Best-selling journalist Antony Loewenstein trav­els across Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti, Papua New Guinea, the United States, Britain, Greece, and Australia to witness the reality of disaster capitalism. He discovers how companies such as G4S, Serco, and Halliburton cash in on or­ganized misery in a hidden world of privatized detention centers, militarized private security, aid profiteering, and destructive mining.

Disaster has become big business. Talking to immigrants stuck in limbo in Britain or visiting immigration centers in America, Loewenstein maps the secret networks formed to help cor­porations bleed what profits they can from economic crisis. He debates with Western contractors in Afghanistan, meets the locals in post-earthquake Haiti, and in Greece finds a country at the mercy of vulture profiteers. In Papua New Guinea, he sees a local commu­nity forced to rebel against predatory resource companies and NGOs.

What emerges through Loewenstein’s re­porting is a dark history of multinational corpo­rations that, with the aid of media and political elites, have grown more powerful than national governments. In the twenty-first century, the vulnerable have become the world’s most valu­able commodity. Disaster Capitalism is published by Verso in 2015.

Profits_of_doom_cover_350Vulture capitalism has seen the corporation become more powerful than the state, and yet its work is often done by stealth, supported by political and media elites. The result is privatised wars and outsourced detention centres, mining companies pillaging precious land in developing countries and struggling nations invaded by NGOs and the corporate dollar. Best-selling journalist Antony Loewenstein travels to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Haiti, Papua New Guinea and across Australia to witness the reality of this largely hidden world of privatised detention centres, outsourced aid, destructive resource wars and militarized private security. Who is involved and why? Can it be stopped? What are the alternatives in a globalised world? Profits of Doom, published in 2013 and released in an updated edition in 2014, challenges the fundamentals of our unsustainable way of life and the money-making imperatives driving it. It is released in an updated edition in 2014.
forgodssakecover Four Australian thinkers come together to ask and answer the big questions, such as: What is the nature of the universe? Doesn't religion cause most of the conflict in the world? And Where do we find hope?   We are introduced to different belief systems – Judaism, Christianity, Islam – and to the argument that atheism, like organised religion, has its own compelling logic. And we gain insight into the life events that led each author to their current position.   Jane Caro flirted briefly with spiritual belief, inspired by 19th century literary heroines such as Elizabeth Gaskell and the Bronte sisters. Antony Loewenstein is proudly culturally, yet unconventionally, Jewish. Simon Smart is firmly and resolutely a Christian, but one who has had some of his most profound spiritual moments while surfing. Rachel Woodlock grew up in the alternative embrace of Baha'i belief but became entranced by its older parent religion, Islam.   Provocative, informative and passionately argued, For God's Sakepublished in 2013, encourages us to accept religious differences, but to also challenge more vigorously the beliefs that create discord.  
After Zionism, published in 2012 and 2013 with co-editor Ahmed Moor, brings together some of the world s leading thinkers on the Middle East question to dissect the century-long conflict between Zionism and the Palestinians, and to explore possible forms of a one-state solution. Time has run out for the two-state solution because of the unending and permanent Jewish colonization of Palestinian land. Although deep mistrust exists on both sides of the conflict, growing numbers of Palestinians and Israelis, Jews and Arabs are working together to forge a different, unified future. Progressive and realist ideas are at last gaining a foothold in the discourse, while those influenced by the colonial era have been discredited or abandoned. Whatever the political solution may be, Palestinian and Israeli lives are intertwined, enmeshed, irrevocably. This daring and timely collection includes essays by Omar Barghouti, Jonathan Cook, Joseph Dana, Jeremiah Haber, Jeff Halper, Ghada Karmi, Antony Loewenstein, Saree Makdisi, John Mearsheimer, Ahmed Moor, Ilan Pappe, Sara Roy and Phil Weiss.
The 2008 financial crisis opened the door for a bold, progressive social movement. But despite widespread revulsion at economic inequity and political opportunism, after the crash very little has changed. Has the Left failed? What agenda should progressives pursue? And what alternatives do they dare to imagine? Left Turn, published by Melbourne University Press in 2012 and co-edited with Jeff Sparrow, is aimed at the many Australians disillusioned with the political process. It includes passionate and challenging contributions by a diverse range of writers, thinkers and politicians, from Larissa Berendht and Christos Tsiolkas to Guy Rundle and Lee Rhiannon. These essays offer perspectives largely excluded from the mainstream. They offer possibilities for resistance and for a renewed struggle for change.
The Blogging Revolution, released by Melbourne University Press in 2008, is a colourful and revelatory account of bloggers around the globe why live and write under repressive regimes - many of them risking their lives in doing so. Antony Loewenstein's travels take him to private parties in Iran and Egypt, internet cafes in Saudi Arabia and Damascus, to the homes of Cuban dissidents and into newspaper offices in Beijing, where he discovers the ways in which the internet is threatening the ruld of governments. Through first-hand investigations, he reveals the complicity of Western multinationals in assisting the restriction of information in these countries and how bloggers are leading the charge for change. The blogging revolution is a superb examination about the nature of repression in the twenty-first century and the power of brave individuals to overcome it. It was released in an updated edition in 2011, post the Arab revolutions, and an updated Indian print version in 2011.
The best-selling book on the Israel/Palestine conflict, My Israel Question - on Jewish identity, the Zionist lobby, reporting from Palestine and future Middle East directions - was released by Melbourne University Press in 2006. A new, updated edition was released in 2007 (and reprinted again in 2008). The book was short-listed for the 2007 NSW Premier's Literary Award. Another fully updated, third edition was published in 2009. It was released in all e-book formats in 2011. An updated and translated edition was published in Arabic in 2012.

Transparency required in journalism yet sorely lacking today

My following article appears in the Guardian today:

Are mainstream journalists dedicated to journalism? This may seem like a strange question, especially since I’m a journalist myself, though independent and not tied to a corporate news organisation.

We are bombarded with details that claim to inform us about the world. From war and peace to politics and global affairs, reporters produce content that is consumed by the vast majority of the population. There are claims of holding power to account, questioning how governments, officials and businesses make decisions that affect us all. In reality, corporate and political interests too often influence what we see and hear.

Of course, profound failures regularly occur – not least during the global financial crisis, when most business reporters were far too close to bankers causing the lying and deceit. Or in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war, when too few in the media questioned the bogus rationale by the Bush administration and its allies about Saddam Hussein’s supposed WMD threat. More recently, many in the Washington media elite rallied around Barack Obama and his defence of mass surveillance after the explosive revelations of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

But the media has singularly failed in holding itself to account. We, as journalists, should disclose for whom we vote and any other political affiliations that may affect our reporting. It’s the least we can do to restore trust in an industry that regularly receives low marks by its readers. A 2011 study by Edelman Public Relations found only 33% of the Australian public trusted the press, compared to an average of 49% globally. A 2013 study by Transparency International finds Australians rank political parties and the media as the most corrupt institutions in the state.

But instead of taking such ideas to heart and questioning why this is the case, too many in the press respond indignantly and claim that commitments to fairness and accuracy will suffice. They’re important, but not enough. A 2013 study by the University of the Sunshine Coast found that “more than half (51%) describe themselves as holding left-of-centre political views, compared with only 12.9% who consider themselves right-of-centre”, and over 40% of ABC journalists who answered the study (only 34 people; yes, hardly representative of anything) claimed to be Greens voters. But after the predictable indignation in Rupert Murdoch’s Australian – radical communists and Islamists are running your ABC, people! – the debate died.

Here was a perfect opportunity for journalists to acknowledge their massive deficit of faith amongst the public, and find ways to address it. In an age where our media is dominated by talk shows, and where punditry is cheap to produce in a period of reduced media budgets, it’s time for commentators and reporters to more clearly reveal bias and voting intentions.

I’ve long argued that by doing this, journalists would follow the strict rules of transparency they only sometimes demand from others. They are humans like everybody else, not exactly a shocking revelation, with experiences and perspectives that shape their world view. Their influence over public debates is massive, almost incomparable to any other profession, and yet we know so very little about them. Why they vote Liberal, Labor, Greens, Wikileaks or another minor party says something important about a person with the ability to influence and question the political cycle.

Back in April, News Limited’s Andrew Bolt chastised ABC News’s 24 Virginia Trioli for asking only some of her guests about their political party of choice. More critically, she didn’t ask herself or co-hosts their own affiliations. Our media regularly fails to properly inform consumers about conflicts of interest with featured talent.

The responsibility should be on journalists to explain why they aren’ttelling us for whom they vote, rather than claiming it’s a private matter that would only open them up to dismissal by partisan players or exclusion by politicians who don’t believe they’ll receive a fair hearing.

This already happens today. The vast majority of “exclusives” in our media are nothing of the kind but sanctioned leaks to favoured reporters. A 2010 report by the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism (disclosure: I’m a research associate there but I had no involvement in this study) found that over half of the stories in the mainstream media over a five-day period in late 2009, across major media, was spin and connected in some way to public relations.

Significantly, the authors commented, “when there was no media release, if it was clear from the positive, promotional tone of the article or there was a focus on one source only with no indication of independent questioning, it was coded as ‘PR driven’”. We are long past journalists being able to say with a straight face that they’re simply reporting the news as they see it. Objectivity only ever existed in the minds of the deluded.

For me, it’s long been a journalistic desire to challenge accepted wisdom on Palestine, war, politics, capitalism, terrorism and censorship. By opening up more fully with readers and consumers, practitioners would build a stronger relationship with them, rather than sitting unnaturally above the debate, seemingly without opinions. I agree with the American Journalism Review that said in 2012 “The voice of god is dead”, and declaring that objectivity is a concept without foundation in reality. We are all subjective, and shouldn’t be afraid to admit it. Fairness in reporting should be the aim.

False balance between two, usually unequal sides isn’t journalism; it’s colluding with the powerful against the voiceless. How we frame stories matters and readers know it; they’re usually far smarter than most reporters give them credit for. Being as impartial as possible surely is the goal while leveling with our readers and viewers that we’re not hollow men and women without an agenda.

The “adversarial journalistic ethos”, as the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald writes, should be the model for us all. Instead, wining and dining and being close to power is how too many reporters pursue the profession. The results lack rigour and skepticism if you fear losing that all-important access to the next sanctioned press release or Mid-Winter ball invitation hobnobbing with politicians and advisors in Canberra. Look at theobsequiousness of journalists at the White House correspondents dinner. It’s hard to disagree with former Labor leader Mark Latham’s recent comments that the press gallery are “people who want to be players in politics, but lack the integrity and courage to run for elected office in their own name” .

For the record, I’m likely to vote for the Greens this year but am flirting with the Wikileaks party, both organisations largely dedicated to increasing transparency in the ways we are governed.

UPDATE: The Guardian’s media writer Roy Greenslade has responded to my column and challenged its logic. I love this conversation, an important one that journalists must have with the public to better understand why our reputations are largely in tatters.

  • Kevin Herbert

    Nice piece Antony.

    The legendary DC independent reporter I F Stone formed a cynical view of the cronyism between the US MSM & the the US political class, beginning in the late 1940’s.

    Google him and you’ll find out about one hell of an independent news reporter, who in essence foretold of the current malaise among mainstream media globally.

    Also check out the UK’s Media Lens, who do a first rate job of keeping in check their print & electronic media’s appalling bias towards the Government’s foreign policy..