic freedoms were offset by declines in investment freedom and property rights. Guyana is ranked 27th out of 29 countries in the South and Central America/Caribbean region, and its overall score is well below the world and regional averages.”
The rapid parroting of this judgment in the local media, without question, shows how much background checks are done with regard to the pronouncement by various organisations, from the Heritage Foundation, to Transparency International, to Amnesty International.
Basic due diligence on the Heritage Foundation’s history of economic freedom assessment would have turned up the much publicised controversy in which the Foundation’s brutal assessment of Malaysia under former PM, Mahathir Mohamad changed drastically, not with a reversal of Mohamad’s economic and political policy (anti-free market currency controls and the jailing of dissidents) but with the establishment of business ties between Heritage Foundation principals and Malaysian business interests.

According to a 2005 article in the Washington Post, entitled ‘Think Tank’s Ideas Shifted as Malaysia Ties Grew’, written by Thomas B. Edsall, “Heritage’s new, pro-Malaysian outlook emerged at the same time a Hong Kong consulting firm co-founded by Edwin J. Feulner, Heritage’s president, began representing Malaysian business interests. The for-profit firm, called Belle Haven Consultants, retains Feulner’s wife, Linda Feulner, as a ‘senior adviser’. And Belle Haven’s chief operating officer, Ken Sheffer, is the former head of Heritage’s Asia office, and is still on Heritage’s payroll as a $75,000-a-year consultant.”
Basic due diligence would also have shown that the Heritage Foundation is one of the key neo-conservative policy agencies with ties to every right-wing hawk, from Dick Cheney, to Karl Rove, to former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton.  These are the same people who were behind the Project for a New American Century, a project which specific aims were the domination of the global agenda by American concerns and interests.  Interestingly, Heritage Foundation was – until indisputable scientific evidence was presented to the contrary – one of the leading proponents of climate change skepticism; imagine the sort of undue negative influence this organisation’s lobbying would have caused on Guyana’s global campaign for its now internationally recognised and rewarded Low-Carbon Development Strategy.
And when it comes to fiscal responsibility and economic stewardship, the Heritage Foundation has absolutely no moral ground.  The architects of the foundation were the very architects of the expensive and disastrous war in Iraq and the field day of non-accountability and unbridled spending by contractors.  I can recall a story a few years ago with a consignment of cash to the tune of about US$12 billion in cash which was transported by plane to Iraq simply disappear. The person in charge of Iraq at that time had previously worked for this Foundation.
I noted that there was the citation that the Heritage Foundation survey was conducted in partnership with the Wall Street Journal, “one of the most respected institutions in the US.”  This I also found laughable and indicative of journalistic sloppiness.  Whatever reputation the Wall Street Journal had for fairness and respectability has been lost with the acquisition of that paper by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, whose various media ventures have been instrumental in pushing a rabidly right-wing media agenda, led by the unabashedly neoconservative Fox News.
To imply, therefore, that an endorsement by the Journal – a Fox News sister company – somehow brings some objectivity to the Foundation’s questionable credibility is, in my view, a fairly false and ill-informed assumption.
In my view, what we seem to suffer from here is a mixture of blind partisanship and a crippling inferiority complex that seeks to latch onto any negative assessment of our country, swallow it whole, and then regurgitate it.   The local press, as one of the pillars of our society, has the responsibility of being a buffer when it comes to analysing information about our country – good or bad – that is being presented from outside sources.
It would do well if there were some greater emphasis on placing international pronouncements – particularly those from supposedly independent organisations – in a proper context, the first step in our breaking free from being mindless pawns in some narrow, self-serving global agenda.