Transcript: Well like I say I think it was very much in the wake of a massive world war that the conversation was placed squarely on the table and a decision was made to begin to talk in universal terms about rights, and to come to a shared understanding. I mean what’s remarkable is not just the emergence of a codification – you know in a system of human rights, treaties, and conventions; but also that it was complemented by a massive proliferation of civil society worldwide. So the last 50 to 60 years when people say, you know, argue _______ if you look at the scope and scale of the human rights abuses we’re facing. In fact, not only is it really hopeful to look at the ways in which the human rights treaties and conventions have proliferated and have gained currency and are being discussed and debated between and amongst governments at a very high level; but also if you look at the massive proliferation of civil society and what that ______; the possibility that presents for ensuring that those rights will be respected, and they will be upheld, and they will be understood, and embraced. So you know, as far as what it is that’s enabled that, I think we go back to technology and communications again. Because it’s only been in the last few decades that we have been able to have a global conversation; a simultaneous global conversation by virtue of the ability to travel, and to send e-mail, and faxes, and make telephone calls, and watch television and all of this. I mean previous to that there was no opportunity to talk in global terms or to create a document which reflected a global conversation and a global understanding. So again I think the technology underlies a lot of the events that have taken place and holds a lot of promise for the future.

Recorded on: 8/13/07

Well I mean that’s a very . . . That’s a big debate . . . is, you know, which rights are universal and which rights are or should be left to the discretion of countries. Or in the U.S. context even, what should be left to the federal government versus what should be left to the states. Again, politics play into this of course because the so-called first generation rights were the civil and political rights like the right to vote or the right to freedom of speech. The so-called third generation rights – social, economic and cultural rights – which were being pushed for more often by the developing world and/or by social democracies in communist countries are only slowly beginning to gain some credibility at a global level. So there’s always been this priority and primacy placed on the right be free from torture; but when you start to talk about the right to housing, there are lots of questions even amongst the westerners who are advocating and who have been leading the human rights movement about the enforceability of those rights because the economic implications are so substantial.

Recorded on: 8/13/07

Transcript: Yeah, I was thinking about worldview on the way here, because I think on some level at its essence, what’s really most fundamentally distinct about people’s worldviews is whether they believe people are fundamentally good or fundamentally not good. Or put differently, evil, lazy, self-interested as many philosophers have suggested . . . western philosophers, often white men. And I must confess that I . . . I am motivated by a belief that people are capable of goodness; that everybody is capable of goodness and tremendous evil; and that who we are and how we manifest ourselves in the world depends entirely on the circumstances that surround us. And that what . . . what’s most important for that very reason is living each and every moment of our lives with as much integrity, and as much love, and as much clarity as we can muster. Because it is in each and every one of those moments that we manifest our potential to be fully human, which is to be fully good. I don’t . . . I don’t believe that people are ultimately self-interested. I think they become that way out of fear. And I don’t believe that people are evil. I think they become that way in response to threats or perceived threats. And that . . . I think that really is critical to who I am and how I am in the world. And I think if I were cynical about people, and who they are, and how they are, I wouldn’t be able to do what it is that I’m doing. Because I do believe that we can tap into what is universal in all of us, which is, you know, a desire to be loved and cared for; and to love and to care for other people. And that stories we’re telling enables us to tap into that potential, and that power, and that beauty.

Recorded on: 8/13/07

Transcript: Well I think for all of us who work at Witness and really in the Human Rights Movement more broadly, what most propels us forward are first of all, you know, the passion and commitment of people working at a local level face-to-face with really unbeatable . . . apparently unbeatable odds who remain committed, and who have the courage to do what they do; not just to risk their lives as they so often do, but to get up day after day and do it again notwithstanding those odds. So that’s extremely inspiring. And then I think, of course, if you aren’t winning a little every day; if you don’t see yourself making incremental progress towards that goal, it’s very demoralizing and very difficult to continue. And we do ourselves making progress, and it’s important to remind yourself and to remember to acknowledge progress as it’s happening just as, you know, you dig in deeper to go in further because it’s never enough.

Recorded on: 8/13/07

Transcript: Well I mean first and foremost because without our human rights we have nothing. In fact it’s interesting to imagine – almost impossible to imagine – that the human rights treaties and conventions that we talk about are just over 50 years old right now. I mean they were really born in 1948 in the wake of World War II in response to the horrors of that war. And it is remarkable to imagine that in fact prior to that, we had no single framework at a universal global level through which to articulate the right to freedom of speech, the right . . . All of the rights we’re talking about – civil, political, social, economic and cultural – have only recently been codified. And yet they have their origins really hundreds of years ago in various traditions. And you can see them even in many of the religious texts that have emerged over time. So I think when I say without human rights we have nothing, what I mean is that they are so fundamental to our ability to be productive, and healthy, and happy, and cooperative as human beings on this planet. And there’s never been a time when we’re more in need of that kind of cooperation, and collaboration, and productivity.

Question: To whom do you look for inspiration?

Transcript: Well just thinking about Patricia and David, because I just returned from Mexico. I mean here’s a woman whose daughter left school one day two years ago and has never been seen since. She was asked to identify her clothing. So she knows that, in fact, you know her daughter is dead; and yet day after day she commits and recommits herself to ensuring that there won’t be another death; that there won’t be another needless execution of a woman in _______ or _______. Or take David who after three years of incarceration, after being tortured into confessing to the rape and murder of his cousin simply because according to the police he appeared nervous, i.e., was crying when he heard about her death . . . And to be able to, you know . . . to be able to set that aside and focus his energy on making a difference for . . . you know, not just for his cousin to find the real perpetrators, but for all of the other women in similar circumstances is really inspirational.

Recorded on: 8/13/07

Transcript: Well I’d have to . . . I’d have to say that I’m really interested multisectorial approaches to problems. And I think that one of the problems we have is that we tend to compartmentalize. And of course, you know, one of the biggest in challenges in philanthropic terms, is anybody who’s giving any money away – whether it’s, you know, whether it’s me tithing myself, or a foundation trying to decide how to disperse its resources needs to be strategic in terms of its investment. So the tendency is to try to focus your investments very thoughtfully and strategically in given areas. And I understand that, but at the same time part of the problem we face, as I said earlier, is compartmentalization. So for example, I think what Larry Brilliant is talking about at Google.org is very interesting. And if you haven’t spoken to him I think you ought to, because they’re looking at poverty, health and the environment. And they’re looking at the intersections between those three problems which are, of course, inextricably intertwined. And I think it would be a big mistake to focus exclusively on health without look at poverty and the environment. So what I would say is that if I . . . You know for some reason I did decide and was offered the opportunity to think about how to spend a lot of the philanthropic dollars, I would want to be looking at intersectionality. And I would want to be looking at comprehensive solutions to some of the most pressing problems we’re facing.

Recorded on: 8/13/07

Question: What should we be doing as individuals?

Transcript: I don’t think that can be prescribed, you know, by any single individual because each of us are passionate about different things; but I can only say that, you know, for us . . . you know for each of us to live a life that is full of integrity is an enormous commitment. And in fact it’s a second by second commitment. It’s not just making sure that, you know, you’re recycling your Coca-Cola can, or that you’re . . . you’re responding when you hear that there’s genocide in Darfur; but that you’re alive to the complexity of every single interaction around you. I mean in this city for example, there is so much complexity to the interactions whether it’s race, or class, or sexual orientation. And so often we ignore the complexity of those interactions, and we don’t do what we can to bridge those . . . to bridge those gaps and to deepen our own understanding of who we are and how we are in the world. If you’re walking along the street and you’re a white woman, and you happen to notice that there’s two young black men coming towards you, and you find yourself thinking, “I feel in endangered. I feel threatened,” it’s up to you to take responsibility to analyze why you feel that way in that circumstance; and to do what you can to challenge yourself to reconfigure, you know, how it is that we’ve been wired, you know, by a media and by a culture that what’s us to think differently.

Recorded on: 8/13/07

Question: Whose responsibility is climate change?

Transcript: Well I mean first and foremost with respect to climate, we . . . we can and must enact legislation which is proportionate to the very serious challenge we face; which would be massive, mandatory emissions reductions. I think also, you know, we’re going to have to tax carbons and reinvest, you know, those funds in developing green and alternative energy sources, and growing a green economy in this country and in other countries around the world. So there’s a series of very concrete solutions that I think we can and must take right away; but again as I outlined earlier, I think that ultimately what’s most important is what each and every person at an individual level is called to do, and who they are called to be on this planet. And I think we need to build a global consciousness and commitment to community, and to living our lives in ways that befit the gift of life we’re given for a short period of time on this planet. And I do believe that at a cultural level, part of that gift bestowed on us obligates us to give back. And I think that requires a fundamental reorientation as to who we are and how we are; and a real invitation to live our lives in a day-to-day way with integrity. So what I’m talking about is a . . . not just structural adjustments which need to be made in almost every . . . almost every issue area imaginable, whether it’s giving free and affordable healthcare to everybody in this country, or addressing the climate collapse; but also the invitation to each of us at an individual level to really tackle the responsibility of ensuring that we’re part of the solution rather than a part of the problem.

Recorded on: 8/13/07

Question: I have a lot of faith in the power and potential of communications. And I think the explosive growth in technology and what it now allows us is an opportunity to connect and communicate outside of the conventional systems; specifically outside of mainstream media. Big Think is one example of creative ways to approach the challenges that confront us, and creative ways to connect and commune people at a global level around those challenges. So I do see technology and communications as absolutely critical; but you know what also must . . . can and must come about is an awakening of our consciousness. And I think here again I’m a real believer, as I said earlier, in the necessity of evolution; in the necessity of personal, societal and institutional evolution. And I don’t believe that evolution can come about unless we have consciousness. I’m a spiritual person, but I’m not a religious person per se. And for me that spirituality, that consciousness is really about awareness – self awareness and knowledge, and how you use that to move throughout the world. And I think we all must rise to that invitation to become more deeply aware so that in turn we can be . . . we can all be better and much more productive citizens together.

Recorded on: 8/13/07

Question: Are you generally optimistic or pessimistic about the way the world is headed?

Transcript: Well I think to go back to my earlier remark that, you know, you’re ultimately . . . you either believe we’re fundamentally good or you don’t, I am fundamentally optimistic, not pessimistic; but I think we’re at a tipping point here now. And I think that . . . I mean we now have possessed for decades the potential to annihilate ourselves hundreds of times over. And just as we possess those nuclear and chemical weapons that could annihilate us hundreds of times over, we are annihilating ourselves daily by virtue of how we live with respect to the climate that’s collapsing around us. So I, you know . . . I just . . . I hope we’re at the moment. And it seems to me we may be where we going to have to do a radical rethink of how we’re living. Because we cannot continue to consume in the way that we consume. We cannot continue to communicate and to misunderstand in the way that we do. And the stakes are simply too high in terms of how lethal our activity is and has been.

Recorded on: 8/13/07

Transcript: Well I think historically it, you know . . . it can and has been both. One of our partners in the Outlawed production and distribution campaign – the film that we produced, Outlawed, which is an extraordinary rendition of torture and disappearances in the war on terror – one of our partners is the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA which represents 40,000 Christian congregations, over a 100 million Christians in this country. And the Reverend Edgar did a little intro before the film began, which we video taped for them, which framed this as a moral issue. They’ve been one of the leading . . . the leading coalitions of congregations talking out and speaking out against the use of torture; saying not only does it produce completely illegitimate and inaccurate information; but it’s unjust, unethical, and illegal. So you can absolutely and you must form alliances with religious coalitions. I think when you look at the climate issue, some of the evangelicals who have come out strong on the climate issue have really helped put that issue on the map. And that’s tremendously important. I think we can speak much more potently to many religious communities when we frame what’s happening to the climate in human terms; when we talk about the human responsibility to care for members of the human family who are being implicated by this. It’s not just a question of God’s creation when it comes to the natural environment, but of what’s happening to your brothers and sisters. So I think we can and must look for opportunities to collaborate with religious communities. People . . . and most people in the world are deeply religious and are guided by the values that their religion espouses. So that’s an enormous opportunity. It isn’t to say that there aren’t challenges. I mean historically of course, you know, religions have motivated some of the most lethal wars. And it is religion in many cases that keeps women, for example, you know, enslaved on many levels – legally and otherwise.

Recorded on: 8/13/07

Transcript: Well I think it’s important to not paint too broad a brush. When you talk about a jihadist or a fundamentalist, you’re not talking about a Muslim. There are . . . And I think Muslims are being vocal about distinguishing themselves between, you know . . . distinguishing themselves from fundamentalists and from fundamentalist interpretations of the text. So I just think it’s quite dangerous to get into too fast of an analysis about what an entire, you know, an entire part of the world thinks, and believes, and hopes for. And in fact what we’re seeing is the influence of a relatively small number of extremists who are able to capitalize on, as I mentioned earlier, a tremendous sense of disillusionment, and rage, and frustration at a lack of opportunity. And that’s what happening here is that people are capitalizing on a desperate economic situation; and of course a war on terror which is, as I know from just having produced a film recently with 14 human rights groups worldwide that features the stories of ___________ whose an Ethiopian national British citizen currently held in Guantanamo Bay, tortured into confessing to crimes he did not commit. And _____________ Lebanese national, German citizen, pulled off a bus in the middle of Macedonia and held without charge. You know not a shred of evidence against him either. So when you start to get into a situation where people are whisked away in the middle of the night, held incommunicado, have their rights abrogated, and are tortured into humiliating . . . and humiliated into doing things and saying things that are virtually untrue, you are of course going to create a backlash and a response. And I think that’s, you know . . . that’s where the fundamentalist energy is coming from.

Recorded on: 8/13/07

Transcript: Well you know again, I think on September 11, 2001, we had a lot of good will internationally. You know a lot of people who really understood the enormity of that tragedy, and who were prepared to stand by us, and stand with us, and do what they could to support . . . you know to support us as a country and the people of New York City who were so devastated by that event. I myself was literally underneath the World Trade Centers in the first plane hit. So you know, it hit close to home for me as well. But the reality is that we did not take that opportunity – and I do see it as an opportunity – to ask ourselves why there were other people around the world cheering. And that was a golden opportunity because the reality is that what will ultimately win the so-called war on terror is our foreign policy and our diplomacy. What will ultimately stop breeding so called terrorists is an economic policy and a foreign policy which invests in communities, which diminishes the gap between rich and poor, which gives people possibility, and opportunity, and access. And you know the approach that we have taken which is, first of all, so clearly in violation of any international human rights standards; and second of all so clearly, extremely detrimental to our national security is just absolutely unfathomable to me. I do not understand . . . I do not understand how this . . . the Republican administration has managed to make it a winning issue in an electoral cycle when it seems so patently obvious to me and to many people analyzing the issue that we’ve never been at greater risk than we are as a result of the activities that our government has been pursuing in the wake of the September 11th bombings and the war on terror. So I mean it’s no secret that we’ve lost enormous amounts of respect all over the world. We were previously seen – at least by some countries, and understandably not always by others – as a beacon for rights and responsibility, and as a land of opportunity and freedom. And while that . . . even that history is complex when you look at our activities, for example, in Latin America during the dirty wars and so forth. Whatever credibility we did have, whatever currency we did have is now absolutely expended.

Recorded on: 8/13/07

Transcript: I mean it’s interesting you mention China because with the hub that we’re planning to launch . . . and we do plan to do something surrounding China and the Olympics. And of course, you know, it’s been interesting to see the ways in which Mia Farrow has managed to really challenge China over its . . . over its, well, engagement in Sudan, vis-a-vie the, you know, the oil and access to those natural resources; and at the same time to block, you know, really serious activity at the UN level, vis-a-vie what’s happening in Darfur. And of course again, you know, to think about China and the very real human rights those people are facing there, and the discrimination they’re facing; and then to look at a situation in which the United States continues to offer China most favored nation status at an economic level; to look at China and think about the climate issue and how China, and India, and the United States really are three of the most important countries at a global level who need to . . . who need to step up and set the standard and set the pace for addressing these issues. I think there is no question that it is incredibly important that we continue to put pressure on China to live up to its obligations with respect to human rights. And then at the same time I think the United States has declining credibility to talk about human rights in the context of the ongoing war on terror, where it is demonstrably abrogating its obligations under various human rights treaties. And even here at home where it needs to do a much better job. So while I think China and the human rights abuses in China are very serious and absolutely require focus and attention, I think also as a citizen of the United States and as a human rights advocate, it’s my obligation and our obligation to convince our government to do better.

Recorded on: 8/13/07

Transcript: Well I tell you. I mean I’m thinking these days, as many people are and ought to be, about the impending collapse of the climate. And what’s really worrying me is that the human rights movement is not in the game, is not in the conversation. And I really think we must be because in fact if you look at the human rights implications of climate collapse, as I prefer to call it because global warming is far too gentle a term to describe what’s actually happening . . . If you look at the human rights implications of what has already happened and what we predict will happen in the very near term, they are enormous. I mean we are going to have, and already do have, tens of thousands, and will ultimately have millions of eco refugees. A country like Bangladesh, a low lying country, much of it will be under water, and all of those residents of the low lands will need to find other places to live. We saw that happen in New Orleans, and of course there’s lots of very credible speculation about the contributions that climate change had to that particular storm. We are going to see of course the poorest and the most marginalized groups on our planet most disproportionably affected by what’s happening with the climate. Massive bacterial spread of diseases heretofore unknown which couldn’t exist in the climates in which . . . in which they are now thriving. We’re going to see, of course, massive drought. We’re going to see increased wars over fossil fuels. And of course they are very much driving the conflict right now in the Middle East as we’re all aware. At a geopolitical level, you know, the underlying challenges we’re facing in terms of climate and our fossil fuel dependence are front and center in terms of very, very tense relationships that the United States now has with many other countries around the world, and of course what’s happening in the Middle East. So in terms of where we are right now, and what’s on my mind, and what I’m thinking about, is why we’re not having a much more focused, collective conversation about how we will survive; how this species will survive on this planet in this ecosystem.

I mean there’s already, in the context of discussions about health or access to clean water, you know, or people displaced by the wars over natural resources in various countries particularly in Africa . . . Human rights organizations are often dealing with these issues, but they aren’t framing them within the broader lens and the broader understanding of what’s happening to the ecosystem. And they aren’t actively allying themselves with the environmental movement as I think they . . . as I think they must. And I think the environmental movement has something to gain here too, because the environmental movement has been historically been understood, particularly in this country, as the province of a few elite, white men who are focused on the preservation of habitat for the spotted owl, when in fact what we’re talking about is again our survival as a species. Take a look at communities of color throughout the United States who are facing what are now slowly being described as environmental justice threats – toxic waste dumps for example – in their communities. The big players in the environmental movement have been very slow to inch towards those kinds of issues which are exactly the kinds of issues that will enable a much broader base of support and engagement in the movement they are talking about.

Recorded on: 8/13/07

Transcript: Well social justice is a term that’s __________ around a lot and I’m not really sure what it means. I don’t even know what the words are doing together, although I do use it for lack of a better term. Really we’re talking about justice. I’m not sure what the word “social” is doing there. Is it an adjective to describe the word justice? Isn’t all justice social, but at the same time individual? I mean really what we’re talking about is justice; but I think for too many people justice is understood in very narrow terms to mean what happens in the legal system. And of course what you understand if you study law as I did is that law is well beyond what is written down in the books, and of course well beyond what the judges themselves say about what’s written down in the books. There’s lots of ways in which law emerges – administratively through judges and through legislators; but more broadly speaking, justice is the way in which we understand our world and the decisions and choices we make morally and ethically about how to organize ourselves and about how to coexist together. And what seems patently obvious in one cultural context as just, and necessary, and good may, of course, seem absolutely blasphemous in another context. So justice itself is quite a concept. And that again is why human rights become so important, because what we’re talking about is a universal system of understanding what we’re all entitled to as human beings irrespective of where or how we live.

Recorded on: 8/13/07

Transcript: Well I mean I think . . . I think that I really strive to be committed to evolution personally and institutionally. And I think that the last 10 years that I’ve spent at Witness I hope has been a testament to that commitment. When I got there in 1998, there was one other staff person. We had a budget of $100,000. The organization became independent. We spun it off in 2001, and now after just under 10 years, we have a budget of $4.7 million, a staff of 30. When we started . . . When the organization started in 1992, and even when I arrived in ’98, we were just getting past a focus on equipment provision and into a focus on training. And the training even at that stage was very focused on the technical aspects of how you shoot video; not a deep look at the strategic dimensions of using video as evidence to educate and activate an audience around a cause for use in the media; and most importantly as a vehicle for targeted screenings before key decision makers. So the organization has really evolved from an initial mission focus on technology transfer towards a focus on enabling and empowering people to use technology in innovative ways. And metaphorically speaking towards using a very open source approach to how we grow not a heavily bricks and mortar approach to going to scale as it were. Because what we’re trying to do is to scale the impact and the power of the methodology by demonstrating powerful uses of that methodology. And I think, you know again, to reinforce the commitment to evolution as the organization has grown quite rapidly over these years and has evolved continually during my involvement, we are now poised to launch in the fall of 2007 the Hub, which will be like a YouTube or MySpace for human rights where anybody anywhere can upload visual imagery from their handheld devices or a laptop. They can meta tag it. They can connect it to campaigns, and groups, and discussions, and into a community that cares about the issues that they’re working on. So I think really the Hub represents, you know, the ultimate innovation for us at this stage in the game given how dramatically technology has evolved since our inception in 1992, and what I hope will be a very lasting legacy for the organization.

Recorded on: 8/13/07

Transcript: Well I do think that things are changing slowly but surely. I mean a lot of people point to September 11th as a turning point in terms of the moment at which people began to understand the ways in which their lives are inextricably connected to the lives of people many, many miles away who they’ve never met and may not understand very well. And I think there’s some truth to that. I think as always being said, you know, the communications technology we have now makes the world smaller and smaller, and makes us much more interconnected. And I think the so-called war on terror has also . . . has also had the potential benefit of connecting us in a much closer way to what’s happening in other parts of the world. Of course it’s not having positive effects, and that’s the challenge. And you know when you ask why is it that Americans are so ethnocentric for the most part; why is it that we aren’t looking outside of ourselves, I think really we have to look to our education system very closely because as I mentioned at the outset, so much of my patterning, so much of my understanding of who and how I am in the world is a function of early education. I’m not talking graduate and postgraduate education which is very important as well. I’m talking about early education before high school and during high school which helps you frame and develop an identity. And if you look at the kind of education that people get in many other countries around the world, their sophistication at a geopolitical level so far exceed ours. It’s just astonishing. I mean they have a much better standing of the history both current and past of their own country, of the region surrounding it and of the world.

Recorded on: 8/13/07

Question: What role has the media played in the human rights movement?

Transcript: Well certainly I think, you know, I have a bone to pick with the media as it stands. I mean it’s widely understood that we’re facing increasing concentration of mainstream media; that it is controlled by a diminishing number of companies; that corporate interests influence the nature and type of the coverage. I mean you have a channel like Fox for example which is known to have a political bend, and of course from a Fox perspective. The other channels would be understood to have a different political bent. But the reality is that we are not getting honest, accurate, rigorous reporting from a lot of the mainstream media, and that it’s very driven by commercial interests as it stands. And even non-commercial operations like a PBS constantly under threat from Congress in terms of its funding and its continued existence, and I think not really rising to the challenge of making the most of the new participatory possibilities that technology presents for us. So I think that is why you have seen a massive shift away from mainstream media in terms of how North Americans, for example, get their news increasingly towards trusted sources, towards informal networks, towards, you know, programs like the Jon Stewart Show and the blogosphere. And then also, I think, this very creative dialogue and really challenge being presented by the blogosphere when you look at sort of the Rathergate scandal for example; one in which the blogosphere challenged and ultimately usurped one of the denizens of mainstream media. So I think mainstream’s media . . . media right now is, by its own admission, you know, confronting a major crossroads. And it has to do with the challenge of viability . . . commercial viability given what’s happened with transformations in technology, and also the challenge of the diminishing trust that the public now places in them and in their coverage.

Question: What is the citizen’s responsibility?

Transcript: I think this really draws on how we define citizenship. And unfortunately in this country I don’t think we take citizenship very seriously. I lived in North and South Africa under Apartheid, and I saw the news coverage after . . . after, you know, the fall of Apartheid. I saw people waiting hours, and hours, and hours on line to vote. When you look at this country, we don’t even have half the country, half the eligible population voting. And likewise, you know, we don’t see a populace that is dedicated to absorbing news and to analyzing it critically and to responding. And it is a chicken and egg question. I mean what do I expect or what do I want of people? I want and expect an active participation in what it means to be a citizen; whether that’s at local, a state, a national, or an international level. What does it mean to you to be human in this community? And what information do you need to make a contribution that’s valuable? That’s up to each individual to decide.

You said what do citizens want, and what does the consumer want? And in fact that’s the argument that mainstream media gives us a lot. They say, “Well look at the Neilson’s ratings.” People turned it off. They don’t care. You know our ratings are how we sell our ads, which is how we pay our people. And we cannot afford to produce the story that you want us to produce. If it’s international, it has to have a U.S. angle or kids, for example. That’s what I hear all the time. And I do think that becomes a chicken and egg argument, because as long as you continue to feed the machine what it’s used to getting – the oil, whether it’s 1040 or . . . that its use to getting – then it will continue to absorb that. And I think you do fabricate need also by virtue of advertising which, in essence, much news broadcasting is a form of advertising. It’s moved beyond news and towards marketing a product which it hopes people will buy so it in turn can sell more product, i.e. air time, to people who want to sell other products. So it’s very complex, and I think to say that most people in this country want programs on weight loss, not programs on what’s happening on the U.S.-Mexico border, vis-a-vie the militarization of citizen groups and vigilantes is highly speculative. And I don’t think the Neilson ratings tell us everything we need to know.

Recorded on: 8/13/07

Question: Who are you?

Transcript: I was born and raised in New York City. I was born to a scientist and someone who is essentially an artist at heart. So I think from the get go, you know, competing but arguably complementary dimensions to me in my . . . in my development. I spent a lot of time as a young girl in Soho. My parents separated when we were six, and we moved to Soho. And in fact we had a loft in the back of the gallery where my mother was starting things up in Soho in 1979 . . . or ‘72 I guess it was. So I had exposure early on to a lot of people working in visual arts, a very eclectic community. There was a room off the side of our kitchen where people would be staying and taking care of us in exchange for free rent essentially in Soho in those days. So everybody from, you know, a gay French chef to a Trinidadian model, to a cartoonist – I mean a very broad range of people. And then also at the same time I was growing up in Soho well before most . . . most families were living there. I mean it was a lot of abandoned factories. I was spending a lot of time in Dutchess County New York with my father who loved the countryside, who was born and raised in Vermont. So you know a strange combination of a loft life in Soho and working on a farm in Dutchess County; and a lot of exposure through the schools that I went to to very diverse communities. Bank Street College of Education where I went through sixth grade was really a very diverse environment, both economically and racially. And so I think it was a real gift to grow up here.

Question: Who was your greatest influence?

Transcript: Well one was certainly Leon _________. He was an artist that my mother represented, at least had an exhibition of his work. And he was in fact quite, quite active with Amnesty International. And he did a series of painting called “The Mercenaries”. And basically these paintings, which were gigantic canvases, some of which inhabited my living room for various periods of time, depicted CIA trained mercenaries urinating on political prisoners and torturing them in other horrible ways. I mean it wasn’t pretty art to look at, needless to say; but it was extremely graphic, extremely gripping. And I think what was most powerful about that series of work was that in every instance there was an accomplice with the perpetrator. And either the perpetrator or the accomplice was looking at you looking at them, making a witness out of you. And I think that really . . . that really blueprinted for me the power and potential of visual imagery to make a difference, and to invite us . . . to challenge us to respond.

I also think my teachers, my schooling was really important. As I mentioned Bank Street was a very eclectic environment. We studied . . . We read Lillian Hellman’s Scoundrel’s _________ about the McCarthy era. We produced a play called “Comrades” about the McCarthy era. One of the first reports I ever wrote was about Harriet Tubman who was one of the sort of the leading figures in the movement for emancipation, ran the Underground Railroad, you know shuttling slaves out of slavery in this country. I wrote another one about the hypocrisy of Abraham Lincoln who, of course, signed the Emancipation Proclamation when he himself had slaves. And these were reports I wrote in fourth, and fifth and sixth grade. So I was really thinking in political terms quite early on, and I think I have my school to thank for that. I moved on to Riverdale Country School where I had two history teachers who took a fondness to me and saw the passion that I had for social justice and introduced me to Amnesty. And that was where I really started getting actively involved in a more formal way running my school chapter of Amnesty. I started that when I was about 12. So you know it’s really been a lifelong commitment to social justice, and I think aside from having parents who have a lot of integrity and who care about the issues, having teachers, and having an educational framework which valued justice, and analysis, and thinking. Creative thinking and constructive thinking was really important.

Recorded on: 8/13/07