Annual Fundraising Appeal
Over the course of 21 years, we’ve published many unflattering stories about Henry Kissinger. We’ve recounted his involvement in the Chilean coup and the illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos; his hidden role in the Kent State massacre and the genocide in East Timor; his noxious influence peddling in DC and craven work for dictators and repressive regimes around the world. We’ve questioned his ethics, his morals and his intelligence. We’ve called for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. But nothing we’ve ever published pissed off HK quite like this sequence of photos taken at a conference in Brazil, which appeared in one of the early print editions of CounterPunch.
The publication of those photos, and the story that went with them, 20 years ago earned CounterPunch a global audience in the pre-web days and helped make our reputation as a fearless journal willing to take the fight to the forces of darkness without flinching. Now our future is entirely in your hands. Please donate.


Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

or use

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Entergy Nuclear's Nasty New PR Firm Indian Point on the Potomac

Indian Point on the Potomac


There’s no question that New York’s Indian Point nuclear power plant could use some public relations help. But Entergy, Indian Point’s owner, might have chosen their new PR firm a little more carefully.

Last year, the state of New York asked the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to deny the plant’s license extension application, citing "a long and troubling history of problems." It was "the first time that a state had stepped forward to flatly oppose license renewals," according to the New York Times.

Then, in January, the NRC proposed a $650,000 fine against Indian Point, for having repeatedly missed deadlines to install a new emergency siren system. The fine is "10 times the normal size" of such sanctions, reported the Times.

To address such criticisms, Entergy has retained the Burson-Marsteller firm, funded the pro-nuclear "New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance" and brought Greenpeace activist-turned-PR consultant Patrick Moore to New York. Last month, Entergy made another effort to, in their own words, "provide public assurances about the operation and protection of New York’s largest nuclear power facility." They announced the formation of an "Independent Safety Evaluation" panel to investigate Indian Point.

Given the crisis of confidence facing Indian Point, it’s remarkable that Entergy hired Potomac Communications Group to promote its new panel. Four years ago, Potomac was outed as the PR firm behind what the Austin Chronicle called "Big Nuke’s vast op-ed conspiracy: a decades-long, centrally orchestrated plan to defraud the nation’s newspaper readers by misrepresenting the propaganda of one hired atomic gun as the learned musings of disparate academics and other nuclear-industry ‘experts.’"

Entergy materials don’t name the Potomac firm. But the press release announcing the Indian Point panel lists Matthew Simmons, a Potomac program manager (PDF), as the panel’s contact person. The email address given for the Indian Point panel also maps back to Potomac’s website, Simmons confirmed to the Center for Media and Democracy that he’s with the Potomac Communications Group.

As the saying goes, Simmons has his work cut out for him.

The Indian Point safety panel quickly came under fire from plant opponents. New York state representative John Hall told the Times Herald-Record, "I am skeptical of the true independence of any panel set up, selected by, and paid for by [Entergy]." Environmentalist Lisa Rainwater said that her organization, Riverkeeper, "wants a state-mandated review of plant operations," similar to earlier committees that "included a citizens advisory panel." Even the NRC is "rather ho-hum" about the Indian Point panel, according to the New York Times.

In response, Simmons pointed out that Entergy only selected the co-chairs of the Indian Point panel, Drs. James Rhoades and Neil Todreas. The co-chairs then recruited the other ten panel members, based on their experience and professional and personal integrity, said Simmons. "No one [on the panel] has had significant interaction with Entergy in the past — either Entergy as a company or Indian Point in particular," he added. The Indian Point panel will also hold a public meeting and is accepting input via email, at

It’s unlikely that anything short of a publicly-funded review overseen by government agencies (which the NRC sees as redundant to its plant inspections) would mollify Indian Point critics. But what the safety panel is able to do and how it is perceived have repercussions beyond New York.

Entergy’s Vermont Yankee plant is also up for its license renewal. Vermont’s state legislature and Public Service Board are conducting their own reviews of the plant, but Entergy might convene a safety panel there, too. "There is value in having something like this if just to assure the public about safety," Entergy’s Jim Steets told Vermont’s Brattleboro Reformer.

DIANE FARSETTA is a Senior Researcher at the Center for Media & Democracy. She can be reached at: