Daily Press Briefing Sean McCormack, Spokesman

Daily Press Briefing Sean McCormack, Spokesman Washington, DC July 16, 2007

INDEX:

DEPARTMENT Secretary's Travel Plans / Secretary's Plans to Travel to Africa Upcoming Speech by the President Reasons for Cancellation of Portions of Upcoming Trip / Iraq, Middle East

AFRICA Secretary, Administration's Commitment to Africa / Unparalleled in Recent History MCC Compact signed with Mozambique Secretary's Speech / AGOA Forum / Institutional Marker

MIDDLE EAST Very Important to Move Political Track Forward for Palestinians U.S. Efforts to Resolve Israel-Palestinian Conflict / Timing Tony Blair's Role in the Region

IRAN Potential Actions Against Iran / UN Sanctions Already in Place Preventing Institutions of the World Financial System from Being Used Illicitly Concerns of the International Financial System / Value of Reputation Negative Role of the Quds Force in Iraq Preliminary Energy Cooperation Agreement Between Turkey and Iran Individuals in Iran Being Prevented from Leaving / American Citizens No New Information About Levinson Case

ETHIOPIA Sentencing of Opposition Figures / U.S. Urges Powers of Clemency Exercised

TURKEY/IRAQ Turkish Actions Against PKK / In Both Countries' Interest to Cooperate Accusations that the U.S. is Arming the PKK Have No Basis in Fact

UK/RUSSIA British Expulsion of Russian Diplomats U.S. Urges British-Russian Cooperation on Litvinenko Case

NORTH KOREA Shutdown of Yongbyon / IAEA Confirmation First Phase of February Agreement / Provision of Heavy Fuel Oil Next Phase Will Be Subject of Next Six Party Envoys Meeting / July 18 Irreversibility Associated with Fully Disabling Reactor / More Durable Step Status of Various Working Groups Trigger Mechanism for a Ministerial Level Meeting of Six Parties / No Date Set

PAKISTAN U.S. Pleased with Counterterrorism Cooperation Received from Pakistan Government of Pakistan's Agreement with Tribal Leaders in North Waziristan

TRANSCRIPT:

View Video

12:36 p.m. EDT

MR. MCCORMACK: Good afternoon, everybody. No opening statements, so we can get right into your questions. Who wants to lead off?

QUESTION: I will. You told us this morning the Secretary is not going to Ghana now --

MR. MCCORMACK: Correct.

QUESTION: -- and will skip the AGOA meeting.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, she plans -- she would like to address it via video link, so she won't be there physically, but she will be --

QUESTION: That will be a live thing?

MR. MCCORMACK: We hope so, yeah.

QUESTION: From here, okay. What does it say about the Administration's commitment to Africa that the Secretary is unwilling or unable or think it's a better use of her time not to spend 21 or less than 20 hours in Ghana or four hours in Congo and instead spend basically the same amount of time in Lisbon for a meeting that could be held pretty much anywhere?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it wasn't -- going to Lisbon wasn't to the exclusion of going to the Congo and vice versa. It wasn't an either/or proposition. Matt, look, she very much wants to go to Africa and she wants to spend some quality time in Africa. She's been there twice during her tenure as Secretary of State and previously traveled there with the President, so she's very much committed to the developing story that is Africa.

And certainly this Administration's commitment to Africa and helping Africa develop in its own way while assisting the people of Africa with some of the challenges that they face is really unquestioned. I think if you look at the amount of assistance and effort that this Administration has devoted to Africa I think it is unparalleled in the history -- recent history of American Presidents in terms of the quality of the engagement, in terms of the resources devoted.

I mean, just on Friday, for example, she was meeting with the President of Mozambique who had signed an MCC, Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact, which is just one example of the ways that we are engaging Africa. And we do not look at Africa as a continent that is just in need of handouts. We look at Africa as a place that is really on the move and that is really interested in allowing its people to develop their full human potential and we're with them. We're partners in that. AGOA is an example of that. So while she does regret not being able to be at the AGOA Forum, other issues then made it necessary that she stay here in Washington for those couple of days, but she will take an extended trip to Africa where she's able to spend quality time in each of the states. I can't tell you the dates of that trip right now, but certainly she is very committed to Africa and the future of Africa and the U.S.-Africa relationship.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, it might be comforting to some of those in Africa who will see this as a snub if you could tell us exactly what it is that the Secretary plans to do here on Wednesday instead of going to Ghana?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, certainly we will -- as to her public events – we will publish what her public events will be on Wednesday as we do every day But in terms of other meetings, conversations, work that she's going to be doing, I'll keep you up to date when the day arrives.

Sue.

QUESTION: Do you have any details on the regional conference that Secretary Rice is going to be hosting in the fall? And --

QUESTION: No, if I can stay with --

QUESTION: Oh, sorry.

QUESTION: -- Africa.

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you have any details on what U.S. expects still to see on the AGOA Forum? Is there a new country you plan to add to the list of AGOA or Secretary want to speak about more deeply?

MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of the Secretary's speech?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we will, of course, make her -- the text of her speech available to you.

QUESTION: No, but what is -- I mean, you certainly have some expectation from this forum -- AGOA Forum.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, in terms of her speech, we'll make that available to you. This forum is really intended to provide a sort of institutional marker for where AGOA is and where its future might lead. I can't tell you right off the bat of whether or not we're going to add any states or hope to add any states or any particular areas of trade cooperation to AGOA as it stands. Congress has a say in that -- has a big say in that.

But it is an important institutional framework that actually was started by the Clinton Administration and this -- that the Bush Administration has built on.

Yes.

QUESTION: On this regional conference that the Secretary plans to host in the autumn on the Middle East, could you provide a few more details on this? And why have you decided to -- why has the Bush Administration decided that now is the time to make a big push on Israeli-Palestinian issues? Is it linked up to Iraq? Do you have the feeling that you need -- that the Iraq and resolving the Israeli-Palestinian issue is sort of intertwined?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, what you're referring to is the President's speech. And as for the details of the President's speech, I will let the President speak to all of these issues. I'm not going to get out ahead of him. After the speech, we are going to be having down here an off-camera on-the-record briefing with David Welch. I think about 2:15 or something like that. And he can talk about some of the more fine grain details of what the President talks about. At this point, I'm not going to get into the business of confirming what may or may not be in the President's speech.

But in terms of why now, it is -- the Secretary believes deeply, and I think you will hear from the President as well on this score, that it is very important to try to move forward not only the institution-building track, which Prime Minister Blair is going to be working on, but the political track, and to try to work with the Israelis, the Palestinians, as well as neighbors in the region to move that track forward.

It is important in its own right, without respect to Iraq or Lebanon or any other place in the Middle East, to try to resolve this longstanding conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It is important for the Israeli people, it is important for the Palestinian people. Both of those populations have waited too long for an agreement that would allow them to live in peace and security and really get on with the daily task of building a better country for themselves -- better countries for themselves.

But it does certainly, broadly speaking, get to an issue that has, over recent years, come more and more to the fore and that is the issue of fighting against the ideology of violent extremism. And certainly, we want to associate ourselves with those who have an interest in resolving the differences peacefully via the negotiating table and advocating for democratic reforms, economic reforms that benefit the populations in the region; that, as opposed to those who want to resort to the use of violence and terror to try to achieve what they refer to are political ends.

So in a broader sense, yes, this -- you can associate our efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in that larger framework, but it's not directly connected to Iraq or any other issue.

QUESTION: And did the Secretary cancel all of her Africa engagements and other engagements this week so that she could focus on pulling together this new, sort of, initiative?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it is as I stated last week; it was -- it had to do with several different things. It had to do with Iraq and the fact that there is a significant national conversation now going on in the United States about the course of the war in Iraq and what U.S. policy should be, and also talked about the fact that she was going to be here to address issues related to the Middle East more generally speaking and more specifically to this divide that we see having emerged in the Middle East between those who resort to the use of violent extremism and terror and those who have an interest in building a different kind of Middle East.

QUESTION: I'm sorry, can I -- what question were you answering when you said, why now?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not sure what you're talking about.

QUESTION: Were you answering a question about this international conference or were you answering a question about something else, because I thought --

MR. MCCORMACK: She -- Sue asked --

QUESTION: -- about the regional conference.

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I'm not confirming a regional conference, Matt. What she was talking more generally about a push on the political front, and that's what I was referring to. I made it very clear that I wasn't going to get out ahead of the President.

Yes.

QUESTION: At 1:16.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, at that point, it's his words, not mine.

Yes.

QUESTION: What should we make of the reports of last week that the Secretary's resisting efforts to broaden Tony Blair's remit?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't think Tony Blair has said that he is seeking to broaden his mandate. I don't think we've heard that from Tony Blair.

QUESTION: So that sort -- of that sort in Europe there, haven't there?

MR. MCCORMACK: What's that?

QUESTION: There have been noises of that sort in Europe.

MR. MCCORMACK: You know there are noises, anonymous-source noises that emanate every single minute of the day from Europe and America and around the globe I don't necessarily pay attention to those. What I do pay attention to is interactions between former Prime Minister Blair and the President and the Secretary of State and official communications between them. And I don't think that we have seen any suggestion that he would do anything other than what he has agreed with the Quartet what would be his mission.

Yes.

QUESTION: Didn't Blair meet with the Secretary this weekend?

MR. MCCORMACK: No. No, I understand he was in the U.S., but on private business.

Yes.

QUESTION: Switching subjects --

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay, anything else on the Middle East? Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: I will keep us in the Middle East. On Iran, is the United States preparing to apply sanctions to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps?

MR. MCCORMACK: James, I'm not going to speak prospectively about any actions that we may or may not take with respect to financial or other kinds of sanctions. It's no secret that there are already in place U.N. sanctions on various entities related to the Iranian Government. There’s been a couple of banks that had been sanctioned by the United Nations.

Separately, we have been working with our partners in the international community to talk about ways in which we can prevent legitimate institutions of the world financial system from being used by Iranian entities for illegitimate purposes, whether that's terrorism or nonproliferation or proliferation matters. So we are working actively on the international front to make sure that those legitimate international institutions aren't used for illicit purposes.

Another track, the United States also has at its disposal the ability to act unilaterally under Executive Orders where we find cases in which entities around the world, whether they are Iranian or otherwise, are acting in contravention to U.S. laws or accepted international norms and they meet a definition laid out by the rules, regulations and laws of this country that we can designate them. And there are several Executive Orders under which we can do that. But at this point, I'm not going to try to speculate on what the United States may or may not do regarding the question you just asked.

QUESTION: Can you speak to the efficacy of these kinds of sanctions as an instrument of changing Iran's behavior so far? Have we seen any indication of that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you've seen significant actions on the international financial front. We're -- countries are reducing their export credits to Iran. And more importantly, you're seeing important international financial institutions, banks, investment houses, looking twice at whether or not they are going to do business in Iran and do business with Iranian entities.

So what the effect of bringing out into the open the illicit activities of these entities is that the international financial system is looking at whether or not it wants to be involved: (a) with those entities or (b) more generally, with Iranian entities. Because in the international financial institution -- international financial system your reputation is your most valuable asset. And if you have an institution that is involving itself even unwittingly in illicit transactions with Iranian entities, their international reputation suffers therefore their business suffers. So they are taking business decisions that they are not going to involve -- either not going to involve themselves as heavily or at all in doing business with Iran.

QUESTION: Does the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps play a constructive role in -- on the world's stage right now in the United States' view?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, there are a lot of -- the IRGC is technically an entity internal to Iran, but it does have, "external arms" to it for example, like the Quds force. And we've talked about the negative role that the Quds force, for example, is playing in Iraq in supplying technology, training, other kinds of assistance to those individuals and groups involved with the EFP networks, as well as other militias that are responsible, in part, for the instability that you're seeing in Iran.

Yes. Anything else on this?

QUESTION: On Iran. On Iran.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: It seems Turkey and Iran have signed an energy cooperation agreement which includes, theoretically, bringing Turkmenistan's gas to Europe through Iranian and Turkish territories and the development of some Iranian oil -- gas (inaudible) by the Turks. Do you think this is coming -- this is the right (inaudible) to come at a time when you're involved in efforts in the opposite direction?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, look, I understand -- I've looked into this a little bit. I understand that this is, yet again, one of these preliminary agreements. Nothing is final at this point. It's going to be up to the Turkish Government, Turkish entities to decide whether or not they want to do business with Iran at this point in time. If you ask our opinion, do we think it is the right moment to be making investments in the Iranian oil and gas sector, no, we don't think so.

And our laws quite clearly state where our views are and we, as a matter of policy, have stated quite clearly that we don't think that now is the time to be making such investments in that particular sector. Iran hasn't necessarily proved itself to be the most reliable partner in this regard, but again, it's a preliminary agreement and we'll see if it goes anywhere.

QUESTION: Iranian state-run television, Sean, has shown today the first footage of Haleh Esfandiari and Kian Tajbakhsh and they are promising for more images in the coming days. Do you have any reaction or --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I did look into this and I guess thus far, we haven't seen this report. We haven't seen these images. Look, these people that are being prevented from leaving Iran should be allowed to leave immediately and be reunited with their family; not only these two individuals, but others including Mr. Levinson.

They should all be allowed to leave Iran and be reunited with their families. For the most part, these are people who have devoted large chunks of their lives to building bridges between the Iranian and the American people, so to prevent these kinds of people from especially leaving Iran really sends a negative message and is an unfortunate comment about the nature of this particular regime. So while I haven't seen the footage, we believe firmly that these people should be allowed to leave immediately.

QUESTION: Do you have some new information about Mr. Levinson that makes you think that --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I don't.

QUESTION: Well, why do you say that, then, "We believe that all these people, including Mr. Levinson, should be allowed to leave?" Do you think that -- do you have some reason to believe that he is being held there against his will?

MR. MCCORMACK: Matt, we don't have any new information about his whereabouts, but I would -- it's a matter of -- let me suppose that this is a person with close ties to the United States, he has family back here, he has children, he has grandchildren, he has a family. I'm not sure I could imagine any reason why he wouldn't want to be returned --

QUESTION: No, no, no.

MR. MCCORMACK: -- and reunited --

QUESTION: Before -- prior to this, your comments about him have always been directed at the Iranians in terms of asking for information about where he is. You don't know where he is now.

MR. MCCORMACK: We don't.

QUESTION: You seem to think that -- or you seem -- your words -- your comment seems to suggest that you believe he is being held.

MR. MCCORMACK: I wouldn't say -- I don't know where he is. I don't know his current circumstances, Matt. We do know, as we've talked about for some time, that he -- we know he entered in Iran. We have repeatedly asked Iranian authorities for information about his whereabouts and got -- the only answer we've gotten back is that they don't know. So he entered into Iran. There's no reason to suppose that he wouldn't want to at the current time be reunited with his family. So that's how I connected those dots. I don't have any new information, no.

Yes.

QUESTION: Could you just bring us up to speed on the last time the U.S. has submitted any request for information on Levinson or any requests regarding the other Americans in Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have it off the top of my head. We will post something for you.

Yes, Gollust.

QUESTION: Sean, most of the opposition figures in Ethiopia who have been on trial in connection with this 2005 election violence were sentenced to life imprisonment today. I wonder, have you been following that --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes, we are following it very closely, Dave, and the only thing I can say is, I understand the Prime Minister either has or is soon going to address the Ethiopian people concerning this case. And while I can't tell you exactly what powers of clemency he himself may possess, we would urge him as well as the Ethiopian Government to exercise powers of clemency in this regard. I understand that these people were sentenced to life imprisonment. As a matter of trying to bring together the Ethiopian people and bring an end to this particular chapter of political turmoil, we would urge the Ethiopian authorities to consider -- strongly consider clemency for these individuals

Yes.

QUESTION: What kind of pressure is the U.S. Government putting on the Kurdish Regional Government in terms of the crackdown on the PKK?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know if I can quantify it for you, but it is --

QUESTION: I mean, how frequently are you in –

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

MR. MCCORMACK: Eleven.

QUESTION: How frequently are you in touch with them and how important is it to deal with this issue?

MR. MCCORMACK: It's a matter of concern to us inasmuch as this gets to an issue of fighting terrorism in Iraq, as well as an issue that has created very real tensions between Turkey and Iraq to neighbors. That situation isn't going to change, so we believe it is in both countries' interest to cooperate in fighting this particular group, this terrorist group. I can't tell you the last time we were in touch with the KRG. I think most recently Deputy Secretary Negroponte had a discussion with Kurdish officials to talk to them about this; I think this is within the past week or ten days. And at the Embassy level, it's an issue that consumes quite a bit of their effort.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Can I follow up to this? Turkey's Foreign Minister said at the weekend that the U.S. Ambassador to Ankara had been summoned to the Foreign Ministry for an explanation about reports claiming that the United States was providing arms to the PKK. Anything on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know whether or not he was summoned to the Ministry, but I can tell you such reports would have no basis in fact.

Yes, Sylvie.

QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to the decision of UK to expel Russian diplomats?

MR. MCCORMACK: It's a matter between the UK and Russia. As for the approximate cause as stated by the UK Government for this is the failure of the Russian Government to extradite an individual in the case of the murder investigation of Mr. Litvinenko. We have urged cooperation between Russia and the UK on the matter. We believe it is important to bring some closure to what was a terrible crime -- the murder of Mr. Litvinenko. Now, the UK legal authorities believe that they have a solid case built on evidence and they want to bring the case to trial. Part of bringing that case to trial is the extradition of Mr. Lugovoy. And we believe that it is important as a matter of justice to see some -- see cooperation between the UK and Russia on the matter.

Yeah, James.

QUESTION: Switching subjects to North Korea.

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: What do you understand to be the operational status of Yongbyon at this point?

MR. MCCORMACK: I believe it is shut down. And the IAEA has confirmed that. The North Koreans have confirmed that in public and they have also conveyed that to us directly.

QUESTION: And when we say it has been shut down is it all facilities on the premises or the five key facilities that the IAEA have previously visited? What is your understanding about what has been shut down?

MR. MCCORMACK: Good question. I understand the reactor is shut down. I can't speak to the other facilities. I'm happy to look into the question for you.

QUESTION: And what does this action by North Korea portend for the durability of the February 13 agreement?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we will see. It is a step-by-step process. This was the first phase if you will of the February 13th agreement which they agreed to shut down and seal and have the IAEA verification of the shutdown and sealing of the Yongbyon reactor. In return the other five parties would agree to provide 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil. Six thousand tons of that have already been provided by South Korea to the North and they are currently in discussions about the other 44,000 tons.

The next phase is getting to the disablement of the Yongbyon reactor as well as a full North Korean declaration of their entire nuclear program. That is going to be the subject of discussions at this next six-party talks envoy-level meeting which is going to start on Wednesday, the 18th. Chris Hill is in Seoul, going to be in Beijing tomorrow. He's going to start the preliminary consultations in the framework of the six-party talks. He's going to talk to his Russian counterpart, going to talk to his North Korean counterpart. So the focus now is that -- now that we have moved beyond the shut down and sealing of the reactor, it's time to move on to the next phase. And I expect that's going to be a difficult phase, but we would like to move as quickly as we possibly can through that next phase. That's going to be the focus of Chris's discussions and as well as what's our work plan for the remainder of the year. We lost a little time in implementing the February 13th agreement so let's see if we can make that up.

QUESTION: What makes you think it's going to be a difficult phase?

MR. MCCORMACK: Because you're getting to some fundamental issues and irreversibility issues in terms of disabling the reactor and that is a step that North Korea has not yet taken. We have gotten to the point where they have shut down the reactor. They have done that before, not within the context of the six-party talks. But I would submit to you that this particular step we hope is more durable because this is a commitment the North Koreans have made to the -- in the six-party talks. And you have -- it's not only a commitment to the United States, it's to China, it's to Russia, Japan and South Korea and that carries more weight to it. There's more at stake here for North Korea in terms of their desire to realize a different relationship with the rest of the world. So we'll see, James. This is going to be a step-by-step process. Good faith actions will be met in turn by good faith. So we'll see what this next round of discussions yields.

QUESTION: And I know you're not a technician; however, what is your understanding about how quickly disablement can be physically accomplished?

MR. MCCORMACK: It depends on what you're talking about. It depends on what steps constitute disablement, which will be really at the heart of the discussions here -- how you go about doing that. I can't tell you how long that will take. It depends on what you're talking about in terms of what disablement means.

QUESTION: Last thing on it, status of the working groups.

MR. MCCORMACK: The status of the working groups -- I'll have to check for you the last time they met. I don't know if they're scheduled to have meetings at this round or not. I'll check for you.

QUESTION: It sounds like, if you need to be defining what disablement really is and how it's accomplished, it sounds like a job for the working groups.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it will get done within the plenary negotiations and there will be break-off meetings. But the working groups are -- I can't remember exactly how many of them are right now. You have the U.S.-North Korean Working Group, the North Korean-Japan Working Group. You have the Armistice Working Group. So there are several of these that are designed to address discrete issues that may be of particular interest to some subset of the whole six. So the whole discussion about disablement is going to take place within the context of the six.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: Changing the subject.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. Anything else on North Korea?

QUESTION: No.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: Are you expecting Chris Hill or anyone else will announce a ministerial meeting after the discussions this week because the scheduling is on the agenda?

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. It is on the agenda. I don't think we've heard back from Chris in terms of his discussions with the South Koreans, the Japanese and the Chinese on that. I think he still has to check in with the other two parties. We'll see.

The trigger mechanism for a ministerial-level meeting has been completion of that first phase of the February 13th agreement and so we are well on our way to doing that now. It would seem -- it makes a ministerial-level meeting possible. We'll take -- we'll see exactly when in the coming weeks that's going to be. I don't have a date for you right now.

QUESTION: Could that be attached to APEC or --

MR. MCCORMACK: There are a number of different possibilities.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: It hasn't -- nobody's settled on anything yet.

Yes.

QUESTION: On Pakistan. Did Stephen Hadley have two interviews yesterday between different news channels? First he said that we support President Musharraf.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And in his second interview he said that the United States is not satisfied with Musharraf policies. What's your position and U.S. State Department?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, those two things aren't mutually exclusive. We can -- yes, we are working very well with President Musharraf and overall we are very pleased with the level of cooperation we've received from Pakistan. But I think Steve was talking specifically about President Musharraf's efforts to work with tribal leaders in North Waziristan and the federally administered travel areas, which have essentially been ungoverned for the entire modern history of Pakistan.

He -- President Musharraf and his government struck a deal with these leaders. By their own admission in the government, it hasn't worked out exactly as they would have hoped. We agree with that assessment and so they're working to try to retool that agreement. I know that it's -- the Taliban has pronounced it dead. In that particular effort, I would refer you to the Pakistani authorities for their commentary exactly on where this stands and to the tribal leaders as well. There's a lot to be done in this region and it's not a region that is really well connected to the rest of Pakistan, never mind the rest of the world.

And so in the interest of making sure that this is not fertile ground for violent extremism to take long-term root, it is important that we work with the Pakistani Government as well as the Afghan Government to see what we can do to help the people of that region build up infrastructure and start to integrate themselves into the daily life of Pakistan as well as the rest of the world

QUESTION: Sean.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes.

QUESTION: Since the President's going to speak, would you entertain a thank you?

MR. MCCORMACK: I certainly would.

ENDS

© Scoop Media