Wednesday, October 31, 2007 by Americans Oppose Media Market Concentration: Survey
WASHINGTON– More than half of Americans surveyed said it should be illegal for a company to own both a newspaper and a television station in the same market, a coalition of consumer and telecommunications advocacy groups said on Wednesday.
...
The survey found 57 percent of respondents favored laws against a company owning a paper and TV station in the same market. That level of support was roughly the same among the political liberals, moderates and conservatives surveyed.
“The results of this poll should come as no surprise to the FCC, since thousands have vocalized their opposition to weaker media ownership rules at public hearings held recently,” said Beth McConnell, director of the coalition. “The FCC should listen to the public and reject rule changes that would concentrate ownership even further.”
The survey also showed 70 percent of respondents described media consolidation as a problem. ...
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Lobby reserves the right to censor any material that presents Israel in a more realistic light, and anyone who opposes them in their mission on behalf
October 31, 2007 | The Lobby, Unmasked | The Israel lobby: "We have an 'unwritten contract' with the American media"
Progressive writer Philip Weiss reports on his excellent blog a speech by Andrea Levin, president of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA):
...
Yeah, they have a "very free press" in Israel – much freer than our own, thanks to groups like CAMERA. In Israel, of course, newspapers like Ha'aretz regularly report on matters that offend the Lobby – such as, for example, the existence and unmitigated power of the Lobby itself – and CAMERA can't do a damn thing about it because their influence there is minimal. It's only in the U.S. – where they are bold enough to have called on the Israeli government to take legal action against American media – that they have the kind of power they need to close down debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East.
Progressive writer Philip Weiss reports on his excellent blog a speech by Andrea Levin, president of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA):
"The fact is, you know, we may be unhappy with the New York Times from time to time, and we at CAMERA have been, but I have to say we are fortunate. The American media is much, much more geared to understanding that there is an unwritten contract between them and us, and that is, that things should be factually accurate, and we get corrections all the time. Those corrections are very meaningful sometimes. We can prevent the repetition of serious errors. … So there is that give and take here in the States."
What is this "unwritten contract"? I'll tell you what it is: it's an agreement to censor anything and everything that offends the Lobby and its glorified, sanitized view of Israel. Here, after all, is a country that practices apartheid, imprisons children, and was founded on ethnic cleansing and bigoted religious obscurantism – and yet they present themselves to the world as a valiant little "democracy," a beleaguered outpost of "the West" in the midst of an Arab sea. It takes a lot of cosmetics to hide the true face of this dog, and that's what CAMERA is all about – prettifying an increasingly ugly reality. The Lobby reserves the right to censor any material that presents Israel in a more realistic light, and anyone who opposes them in their mission on behalf of a foreign power is smeared as an "anti-Semite."
When National Public Radio refused to kowtow to their demands for more favorable coverage of Israel, they mounted a vicious campaign of demonization that led to huge financial losses to the station. NPR, which CAMERA called "National Palestine Radio" – a bit of racist snark ...
...
Yeah, they have a "very free press" in Israel – much freer than our own, thanks to groups like CAMERA. In Israel, of course, newspapers like Ha'aretz regularly report on matters that offend the Lobby – such as, for example, the existence and unmitigated power of the Lobby itself – and CAMERA can't do a damn thing about it because their influence there is minimal. It's only in the U.S. – where they are bold enough to have called on the Israeli government to take legal action against American media – that they have the kind of power they need to close down debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East.
our US distributor - came under attack by Stand With Us (a Zionist lobby group) who were objecting to the publication of "Overccoming Zionism"
September 22 / 23, 2007 | Pressure Builds on University of Michigan | Pluto Press Under Attack by Israel Lobby | By ROGER van ZWANENBERG
About three weeks ago Pluto books and the University of Michigan Press - our US distributor - came under attack by Stand With Us (a Zionist lobby group) who were objecting to the publication of Overcoming Zionism by Joel Kovel which resulted in the book being withdrawn in the US. The vitriolic attack questioned the University's relationship with Pluto generally and denigrated Overcoming Zionism.
Since then the Executive Board of the University has considered the matter and issued a public statement. Joel's book has now been reinstated but they plan to review the ongoing relationship between Pluto and UMP in October. ...
About three weeks ago Pluto books and the University of Michigan Press - our US distributor - came under attack by Stand With Us (a Zionist lobby group) who were objecting to the publication of Overcoming Zionism by Joel Kovel which resulted in the book being withdrawn in the US. The vitriolic attack questioned the University's relationship with Pluto generally and denigrated Overcoming Zionism.
Since then the Executive Board of the University has considered the matter and issued a public statement. Joel's book has now been reinstated but they plan to review the ongoing relationship between Pluto and UMP in October. ...
In America today, speaking your mind in the media or in academia is a thing of the past. A country that has no voices independent of powerful interes
Conservatism isn’t what it used to be | By Paul Craig Roberts
..
That other conservative bugaboo, liberal academia, has also been crushed. Universities once controlled their appointments, but no more. Recently, the political science faculty at DePaul, a Catholic university, voted to give tenure to the courageous scholar and teacher Norman Finkelstein. The department was unable to make its tenure decision stick over the objections of the Israel Lobby and their conservative allies, who were able to reach in over the heads of the political science department and the College Personnel Committee and force DePaul’s president to block Finkelstein’s tenure. Finkelstein, a Jew, had angered the Israel Lobby with his criticisms of Israel’s misuse of the holocaust sufferings of Jews to oppress the Palestinians and to silence critics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein
On September 14, 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported that the appointment of the distinguished legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as the Dean of a new law school at the University of California at Irvine had been withdrawn by the university’s chancellor, Michael V. Drake, who gave in to the demands of conservatives outside the university. Conservatives are outraged at Chemerinsky because he criticized Attorney General Gonzales. In withdrawing Chemerinsky’s appointment, Drake told him: “I didn’t realize there would be conservatives out to get you.” http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uci14sep14,1,3096423,print.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=2&cset=true
...
It seems only yesterday that conservatives were complaining about the liberties that liberals took with the Constitution. Liberals were expanding rights, fancifully perhaps. But today conservatives are curtailing long established rights, such as habeas corpus and protection against self-incrimination. Conservatives abandoned “original intent” and all of their constitutional scruples once they had a chance to cram more power into the presidency.
In my conservative days as an academic, I experienced some liberal blackballs. But liberals did not attack academic freedom per se. The new conservatives despise academic freedom and have created organizations to monitor departments of Middle East studies in order to lower the boom on scholars who follow the truth instead of neoconservative ideology or Israeli policy. Today academic freedom has disappeared just like the independent media. No one but powerful organized interest groups has a voice. In the media truth can only emerge on comic shows like The Colbert Report and Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show. ...
...
In America today, speaking your mind in the media or in academia is a thing of the past. A country that has no voices independent of powerful interests is a country in which freedom is dead.
..
That other conservative bugaboo, liberal academia, has also been crushed. Universities once controlled their appointments, but no more. Recently, the political science faculty at DePaul, a Catholic university, voted to give tenure to the courageous scholar and teacher Norman Finkelstein. The department was unable to make its tenure decision stick over the objections of the Israel Lobby and their conservative allies, who were able to reach in over the heads of the political science department and the College Personnel Committee and force DePaul’s president to block Finkelstein’s tenure. Finkelstein, a Jew, had angered the Israel Lobby with his criticisms of Israel’s misuse of the holocaust sufferings of Jews to oppress the Palestinians and to silence critics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein
On September 14, 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported that the appointment of the distinguished legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as the Dean of a new law school at the University of California at Irvine had been withdrawn by the university’s chancellor, Michael V. Drake, who gave in to the demands of conservatives outside the university. Conservatives are outraged at Chemerinsky because he criticized Attorney General Gonzales. In withdrawing Chemerinsky’s appointment, Drake told him: “I didn’t realize there would be conservatives out to get you.” http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uci14sep14,1,3096423,print.story?coll=la-headlines-california&ctrack=2&cset=true
...
It seems only yesterday that conservatives were complaining about the liberties that liberals took with the Constitution. Liberals were expanding rights, fancifully perhaps. But today conservatives are curtailing long established rights, such as habeas corpus and protection against self-incrimination. Conservatives abandoned “original intent” and all of their constitutional scruples once they had a chance to cram more power into the presidency.
In my conservative days as an academic, I experienced some liberal blackballs. But liberals did not attack academic freedom per se. The new conservatives despise academic freedom and have created organizations to monitor departments of Middle East studies in order to lower the boom on scholars who follow the truth instead of neoconservative ideology or Israeli policy. Today academic freedom has disappeared just like the independent media. No one but powerful organized interest groups has a voice. In the media truth can only emerge on comic shows like The Colbert Report and Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show. ...
...
In America today, speaking your mind in the media or in academia is a thing of the past. A country that has no voices independent of powerful interests is a country in which freedom is dead.
It must be a funny coincidence- the ADL is going after the only Muslim on Congress.
Despicable: Abe Foxman slams only Muslim Congressman | Posted by Cecilie Surasky Mitchell Plitnick
MN Congressman Keith Ellison compared 9/11 to the burning of the Reichstag, Bush to Hitler. You can agree or disagree with the statement. You can think it’s uniquely insightful and courageous or completely idiotic. In the end, the free marketplace of democracy will decide what his supporters think.
But now it appears that Abe Foxman and the ADL have trademarked the use of any language pertaining to Hitler and the Holocaust. There is no denying the singular nature of the Holocaust’s impact on the Jewish people. But apparently, despite the fact that over 5 million non-Jews were also killed, the tragedy belongs not only to us Jews and us alone, but the the Anti-Defamation League.
It must be a funny coincidence- the ADL is going after the only Muslim on Congress. And what did he say, exactly? He didn’t even mention or allude to the Holocaust. As horrible as the Jewish experience was in the Shoah, there was a good deal more to Hitler’s evil crusade. Is everything pertaining to Hitler now out of bounds unless it receives Abe Foxman’s stamp of approval?
Worse, Ellison immediately tried to mend the fences with the ADL. And they spent hours working with him on a statement and, just before he was ready to send it to the media, the ADL sent their own condemnation out. Politics may be a rough game in general, but even by those Machiavellian standards, this was dirty pool at its worst.
Despicable. ...
MN Congressman Keith Ellison compared 9/11 to the burning of the Reichstag, Bush to Hitler. You can agree or disagree with the statement. You can think it’s uniquely insightful and courageous or completely idiotic. In the end, the free marketplace of democracy will decide what his supporters think.
But now it appears that Abe Foxman and the ADL have trademarked the use of any language pertaining to Hitler and the Holocaust. There is no denying the singular nature of the Holocaust’s impact on the Jewish people. But apparently, despite the fact that over 5 million non-Jews were also killed, the tragedy belongs not only to us Jews and us alone, but the the Anti-Defamation League.
It must be a funny coincidence- the ADL is going after the only Muslim on Congress. And what did he say, exactly? He didn’t even mention or allude to the Holocaust. As horrible as the Jewish experience was in the Shoah, there was a good deal more to Hitler’s evil crusade. Is everything pertaining to Hitler now out of bounds unless it receives Abe Foxman’s stamp of approval?
Worse, Ellison immediately tried to mend the fences with the ADL. And they spent hours working with him on a statement and, just before he was ready to send it to the media, the ADL sent their own condemnation out. Politics may be a rough game in general, but even by those Machiavellian standards, this was dirty pool at its worst.
Despicable. ...
committee inadvertently sent the email addresses of all the would-be whistleblowers to everyone who had written in to the tipline ... CC'd to Cheney
Sunday, October 28, 2007 | Did GOP Operatives Expose Whistleblowers?
...This summer the House Judiciary Committee launched an effort to collect tips from would-be whistleblowers in the Justice Department. The U.S. attorney firings scandal had shown that much was amiss in the Department, and with the danger of retaliation very real, the committee had set up a form on the committee's website for people to blow the whistle privately about abuses there. Although the panel said it would not accept anonymous tips, it assured those who came forward that their identity would be held in the "strictest confidence."
...This summer the House Judiciary Committee launched an effort to collect tips from would-be whistleblowers in the Justice Department. The U.S. attorney firings scandal had shown that much was amiss in the Department, and with the danger of retaliation very real, the committee had set up a form on the committee's website for people to blow the whistle privately about abuses there. Although the panel said it would not accept anonymous tips, it assured those who came forward that their identity would be held in the "strictest confidence."
But in an email sent out today, the committee inadvertently sent the email addresses of all the would-be whistleblowers to everyone who had written in to the tipline. The committee email was sent to tipsters who had used the website form, including presumably whistleblowers themselves, and all of the recipients of the email were accidentally included in the "to:" field -- instead of concealing those addresses with a so-called blind carbon copy or "bcc:".
...
Why would a professional in the Judiciary Committee staff not use Bcc: as automatically as I do? And why would they Cc: Cheney? I don't think so. I think this is a deliberate attempt by a Republican on the Judiciary committee to derail the DOJ investigation by leaking the identities of whistleblowers to Cheney to expose them to intimidation and revenge.
Here is the list of suspects:
Sensenbrenner Jr. (R) Wisconsin, 5th
Coble (R) North Carolina, 6th
Gallegly (R) California, 24th
Goodlatte (R) Virginia, 6th ...
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
it appears the majority of the population is falling hook, line, and sinker for the propaganda being spewed by the White House, Fox News, ...
October 30, 2007 at 15:01:04 | A Zogby Poll Shows Complacency In America Has Been Replaced By Ignorance and Stupidity | by Justanothercoverup
... MUCH MORE
When I read the results of a new Zogby Poll, my heart dropped as I realized that complacency in America has been replaced by ignorance and stupidity - and it appears the majority of the population is falling hook, line, and sinker for the propaganda being spewed by the White House, Fox News, and a host of right-wing pundits. They have the most money, so their message of hate is overcoming the voice of logic and reason - and those of who are aware of the truth are obviously in the minority. I am saddened that my fellow countrymen do not have the wherewithal to seek the truth for themselves rather than believing everything they hear on the radio and TV.
Bomb Iran, majority of Americans says in new poll
Nick Juliano
Published: Tuesday October 30, 2007
Despite President Bush’s perpetually abysmal approval ratings, it appears his increasingly hostile rhetoric against Iran has drummed up enough fear of a “nuclear holocost” or a World War III that a majority of Americans are in favor of a US strike against the country aimed a curtailing its apparent nuclear ambitions, a new poll shows.
The Zogby International survey shows 52 percent of Americans would support a strike on Iran, while 53 percent expect President Bush to launch such an attack before the end of his second term.... MUCH MORE
Most Gagged Person in U.S. History: "Certain officials in this country are engaged in treason ...
Brad Friedman ON 10/29/2007 5:30AM | EXCLUSIVE: FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds Will Now Tell All - and Face Charges if Necessary - to Any Major Television Network That Will Let Her
She's Prepared to Name Names, Including Those of Two 'Well-Known' Congress Members Involved in Criminal Corruption
The 'Most Gagged Person in U.S. History' Tells The BRAD BLOG She's Now Exhausted All Other Channels...
...
Remember the exclusive story you aired on Sibel Edmonds, originally on October 27th, 2002, when she was not allowed to tell you everything that she heard while serving as an FBI translator after 9/11 because she was gagged by the rarely-invoked "States Secret Privilege"? Well, she's still gagged. In fact, as the ACLU first described her, she's "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America."
...
She has, in fact, spent years taking every reasonable step to see that the information she has goes through the proper channels. The Supreme Court refused to hear her whistleblower lawsuit, even in light of the Department of Justice forcing the removal of both her and her own attorneys from the courtroom when they made their arguments concerning why it was that she still had to remain gagged under the "States Secrets Privilege."
...
"Certain officials in this country are engaged in treason against the United States and its interests and its national security," she said during an interview an August 2005 interview on Democracy Now. That comment followed 60 Minutes' revelation years before alleging that Edmonds had information revealing that a "Turkish intelligence officer" she worked with at the FBI "had spies working for him inside the US State Department and at the Pentagon."
...
More than 30 groups, from across the political spectrum --- including the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the September 11th Advocates, the Liberty Coalition, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), OMB Watch, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and People for the American Way (PFAW) --- all signed a letter in March of this year calling on the House Oversight Committee to "hold public hearings into the case of FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, and the erroneous use of the State Secrets Privilege to shut down all court proceedings in her case." ...
She's Prepared to Name Names, Including Those of Two 'Well-Known' Congress Members Involved in Criminal Corruption
The 'Most Gagged Person in U.S. History' Tells The BRAD BLOG She's Now Exhausted All Other Channels...
...
Remember the exclusive story you aired on Sibel Edmonds, originally on October 27th, 2002, when she was not allowed to tell you everything that she heard while serving as an FBI translator after 9/11 because she was gagged by the rarely-invoked "States Secret Privilege"? Well, she's still gagged. In fact, as the ACLU first described her, she's "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America."
...
She has, in fact, spent years taking every reasonable step to see that the information she has goes through the proper channels. The Supreme Court refused to hear her whistleblower lawsuit, even in light of the Department of Justice forcing the removal of both her and her own attorneys from the courtroom when they made their arguments concerning why it was that she still had to remain gagged under the "States Secrets Privilege."
...
"Certain officials in this country are engaged in treason against the United States and its interests and its national security," she said during an interview an August 2005 interview on Democracy Now. That comment followed 60 Minutes' revelation years before alleging that Edmonds had information revealing that a "Turkish intelligence officer" she worked with at the FBI "had spies working for him inside the US State Department and at the Pentagon."
...
More than 30 groups, from across the political spectrum --- including the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the September 11th Advocates, the Liberty Coalition, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), OMB Watch, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and People for the American Way (PFAW) --- all signed a letter in March of this year calling on the House Oversight Committee to "hold public hearings into the case of FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, and the erroneous use of the State Secrets Privilege to shut down all court proceedings in her case." ...
Sunday, October 28, 2007
US disaster agency apologizes for fake 'reporters' ... No actual reporter attended the hastily called news conference in person
US disaster agency apologizes for fake 'reporters' | Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:23pm | By Randall Mikkelsen
WASHINGTON, Oct 26 (Reuters) - The main U.S. disaster-response agency apologized on Friday for having its employees pose as reporters in a news briefing on California's wildfires that no journalists attended.
...
No actual reporter attended the hastily called news conference in person, although some camera crews arrived late to film incidental shots, officials said.
...
Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino said the White House did not condone FEMA's action and would not engage in such practices.
But in 2004 the investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, accused the administration of "covert propaganda" in distributing video packages about federal health programs that looked like independent news reports.
Conservative pundit Armstrong Williams lost a syndication deal for his column in 2005 and apologized after a disclosure that he accepted $240,000 from the Bush administration to promote education legislation in his commentaries.
U.S. defense officials that year also confirmed that U.S. troops wrote articles that were planted in Iraqi newspapers in exchange for money.
WASHINGTON, Oct 26 (Reuters) - The main U.S. disaster-response agency apologized on Friday for having its employees pose as reporters in a news briefing on California's wildfires that no journalists attended.
...
No actual reporter attended the hastily called news conference in person, although some camera crews arrived late to film incidental shots, officials said.
...
Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino said the White House did not condone FEMA's action and would not engage in such practices.
But in 2004 the investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, accused the administration of "covert propaganda" in distributing video packages about federal health programs that looked like independent news reports.
Conservative pundit Armstrong Williams lost a syndication deal for his column in 2005 and apologized after a disclosure that he accepted $240,000 from the Bush administration to promote education legislation in his commentaries.
U.S. defense officials that year also confirmed that U.S. troops wrote articles that were planted in Iraqi newspapers in exchange for money.
Appeasing bullies like Dershowitz will not stop them ... The question is, do we in this country want a McCarthyite witch hunt?
Intellectual terrorism | For the sake of free speech, British organisations should confront pro-Israel bullies, not appease them. | October 25, 2007 11:00 AM
The newest and least attractive import from America, following on behind Coca-Cola, McDonald's and Friends, is the pro-Israel lobby. The latest target of this US-style campaign is the august Oxford Union.
This week, two Israeli colleagues and I were due to appear at the union to participate in an important debate on the one-state solution in Israel-Palestine. Also invited was the American Jewish scholar and outspoken critic of Israel, Norman Finkelstein. At the last minute, however, the union withdrew its invitation to him, apparently intimidated by threats from various pro-Israel groups.
The Harvard Jewish lawyer and indefatigable defender of Israel, Alan Dershowitz, attacked the topic of the debate as well as the Oxford Union itself. In an article headlined "Oxford Union is dead", he accused it of having become "a propaganda platform for extremist views", and castigated its choice of what he termed anti-Israel and anti-semitic speakers.
Yet Dershowitz could have restored the balance as he saw it; he was the first person invited by the Oxford Union to oppose the motion but he declined due, as he put it, to "the terms of the debate and my proposed teammates". ...
...
Dershowitz and the other pro-Israel activists may rejoice at their success in derailing an important discussion. But it is of little comfort to those of us who care about freedom of speech in this country. Last May, Dershowitz interfered in British academic life when the University and College Union voted overwhelmingly to debate the merits of boycotting Israeli institutions. He teamed up with a British Jewish lawyer, Anthony Julius, and others, threatening to "devastate and bankrupt" anyone acting against Israeli universities.
In another example of these bullying tactics, the Royal Society of Medicine, one of Britain's most venerable medical institutions, came under an attack this month, unprecedented in its 200 year history. It had invited Dr Derek Summerfield, a psychiatrist (who has also documented Israelıs medical abuses against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories), to its conference on Religion, Spirituality and Mental Health. The RSM was immediately bombarded with threats from pro-Israel doctors demanding Dr Summerfield's removal on the grounds that he was Èpoliticalı and biased, and that the RSM's charitable status would be challenged if he remained. Intimidated, the RSM asked Dr Summerfield to withdraw, although they later reinstated him.
...
The power of the Israel lobby in America is legendary. It demonstrates its influence at many levels. Campus Watch is a network that monitors alleged anti-Israel activity in US academic institutions. The difficulties of promotion in the US for scholars deemed anti-Israeli are notorious. The notable Palestinian academic, Edward Said, was subjected to an unrelenting campaign by pro-Israel groups at Columbia University with threats on his life. ...
...
Such activities are familiar in the US. People there are hardened or resigned to having their freedom of expression limited by the pro-Israel lobby, and the threats of Dershowitz would cause no surprise to anyone. But Britain is different, naively innocent in the face of US-style assaults on its scholars and institutions. No wonder that those who have been attacked give in so quickly, nervous of something they do not understand. The UCU leadership, shocked and intimidated by the ferocious reaction to the boycott motion from pro-Israel groups, resorted to legal advice to extricate itself and announced in September that a call to boycott Israeli institutions would be "unlawful". The Oxford Union jettisoned one of its participants rather than stand up to the threats of its critics. The RSM tried to distance the offending speaker from its conference to protect itself from abuse.
The entire spectra of mainstream media are now under the control of only four or five corporations.
Truth Matters | By Charles Sullivan
10/27/07 "ICH" -- -- I have been writing political essays for a few years now. I do so as a reluctant enthusiast, not because I wanted to write on these themes; but because, it seemed to me, that professional journalists were not telling the whole story; that significant parts that would allow people to connect the dots and understand what is happening from a historical perspective, was being deliberately omitted from the official version of current events, and from history.
As propaganda, the elements that are deliberately left out of media are as important as those that are retained. It is propaganda by omission, as much as by content. What people are not told shapes their world view and influences their behavior, as surely as what they are told. Imposed ignorance and selective knowledge go hand in hand to forge public opinion and to shape cultural identity. These conditions set the stage for belligerent government and aggressive nationalism.
...
Our recent history would have been impossible without the consolidation of the media that occurred during the Clinton presidency, and has continued ever since. The entire spectra of mainstream media are now under the control of only four or five corporations. We no longer have reporting on local issues stemming from diverse perspectives rooted in local communities, but a monoculture of state and corporate propaganda that betrays the public trust in its pursuit of corporate profits.
...
10/27/07 "ICH" -- -- I have been writing political essays for a few years now. I do so as a reluctant enthusiast, not because I wanted to write on these themes; but because, it seemed to me, that professional journalists were not telling the whole story; that significant parts that would allow people to connect the dots and understand what is happening from a historical perspective, was being deliberately omitted from the official version of current events, and from history.
As propaganda, the elements that are deliberately left out of media are as important as those that are retained. It is propaganda by omission, as much as by content. What people are not told shapes their world view and influences their behavior, as surely as what they are told. Imposed ignorance and selective knowledge go hand in hand to forge public opinion and to shape cultural identity. These conditions set the stage for belligerent government and aggressive nationalism.
...
Our recent history would have been impossible without the consolidation of the media that occurred during the Clinton presidency, and has continued ever since. The entire spectra of mainstream media are now under the control of only four or five corporations. We no longer have reporting on local issues stemming from diverse perspectives rooted in local communities, but a monoculture of state and corporate propaganda that betrays the public trust in its pursuit of corporate profits.
...
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Many Pentagon officials believe that efforts such as ASY are nothing more than "tax-payer-funded propaganda," ...
Pentagon Used Independent Military Newspaper For Pro-Bush PR Campaign | Posted by Amanda Terkel at 1:00 PM on October 23, 2007.
This post, written by Amanda Terkel, originally appeared on Think Progress
The Pentagon has engaged in an aggressive U.S. grassroots efforts to drum up support for Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the guise of supporting the troops. A central front in this effort has been the "non-political" America Supports You (ASY) program. (One branch of ASY is Operation Straight Up, an "evangelical entertainment troupe that actively proselytizes among active-duty members of the US military.")
As the New York Times reported in May, the Pentagon Inspector General (IG) is currently investigating whether Pentagon officials "engaged in improper fund-raising and unauthorized spending" for the program. Many Pentagon officials believe that efforts such as ASY are nothing more than "tax-payer-funded propaganda," with a large portion of the funds going to the PR firm Susan Davis International to bolster domestic support for the war.
On Saturday, the independent military newspaper Stars and Stripes reported that it, too, is now part of the IG's investigation. Without the knowledge of top editors, the Pentagon transferred Stars and Stripes funds to Susan Davis International for ASY promotion:
But documents obtained Friday show that Stars and Stripes awarded a $499,000 purchase agreement in July 2006 for a public relations firm to represent America Supports You. [...] ...
This post, written by Amanda Terkel, originally appeared on Think Progress
The Pentagon has engaged in an aggressive U.S. grassroots efforts to drum up support for Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the guise of supporting the troops. A central front in this effort has been the "non-political" America Supports You (ASY) program. (One branch of ASY is Operation Straight Up, an "evangelical entertainment troupe that actively proselytizes among active-duty members of the US military.")
As the New York Times reported in May, the Pentagon Inspector General (IG) is currently investigating whether Pentagon officials "engaged in improper fund-raising and unauthorized spending" for the program. Many Pentagon officials believe that efforts such as ASY are nothing more than "tax-payer-funded propaganda," with a large portion of the funds going to the PR firm Susan Davis International to bolster domestic support for the war.
On Saturday, the independent military newspaper Stars and Stripes reported that it, too, is now part of the IG's investigation. Without the knowledge of top editors, the Pentagon transferred Stars and Stripes funds to Susan Davis International for ASY promotion:
But documents obtained Friday show that Stars and Stripes awarded a $499,000 purchase agreement in July 2006 for a public relations firm to represent America Supports You. [...] ...
Monday, October 22, 2007
Sunday NY Post Blacks Out Ron Paul ... [covers event] ... without mentioning third-place finisher GOP presidential contender Ron Paul (R-Tex)
Sunday NY Post Blacks Out Ron Paul | Sunday, October 21, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com
Even though Jeffersonian conservative presidential candidate Ron Paul has declared the media blackout of his candidacy is over, don't tell that to the editors of the New York Post.
The "conservative" paper owned by Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch, has managed the feat of covering the Family Research Council's recent "Values Voter" presidential debate, and ranking candidates according to their popularity with "values voters" without mentioning third-place finisher GOP presidential contender Ron Paul (R-Tex).
The page 4 story in the Sunday Post, "Religious Right Rejects [Giuliani's] Values Plea" chooses to report only the "onsite voting results" and then actually drops off Ron Paul's name. It also manages to write a full article without mentioning either Ron Paul or his results. This is in marked contrast to other major news outlets (CNN, Daily News) that mention Ron Paul and his results as an obviously routine part of the coverage of the Values Voter debate.
Maybe there was justification in leaving Ron Paul out of commentary in a crowded field six months ago. But Ron Paul has now raised more money than most of his fellow GOP candidates and finished higher, on average, in more straw polls than any other GOP candidate. ...
Even though Jeffersonian conservative presidential candidate Ron Paul has declared the media blackout of his candidacy is over, don't tell that to the editors of the New York Post.
The "conservative" paper owned by Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch, has managed the feat of covering the Family Research Council's recent "Values Voter" presidential debate, and ranking candidates according to their popularity with "values voters" without mentioning third-place finisher GOP presidential contender Ron Paul (R-Tex).
The page 4 story in the Sunday Post, "Religious Right Rejects [Giuliani's] Values Plea" chooses to report only the "onsite voting results" and then actually drops off Ron Paul's name. It also manages to write a full article without mentioning either Ron Paul or his results. This is in marked contrast to other major news outlets (CNN, Daily News) that mention Ron Paul and his results as an obviously routine part of the coverage of the Values Voter debate.
Maybe there was justification in leaving Ron Paul out of commentary in a crowded field six months ago. But Ron Paul has now raised more money than most of his fellow GOP candidates and finished higher, on average, in more straw polls than any other GOP candidate. ...
Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic ... most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider
Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic | Oct 19, 6:32 PM (ET) | By PETER SVENSSON
NEW YORK (AP) - Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) (CMCSA) actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.
The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.
If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing networks. While these are mainly known as sources of copyright music, software and movies, BitTorrent in particular is emerging as a legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content.
The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee.
Comcast's interference, on the other hand, appears to be an aggressive way of managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers. ...
NEW YORK (AP) - Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) (CMCSA) actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.
The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.
If widely applied by other ISPs, the technology Comcast is using would be a crippling blow to the BitTorrent, eDonkey and Gnutella file-sharing networks. While these are mainly known as sources of copyright music, software and movies, BitTorrent in particular is emerging as a legitimate tool for quickly disseminating legal content.
The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law but supported by some regulations. Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee.
Comcast's interference, on the other hand, appears to be an aggressive way of managing its network to keep file-sharing traffic from swallowing too much bandwidth and affecting the Internet speeds of other subscribers. ...
Sunday, October 14, 2007
long awaited No More Wars For Israel Conference was successfully shut down by ... “the pressures brought by Zionist extremist groups such as ADL
10/14/2007 | Zio-Lobby Shuts Down No More Wars For Israel Conference - First Amendment Rights Violated, Boycott of Anti-American Marriott Corporation Urged
On early Saturday morning the long awaited No More Wars For Israel Conference was successfully shut down by the traditional enemies of free speech, luckily thanks to the determination of the organizers of the event the conference did resume later in the day at a different location!
Organizer Mark Glenn reported that conference goers, many of whom had traveled to Southern California from halfway around the World, were shut out of the Irvine Marriott Hotel because of “the pressures brought to bear by Zionist extremist groups such as the ADL and others”.
Human Rights activist Hesham Tillawi reported that approximately fifty of the conference speakers and attendees decided to picket the sidewalks in front of the Marriott Hotel in order to protest the denial of Free Speech and Freedom of Assembly. The protesters shouted “No More Wars For Israel” and carried hastily built signs saying “Who Would Jesus Bomb?” and “Freedom of Assembly is Null and Void” as passers by gave them the thumbs up and honked their horns in support! ...
On early Saturday morning the long awaited No More Wars For Israel Conference was successfully shut down by the traditional enemies of free speech, luckily thanks to the determination of the organizers of the event the conference did resume later in the day at a different location!
Organizer Mark Glenn reported that conference goers, many of whom had traveled to Southern California from halfway around the World, were shut out of the Irvine Marriott Hotel because of “the pressures brought to bear by Zionist extremist groups such as the ADL and others”.
Human Rights activist Hesham Tillawi reported that approximately fifty of the conference speakers and attendees decided to picket the sidewalks in front of the Marriott Hotel in order to protest the denial of Free Speech and Freedom of Assembly. The protesters shouted “No More Wars For Israel” and carried hastily built signs saying “Who Would Jesus Bomb?” and “Freedom of Assembly is Null and Void” as passers by gave them the thumbs up and honked their horns in support! ...
Friday, October 12, 2007
arvard Prof Says Google Cancelled His Talk on Israel Lobby ... pressure on management ... "That's not the way we're supposed to do business in the US"
October 08, 2007 | Harvard Prof Says Google Cancelled His Talk on Israel Lobby
At an appearance at Columbia University tonight, Stephen Walt, a Harvard professor and former dean, said that he and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer were slated to speak at Google headquarters recently to discuss their bestselling book The Israel Lobby and at the last minute the event was cancelled mysteriously. "We were scheduled for Wednesday. Our publicist got an email on Friday afternoon," Walt said. The email didn't say why the event was cancelled.
Walt says that at most of the venues the authors have spoken, the management has told them of the pressure they got to cancel the event. And often when they have appeared, it was with the understanding that someone from the other side would be presenting the opposite argument soon after, to balance their views. The two couldn't appear "without someone following us...
"That's not the way we're supposed to do business in the United States," Walt said.
At an appearance at Columbia University tonight, Stephen Walt, a Harvard professor and former dean, said that he and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer were slated to speak at Google headquarters recently to discuss their bestselling book The Israel Lobby and at the last minute the event was cancelled mysteriously. "We were scheduled for Wednesday. Our publicist got an email on Friday afternoon," Walt said. The email didn't say why the event was cancelled.
Walt says that at most of the venues the authors have spoken, the management has told them of the pressure they got to cancel the event. And often when they have appeared, it was with the understanding that someone from the other side would be presenting the opposite argument soon after, to balance their views. The two couldn't appear "without someone following us...
"That's not the way we're supposed to do business in the United States," Walt said.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
American debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is being stifled by an insidious form of pre-emptive censorship.
Land of the free? | American debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is being stifled by an insidious form of pre-emptive censorship. | Richard Silverstein | October 9, 2007 3:00 PM
I've noticed what may be a new phenomenon in the Israel-Palestine debate as it plays out in the US. I call it pre-emptive censorship. A number of non-Jewish organisations have denied supposedly controversial speakers or organisations the right to speak or perform due to the anticipated reaction of the local Jewish community.
...
But in the case of the postponed New York performance of My Name is Rachel Corrie, a cancelled Chicago appearance of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, a cancelled concert by Marcel Khalife in San Diego, and a cancelled speech by Archbishop Desmond Tutu in Minneapolis, the hosts nixed the appearances before there was any protest. And they cancelled because of an anticipated response from the Jewish community which they had no reason to know might ever happen. This to me seems absolutely pernicious to open political debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
...
"The bottom line is that preventing us from speaking before the council is not the way we are supposed to be conducting public debate on important issues in the United States," Mearsheimer said.
...
Liberal Jewish bloggers who report on these outrages understand that the Israel lobby retains enormous reach in its ability to pre-empt speech and manipulate the public debate. But our conviction is that the more these incidents see the light of day, the more the power of the lobby to stifle debate will wane. So far Goliath is still king of walk. But someday he will be felled by the giant's own hubris.
I've noticed what may be a new phenomenon in the Israel-Palestine debate as it plays out in the US. I call it pre-emptive censorship. A number of non-Jewish organisations have denied supposedly controversial speakers or organisations the right to speak or perform due to the anticipated reaction of the local Jewish community.
...
But in the case of the postponed New York performance of My Name is Rachel Corrie, a cancelled Chicago appearance of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, a cancelled concert by Marcel Khalife in San Diego, and a cancelled speech by Archbishop Desmond Tutu in Minneapolis, the hosts nixed the appearances before there was any protest. And they cancelled because of an anticipated response from the Jewish community which they had no reason to know might ever happen. This to me seems absolutely pernicious to open political debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
...
"The bottom line is that preventing us from speaking before the council is not the way we are supposed to be conducting public debate on important issues in the United States," Mearsheimer said.
...
Liberal Jewish bloggers who report on these outrages understand that the Israel lobby retains enormous reach in its ability to pre-empt speech and manipulate the public debate. But our conviction is that the more these incidents see the light of day, the more the power of the lobby to stifle debate will wane. So far Goliath is still king of walk. But someday he will be felled by the giant's own hubris.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Perception of conservative bias in media 64 percent higher since Sept. 2001 ... [still much lower than perceived liberal bias]
Perception of conservative bias in media 64 percent higher since Sept. 2001 | Nick Juliano | Published: Monday October 8, 2007
...
The number of Americans who see the media as too conservative has grown by 64 percent since September of 2001, while the larger proportion of those who see it as too liberal has stagnated over the same period, according to a new Gallup poll.
About one in five respondents in a recent survey -- 18 percent -- see the media as being too conservative a 63.6 percent increase over the 11 percent who saw conservative bias six years ago, Gallup found. Perceptions of conservative bias have increased steadily since 2001 and were slightly higher last year, when 19 percent said the media favored the right wing.
Nearly half of Americans see the media as being too liberal, but that measure in the survey released Monday did not move from the 45 percent who saw liberal bias in 2001. ...
...
The number of Americans who see the media as too conservative has grown by 64 percent since September of 2001, while the larger proportion of those who see it as too liberal has stagnated over the same period, according to a new Gallup poll.
About one in five respondents in a recent survey -- 18 percent -- see the media as being too conservative a 63.6 percent increase over the 11 percent who saw conservative bias six years ago, Gallup found. Perceptions of conservative bias have increased steadily since 2001 and were slightly higher last year, when 19 percent said the media favored the right wing.
Nearly half of Americans see the media as being too liberal, but that measure in the survey released Monday did not move from the 45 percent who saw liberal bias in 2001. ...
Saturday, October 06, 2007
In view of Israel’s impact on America’s place in the world, it is astonishing how little discussion its role has generated.
Milton Viorst on ‘The Israel Lobby’ | Posted on Oct 4, 2007 | By Milton Viorst
About 30 or so years ago, when I first began to write of my concern that Israel was embarked on a course that would lead only to recurring wars, or perhaps worse, I received a letter from Abraham H. Foxman, then as now the voice of the Anti-Defamation League, admonishing me as a Jew not to wash our people’s dirty linen in public. I still have it in my files. His point, of course, was not whether the washing should be public or private; he did not offer an alternative laundry. His objective was—and remains—to squelch anyone who is critical of Israel’s policies.
In the ensuing years, Foxman and a legion of like-minded leaders, most but not all of them Jewish, have been remarkably successful in suppressing an open and frank debate on Israel’s course. In view of Israel’s impact on America’s place in the world, it is astonishing how little discussion its role has generated. As a practical matter, the subject has been taboo. John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, professors of political science at the University of Chicago and Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, respectively, have challenged this taboo in their new book, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” Foxman, in an effort to discredit them, has written a rejoinder in his book “The Deadliest Lies: The Jewish Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control.” ...
...
Foxman does not quite accuse Mearsheimer and Walt—though other disapproving critics do—of being anti-Semitic. But he uses intimidating language nonetheless, pointing to a “level of quiet, subtle bigotry—an attitude that may not run to the actual hatred of Jews but that assumes that Jews are somehow different, less respectable, less honorable, more treacherous, more devious than other people. ... [I]t’s only natural that people who exhibit this kind of bias against Jews should look a little askance at the special relationship that exists between American Jews and the nation of Israel.”
...
Yet, even taking money and organization into account, there remains something of a mystery about the influence that AIPAC and its allies wield. In contrast to AIPAC, the gun lobby is routinely called upon to defend itself. But AIPAC’s task, it seems, is easier, because non-Jews, no less than Jews, unquestioningly accept its marching orders. Why, when it comes to AIPAC, do so many Americans abandon the skepticism they apply to other interests within the political spectrum? Europe is much less accommodating to Israel. AIPAC, naturally, blames the difference on Europe’s anti-Semitism, though—apart from Europe’s Muslims, who start with political grievances against Israel—there is little evidence to support its theory. Mearsheimer and Walt credit AIPAC’s skillful manipulation of the system, but the search for an answer needs more.
Perhaps the answer has something to do with America’s being the most religious, the most Christian, the most church-going society in the Western world. Once upon a time, deeply held Christian faith could be taken as a measure of hostility to Jews; that certainly is the case no longer. If anything, American Christianity—led by but not exclusive to evangelicals—seems to take the biblical promise of a homeland for the Jews as a test of its beliefs and a commitment of its own. This commitment goes beyond guaranteeing Israel’s existence. It provides a body of sympathy for Israel’s hard line, and for the economic aid and weaponry that the United States dispatches to support it.
Unfortunately, the pro-peace segment of the American Jewish community does not have a parallel lobby. It has a few organizations, with dedicated adherents. Its members try to persuade the American Jewish community that reaching out to the Arab world, and particularly to the Palestinians, is better for Israel than perpetual war. AIPAC does its best to de-legitimize them, but they hang in stubbornly, though they are barely a whisper in the debate over Israel’s course. Despite the polls suggesting that many Jews agree with them, the influence of the peace groups is no threat to AIPAC’s pre-eminence. ...
About 30 or so years ago, when I first began to write of my concern that Israel was embarked on a course that would lead only to recurring wars, or perhaps worse, I received a letter from Abraham H. Foxman, then as now the voice of the Anti-Defamation League, admonishing me as a Jew not to wash our people’s dirty linen in public. I still have it in my files. His point, of course, was not whether the washing should be public or private; he did not offer an alternative laundry. His objective was—and remains—to squelch anyone who is critical of Israel’s policies.
In the ensuing years, Foxman and a legion of like-minded leaders, most but not all of them Jewish, have been remarkably successful in suppressing an open and frank debate on Israel’s course. In view of Israel’s impact on America’s place in the world, it is astonishing how little discussion its role has generated. As a practical matter, the subject has been taboo. John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, professors of political science at the University of Chicago and Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, respectively, have challenged this taboo in their new book, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” Foxman, in an effort to discredit them, has written a rejoinder in his book “The Deadliest Lies: The Jewish Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control.” ...
...
Foxman does not quite accuse Mearsheimer and Walt—though other disapproving critics do—of being anti-Semitic. But he uses intimidating language nonetheless, pointing to a “level of quiet, subtle bigotry—an attitude that may not run to the actual hatred of Jews but that assumes that Jews are somehow different, less respectable, less honorable, more treacherous, more devious than other people. ... [I]t’s only natural that people who exhibit this kind of bias against Jews should look a little askance at the special relationship that exists between American Jews and the nation of Israel.”
...
Yet, even taking money and organization into account, there remains something of a mystery about the influence that AIPAC and its allies wield. In contrast to AIPAC, the gun lobby is routinely called upon to defend itself. But AIPAC’s task, it seems, is easier, because non-Jews, no less than Jews, unquestioningly accept its marching orders. Why, when it comes to AIPAC, do so many Americans abandon the skepticism they apply to other interests within the political spectrum? Europe is much less accommodating to Israel. AIPAC, naturally, blames the difference on Europe’s anti-Semitism, though—apart from Europe’s Muslims, who start with political grievances against Israel—there is little evidence to support its theory. Mearsheimer and Walt credit AIPAC’s skillful manipulation of the system, but the search for an answer needs more.
Perhaps the answer has something to do with America’s being the most religious, the most Christian, the most church-going society in the Western world. Once upon a time, deeply held Christian faith could be taken as a measure of hostility to Jews; that certainly is the case no longer. If anything, American Christianity—led by but not exclusive to evangelicals—seems to take the biblical promise of a homeland for the Jews as a test of its beliefs and a commitment of its own. This commitment goes beyond guaranteeing Israel’s existence. It provides a body of sympathy for Israel’s hard line, and for the economic aid and weaponry that the United States dispatches to support it.
Unfortunately, the pro-peace segment of the American Jewish community does not have a parallel lobby. It has a few organizations, with dedicated adherents. Its members try to persuade the American Jewish community that reaching out to the Arab world, and particularly to the Palestinians, is better for Israel than perpetual war. AIPAC does its best to de-legitimize them, but they hang in stubbornly, though they are barely a whisper in the debate over Israel’s course. Despite the polls suggesting that many Jews agree with them, the influence of the peace groups is no threat to AIPAC’s pre-eminence. ...
Thursday, October 04, 2007
“The censorship policies of AT&T and Verizon are what we can expect to see time and again with these corporations as gatekeepers,”
October 1, 2007 | Craig Aaron, Free Press, (202) 265-1490, x25 | Phone Company Censorship Exposed | Free Press calls for Congress to investigate abuses of free speech
WASHINGTON — Free Press, coordinator of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, is calling for congressional hearings to address growing public outrage over phone company censorship policies. Last week, Verizon made headlines with its decision to ban text messages from NARAL Pro-Choice America.
“Phone companies are supposed to deliver our messages, not censor them,” said Ben Scott, of Free Press. “If the phone company can’t tell you what to say on a phone call, then they shouldn’t be able to tell you what to say in a text message, an e-mail, or anywhere else. We can’t trust these corporate gatekeepers. Congress needs to step in immediately to safeguard free speech and the free flow of information.”
Verizon’s claimed its censorship of NARAL’s text messages was a glitch that resulted from a “dusty policy.” But the incident is just the latest in a long list of phone company efforts to block, filter or interfere with their customer’s legal content. In August, AT&T censored a live webcast of a Pearl Jam concert just as lead singer Eddie Vedder criticized President Bush.
Earlier in the year, both Verizon and AT&T were exposed for handing over private customer phone records to the National Security Agency. The phone companies first denied they were spying but have since launched a secret campaign with the White House to gain immunity from any lawsuits.
...
“The censorship policies of AT&T and Verizon are what we can expect to see time and again with these corporations as gatekeepers,” said Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press. “Verizon’s text message ban is the same as Comcast blocking our email or AT&T preventing us from making phone calls. We need to put in place laws that protect our right to speak out on the Internet, on cell phones — everywhere.”
WASHINGTON — Free Press, coordinator of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, is calling for congressional hearings to address growing public outrage over phone company censorship policies. Last week, Verizon made headlines with its decision to ban text messages from NARAL Pro-Choice America.
“Phone companies are supposed to deliver our messages, not censor them,” said Ben Scott, of Free Press. “If the phone company can’t tell you what to say on a phone call, then they shouldn’t be able to tell you what to say in a text message, an e-mail, or anywhere else. We can’t trust these corporate gatekeepers. Congress needs to step in immediately to safeguard free speech and the free flow of information.”
Verizon’s claimed its censorship of NARAL’s text messages was a glitch that resulted from a “dusty policy.” But the incident is just the latest in a long list of phone company efforts to block, filter or interfere with their customer’s legal content. In August, AT&T censored a live webcast of a Pearl Jam concert just as lead singer Eddie Vedder criticized President Bush.
Earlier in the year, both Verizon and AT&T were exposed for handing over private customer phone records to the National Security Agency. The phone companies first denied they were spying but have since launched a secret campaign with the White House to gain immunity from any lawsuits.
...
“The censorship policies of AT&T and Verizon are what we can expect to see time and again with these corporations as gatekeepers,” said Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press. “Verizon’s text message ban is the same as Comcast blocking our email or AT&T preventing us from making phone calls. We need to put in place laws that protect our right to speak out on the Internet, on cell phones — everywhere.”
They work diligently to silence those who question ill-conceived policies of the Israeli and U.S. governments.
October 4, 2007 | An Unprecedented Campaign of Intimidation and Censorship | Dissenting at Your Own Risk | By CECILIE SURASKY
Last year, I agreed to speak to a Jewish youth group about my organization, Jewish Voice for Peace, and our opposition to Israel's occupation. My talk was to follow one from a member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which calls itself "America's pro-Israel Lobby."
A week before, a shaken program leader said the AIPAC staffer had threatened to get the entire youth program's funding canceled if I was allowed in the door. The threat worked, and in disgust, they canceled the whole talk.
Pundits will surely argue for years about professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's explosive new book, The Israel Lobby, which blames poor U.S. policy in the Middle East on a loose network of individuals and pro-Israel advocacy groups.
But the book, and the response to it, opens up another controversy: the stifling of debate about unconditional U.S. support for Israeli policies.
Why is Israel's increasingly brutal 40-year occupation of Palestinian land regularly debated in the mainstream media abroad, including in Israel, but not here? And why is there an almost total lack of discussion among presidential candidates about the dollars that subsidize this occupation and the American diplomatic support that makes it possible?
In a society built on the free exchange of ideas, as Walt and Mearsheimer point out, one answer can be found by looking at the many self-appointed gatekeepers, such as Abraham Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League, or Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who use their Jewish identity as both a shield and cudgel. They work diligently to silence those who question ill-conceived policies of the Israeli and U.S. governments.
Non-Jewish critics, even former President Carter, are denounced as anti-Semites. Special ire is reserved for Jewish dissenters, who are branded as "self-hating" or "marginal," while Muslim and Arab-Americans are easily smeared and even criminalized with charges of supporting terrorism.
Stunned by the stifling of dissent, we decided to start a Web site, Muzzlewatch, to track the incidents. Just as we launched, Stanford Middle East Studies Professor Joel Beinin was disinvited from a speaking engagement at a high school with just 24 hours' notice. ...
Last year, I agreed to speak to a Jewish youth group about my organization, Jewish Voice for Peace, and our opposition to Israel's occupation. My talk was to follow one from a member of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which calls itself "America's pro-Israel Lobby."
A week before, a shaken program leader said the AIPAC staffer had threatened to get the entire youth program's funding canceled if I was allowed in the door. The threat worked, and in disgust, they canceled the whole talk.
Pundits will surely argue for years about professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's explosive new book, The Israel Lobby, which blames poor U.S. policy in the Middle East on a loose network of individuals and pro-Israel advocacy groups.
But the book, and the response to it, opens up another controversy: the stifling of debate about unconditional U.S. support for Israeli policies.
Why is Israel's increasingly brutal 40-year occupation of Palestinian land regularly debated in the mainstream media abroad, including in Israel, but not here? And why is there an almost total lack of discussion among presidential candidates about the dollars that subsidize this occupation and the American diplomatic support that makes it possible?
In a society built on the free exchange of ideas, as Walt and Mearsheimer point out, one answer can be found by looking at the many self-appointed gatekeepers, such as Abraham Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League, or Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who use their Jewish identity as both a shield and cudgel. They work diligently to silence those who question ill-conceived policies of the Israeli and U.S. governments.
Non-Jewish critics, even former President Carter, are denounced as anti-Semites. Special ire is reserved for Jewish dissenters, who are branded as "self-hating" or "marginal," while Muslim and Arab-Americans are easily smeared and even criminalized with charges of supporting terrorism.
Stunned by the stifling of dissent, we decided to start a Web site, Muzzlewatch, to track the incidents. Just as we launched, Stanford Middle East Studies Professor Joel Beinin was disinvited from a speaking engagement at a high school with just 24 hours' notice. ...
You're saying that the ... Iran resolution passed ... because of the American-Israeli Political Action Committee?
Thursday, October 4, 2007 | Mike Gravel has balls of steel, blames AIPAC for Iraq/Iran resolution
PBS Newsnight with Jim Lehrer interview with Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Mike Gravel, 17 min
...
RAY SUAREZ (incredulous): You're saying that the national legislature of this country, rather than doing the will of the citizens of the United States, passed that Iran resolution, sanctioning the Republican Guard, because of the American-Israeli Political Action Committee?
PBS Newsnight with Jim Lehrer interview with Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Mike Gravel, 17 min
...
RAY SUAREZ (incredulous): You're saying that the national legislature of this country, rather than doing the will of the citizens of the United States, passed that Iran resolution, sanctioning the Republican Guard, because of the American-Israeli Political Action Committee?
MIKE GRAVEL: Wait a second. They'll be some information coming out about how this thing was drafted. So the answer is yes, the short answer.
If we touch Iran and they respond, you're talking about, in the minimum, a world depression, because the oil industry will just get shut down at the Straits of Hormuz. That's the minimum.
The worst that will happen will be a nuclear exchange, and I don't think we'll ever be able to contain once they start shooting bombs at each other nuclear devices. This is what's at stake with this resolution. And it's the height of immorality, irresponsibility, and the United States Senate, with the Democrats in charge, voted for the passage of this resolution. It doesn't get any worse than that, Ray. ...
Ron Paul's donations up 114% | Rudy, Mitt, and McCain all DOWN 29-55% each
Ron Paul's donations up 114% | Rudy, Mitt, and McCain all DOWN 29-55% each | October 3, 2007
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA -- The Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign raised $5,080,000 during the third quarter of 2007. That is an impressive 114 percent increase from the second quarter.
Cash on hand for the Paul campaign is $5,300,000.
"Dr. Paul's message is freedom, peace and prosperity," said Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "As these fundraising numbers show, more Americans each day are embracing Dr. Paul's message."
Ron Paul's 114 percent increase is in stark contrast to the decrease suffered by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Romney's fundraising was down 29 percent. Giuliani was down 40 percent. McCain was down 55 percent.
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA -- The Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign raised $5,080,000 during the third quarter of 2007. That is an impressive 114 percent increase from the second quarter.
Cash on hand for the Paul campaign is $5,300,000.
"Dr. Paul's message is freedom, peace and prosperity," said Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "As these fundraising numbers show, more Americans each day are embracing Dr. Paul's message."
Ron Paul's 114 percent increase is in stark contrast to the decrease suffered by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Romney's fundraising was down 29 percent. Giuliani was down 40 percent. McCain was down 55 percent.
Monday, October 01, 2007
New AT&T terms of service: We'll cut off your Internet connection for criticizing us
New AT&T terms of service: We'll cut off your Internet connection for criticizing us | Posted by Cory Doctorow, September 29, 2007 10:23 AM | # | Discuss (69)
AT&T has brought down new Terms of Service for its network customers. From now on, AT&T can terminate your connection for conduct that "tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries." So AT&T customers aren't allowed to write/podcast/vlog critical things about AT&T, its billing-practices, or its cooperation with illegal NSA wiretapping, on pain of having their connections disconnected. Link (via /.)
AT&T has brought down new Terms of Service for its network customers. From now on, AT&T can terminate your connection for conduct that "tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries." So AT&T customers aren't allowed to write/podcast/vlog critical things about AT&T, its billing-practices, or its cooperation with illegal NSA wiretapping, on pain of having their connections disconnected. Link (via /.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)