What right WEF have to rate media, when its history in dirt?
Here are some observations and critical arguments about WEF:
The Transnational Institute describes the World Economic Forum’s main purpose as:
“to function as a socializing institution for the emerging global elite, globalization’s “Mafiocracy” of bankers, industrialists, oligarchs, technocrats and politicians. They promote common ideas, and serve common interests: their own.”
A study, published in the Journal of Commercial Research, investigated the sociological impact of the WEF. It concluded that the WEF do not solve issues such as poverty, global warming, chronic illness, or debt. They have simply shifted the burden for the solution of these problems from governments and business to “responsible consumers subjects: the bottom-of-the-pyramid consumer, the green consumer, the health-conscious consumer, and the financially literate consumer.” They merely reframe the issues, and by so doing perpetuate them. Gore is singled out as a prime example. Gore’s speeches deliberately shift focus away from the problems of unregulated markets and corporate activities to one of moral pathologies, individual greed, etc. In doing so he is actually promoting the creation of new markets, and hence perpetuating the same old problems in a new guise. New markets will follow the same patterns as the old ones because the core problem of corporate governance is never addressed.
Repeatedly, demonstrations are held in Davos (see Anti-WEF protests in Switzerland, January 2003) to protest against what have been called the meetings of “fat cats in the snow”, a tongue-in-cheek term used by rock singer Bono.
Faculty member Steven Strauss at the Harvard Kennedy School, has raised an additional concern, pointing out that many of the WEF’s strategic partners (who in return for financing the annual meeting have the ability to set the intellectual agenda for the meeting) have been convicted of serious criminal, civil, or human rights violations, raising significant issues about the forum’s legitimacy as a neutral convener on certain topics.
Professor Emeritus at MIT Noam Chomsky, an American linguist and outspoken intellectual, has characterized the term “globalization” as propaganda when used in connection with trade policies advanced by the World Economic Forum:
The term “globalization” has been appropriated by the powerful to refer to a specific form of international economic integration, one based on investor rights, with the interests of people incidental. That is why the business press, in its more honest moments, refers to the “free trade agreements” as “free investment agreements” (Wall St, Journal). Accordingly, advocates of other forms of globalization are described as “anti-globalization”: and some, unfortunately, even accept this term, though it is a term of propaganda that should be dismissed with ridicule. No sane person is opposed to globalization, that is, international integration. Surely not the left and the workers movements, which were founded on the principle of international solidarity – that is, globalization in a form that attends to the rights of people, not private power systems
The dominant propaganda systems have appropriated the term ‘globalization’ to refer to the specific version of international economic integration that they favor, which privileges the rights of investors and lenders, those of people being incidental. In accord with this usage, those who favor a different form of international integration, which privileges the rights of human beings, become ‘anti-globalist.’ This is simply vulgar propaganda, like the term ‘anti-Soviet’ used by the most disgusting commissars to refer to dissidents. It is not only vulgar, but idiotic. Take the World Social Forum, called ‘anti-globalization’ in the propaganda system—which happens to include the media, the educated classes, etc., with rare exceptions. The WSF is a paradigm example of globalization. It is a gathering of huge numbers of people from all over the world, from just about every corner of life one can think of, apart from the extremely narrow highly privileged elites who meet at the competing World Economic Forum, and are called ‘pro-globalization’ by the propaganda system. An observer watching this farce from Mars would collapse in hysterical laughter at the antics of the educated classes.