On June 16, Al Gore announced his candidacy for the presidency of the United States at a televised rally in Tennessee. At one point in the broadcast, CNN's TV cameras were focused on Gore's audience, when protest erupted. A number of people were holding up signs which read "Gore's Greed Kills" and "AIDS Drugs for Africa." Soon after, several people could be seen aggressively grabbing the signs out of the hands of the protesters, and maybe manhandling them as well (it all happened very quickly), most likely security guards, or possibly fervent Gore supporters (although I don't know if such people exist). CNN quickly switched to another camera which was showing Gore speaking at the podium. The camera stayed on Gore for quite a while, before finally cutting back to the crowd. Amazingly, the protesters were gone! All that could be seen were throngs of cheery Gore supporters with their "We Love Tipper" and "I Adore Gore" signs.

First of all, it seems odd that CNN would turn away from a shot of controversy and action to a relatively dull and stationary shot of Gore's speech. In addition, the shot of Gore that CNN used was obstructed; many Gore fans were holding up their signs directly in front of the camera's line-of-sight. At times, roughly 90% of Gore was hidden behind the backs of signs. CNN later referred to the protesters as "hecklers."

It seems quite likely that CNN was more complicit in helping the Gore campaign sweep this controversy under the rug. It wouldn't be the first time. Last year, in Columbus, Ohio, at Madeliene Albright's "town meeting" about bombing Iraq for the umpteenth time, when vocal protesters began protesting, CNN's Bernard Shaw angrily told the protesters that the meeting was "important" and that they were "ruining it."

So what is this controversy? What does Al Gore have to do with AIDS and Africa? Something so atrocious that, if it got covered by the major media, could torpedo Gore's presidential aspirations. I'll have to set it up first.

While Americans can talk idly about the AIDS epidemic, the numbers of the infected in this country are no match for those in most African nations. Up to 16% of the South African population is infected, 20% of mothers, and 45% of the military. Most of the infected are the very poorest in the country.

Treatment for HIV infection is very expensive, more so in some countries than in others. AIDS drug therapy in South Africa averages $1000 a month, while the average South African yearly salary is $2600 (and most HIV+ South Africans make substantially less than that). To help alleviate this crisis, the South African government legislated two strategies to lower drug costs. The first is called parallel importing, in which the government would purchase drugs in countries where the drug companies were charging less money, and then the government would import the drugs back into South Africa. The second is called compulsory licensing, by which a patent holder (like those who manufacture the patented AIDS medication) is forced to grant a license to manufacture their product for reasonable compensation.

The U.S. Government has announced that their number one concern with regard to South Africa is changing these policies. A February 5 State Department report to Congress mentions a number of agencies including the "Office of the Vice President (OVP) have been engaged in an assiduous, concerted campaign to persuade the Government of South Africa (SAG) to withdraw or modify the provisions of Article 15(c) [concerning compulsory licensing] that we believe are inconsistent with South Africa's obligations and commitments under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)." Gore and the US Government are therefore working to keep affordable AIDS treatment drugs away from those dying in South Africa because it could violate the intellectual property rights, and therefore lower the profits of, large American pharmaceutical companies.

So that's it. The protesters were angry that Gore would do such a thing. To be fair, Gore is not the sole actor here, nor does he seem to be the architect of this plan. But imagine if this news captured headlines. This revelation would no doubt revile Gore to even the most mainstream of voters. But CNN turned a blind eye. The New York Times got the story exactly backwards, claiming that the activists "concerned that Mr. Gore was not doing enough to get AIDS drugs to Africa." The Washington Post, however, did cover the story well. No one else in the media seemed to notice.

I don't think that any of this was because of any specific political agenda of CNN. I think that the news agency is quite comfortable covering elections when the candidates call the shots. Then all they have to do is show up at the rallies, speeches, and press conferences. They might go so far as to grill one candidate about accusations made by their opponents, but little else. Just imagine how much harder their job would be if the public had some input? I mean, what if CNN had to try to cover the news that mattered to their viewers? Evidently in the minds of CNN, that scenario is more repugnant than millions of people suffering and dying.