FREE WORLD OF CENSORSHIP ~~ PURGE AT HaARETZ NEWS « DesertpeaceMay 31, 2008
Many of my readers may have noticed that I have not been posting many articles by Amira Hass lately. I have also not been cross posting a regular column by Gideon Levy called ‘The Twighlight Zone’. To be honest with you, I have combed the pages of HaAretz looking for these tidbits but to no avail.
This morning I found out why… there has been a purge at HaAretz. New owners of the newspaper are slowly but surely ‘weeding out’ the only voices of truth and reason in the Israeli press…. so typical of what has been going on generally in the ‘free world of censorship’.
...
... According to inside sources, the new owner has carried out a rough, sittingroom survey that revealed that “the occupation doesn’t sell newspapers” and they are therefore concentrating on the business world (ie. The Marker). Twilight Zone, Gideon Levy’s regular Friday column, has been scrapped, Amira Hass has been degraded to freelance on half salary, Meron Rapaport has been fired and Akiva Eldar has lost at least one half page a week.
...
It appears that the Israelis are closing down many if not all of the sources of critical information coming out of Israel. The hypocrisy of it all is that Israel complains that when the British Academic Union proposes a boycott of Israeli academic institutions as a way to pressure Israel and to protest Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians the Israelis start to scream that the proposed boycott is a violation of freedom of speech and a violation of academic freedom. ...
Monday, June 02, 2008
Perhaps the most flagrantly racist of all the games was GTA: San Andreas (2004) ...
Anthony DiMaggio: Gaming the Ghetto May 31 / June 1, 2008 |
Grand Theft Auto IV, Racist Media and the Concrete Jungle
...
GTA IV has been celebrated, as with its award winning predecessors, as one of the best games of all time.Game Informer magazine deemed it a work of “perfection,” surpassing “epic gaming experiences” in its “stunning realism” and “unbelievable” action. Electronic Gaming Monthly deemed it a “magnificent” specimen of “destructive mayhem,” and a “truly exciting” gaming experience.
...
... Niko works for the Bratva (Russian mafia), conducting various assassinations and other jobs, keeping with the standard motif of the series. GTA IV’s depiction of the Eastern European “other” is merely one of many stereotypes employed throughout GTA’s history.
Previous games were centered on members of the Cosa Nostra (Italian mafia) and various black and Latino street gangs located in American cities. Perhaps the most flagrantly racist of all the games was GTA: San Andreas (2004), which was advertised on television alongside the tune “Welcome to the Jungle” (by Guns N’ Roses).
The advertisement portrayed inner city blacks and Latinos walking around with missile launchers and multiple Uzi’s, riding in bouncing low-riders, and partaking in drive-bys, carjackings, police chases, prostitution, and gambling. The not-so-subtle racist imagery and stereotypes of GTA: San Andreas were hard to miss, even for the game’s most ardent defenders. Inner city minorities were dehumanized and mongrelized in the construction of the city as the concrete jungle.
...
Political-Communication scholars Robert Entman and Andrew Rojecki have uncovered evidence of a “racial subtext of Chicago’s local news.” In the period of coverage they examined during the 1990s, “white victims outnumbered Blacks in news reports – even though Blacks in Chicago and most core cities are more likely to be victimized.” Stories featuring black victims of violence were consistently shorter than those that focused on white victims, with a “total story time” ratio imbalance of 3:1 in favor of whites. Studies have also implicated violent media images in negatively affecting audience beliefs and perceptions.
Such studies go far beyond the simplistic, clumsy and unsubstantiated claims of those conservatives in the media who blame entertainment and video game consumption for “causing” children and teens to engage in violence against their family, friends, and peers. Rather, a substantial body of literature has developed in implicating media in far more subtly “cultivating” conservative, racist, and militaristic thinking within the minds of heavy television consumers. Heavy viewers of television programming have been found to be more likely to “express fear of crime,” particularly amongst those viewers who are white, and/or middle or upper income elites.
...
... Subsequently, those who more heavily consume television programs – including reality based crime shows and news reports – are significantly more likely to provide “higher estimates of crime prevalence” in society. It is perhaps the subtle effects of media violence on individual perceptions of crime and race that makes the Grand Theft Auto series so problematic. ...
Grand Theft Auto IV, Racist Media and the Concrete Jungle
...
GTA IV has been celebrated, as with its award winning predecessors, as one of the best games of all time.Game Informer magazine deemed it a work of “perfection,” surpassing “epic gaming experiences” in its “stunning realism” and “unbelievable” action. Electronic Gaming Monthly deemed it a “magnificent” specimen of “destructive mayhem,” and a “truly exciting” gaming experience.
...
... Niko works for the Bratva (Russian mafia), conducting various assassinations and other jobs, keeping with the standard motif of the series. GTA IV’s depiction of the Eastern European “other” is merely one of many stereotypes employed throughout GTA’s history.
Previous games were centered on members of the Cosa Nostra (Italian mafia) and various black and Latino street gangs located in American cities. Perhaps the most flagrantly racist of all the games was GTA: San Andreas (2004), which was advertised on television alongside the tune “Welcome to the Jungle” (by Guns N’ Roses).
The advertisement portrayed inner city blacks and Latinos walking around with missile launchers and multiple Uzi’s, riding in bouncing low-riders, and partaking in drive-bys, carjackings, police chases, prostitution, and gambling. The not-so-subtle racist imagery and stereotypes of GTA: San Andreas were hard to miss, even for the game’s most ardent defenders. Inner city minorities were dehumanized and mongrelized in the construction of the city as the concrete jungle.
...
Political-Communication scholars Robert Entman and Andrew Rojecki have uncovered evidence of a “racial subtext of Chicago’s local news.” In the period of coverage they examined during the 1990s, “white victims outnumbered Blacks in news reports – even though Blacks in Chicago and most core cities are more likely to be victimized.” Stories featuring black victims of violence were consistently shorter than those that focused on white victims, with a “total story time” ratio imbalance of 3:1 in favor of whites. Studies have also implicated violent media images in negatively affecting audience beliefs and perceptions.
Such studies go far beyond the simplistic, clumsy and unsubstantiated claims of those conservatives in the media who blame entertainment and video game consumption for “causing” children and teens to engage in violence against their family, friends, and peers. Rather, a substantial body of literature has developed in implicating media in far more subtly “cultivating” conservative, racist, and militaristic thinking within the minds of heavy television consumers. Heavy viewers of television programming have been found to be more likely to “express fear of crime,” particularly amongst those viewers who are white, and/or middle or upper income elites.
...
... Subsequently, those who more heavily consume television programs – including reality based crime shows and news reports – are significantly more likely to provide “higher estimates of crime prevalence” in society. It is perhaps the subtle effects of media violence on individual perceptions of crime and race that makes the Grand Theft Auto series so problematic. ...
Who'll Unplug Big Media? US since its founding, relied on freedom of the press to rest authority in the people
Who'll Unplug Big Media? Stay TunedBy Robert W. McChesney & John Nichols | May 29, 2008
...
... With a voice vote that confirmed the near-unanimous sentiment of senators who had heard from hundreds of thousands of Americans demanding that they act, the legislators moved to nullify an FCC attempt to permit a radical form of media consolidation: a rule change designed to permit one corporation to own daily and weekly newspapers as well as television and radio stations in the same local market. The removal of the historic bar to newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership has long been a top priority of Big Media. They want to dramatically increase revenues by buying up major media properties in American cities, shutting down competing newsrooms and creating a one-size-fits-all local discourse that's great for the bottom line but lousy for the communities they are supposed to serve and a nightmare for democracy.
...
... Public broadcasting, community broadcasting and cable access channels have withstood assault from corporate interlopers, fundamentalist censors and the GOP Congressional allies they share in common. And against a full-frontal attack from two industries, telephone and cable--whose entire business model is based on lobbying Congress and regulators to get monopoly privileges--a grassroots movement has preserved network neutrality, the first amendment of the digital epoch, which holds that Internet service providers shall not censor or discriminate against particular websites or services. So successful has this challenge to the telecom lobbies been that the House may soon endorse the Internet Freedom Preservation Act.
...
... In sum, we need to establish rules and structures designed to create a cultural environment that will enlighten, empower and energize citizens so they can realize the full promise of an American experiment that has, since its founding, relied on freedom of the press to rest authority in the people.
Despite all the revelations exposing government assaults on a free press, too many media outlets continue to tell the politically and economically powerful, "Lie to me!" Five years into a war made possible by the persistent refusal of the major media to distinguish fact from Bush Administration spin, we learned this spring about the Pentagon's PR machine's multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign that seeded willing broadcast and cable news programs with "expert" generals who parroted the White House line right up to the point at which the fraud was exposed. Even after the New York Times broke the story, the networks still chose to cover their shame rather than expose a war that has gone far worse than most Americans know. ...
...
... With a voice vote that confirmed the near-unanimous sentiment of senators who had heard from hundreds of thousands of Americans demanding that they act, the legislators moved to nullify an FCC attempt to permit a radical form of media consolidation: a rule change designed to permit one corporation to own daily and weekly newspapers as well as television and radio stations in the same local market. The removal of the historic bar to newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership has long been a top priority of Big Media. They want to dramatically increase revenues by buying up major media properties in American cities, shutting down competing newsrooms and creating a one-size-fits-all local discourse that's great for the bottom line but lousy for the communities they are supposed to serve and a nightmare for democracy.
...
... Public broadcasting, community broadcasting and cable access channels have withstood assault from corporate interlopers, fundamentalist censors and the GOP Congressional allies they share in common. And against a full-frontal attack from two industries, telephone and cable--whose entire business model is based on lobbying Congress and regulators to get monopoly privileges--a grassroots movement has preserved network neutrality, the first amendment of the digital epoch, which holds that Internet service providers shall not censor or discriminate against particular websites or services. So successful has this challenge to the telecom lobbies been that the House may soon endorse the Internet Freedom Preservation Act.
...
... In sum, we need to establish rules and structures designed to create a cultural environment that will enlighten, empower and energize citizens so they can realize the full promise of an American experiment that has, since its founding, relied on freedom of the press to rest authority in the people.
Despite all the revelations exposing government assaults on a free press, too many media outlets continue to tell the politically and economically powerful, "Lie to me!" Five years into a war made possible by the persistent refusal of the major media to distinguish fact from Bush Administration spin, we learned this spring about the Pentagon's PR machine's multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign that seeded willing broadcast and cable news programs with "expert" generals who parroted the White House line right up to the point at which the fraud was exposed. Even after the New York Times broke the story, the networks still chose to cover their shame rather than expose a war that has gone far worse than most Americans know. ...
Tutu's Trip to Gaza Censored by the US media : Information Clearing House - ICH
Tutu's Trip to Gaza Censored by the US media : Information Clearing House - ICHBy Mike Whitney
“There can be no justice, no peace, no stability, not for Israel, not for the Palestinians, without accountability for human rights violations." Archbishop Desmond Tutu
01/06/08 "ICH" -- - Why was Desmond Tutu's trip to Gaza censored by the US media?
When Nobel Laureate and world renowned peacemaker Desmond Tutu goes to Gaza to visit the site of an Israeli massacre; that's news, right? So why is it impossible to find any account of his trip in America's leading newspapers? Is it because any information that is incompatible with the territorial ambitions of the Israeli leadership is simply “disappeared” into the media-ether?
Archbishop Tutu was a leader in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. He is neaither a terrorist nor an anti-Semite. His work as a human rights activist spans 4 decades. Like former president Jimmy Carter he was shunned by the Israeli government and refused entry into Gaza.
...
Bishop Tutu had to go through Eqypt to get to Beit Hanoun; the town where 18 members of the al-Athamna family--including 14 women and children--were killed by Israeli artillery fire in November 2006. Tutu said that hearing "from the survivors of the massacre" had left him in a "state of shock".
Christine Chinkin, professor of international law at the London School of Economics, told the UK Guardian that her preliminary assessment of the attack was that it was a breach of international law.
"Firing in a way that cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants is clearly a violation of international humanitarian law," she said. "I don't think that the idea of a technical mistake takes away from the initial responsibility of the action of firing where civilian casualties are clearly foreseeable ... it has to be foreseeable when you give yourself such a small margin that any error has the potential to lead to civilian casualties." (UK Guardian)
Chinkin is right, of course. It was a massacre and should be thoroughly investigated by the international community. The responsible parties need to be held accountable.
According to the UK Telegraph, “No soldiers were ever charged in connection with the incident. Israel blocked attempts by the UN's Human Rights Council to investigate the shelling, saying that members of the body were "biased". ...
“There can be no justice, no peace, no stability, not for Israel, not for the Palestinians, without accountability for human rights violations." Archbishop Desmond Tutu
01/06/08 "ICH" -- - Why was Desmond Tutu's trip to Gaza censored by the US media?
When Nobel Laureate and world renowned peacemaker Desmond Tutu goes to Gaza to visit the site of an Israeli massacre; that's news, right? So why is it impossible to find any account of his trip in America's leading newspapers? Is it because any information that is incompatible with the territorial ambitions of the Israeli leadership is simply “disappeared” into the media-ether?
Archbishop Tutu was a leader in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. He is neaither a terrorist nor an anti-Semite. His work as a human rights activist spans 4 decades. Like former president Jimmy Carter he was shunned by the Israeli government and refused entry into Gaza.
...
Bishop Tutu had to go through Eqypt to get to Beit Hanoun; the town where 18 members of the al-Athamna family--including 14 women and children--were killed by Israeli artillery fire in November 2006. Tutu said that hearing "from the survivors of the massacre" had left him in a "state of shock".
Christine Chinkin, professor of international law at the London School of Economics, told the UK Guardian that her preliminary assessment of the attack was that it was a breach of international law.
"Firing in a way that cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants is clearly a violation of international humanitarian law," she said. "I don't think that the idea of a technical mistake takes away from the initial responsibility of the action of firing where civilian casualties are clearly foreseeable ... it has to be foreseeable when you give yourself such a small margin that any error has the potential to lead to civilian casualties." (UK Guardian)
Chinkin is right, of course. It was a massacre and should be thoroughly investigated by the international community. The responsible parties need to be held accountable.
According to the UK Telegraph, “No soldiers were ever charged in connection with the incident. Israel blocked attempts by the UN's Human Rights Council to investigate the shelling, saying that members of the body were "biased". ...
Wolf_Blitzer_defends_CNN_preIraq_war_0529.html">Blitzer on defense: CNN had 'pretty strong' anti-war coverage
Blitzer on defense: CNN had 'pretty strong' anti-war coverage | David Edwards and Muriel Kane | Published: Thursday May 29, 2008
From the point of view of a network anchor like CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "one of the most provocative allegations" in former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's new book is his assertion that "those of us in the news media who cover the president" were "too deferential to the White House" during the run-up to the Iraq war.
Blitzer strongly defended CNN's pre-war reporting, pointing out that he had frequently interviewed people like Scott Ritter, who made the case that there was no evidence for Iraqi possession of WMD's. "I think we were pretty strong," Blitzer stated, "but certainly with hindsight, we could have done an even better job. There were a lot of things missing in our coverage. ... I think we asked the tough questions, but we could have done better."
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post pointed out to Blitzer that "anti-war voiced had limited access, it seemed, to the airwaves, while administration officials were on every day."
...
From the point of view of a network anchor like CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "one of the most provocative allegations" in former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's new book is his assertion that "those of us in the news media who cover the president" were "too deferential to the White House" during the run-up to the Iraq war.
Blitzer strongly defended CNN's pre-war reporting, pointing out that he had frequently interviewed people like Scott Ritter, who made the case that there was no evidence for Iraqi possession of WMD's. "I think we were pretty strong," Blitzer stated, "but certainly with hindsight, we could have done an even better job. There were a lot of things missing in our coverage. ... I think we asked the tough questions, but we could have done better."
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post pointed out to Blitzer that "anti-war voiced had limited access, it seemed, to the airwaves, while administration officials were on every day."
...
CNN/MSNBC reporter: Corporate executives forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative - enormous pressure from corporate executives
CNN/MSNBC reporter: Corporate executives forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.comThursday May 29, 2008
Jessica Yellin -- currently a CNN correspondent who covered the White House for ABC News and MSNBC in 2002 and 2003 -- was on with Anderson Cooper last night discussing Scott McClellan's book, and made one of the most significant admissions heard on television in quite some time:
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think the press corps dropped the ball at the beginning. When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings.And my own experience at the White House was that, the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives -- and I was not at this network at the time -- but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president.
I think, over time...
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?
YELLIN: Not in that exact -- they wouldn't say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces. They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical and try to put on pieces that were more positive, yes. That was my experience. ...
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
[Bush Press Secretary:] "I spent countless hours defending the administration ... some of them were badly misguided"
Exclusive: McClellan whacks Bush, White House | By MIKE ALLEN | 5/27/08 6:18 PM EST
...
McClellan, who turned 40 in February, was press secretary from July 2003 to April 2006. An Austin native from a political family, he began working as a gubernatorial spokesman for then-Gov. Bush in early 1999, was traveling press secretary for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and was chief deputy to Press Secretary Ari Fleischer at the beginning of Bush’s first term.
“I still like and admire President Bush,” McClellan writes. “But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war. … In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security.”
...
“I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood,” McClellan writes. “It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn’t learn that what I’d said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later.
...
Among other notable passages:
...
• “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.” ...
...
McClellan, who turned 40 in February, was press secretary from July 2003 to April 2006. An Austin native from a political family, he began working as a gubernatorial spokesman for then-Gov. Bush in early 1999, was traveling press secretary for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and was chief deputy to Press Secretary Ari Fleischer at the beginning of Bush’s first term.
“I still like and admire President Bush,” McClellan writes. “But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war. … In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security.”
...
“I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood,” McClellan writes. “It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn’t learn that what I’d said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later.
...
Among other notable passages:
...
• “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.” ...
Whitehouse Press Secretary: Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war ... press corps too easy on the administration .. “badly misguided.” briefings
Ex-Press Secretary Throws Bush Under the Bus | Posted on May 27, 2008
Scott McClellan was one of George W. Bush’s most loyal aides, so it is surprising to learn that he savages the president and his administration in his new memoir. Among other bombshells, McClellan refers to the administration’s “propaganda campaign” to sell the war and accuses Karl Rove and Scooter Libby of meeting in secret during the Plamegate scandal in order to get their stories straight.
Politico:
Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95):
—McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.
—He says the White House press corps went too easy on the administration.
—He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.”
—The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them - and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him the full facts.
—McClellan asserts that the aides—Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff - “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform ... media military analysts "into a kind..Trojan horse
Media Matters - Military analysts named in Times exposé appeared or were quoted more than 4,500 times on broadcast nets, cables, NPR | Tue, May 13, 2008 8:25am ET
Summary: A New York Times article detailed the connection between numerous media military analysts and the Pentagon and defense industries, reporting that "the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts "into a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks." A Media Matters review found that since January 1, 2002, the analysts named in the Times article -- many identified as having ties to the defense industry -- collectively appeared or were quoted as experts more than 4,500 times on ABC, ABC News Now, CBS, CBS Radio Network, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR. ...
Summary: A New York Times article detailed the connection between numerous media military analysts and the Pentagon and defense industries, reporting that "the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts "into a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks." A Media Matters review found that since January 1, 2002, the analysts named in the Times article -- many identified as having ties to the defense industry -- collectively appeared or were quoted as experts more than 4,500 times on ABC, ABC News Now, CBS, CBS Radio Network, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR. ...
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
I hope your editorial board is willing to take on this lightly veiled appeal to bigotry.
Tribune, Kathleen Parker owe readers an apology -- -- chicagotribune.com May 14, 2008
I recognize that your columnists are meant to recognize a diversity of opinions. But you owe your readers an apology for today's column by Kathleen Parker ("The 'Bubba' vote," May 14). It represents a level of venom that merits either a reprimand or an explanation from your editorial board. "Blood equity" is Parker's phrase to defend assaults on multi-culturalism, gun control, or indeed any critiques of religion. Two hundred years of continuous residence is apparently the requirement for an American in order to have "equity" in her society. "Generations of sacrifice" is the badge of honor to defend "their heritage." Those arriving after 1808 need not apply. We have heard this language before, from segregationists (is this part of "their heritage?"); from prohibitionists; from anti-suffrage advocates. "Full-blooded" Americans "get this," Parker concludes in this impassioned defense of ethnocentrism. I hope your editorial board is willing to take on this lightly veiled appeal to bigotry.
I recognize that your columnists are meant to recognize a diversity of opinions. But you owe your readers an apology for today's column by Kathleen Parker ("The 'Bubba' vote," May 14). It represents a level of venom that merits either a reprimand or an explanation from your editorial board. "Blood equity" is Parker's phrase to defend assaults on multi-culturalism, gun control, or indeed any critiques of religion. Two hundred years of continuous residence is apparently the requirement for an American in order to have "equity" in her society. "Generations of sacrifice" is the badge of honor to defend "their heritage." Those arriving after 1808 need not apply. We have heard this language before, from segregationists (is this part of "their heritage?"); from prohibitionists; from anti-suffrage advocates. "Full-blooded" Americans "get this," Parker concludes in this impassioned defense of ethnocentrism. I hope your editorial board is willing to take on this lightly veiled appeal to bigotry.
syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker defended Fry's claim that Obama is something other than "a full-blooded American."
High Standards at the Washington Post Op-Ed page - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
Last week, The Financial Times highlighted some of the ugly sentiment in West Virginia against Barack Obama, including comments such as "I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife's an atheist." The article reported that "several people said they believed he was a Muslim." It ended by quoting West Virginian Josh Fry as saying "he would feel more comfortable with Mr. McCain" than Obama because: "I want someone who is a full-blooded American as president."
In one of the most repellent columns one will ever read, syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker defended Fry's claim that Obama is something other than "a full-blooded American." Advancing an argument that Atrios guest blogger aimai aptly described as "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!," Parker said "we now have a patriot divide" in America that "has nothing to do with a flag lapel pin . . . or even military service." Instead:
It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.It goes on and on like that. So according to Parker, what makes McCain a "full-blooded American," but not Obama, has to do with "blood equity," "heritage," "rapidly changing demographic[s]," and "bloodlines." She then wrote that "white Americans primarily -- and Southerners, rural and small-town folks especially -- have been put on the defensive," and that:Some run deeper than others and therein lies the truth of Josh Fry's political sense. In a country that is rapidly changing demographically -- and where new neighbors may have arrived last year, not last century -- there is a very real sense that once-upon-a-time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity.
We love to boast that we are a nation of immigrants — and we are. But there's a different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines back through generations of sacrifice.
What they know is that their forefathers fought and died for an America that has worked pretty well for more than 200 years. What they sense is that their heritage is being swept under the carpet while multiculturalism becomes the new national narrative. And they fear what else might get lost in the remodeling of America. ...
[Court] rules in favor of the whistleblower only one percent of the time: The policy suggests that public integrity is more dangerous than treason.
Daily Kos: State of the Nationby Deep Harm | Fri May 16, 2008
... But, hardly anything is written about another kangaroo court; one that hears cases of American citizens - federal government employees who report lawbreaking, negligence and abuses of power by government officials.
The outcomes of those cases, involving issues of national security, public health and environmental safety, affect everyone; for, often the cases are the only times officials face being held accountable. So, what does it say to you that the court that hears those cases rules in favor of the whistleblower only one percent of the time - one pitiful percent? [1]
No jury, no transparency, no justice
The court referenced above is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the only court where federal government whistleblowers can go if they do not succeed at the Office of Special Counsel (2.5 percent success rate) or at the Merit Systems Protection Board (success rate less than 5 percent) [2]. And, because there is no provision at any step of the process for a jury trial and there is no requirement to publish details, evidence of official wrongdoing routinely disappears. Worsening the dilemma for honest feds, in many cases they are required by law or the code of ethics to report wrongdoing, as whistleblower attorney David Colapinto explained at a Congressional forum last week.
All whistleblowers are vulnerable to retaliation. But, national security whistleblowers are the most vulnerable because they have the fewest rights. Agencies typically revoke their security clearances, and there is no meaningful due process currently available to them. As Colapinto pointed out, federal whistleblowers, even if they have had security clearances for years, are denied access to classified evidence needed to win their cases. In contrast, the courts allow defendants accused of espionage to have access to classified documents. The policy suggests that public integrity is more dangerous than treason. ...
... But, hardly anything is written about another kangaroo court; one that hears cases of American citizens - federal government employees who report lawbreaking, negligence and abuses of power by government officials.
The outcomes of those cases, involving issues of national security, public health and environmental safety, affect everyone; for, often the cases are the only times officials face being held accountable. So, what does it say to you that the court that hears those cases rules in favor of the whistleblower only one percent of the time - one pitiful percent? [1]
No jury, no transparency, no justice
The court referenced above is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the only court where federal government whistleblowers can go if they do not succeed at the Office of Special Counsel (2.5 percent success rate) or at the Merit Systems Protection Board (success rate less than 5 percent) [2]. And, because there is no provision at any step of the process for a jury trial and there is no requirement to publish details, evidence of official wrongdoing routinely disappears. Worsening the dilemma for honest feds, in many cases they are required by law or the code of ethics to report wrongdoing, as whistleblower attorney David Colapinto explained at a Congressional forum last week.
All whistleblowers are vulnerable to retaliation. But, national security whistleblowers are the most vulnerable because they have the fewest rights. Agencies typically revoke their security clearances, and there is no meaningful due process currently available to them. As Colapinto pointed out, federal whistleblowers, even if they have had security clearances for years, are denied access to classified evidence needed to win their cases. In contrast, the courts allow defendants accused of espionage to have access to classified documents. The policy suggests that public integrity is more dangerous than treason. ...
Monday, May 05, 2008
Media Cesca: Have You Left No Sense Of Decency? -
Bob Cesca: Have You Left No Sense Of Decency? - Media on The Huffington Post | Bob Cesca | April 29, 2008
If the corporate media had been as diligent about watchdogging President Bush as they have been about watchdogging Reverend Wright, it's very likely we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
If the corporate media had spent as much time exposing the obvious flaws and grotesque inequalities of Reaganomics throughout the last 30 years as they've spent on Wright, we wouldn't necessarily be staring into the maw of another depression.
If the corporate media were as diligent about debunking the lies surrounding Iran's so-called nuclear program as they've been about Wright, there wouldn't be such a sense of inevitability in terms of attacking -- or entirely obliterating -- Iran.
...
... And -- bonus! -- there's videotape of this angry, shouting black man suggesting that America is partly to blame for the attacks of September 11!
Wait, wait. That claim sounds familiar. Who else besides, you know, the 9/11 Commission has claimed that American foreign policy in the Middle East was partly to blame for the September 11 attacks? In other words, who else has basically said -- and repeatedly so -- that America's "chickens have come home to roost"?
That'd be Republican Congressman Ron Paul. So let's see here... Which Republicans must, by their own standards, be held accountable for their relationship with such an obvious America-hater? Who ought to be forced to repeatedly renounce and reject Congressman Paul?
...
What about other white Republicans who have said equally crazy things? Pastor Hagee, who has endorsed Senator McCain, just recently claimed that God "damned" New Orleans. Add that statement to the anti-Semitic statements and the anti-Catholic statements and you've got yourself a controversy. But are the cable networks cutting to live coverage of Pastor Hagee for two hours at a stretch? Are ABC and Fox News going to question Senator McCain about his relationship with Hagee -- the same questions over and over again, backed with the same footage over and over again? Of course not. ...
If the corporate media had been as diligent about watchdogging President Bush as they have been about watchdogging Reverend Wright, it's very likely we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
If the corporate media had spent as much time exposing the obvious flaws and grotesque inequalities of Reaganomics throughout the last 30 years as they've spent on Wright, we wouldn't necessarily be staring into the maw of another depression.
If the corporate media were as diligent about debunking the lies surrounding Iran's so-called nuclear program as they've been about Wright, there wouldn't be such a sense of inevitability in terms of attacking -- or entirely obliterating -- Iran.
...
... And -- bonus! -- there's videotape of this angry, shouting black man suggesting that America is partly to blame for the attacks of September 11!
Wait, wait. That claim sounds familiar. Who else besides, you know, the 9/11 Commission has claimed that American foreign policy in the Middle East was partly to blame for the September 11 attacks? In other words, who else has basically said -- and repeatedly so -- that America's "chickens have come home to roost"?
That'd be Republican Congressman Ron Paul. So let's see here... Which Republicans must, by their own standards, be held accountable for their relationship with such an obvious America-hater? Who ought to be forced to repeatedly renounce and reject Congressman Paul?
...
What about other white Republicans who have said equally crazy things? Pastor Hagee, who has endorsed Senator McCain, just recently claimed that God "damned" New Orleans. Add that statement to the anti-Semitic statements and the anti-Catholic statements and you've got yourself a controversy. But are the cable networks cutting to live coverage of Pastor Hagee for two hours at a stretch? Are ABC and Fox News going to question Senator McCain about his relationship with Hagee -- the same questions over and over again, backed with the same footage over and over again? Of course not. ...
Critic accuses Hollywood of vilifying Arabs: examined the treatment of Arabs and Muslims in some 1,000 films
Critic accuses Hollywood of vilifying Arabs | Thu May 1, 2008 | By Tom Perry | REUTERS
BEIRUT (Reuters) - American films and TV dramas shot since the September 11 attacks have reinforced screen images of Arabs and Muslims as fanatics and villains, ingraining harmful stereotypes, argues an author on the subject.
In his book "Guilty -- Hollywood's Verdict on Arabs after 9/11", Jack Shaheen praises some post-September 11 films for offering a more sympathetic image of Arabs and Muslims, who he argues have been castigated for decades by Hollywood.
But he says that too many have portrayed them in ever darker shades, criticizing films including "The Kingdom" (2007) and "The Four Feathers" (2002) and condemning the creation of a new "Arab-American bogeyman" in TV dramas such as "24".
"In the United States, you can say anything you want about Islam and Arabs and get away with it. In other words, as someone said, 'You can hit an Arab free'," said Shaheen -- also author of "Reel Bad Arabs -- How Hollywood Vilifies a People".
Shaheen, an American of Lebanese descent, has examined the treatment of Arabs and Muslims in some 1,000 films, including more than 100 shot since September 11.
From action movies such as "True Lies" (1994) to comedies including "Father of the Bride Part II" (1995) and Disney's animated "Aladdin" (1992), Shaheen identifies films that have perpetuated damaging stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims.
"The images have remained primarily fixed and have only been changed in the sense that they have become more vindictive and damaging," he told Reuters in an interview in Beirut. ...
...
Hollywood's depiction of Arabs has eased the path for U.S. administration policy, he argues. Decades of portraying Arabs and Muslims as the enemy "made it that much easier for us to go into Iraq", he said. "There were very few people protesting.
"The images help enforce policy," he said. "As the policy becomes more even-handed, perhaps films will reflect that.
"Plato said: 'Those who tell the stories rule society'. Nothing has changed, and the story tellers of today have a tremendous impact on the world as we perceive it."
BEIRUT (Reuters) - American films and TV dramas shot since the September 11 attacks have reinforced screen images of Arabs and Muslims as fanatics and villains, ingraining harmful stereotypes, argues an author on the subject.
In his book "Guilty -- Hollywood's Verdict on Arabs after 9/11", Jack Shaheen praises some post-September 11 films for offering a more sympathetic image of Arabs and Muslims, who he argues have been castigated for decades by Hollywood.
But he says that too many have portrayed them in ever darker shades, criticizing films including "The Kingdom" (2007) and "The Four Feathers" (2002) and condemning the creation of a new "Arab-American bogeyman" in TV dramas such as "24".
"In the United States, you can say anything you want about Islam and Arabs and get away with it. In other words, as someone said, 'You can hit an Arab free'," said Shaheen -- also author of "Reel Bad Arabs -- How Hollywood Vilifies a People".
Shaheen, an American of Lebanese descent, has examined the treatment of Arabs and Muslims in some 1,000 films, including more than 100 shot since September 11.
From action movies such as "True Lies" (1994) to comedies including "Father of the Bride Part II" (1995) and Disney's animated "Aladdin" (1992), Shaheen identifies films that have perpetuated damaging stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims.
"The images have remained primarily fixed and have only been changed in the sense that they have become more vindictive and damaging," he told Reuters in an interview in Beirut. ...
...
Hollywood's depiction of Arabs has eased the path for U.S. administration policy, he argues. Decades of portraying Arabs and Muslims as the enemy "made it that much easier for us to go into Iraq", he said. "There were very few people protesting.
"The images help enforce policy," he said. "As the policy becomes more even-handed, perhaps films will reflect that.
"Plato said: 'Those who tell the stories rule society'. Nothing has changed, and the story tellers of today have a tremendous impact on the world as we perceive it."
double standard for black and white politicians at play in too much of news media...even gay men may hold more G.O.P. positions of power than blacks.
The All-White Elephant in the Room | By FRANK RICH | Published: May 4, 2008
BORED by those endless replays of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? If so, go directly to YouTube, search for “John Hagee Roman Church Hitler,” and be recharged by a fresh jolt of clerical jive.
BORED by those endless replays of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? If so, go directly to YouTube, search for “John Hagee Roman Church Hitler,” and be recharged by a fresh jolt of clerical jive.
What you’ll find is a white televangelist, the Rev. John Hagee, lecturing in front of an enormous diorama. Wielding a pointer, he pokes at the image of a woman with Pamela Anderson-sized breasts, her hand raising a golden chalice. The woman is “the Great Whore,” Mr. Hagee explains, and she is drinking “the blood of the Jewish people.” That’s because the Great Whore represents “the Roman Church,” which, in his view, has thirsted for Jewish blood throughout history, from the Crusades to the Holocaust.
Mr. Hagee is not a fringe kook but the pastor of a Texas megachurch. On Feb. 27, he stood with John McCain and endorsed him over the religious conservatives’ favorite, Mike Huckabee, who was then still in the race.
...
Mr. Hagee, it’s true, did not blame the American government for concocting AIDS. But he did say that God created Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for its sins, particularly a scheduled “homosexual parade there on the Monday that Katrina came.”
...
Mr. Hagee didn’t make that claim in obscure circumstances, either. He broadcast it on one of America’s most widely heard radio programs, “Fresh Air” on NPR, back in September 2006. He reaffirmed it in a radio interview less than two weeks ago. Only after a reporter asked Mr. McCain about this Katrina homily on April 24 did the candidate brand it as “nonsense” and the preacher retract it.
...
That defense implies, incorrectly, that Mr. McCain was a passive recipient of this bigot’s endorsement. In fact, by his own account, Mr. McCain sought out Mr. Hagee, who is perhaps best known for trying to drum up a pre-emptive “holy war” with Iran.
...
There is not just a double standard for black and white politicians at play in too much of the news media and political establishment, but there is also a glaring double standard for our political parties. The Clintons and Mr. Obama are always held accountable for their racial stands, as they should be, but the elephant in the room of our politics is rarely acknowledged: In the 21st century, the so-called party of Lincoln does not have a single African-American among its collective 247 senators and representatives in Washington. Yes, there are appointees like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice, but, as we learned during the Mark Foley scandal, even gay men may hold more G.O.P. positions of power than blacks. ...
...
... Yet the holier-than-thou politicians and pundits on the right passing shrill moral judgment over every Democratic racial skirmish are almost never asked to confront or even acknowledge the racial dysfunction in their own house. In our mainstream political culture, this de facto apartheid is simply accepted as an intractable given, unworthy of notice, and just too embarrassing to mention aloud in polite Beltway company. Those who dare are instantly accused of “political correctness” or “reverse racism.” ...
Huffington wouldn’t be booked on any NBC-affiliated show to promote her book, but refused to explain why ...
Crooks and Liars » Tim Russert Takes Offense, Bans Arianna Huffington From NBC NewsBy: Nicole Belle on Wednesday, April 30th, 2008
It seems that Arianna Huffington has run up against the impenetrable wall that is Tim Russert’s ego. Huffington, who is currently on tour for her new book Right Is Wrong: How The Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded The Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe, will be appearing on CNN, ABC, and CBS. She had been booked on Morning Joe and Countdown with Keith Olbermann as well, but those bookings were suddenly and inexplicably cancelled.
NBC confirmed that Huffington wouldn’t be booked on any NBC-affiliated show to promote her book, but refused to explain why. Huffington’s people say that this is Tim Russert’s doing, that Russert is out for revenge because Huffington called him a “conventional wisdom zombie” in her book and devoted seven pages to faulting Russert for allowing his Meet the Press guests to go unchallenged (not to mention HuffPo’s RussertWatch). ...Precision Media Hit On Obama, A Pass For Clinton ... mediamake us care about bowling and coffee machines ...
RJ Eskow: Coffeecups and Gutterballs: A Precision Media Hit On Obama, A Pass For Clinton - Media on The Huffington PostRJ ESKOW | Posted May 2, 2008
...
But, stop already! Isn't this all ridiculous? Isn't it trivial to concern ourselves with whether the next president is able to go bowling or get a cup of coffee from a vending machine? Of course! But the media make us care about these things. They have an enormous ability to influence what we think about, and they've chosen to emphasize the reality-show aspects of this race. Then, having done that, they skew the race in favor of different candidates in a naked display of their ability to influence the outcome. That's the lesson of the bowling incident and the coffee-cup video: One gets exposure and the other doesn't, because the narrative has already been written. ...
Let's start with a hypothetical situation: Suppose a small group of people controlled the press, and they wanted to ensure a Republican victory in November. A few weeks ago Obama seemed to be riding a wave of inevitability and positive perception. The Democrats seemed to have settled on a candidate, and he scored well against the Republicans because he was seen as post-racial and post-partisan. If this group were to write a memo to the media, what would it say?
Their game plan would have very specific objectives:
1. Extend the Democratic primary race as long as possible.
2. Remind the public that the seemingly "post-racial" Obama is a black man; make him seem as scary-black as possible.
3. Strengthen Hillary Clinton's image with white working-class voters by making her appear populist, folksy, and one of them. Conversely, characterize Obama as an elitist who is out of touch with "real people."
4. Break down Obama's post-partisan appeal to independents and Republicans by linking him to the divisive left/right politics of the 1960s.
...
But, stop already! Isn't this all ridiculous? Isn't it trivial to concern ourselves with whether the next president is able to go bowling or get a cup of coffee from a vending machine? Of course! But the media make us care about these things. They have an enormous ability to influence what we think about, and they've chosen to emphasize the reality-show aspects of this race. Then, having done that, they skew the race in favor of different candidates in a naked display of their ability to influence the outcome. That's the lesson of the bowling incident and the coffee-cup video: One gets exposure and the other doesn't, because the narrative has already been written. ...
Friday, May 02, 2008
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand - New York Times ... consultants and military contractors ...
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand - New York TimesMessage Machine | By DAVID BARSTOW | Published: April 20, 2008
...
The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.
...
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. ...
...
The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.
...
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. ...
Greg Mitchell: The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media - Politics on The Huffington Post
Greg Mitchell: The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media - Politics on The Huffington PostGREG MITCHELL | April 16, 2008
In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin -- while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.
Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of right-wing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued.
More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and -- you name it. Gibson only got excited complaining that someone might raise his capital gains tax. Yet neither candidate had the courage to ask the moderators to turn to those far more important issues. Talking heads on other networks followed up by not pressing that point either. The crowd booed Gibson near the end. Why didn't every other responsible journalist on TV? ...
Thursday, May 01, 2008
senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama.: [emails] dail
Peter Dreier: Sidney Blumenthal Uses Former Right-Wing Foes To Attack Obama - Off The Bus on The Huffington PostMay 1, 2008 | Peter Dreier
Former journalist Sidney Blumenthal has been widely credited with coining the term "vast right-wing conspiracy" used by Hillary Clinton in 1998 to describe the alliance of conservative media, think tanks, and political operatives that sought to destroy the Clinton White House where he worked as a high-level aide. A decade later, and now acting as a senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama. And he's not hesitating to use the same sort of guilt-by-association tactics that have been the hallmark of the political right dating back to the McCarthy era.
Almost every day over the past six months, I have been the recipient of an email that attacks Obama's character, political views, electability, and real or manufactured associations. The original source of many of these hit pieces are virulent and sometimes extreme right-wing websites, bloggers, and publications. But they aren't being emailed out from some fringe right-wing group that somehow managed to get my email address. Instead, it is Sidney Blumenthal who, on a regular basis, methodically dispatches these email mudballs to an influential list of opinion shapers -- including journalists, former Clinton administration officials, academics, policy entrepreneurs, and think tankers -- in what is an obvious attempt to create an echo chamber that reverberates among talk shows, columnists, and Democratic Party funders and activists. One of the recipients of the Blumenthal email blast, himself a Clinton supporter, forwards the material to me and perhaps to others.
...
To cite just one recent example, Blumenthal circulated an article taken from the fervently hard-right AIM website on February 18 entitled, "Obama's Communist Mentor" by Cliff Kincaid. Kincaid is a right-wing writer and activist, a longtime critic of the United Nations, whose group, America's Survival, has been funded by foundations controlled by conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife, the same millionaire who helped fund attacks on the Clintons during their White House years. Scaife also funds AIM, the right-wing media "watchdog" group. ...
Meanwhile, how are we evaluating the would-be Democratic nominee? Based on orange juice, of course. Why? Because the Republicans say so.
Bob Cesca: The Very Serious Debate, Starring The Very Serious GeorgePosted April 17, 2008 | Bob Cesca
We like to joke about the "very serious" traditional media. The truth is that while they claim exclusive lordship over integrity and professionalism -- not to mention a corner on the world's supply of pants made of smarty -- they're really a freak show with serious haircuts and suits. They're a wing of the Republican corporatist conspiracy against America. And the very serious moderators of last night's Democratic debate couldn't have been less serious if they had been wearing clown suits made of dildos while simultaneously tickling each other with monkeys.
I don't really even need to write this. The nation has witnessed, firsthand, George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson for who they really are: pandering yellow journalists. Carnival barkers. They're Penn & Teller without the talent or insight.
To wit... 50 minutes without a single substantive question. Fifty. ...
...
Whether the questions were about Wright and Bosnia, or about guns and Iran, every single topic was framed from the perspective of the Republicans, with an eye on what the Republicans might say about him or her in the general election. So, I have to ask: since when did this become a primary race about which Democrat most resembles George W. Bush and John W. McCain?
It confounds logic that, on one hand, Senator Obama is repeatedly asked to explain why rural America is bitter, while, on the other hand, his qualifications for the presidency are being evaluated based on his goddamn bowling skills. Seriously, what the hell is going on here? The Bush Republicans are responsible for perhaps the worst economic crisis since World War II. They're responsible for a $3 trillion occupation and decades of future blowback. They're responsible for selling our sovereignty to foreign governments. They're responsible for trampling our liberty and national character. And there was Senator McCain on Hardball the other night talking about war in Iran, while pledging to make permanent the Bush tax cuts for the super rich. Both of which would make matters far, far worse.
Meanwhile, how are we evaluating the would-be Democratic nominee? Based on orange juice, of course. Why? Because the Republicans say so. ...
We like to joke about the "very serious" traditional media. The truth is that while they claim exclusive lordship over integrity and professionalism -- not to mention a corner on the world's supply of pants made of smarty -- they're really a freak show with serious haircuts and suits. They're a wing of the Republican corporatist conspiracy against America. And the very serious moderators of last night's Democratic debate couldn't have been less serious if they had been wearing clown suits made of dildos while simultaneously tickling each other with monkeys.
I don't really even need to write this. The nation has witnessed, firsthand, George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson for who they really are: pandering yellow journalists. Carnival barkers. They're Penn & Teller without the talent or insight.
To wit... 50 minutes without a single substantive question. Fifty. ...
...
Whether the questions were about Wright and Bosnia, or about guns and Iran, every single topic was framed from the perspective of the Republicans, with an eye on what the Republicans might say about him or her in the general election. So, I have to ask: since when did this become a primary race about which Democrat most resembles George W. Bush and John W. McCain?
It confounds logic that, on one hand, Senator Obama is repeatedly asked to explain why rural America is bitter, while, on the other hand, his qualifications for the presidency are being evaluated based on his goddamn bowling skills. Seriously, what the hell is going on here? The Bush Republicans are responsible for perhaps the worst economic crisis since World War II. They're responsible for a $3 trillion occupation and decades of future blowback. They're responsible for selling our sovereignty to foreign governments. They're responsible for trampling our liberty and national character. And there was Senator McCain on Hardball the other night talking about war in Iran, while pledging to make permanent the Bush tax cuts for the super rich. Both of which would make matters far, far worse.
Meanwhile, how are we evaluating the would-be Democratic nominee? Based on orange juice, of course. Why? Because the Republicans say so. ...
Sunday, April 27, 2008
TV Military ‘Analysts’ Are Part Ike's ... unwarranted influence ...by the military-industrial complex [Propaganda]
TV Military ‘Analysts’ Are Part of What Ike Warned AgainstA New York Times report shines a light on how the military-industrial complex tries to shape broadcast news. - CommonDreams.orgSunday, April 27, 2008 by the Maine Sunday Telegram
...
They were the faces of nine retired military officers (there were more inside the paper) who appear regularly on network and cable television news to give viewers informed, independent assessments of the war in Iraq.
At least that was the idea.
What viewers have been getting, the Times revealed, is something quite different. The paper reported convincingly that some retired officers appearing as “military analysts” have been pushing Pentagon propaganda in return for continued access to top officials and financial benefit for themselves.
According to the Times report, “Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department.
“In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated,” the report said. “Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access. A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public.”
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, an enthusiastic golfer in his presidential years, left behind more than spike marks on the White House floor. He stood at a convergence in American history. He knew it. And he gave voice to a solemn warning, delivered in 1961, three days before he left office.
Eisenhower, a renowned World War II general, declared, “Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
“In the councils of government,” he warned, “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. ...
...
They were the faces of nine retired military officers (there were more inside the paper) who appear regularly on network and cable television news to give viewers informed, independent assessments of the war in Iraq.
At least that was the idea.
What viewers have been getting, the Times revealed, is something quite different. The paper reported convincingly that some retired officers appearing as “military analysts” have been pushing Pentagon propaganda in return for continued access to top officials and financial benefit for themselves.
According to the Times report, “Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department.
“In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated,” the report said. “Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access. A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public.”
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, an enthusiastic golfer in his presidential years, left behind more than spike marks on the White House floor. He stood at a convergence in American history. He knew it. And he gave voice to a solemn warning, delivered in 1961, three days before he left office.
Eisenhower, a renowned World War II general, declared, “Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
“In the councils of government,” he warned, “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. ...
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
government program to corrupt the free flow of information that serves
Propaganda at Home - CommonDreams.orgTuesday, April 22, 2008 by The Boston Globe
Anyone who has watched the military analysts hired by TV networks has heard rosy assessments of the war in Iraq. The similarities between their judgments and the Pentagon’s are not coincidental. As The New York Times demonstrated by suing the Pentagon to obtain 8,000 pages of documents, those analysts were enlisted by the Defense Department in a psychological warfare operation targeting the domestic audience. And, as the newspaper reported Sunday, many of the retired military officers appearing on news shows were using their access to the Pentagon and the airwaves to procure lucrative contracts for some 150 defense contractors, which employed them as consultants, board members, lobbyists, or executives.
This is no subtle attempt to influence public opinion. It is a government program to corrupt the free flow of information that serves, in a healthy democracy, to inoculate the public against official lies, bad policy, and misbegotten wars.One straightforward corrective would be for TV news executives to require full disclosure of their analysts’ business interests as well as their contacts and junkets with military and government officials. Ideally, the television news shows would not have to rely on paid outside experts. They should trust their own reporters to gather news from disparate sources, and to interview former and serving officers who can offer informed commentary from diverse viewpoints.
...
This is a tactic more suitable for Vladimir Putin’s Russia. In fact, the Pentagon’s manipulation of the media has been more deft than the Kremlin’s because it was better hidden.
In the end, the government’s disguised lies have done more damage to American democracy and the national interest than to any foreign enemy. History’s epitaph for the Pentagon’s psywar operation will be: “We fooled ourselves.”
Anyone who has watched the military analysts hired by TV networks has heard rosy assessments of the war in Iraq. The similarities between their judgments and the Pentagon’s are not coincidental. As The New York Times demonstrated by suing the Pentagon to obtain 8,000 pages of documents, those analysts were enlisted by the Defense Department in a psychological warfare operation targeting the domestic audience. And, as the newspaper reported Sunday, many of the retired military officers appearing on news shows were using their access to the Pentagon and the airwaves to procure lucrative contracts for some 150 defense contractors, which employed them as consultants, board members, lobbyists, or executives.
This is no subtle attempt to influence public opinion. It is a government program to corrupt the free flow of information that serves, in a healthy democracy, to inoculate the public against official lies, bad policy, and misbegotten wars.One straightforward corrective would be for TV news executives to require full disclosure of their analysts’ business interests as well as their contacts and junkets with military and government officials. Ideally, the television news shows would not have to rely on paid outside experts. They should trust their own reporters to gather news from disparate sources, and to interview former and serving officers who can offer informed commentary from diverse viewpoints.
...
This is a tactic more suitable for Vladimir Putin’s Russia. In fact, the Pentagon’s manipulation of the media has been more deft than the Kremlin’s because it was better hidden.
In the end, the government’s disguised lies have done more damage to American democracy and the national interest than to any foreign enemy. History’s epitaph for the Pentagon’s psywar operation will be: “We fooled ourselves.”
Thursday, April 17, 2008
question that came out of right-wing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos.
Greg Mitchell: The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media - Politics on The Huffington PostPosted April 16, 2008
In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin -- while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.
Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of right-wing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued. ...
More than Half Agree with Obama's Comments ... [while media, Clinton and McCain try to drive controversy ...
Obama’s Explanation of “Controversial” Remarks Moves Democrats and Independents ...-- Among All Parties: More than Half Agree with His Comments -- Flemington, NJ, April 14, 2008
...
Do you agree with Senator Obama’s comments regarding working class voters in states like Pennsylvania?
...
...
Do you agree with Senator Obama’s comments regarding working class voters in states like Pennsylvania?
POST VIEWING OF VIDEO
| Democrats | Republicans | Independents |
Yes | 64% | 38% | 56% |
No | 22% | 46% | 29% |
Not Sure | 14% | 16% | 15% |
Instead of focusing on... jobs ... schools,... taxes ... manufacturing ... HRC’s spin on Obama’s words (elitism) ... McCain puerile attacks ...
Robert Reich's Blog: Obama, Bitterness, Meet the Press, and the Old Politics | Sunday, April 13, 2008
... The stagnation of middle-class wages and the expansion of povety. Male hourly wages began to drop in the early 1970s, adjusted for inflation. The average man in his 30s is earning less than his father did thirty years ago. Yet America is far richer. Where did the money go? To the top.
Are Americans who have been left behind frustrated? Of course. And their frustrations, their anger and, yes, sometimes their bitterness, have been used since then -- by demagogues, by nationalists and xenophobes, by radical conservatives, by political nuts and fanatical fruitcakes – to blame immigrants and foreign traders, to blame blacks and the poor, to blame "liberal elites," to blame anyone and anything.
Rather than counter all this, the American media have wallowed in it. Some, like Fox News and talk radio, have given the haters and blamers their very own megaphones. The rest have merely "reported on" it. Instead of focusing on how to get Americans good jobs again; instead of admitting too many of our schools are failing and our kids are falling behind their contemporaries in Europe, Japan, and even China; instead of showing why we need a more progressive tax system to finance better schools and access to health care, and green technologies that might create new manufacturing jobs, our national discussion has been mired in the old politics.
Listen to this morning’s “Meet the Press” if you want an example. Tim Russert, one of the smartest guys on television, interviewed four political consultants – Carville and Matalin, Bob Schrum, and Michael Murphy. Political consultants are paid huge sums to help politicians spin words and avoid real talk. They’re part of the problem. And what do Russert and these four consultants talk about? The potential damage to Barack Obama from saying that lots of people in Pennsylvania are bitter that the economy has left them behind; about HRC’s spin on Obama’s words (he’s an “elitist,” she said); and John McCain’s similarly puerile attack. ...
... The stagnation of middle-class wages and the expansion of povety. Male hourly wages began to drop in the early 1970s, adjusted for inflation. The average man in his 30s is earning less than his father did thirty years ago. Yet America is far richer. Where did the money go? To the top.
Are Americans who have been left behind frustrated? Of course. And their frustrations, their anger and, yes, sometimes their bitterness, have been used since then -- by demagogues, by nationalists and xenophobes, by radical conservatives, by political nuts and fanatical fruitcakes – to blame immigrants and foreign traders, to blame blacks and the poor, to blame "liberal elites," to blame anyone and anything.
Rather than counter all this, the American media have wallowed in it. Some, like Fox News and talk radio, have given the haters and blamers their very own megaphones. The rest have merely "reported on" it. Instead of focusing on how to get Americans good jobs again; instead of admitting too many of our schools are failing and our kids are falling behind their contemporaries in Europe, Japan, and even China; instead of showing why we need a more progressive tax system to finance better schools and access to health care, and green technologies that might create new manufacturing jobs, our national discussion has been mired in the old politics.
Listen to this morning’s “Meet the Press” if you want an example. Tim Russert, one of the smartest guys on television, interviewed four political consultants – Carville and Matalin, Bob Schrum, and Michael Murphy. Political consultants are paid huge sums to help politicians spin words and avoid real talk. They’re part of the problem. And what do Russert and these four consultants talk about? The potential damage to Barack Obama from saying that lots of people in Pennsylvania are bitter that the economy has left them behind; about HRC’s spin on Obama’s words (he’s an “elitist,” she said); and John McCain’s similarly puerile attack. ...
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Media: “mainstream” has nothing to do with the massively monopolized machine that has a chokehold on our democracy.
February 10, 2008 by CommonDreams.org | There’s Nothing Mainstream About the Corporate Media | by Harvey Wasserman
...
... Today’s mass media is Corporate, not Mainstream, and the distinction is critical.
Calling the Corporate Media (CM) “mainstream” implies that it speaks for mid-road opinion, and it absolutely does not.
...
The mainstream of American opinion wants this country out of Iraq. The Corporate Media does not. It refuses to give serious coverage to the devastating human, spiritual and economic costs of the war, and it marginalizes those demanding it end.
The mainstream of American opinion wants national health care. The CM does not.
The mainstream of American opinion is deeply distrustful and in many ways hostile to the power of large corporations. Obviously, the CM is not.
The mainstream of American opinion strongly questions whether our elections are being manipulated and stolen. The CM treats with contempt those who dare report on the issue.
The Corporate Media takes partisan stands (often in favor of the Republican Party, but always in defense of corporate interests) by sabotaging political candidacies, especially those of candidates who challenge corporate power. This year it blacklisted the populist candidacy of John Edwards, suffocating his ability to compete for the Democratic nomination.
...
Never in our history has the control of the nation’s sources of information been more centralized, or more at odds with what the country as a whole believes.
...
The “news” pushed by the major radio/TV networks and newspapers slants unerringly toward the interests of the five major corporations that own the bulk of them. They bury stories of vital importance while spewing endless hours and column inches at the mind-deadening likes of Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears.
...
But the real profit centers of the corporations that own the CM are not in providing news and information. General Electric, Westinghouse, Disney and the other media-financial-industrial behemoths have too much to lose from an accurate reporting of the true news of the world. To protect their core interests, they are bread-and-circus PR/diversion machines, not real news organizations. They resemble the old Soviet official mouthpieces Izvestia and Pravda far more than the news providers envisioned in the First Amendment, by Founders who saw balanced, aggressive reporting as the lifeblood of democracy.Nor does the corporate right never hesitate to attack. ...
...
The word “mainstream” has nothing to do with the massively monopolized machine that has a chokehold on our democracy. It’s the “Corporate Media,” and there’s nothing mainstream about it.
...
... Today’s mass media is Corporate, not Mainstream, and the distinction is critical.
Calling the Corporate Media (CM) “mainstream” implies that it speaks for mid-road opinion, and it absolutely does not.
...
The mainstream of American opinion wants this country out of Iraq. The Corporate Media does not. It refuses to give serious coverage to the devastating human, spiritual and economic costs of the war, and it marginalizes those demanding it end.
The mainstream of American opinion wants national health care. The CM does not.
The mainstream of American opinion is deeply distrustful and in many ways hostile to the power of large corporations. Obviously, the CM is not.
The mainstream of American opinion strongly questions whether our elections are being manipulated and stolen. The CM treats with contempt those who dare report on the issue.
The Corporate Media takes partisan stands (often in favor of the Republican Party, but always in defense of corporate interests) by sabotaging political candidacies, especially those of candidates who challenge corporate power. This year it blacklisted the populist candidacy of John Edwards, suffocating his ability to compete for the Democratic nomination.
...
Never in our history has the control of the nation’s sources of information been more centralized, or more at odds with what the country as a whole believes.
...
The “news” pushed by the major radio/TV networks and newspapers slants unerringly toward the interests of the five major corporations that own the bulk of them. They bury stories of vital importance while spewing endless hours and column inches at the mind-deadening likes of Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears.
...
But the real profit centers of the corporations that own the CM are not in providing news and information. General Electric, Westinghouse, Disney and the other media-financial-industrial behemoths have too much to lose from an accurate reporting of the true news of the world. To protect their core interests, they are bread-and-circus PR/diversion machines, not real news organizations. They resemble the old Soviet official mouthpieces Izvestia and Pravda far more than the news providers envisioned in the First Amendment, by Founders who saw balanced, aggressive reporting as the lifeblood of democracy.Nor does the corporate right never hesitate to attack. ...
...
The word “mainstream” has nothing to do with the massively monopolized machine that has a chokehold on our democracy. It’s the “Corporate Media,” and there’s nothing mainstream about it.
censorship and oil-industry collusion turned some $2 billion of climate-change research into anti-scientific propaganda
February 1, 2008 by The Providence Journal (Rhode Island) | A New Golden Age for Whistleblowers | by Tom Devine and Adam Miles
...
Whistleblowers use freedom of speech to challenge abuses of power that betray the public trust. They change the course of history by refusing to sacrifice their own principles, unwilling to go along with corrupt practices. By exercising their freedom to warn, they prevent avoidable disasters before all that is left is damage control.
Consider examples of how they have made a difference for America’s families. Disclosures by David Graham, a Food and Drug Administration scientist, forced market withdrawal of the painkiller Vioxx, which caused over 40,000 fatal U.S. heart attacks after our government officially labeled it safe. Climate-change whistleblowers, like Rick Piltz at the White House and James Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, exposed how gags, censorship and oil-industry collusion turned some $2 billion of climate-change research into anti-scientific propaganda and delayed urgently needed action. The Marines’ Franz Gayl demonstrated that hundreds of American combat fatalities in Iraq might be traceable to Pentagon mismanagement, which unnecessarily delayed delivery of mine-explosion-resistant armored vehicles.
The consequences of gagging federal workers are clear. Actuary Richard Foster was threatened with termination if he exposed the Medicare prescription-drug bill’s true price tag. Congress ended up passing a law (by one vote) that cost $200 billion above its stated price. Whistleblowers protect the federal Treasury. Since public citizens were empowered to file whistleblower lawsuits on behalf of taxpayers in 1985, they have increased the government’s civil fraud recovery 120-fold, from $26 million to $3.14 billion last year.
The voting public understands the value of whistleblowers. A Democracy Corps survey last February found 79 percent of voters are more likely to support a Congress that passes “a strong whistleblower law to protect government employees from retribution if they report waste or corruption.” This was second only to stopping illegal government spending.
...
Congress needs to promptly finish what it started and stand up to the president. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’s insight over a century ago retains its wisdom today: “If corruption is a social disease, sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
...
Whistleblowers use freedom of speech to challenge abuses of power that betray the public trust. They change the course of history by refusing to sacrifice their own principles, unwilling to go along with corrupt practices. By exercising their freedom to warn, they prevent avoidable disasters before all that is left is damage control.
Consider examples of how they have made a difference for America’s families. Disclosures by David Graham, a Food and Drug Administration scientist, forced market withdrawal of the painkiller Vioxx, which caused over 40,000 fatal U.S. heart attacks after our government officially labeled it safe. Climate-change whistleblowers, like Rick Piltz at the White House and James Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, exposed how gags, censorship and oil-industry collusion turned some $2 billion of climate-change research into anti-scientific propaganda and delayed urgently needed action. The Marines’ Franz Gayl demonstrated that hundreds of American combat fatalities in Iraq might be traceable to Pentagon mismanagement, which unnecessarily delayed delivery of mine-explosion-resistant armored vehicles.
The consequences of gagging federal workers are clear. Actuary Richard Foster was threatened with termination if he exposed the Medicare prescription-drug bill’s true price tag. Congress ended up passing a law (by one vote) that cost $200 billion above its stated price. Whistleblowers protect the federal Treasury. Since public citizens were empowered to file whistleblower lawsuits on behalf of taxpayers in 1985, they have increased the government’s civil fraud recovery 120-fold, from $26 million to $3.14 billion last year.
The voting public understands the value of whistleblowers. A Democracy Corps survey last February found 79 percent of voters are more likely to support a Congress that passes “a strong whistleblower law to protect government employees from retribution if they report waste or corruption.” This was second only to stopping illegal government spending.
...
Congress needs to promptly finish what it started and stand up to the president. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’s insight over a century ago retains its wisdom today: “If corruption is a social disease, sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
Truth or Terrorism? The Real Story Behind Five Years of High Alerts ... most dubious terror scares
Truth or Terrorism? The Real Story Behind Five Years of High Alerts | TIM DICKINSONPosted Feb 07, 2008 7:55 AM
A history of the Bush administration's most dubious terror scares — and the headlines they buried
July 7 2006
The Threat: New York Daily News breaks news of plot to bomb Holland Tunnel, flood Wall Street. FBI Assistant Director Mark Mershon calls threat "the real deal."
The Reality: Suspect had been arrested three months earlier, after bragging about his planned exploits in an Internet chat room. Said one CIA officer, "The plot, if that is what we would call it, was not well conceived, and there was no possibility of flooding Wall Street. There was no connection to a cell in the US. Finally, professional terrorists generally do not discuss targeting on open channels."
The Real News: News of plot leaked to coincide with the first anniversary of the July 7, 2005 London bombings.
...
September 10, 2002
The Threat: Bush personally announces the first nationwide Orange Alert. Cheney flees to a "secure location" as Ashcroft warns that Al Qaeda appears to be targeting "transportation and energy sectors."
The Reality: There was no specific threat against any American target.
The Real News: The heightened terror alert went into effect just in time for the president's address to the nation from Ellis Island on the first anniversary of 9/11.
...
May 26, 2004
The Threat: Memorial Day again: "They are going to attack and hit us hard," warns a senior intelligence official. Ashcroft relays an Al Qaeda threat that "ninety percent of the arrangements for an attack in the United States were complete."
The Reality: The threat Ashcroft attributed to Al Qaeda was actually made by a discredited group that falsely claimed credit for the Madrid train bombings. This group "is not really taken seriously by Western intelligence," says one expert.
The Real News: The Abu Ghraib torture scandal has come to a full boil.
A history of the Bush administration's most dubious terror scares — and the headlines they buried
July 7 2006
The Threat: New York Daily News breaks news of plot to bomb Holland Tunnel, flood Wall Street. FBI Assistant Director Mark Mershon calls threat "the real deal."
The Reality: Suspect had been arrested three months earlier, after bragging about his planned exploits in an Internet chat room. Said one CIA officer, "The plot, if that is what we would call it, was not well conceived, and there was no possibility of flooding Wall Street. There was no connection to a cell in the US. Finally, professional terrorists generally do not discuss targeting on open channels."
The Real News: News of plot leaked to coincide with the first anniversary of the July 7, 2005 London bombings.
...
September 10, 2002
The Threat: Bush personally announces the first nationwide Orange Alert. Cheney flees to a "secure location" as Ashcroft warns that Al Qaeda appears to be targeting "transportation and energy sectors."
The Reality: There was no specific threat against any American target.
The Real News: The heightened terror alert went into effect just in time for the president's address to the nation from Ellis Island on the first anniversary of 9/11.
...
May 26, 2004
The Threat: Memorial Day again: "They are going to attack and hit us hard," warns a senior intelligence official. Ashcroft relays an Al Qaeda threat that "ninety percent of the arrangements for an attack in the United States were complete."
The Reality: The threat Ashcroft attributed to Al Qaeda was actually made by a discredited group that falsely claimed credit for the Madrid train bombings. This group "is not really taken seriously by Western intelligence," says one expert.
The Real News: The Abu Ghraib torture scandal has come to a full boil.
ironic that Taxi’s content is too “controversial,” considering it depicts real acts [tortured to death] perpetrated by the Bush administration
Discovery Channel Drops Plans To Air ‘Taxi To The Dark Side’ Because It Is Too ‘Controversial’
Taxi to the Dark Side, a documentary about an innocent Afghan taxi driver tortured to death by U.S. officials at Bagram Air Base, has received wide critical acclaim since its debut in April at the Tribeca Film Festival. The New York Times’s A.O. Scott said, “If recent American history is ever going to be discussed with the necessary clarity and ethical rigor, this film will be essential.”
Taxi to the Dark Side, a documentary about an innocent Afghan taxi driver tortured to death by U.S. officials at Bagram Air Base, has received wide critical acclaim since its debut in April at the Tribeca Film Festival. The New York Times’s A.O. Scott said, “If recent American history is ever going to be discussed with the necessary clarity and ethical rigor, this film will be essential.”
Director Alex Gibney agreed to sell the rights of Taxi to the Discovery Channel because executives convinced him they would “give the film a prominent broadcast.” Now, however, Discovery has dropped its plans to air the documentary because the film is too controversial. Gibney responded to the news in a press release this week:
It’s ironic that Taxi’s content is too “controversial,” considering it depicts real acts perpetrated by the current Bush administration. ...Now, I am told that ‘it doesn’t fit into Discovery’s plans,’ and that the film’s controversial content might damage Discovery’s public offering.
Having directed ‘Enron,’ very little about this kind of corporate behavior shocks me, but I am surprised that a network that touts itself as a supporter of documentaries would be so shamelessly craven. This is a film that, in an election year, is of critical interest to the viewing public. What Discovery is doing is tantamount to political censorship.
Friday, March 14, 2008
POLL: Over Half Of Americans Say They Do Not Trust The Press
POLL: Over Half Of Americans Say They Do Not Trust The Press March 6, 2008
A new Harris Interactive poll finds that over half of Americans — 54 percent — say they tend not to trust the press, “with only 30 percent tending to trust the press.” More Americans (41 percent) trust “Internet news and information sites” than they do the mainstream media. Radio tends to do best among Americans as 44 percent say they tend to trust it.
A new Harris Interactive poll finds that over half of Americans — 54 percent — say they tend not to trust the press, “with only 30 percent tending to trust the press.” More Americans (41 percent) trust “Internet news and information sites” than they do the mainstream media. Radio tends to do best among Americans as 44 percent say they tend to trust it.
The Harris results reflect the findings of a Harvard University study conducted last year, which found “nearly two-thirds of Americans do not trust campaign coverage by the news media.” A few other recent surveys offer some explanation for the public’s distrust:
– Two thirds of Americans - 67% - believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news.
– The harshest indictments of the press come from the growing segment that relies on the internet as its main source for news. The internet news audience is particularly likely to criticize news organizations for their lack of empathy, their failure to “stand up for America,” and political bias.
– Democrats, Republicans and independents have decreased confidence in the accuracy of media reports on the war.
Pentagon Report on Saddam's Iraq Censored? shows [no] evidence of a direct connection between Saddam's Iraq and the al Qaeda
Pentagon Report on Saddam's Iraq Censored? | March 12, 2008 1:58 PM
ABC News' Jonathan Karl Reports: The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report's release and will no longer make the report available online.
The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.
It won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online.
Asked why the report would not be posted online and could not be emailed, the spokesman for Joint Forces Command said: "We're making the report available to anyone who wishes to have it, and we'll send it out via CD in the mail."
Another Pentagon official said initial press reports on the study made it "too politically sensitive."
ABC News obtained the comprehensive military study of Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism on Tuesday. Read the report's executive summary HERE.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Ever wondered before if big providers would block access to certain content on the Internet if there were no forced neutrality?
Comcast Blocks Access To Net Neutrality Meeting | by huntsu | Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:38:04 PM PST
[Thanks to everyone who rec'd this diary, especially since it really wasn't too much related to me. Boing Boing deserves the credit for it, but I'm happy to take the rec! Please also visit the great state blog Blue Jersey where I also post.]
Ever wondered before if big providers would block access to certain content on the Internet if there were no forced neutrality? Well, Comcast answered the question themselves by blocking access to a Net Neutrality meeting at Harvard. (via BoingBoing)
This is pretty unbelievable--- there was an FCC hearing about Net Neutrality in Harvard yesterday where we had a booth. Comcast was PAYING PEOPLE TO FILL UP SEATS AND CHEER FOR THEM. Tons of folks, including reporters, got turned away. For people that still have a hard time wrapping their heads around what net neutrality is, this about sums up what's happening. ...
[Thanks to everyone who rec'd this diary, especially since it really wasn't too much related to me. Boing Boing deserves the credit for it, but I'm happy to take the rec! Please also visit the great state blog Blue Jersey where I also post.]
Ever wondered before if big providers would block access to certain content on the Internet if there were no forced neutrality? Well, Comcast answered the question themselves by blocking access to a Net Neutrality meeting at Harvard. (via BoingBoing)
This is pretty unbelievable--- there was an FCC hearing about Net Neutrality in Harvard yesterday where we had a booth. Comcast was PAYING PEOPLE TO FILL UP SEATS AND CHEER FOR THEM. Tons of folks, including reporters, got turned away. For people that still have a hard time wrapping their heads around what net neutrality is, this about sums up what's happening. ...
CBS affiliate, went dark Sunday evening during a “60 minutes” .. about [possibly] "wrongly convicted" Democratic governor
WHNT’s Technical Glitches | Published: February 27, 2008
In 1955, when WLBT-TV, the NBC affiliate in Jackson, Miss., did not want to run a network report about racial desegregation, it famously hung up the sign: “Sorry, Cable Trouble.” Audiences in northern Alabama might have suspected the same tactics when WHNT-TV, the CBS affiliate, went dark Sunday evening during a “60 minutes” segment that strongly suggested that Don Siegelman, Alabama’s former Democratic governor, was wrongly convicted of corruption last year.
The report presented new evidence that the charges against Mr. Siegelman may have been concocted by politically motivated Republican prosecutors — and orchestrated by Karl Rove. Unfortunately, WHNT had “technical problems” that prevented it from broadcasting a segment (the problems were resolved in time for the next part of the show) that many residents of Alabama would no doubt have found quite interesting.
After initially blaming the glitch on CBS in New York, the affiliate said it learned “upon investigation,” and following a rebuke from the network, that “the problem was on our end.” It re-broadcast the segment at 10 p.m., pitting it against the Academy Awards on rival ABC, before Daniel Day-Lewis won the best actor Oscar. As public criticism grew, it ran it again at 6 p.m. on Monday. ...
In 1955, when WLBT-TV, the NBC affiliate in Jackson, Miss., did not want to run a network report about racial desegregation, it famously hung up the sign: “Sorry, Cable Trouble.” Audiences in northern Alabama might have suspected the same tactics when WHNT-TV, the CBS affiliate, went dark Sunday evening during a “60 minutes” segment that strongly suggested that Don Siegelman, Alabama’s former Democratic governor, was wrongly convicted of corruption last year.
The report presented new evidence that the charges against Mr. Siegelman may have been concocted by politically motivated Republican prosecutors — and orchestrated by Karl Rove. Unfortunately, WHNT had “technical problems” that prevented it from broadcasting a segment (the problems were resolved in time for the next part of the show) that many residents of Alabama would no doubt have found quite interesting.
After initially blaming the glitch on CBS in New York, the affiliate said it learned “upon investigation,” and following a rebuke from the network, that “the problem was on our end.” It re-broadcast the segment at 10 p.m., pitting it against the Academy Awards on rival ABC, before Daniel Day-Lewis won the best actor Oscar. As public criticism grew, it ran it again at 6 p.m. on Monday. ...
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
US court attacks web freedom ... trying to close down an entire site in this way is truly unprecedented.
Internet Censorship: US court attacks web freedom; enjoins Wikileaks.org out of existence | By Stephen Soldz | Feb 18, 2008, 20:19
One of the most important web sites in recent months has been Wikileaks.org. Created by several brave journalists committed to transparency, Wikileaks has published important leaked documents, such as the Rules of Engagement for Iraq [see my The Secret Rules of Engagement in Iraq], the 2003 and 2004 Guantanamo Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures, and evidence of major bank fraud in Kenya [see also here] that apparently affected the Kenyan elections. Wikileaks has upset the Chinese government enough that they are attempting to censor it, as is the Thai military junta.
Now censorship has extended to the United States of America, land of the First Amendment. As of Friday, February 15, those going to Wikileaks.org have gotten Server not found messages. ...
...
There have, of course, been previous attempts by the U.S. Government and others to block publication of particular documents, most famously in 1971 when the Nixon administration attempted to stop publication by the New York Times of excerpts from the Pentagon Papers, leaked by Daniel Ellsberg. But trying to close down an entire site in this way is truly unprecedented. Not even the Nixon administration, when they sought to block publication of the Pentagon Papers, considered closing down the New York Times in response. ...
One of the most important web sites in recent months has been Wikileaks.org. Created by several brave journalists committed to transparency, Wikileaks has published important leaked documents, such as the Rules of Engagement for Iraq [see my The Secret Rules of Engagement in Iraq], the 2003 and 2004 Guantanamo Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures, and evidence of major bank fraud in Kenya [see also here] that apparently affected the Kenyan elections. Wikileaks has upset the Chinese government enough that they are attempting to censor it, as is the Thai military junta.
Now censorship has extended to the United States of America, land of the First Amendment. As of Friday, February 15, those going to Wikileaks.org have gotten Server not found messages. ...
...
There have, of course, been previous attempts by the U.S. Government and others to block publication of particular documents, most famously in 1971 when the Nixon administration attempted to stop publication by the New York Times of excerpts from the Pentagon Papers, leaked by Daniel Ellsberg. But trying to close down an entire site in this way is truly unprecedented. Not even the Nixon administration, when they sought to block publication of the Pentagon Papers, considered closing down the New York Times in response. ...
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Bush to Congress: No Freedom Of Information Act Ombudsman [not funded !]
Feb 08, 2005 | Bush to Congress: No FOIA Ombudsman
Those that thought the President's recent signing of the recent FOIA amendments law was too good to be true were greeted Monday with the other shoe dropping. In his most recent budget proposal, the President failed to provide any funding for the FOIA Ombudsman's Office in the National Archives and Records Administration and attempts to shift the responsibilities of that office to the Department of Justice. Reaction as shown in this article was widespread and critical of the President's decision.
Readers of my blog know I stated that without providing funding for FOIA Operations, this law had minimal impact. Unfortunately it only took one month (and a full eleven months before many of the provisions of the law become effective) for me to be correct. ...
Those that thought the President's recent signing of the recent FOIA amendments law was too good to be true were greeted Monday with the other shoe dropping. In his most recent budget proposal, the President failed to provide any funding for the FOIA Ombudsman's Office in the National Archives and Records Administration and attempts to shift the responsibilities of that office to the Department of Justice. Reaction as shown in this article was widespread and critical of the President's decision.
Readers of my blog know I stated that without providing funding for FOIA Operations, this law had minimal impact. Unfortunately it only took one month (and a full eleven months before many of the provisions of the law become effective) for me to be correct. ...
Friday, February 08, 2008
CBS Falsifies Iraq War History by Robert Parry
Headlined on 2/5/08: Our corporate-controlled (Orwellian) mass media | by Richard Clark
| http://www.opednews.com
CBS Falsifies Iraq War History by Robert Parry In a world of objective reality, a reporter would simply say that the United States launched an unprovoked invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003 under the false pretense that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction -- and did this even after UN inspectors, completely unopposed by Saddam, had failed to find any WMD. "For a man who drew America into two wars and countless military engagements, we never knew what Saddam Hussein was thinking," Pelley said in introducing the segment on the interrogation of Hussein about his WMD stockpiles. "Why did he choose war with the United States?"
...
In line with Bush's version of history, "60 Minutes" correspondent Scott Pelley asked FBI interrogator George Piro why Hussein kept pretending that he had WMD even as U.S. troops massed on Iraq's borders, when a simple announcement that the WMD was gone would have prevented the war.
Pelly never mentions the fact that Hussein's government did in fact disclose that it had eliminated its WMD. Instead Pelley presses Piro on the irrelevant question of why Hussein was hiding the fact that he had no WMD....
60 Minutes Caves to Pressure from White House on Siegelman Story
60 Minutes Caves to Pressure from White House on Siegelman Story... | February 05, 2008
Well folks, seems that 60 Minutes is postponing (read "killing") its Siegelman story. The excuse I am told for this lapse in ethics is that the network needs more time to vet the whistle-blower, Dana Jill Simpson. You see, the reason the network suddenly needs more time to vet Simpson is that the White House has launched a direct campaign inside CBS to discredit her and just to make sure the dirt sticks, they have called in some favors too. I am told that Senator Jeff Sessions has been instructed to help the White House discredit Simpson as part of his "Senatorial" duties. Nice system of government we have here, eh? ...
Well folks, seems that 60 Minutes is postponing (read "killing") its Siegelman story. The excuse I am told for this lapse in ethics is that the network needs more time to vet the whistle-blower, Dana Jill Simpson. You see, the reason the network suddenly needs more time to vet Simpson is that the White House has launched a direct campaign inside CBS to discredit her and just to make sure the dirt sticks, they have called in some favors too. I am told that Senator Jeff Sessions has been instructed to help the White House discredit Simpson as part of his "Senatorial" duties. Nice system of government we have here, eh? ...
[latest signing statement: not reported] in US outside Boston and Capitol Hill was out of luck. ... AP touched on the topic but avoided the main point
Editorial Pages Report the News | Submitted by davidswanson on Sun, 2008-02-03 16:00. Media | By David Swanson
Increasingly, all the news that's fit to print does not include the news that editorial writers deem significant. The New York Times and many other newspapers have developed the habit of writing lengthy editorials about news stories that never make it into the news section. One example of this trend is the story of last Monday's presidential signing statement. If you don't know what a signing statement is, you should consider flipping first to the editorial page to get your news.
Congressional Quarterly, which has a readership of about 8, first reported the story in an honest-to-goodness straight news report, with all the bells and whistles of pretended "objectivity." The Boston Globe did the same. The Globe's article presents its readers with the basic facts of what happened, written in the manner which people have been trained to find most credible and important. The Guardian newspaper in England did the same. But the United States outside Boston and Capitol Hill was out of luck. An Associated Press article touched on the topic but avoided the main points. A Virginian Pilot article buried the lede. And a late-coming Washington Post article missed the boat.
But editorial page writers clearly believed the public deserved to hear about the end of its representative democracy. The New York Times led the way, followed by the Roanoke Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a chain of New England newspapers, the Times Argus, the Denver Post, the Charleston Gazette, and the Las Vegas Sun. These editorials both presented the information and took an opinion on it, all of them sharing the same basic perspective: the President of the United States had just shockingly seized unconstitutional powers, effectively elimintating the legislative branch of our government.
...
Why is the Boston Globe the only newspaper willing to report this type of story as a news story? ... If you ran a story on the president's efective elimination of Congress, how would you be able to keep printing all the usual stories based on the notion that Congress still exists? ...
Increasingly, all the news that's fit to print does not include the news that editorial writers deem significant. The New York Times and many other newspapers have developed the habit of writing lengthy editorials about news stories that never make it into the news section. One example of this trend is the story of last Monday's presidential signing statement. If you don't know what a signing statement is, you should consider flipping first to the editorial page to get your news.
Congressional Quarterly, which has a readership of about 8, first reported the story in an honest-to-goodness straight news report, with all the bells and whistles of pretended "objectivity." The Boston Globe did the same. The Globe's article presents its readers with the basic facts of what happened, written in the manner which people have been trained to find most credible and important. The Guardian newspaper in England did the same. But the United States outside Boston and Capitol Hill was out of luck. An Associated Press article touched on the topic but avoided the main points. A Virginian Pilot article buried the lede. And a late-coming Washington Post article missed the boat.
But editorial page writers clearly believed the public deserved to hear about the end of its representative democracy. The New York Times led the way, followed by the Roanoke Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a chain of New England newspapers, the Times Argus, the Denver Post, the Charleston Gazette, and the Las Vegas Sun. These editorials both presented the information and took an opinion on it, all of them sharing the same basic perspective: the President of the United States had just shockingly seized unconstitutional powers, effectively elimintating the legislative branch of our government.
...
Why is the Boston Globe the only newspaper willing to report this type of story as a news story? ... If you ran a story on the president's efective elimination of Congress, how would you be able to keep printing all the usual stories based on the notion that Congress still exists? ...
wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional ‘int’ validation of the Bush administration’s false statements ... 935 lies, Bush told 259 before war
George W Bush, White House told 935 lies after September 11 | By staff writers | January 23, 2008 06:24pm | news.com.au
US President George W Bush and other top officials issued almost one thousand false statements about the national security threat from Iraq following the September 11 attacks, according to a study by two not-for-profit organisations.
The Associated Press reports the study, published on the website of the Centre for Public Integrity, concluded the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanised public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretences”.
...
“In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.”
The study found that President Bush alone made 259 false statements – 231 about weapons of mass destruction and 28 about Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda.
...
“Some journalists – indeed, even some entire news organisations – have since acknowledged that their coverage during those pre-war months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional ‘independent’ validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq.”
US President George W Bush and other top officials issued almost one thousand false statements about the national security threat from Iraq following the September 11 attacks, according to a study by two not-for-profit organisations.
The Associated Press reports the study, published on the website of the Centre for Public Integrity, concluded the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanised public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretences”.
...
“In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.”
The study found that President Bush alone made 259 false statements – 231 about weapons of mass destruction and 28 about Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda.
...
“Some journalists – indeed, even some entire news organisations – have since acknowledged that their coverage during those pre-war months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional ‘independent’ validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq.”
It appears that we’re being exposed to a wide range of ideas, when in fact certain opinions and facts will never be seen or heard
Published on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 by CommonDreams.org | Not in the Script | by Sheila Casey
...
... almost all our media is controlled by just six corporations: Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp, Bertelsmann, and General Electric. Their holdings include the major TV networks, movie studios, book and magazine publishers, radio stations, cable channels, sports teams, theme parks and comic books. Except for conversations with family and friends, millions of Americans are never exposed to a point of view not vetted by the Big Six.
It appears that we’re being exposed to a wide range of ideas, when in fact certain opinions and facts will never be seen or heard, but by those few who aggressively search out alternative sources.
...
If you’re still under the spell of the Big Six, this may seem preposterous. We’ve been taught that we have freedom of the press, and perhaps we did, 25 years ago, when 50 corporations controlled our media, not five.
It’s beyond the scope of this essay to go into what is being hidden, and why. You can find out, if you really want to know. First you must have some inkling that there are important things you don’t know, and it’s no accident that you don’t know them. ...
...
... almost all our media is controlled by just six corporations: Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp, Bertelsmann, and General Electric. Their holdings include the major TV networks, movie studios, book and magazine publishers, radio stations, cable channels, sports teams, theme parks and comic books. Except for conversations with family and friends, millions of Americans are never exposed to a point of view not vetted by the Big Six.
It appears that we’re being exposed to a wide range of ideas, when in fact certain opinions and facts will never be seen or heard, but by those few who aggressively search out alternative sources.
...
If you’re still under the spell of the Big Six, this may seem preposterous. We’ve been taught that we have freedom of the press, and perhaps we did, 25 years ago, when 50 corporations controlled our media, not five.
It’s beyond the scope of this essay to go into what is being hidden, and why. You can find out, if you really want to know. First you must have some inkling that there are important things you don’t know, and it’s no accident that you don’t know them. ...
No Questions On Global Warming Asked At CNN’s Coal Industry-Sponsored Presidential Debates
No Questions On Global Warming Asked At CNN’s Coal Industry-Sponsored Presidential Debates
In Democratic presidential debate last night, CNN once again failed to ask any questions about global warming. Perhaps not surprisingly, last night’s debate was sponsored by the coal front group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC). Watch an ad for the debate:
ABEC also co-sponsored November’s CNN/YouTube debates in Nevada and Florida, at which no questions about global warming were asked.
...
What is ABEC receiving in return for its support of CNN’s debate? Besides branding on tv and newspaper ads, ThinkProgress has learned that at November’s Democratic debate in Nevada, ABEC was given a special area near the debate’s entrance to hand out “clean coal” brochures. No other organizations were allowed to distribute materials in that prime area. ....
In Democratic presidential debate last night, CNN once again failed to ask any questions about global warming. Perhaps not surprisingly, last night’s debate was sponsored by the coal front group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC). Watch an ad for the debate:
ABEC also co-sponsored November’s CNN/YouTube debates in Nevada and Florida, at which no questions about global warming were asked.
...
What is ABEC receiving in return for its support of CNN’s debate? Besides branding on tv and newspaper ads, ThinkProgress has learned that at November’s Democratic debate in Nevada, ABEC was given a special area near the debate’s entrance to hand out “clean coal” brochures. No other organizations were allowed to distribute materials in that prime area. ....
Thursday, January 31, 2008
presidential debate(s) sponsored by Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC), a coal industry front group: NO QUESTIONS ON GLOBAL WARMING
Tonight’s CNN debate brought to you by the coal industry.
CNN is hosting a GOP presidential debate tonight in California and Democratic one in the state tomorrow. Both are sponsored by Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC), a coal industry front group. In its past three ABEC-sponsored debates, there have been no questions asked on global warming. Watch an ad highlighting ABEC’s sponsorship:
...
Comments By: Top Rated | Date
1. When, oh when can we get some debates that aren’t sponsored by media giants, big business, and other special interests? Where is the League of Women Voters when we need them?
Comment by missmolly — January 30, 2008 @ 10:55 am
...
CNN is hosting a GOP presidential debate tonight in California and Democratic one in the state tomorrow. Both are sponsored by Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC), a coal industry front group. In its past three ABEC-sponsored debates, there have been no questions asked on global warming. Watch an ad highlighting ABEC’s sponsorship:
...
Comments By: Top Rated | Date
1. When, oh when can we get some debates that aren’t sponsored by media giants, big business, and other special interests? Where is the League of Women Voters when we need them?
Comment by missmolly — January 30, 2008 @ 10:55 am
...
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
One of Edwards’ biggest problems has been a relative blackout by our corporate news media ...
Under 7 years of George W. Bush’s presidency, our nation has regressed to the highest level of inequality seen since what Paul Krugman refers to as “The Long Gilded Age”. This chart explains the situation in graphic terms:
President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal contained numerous statutes that served to greatly reduce income inequality, which is denoted in the above chart as the percent of income made by the richest 10% of Americans. Beginning in the late 1930s, after several decades of the least amount of income inequality in American history, coinciding with the greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history, the situation began to reverse itself with the onset of the “Reagan Revolution” in 1981. Under George Bush II, income inequality has now again attained Gilded Age proportions.
And not coincidentally, along with this rise in income inequality, we have seen a large increase in poverty under Bush the 2nd, with 5 million more Americans descending into poverty by 2004, to reach a total of 37 million, reflecting the increasing poverty rate in our country under Bush, as depicted in this graph:
...
Fighting poverty is the cornerstone of John Edwards’ campaign for President in 2008. In a previous post I discussed the fact that his plans to address this issue are far superior to those of any other presidential candidate. A recent editorial in The Nation, titled “Time to Act on Inequality”, dealt with this issue, recognizing Edwards’ leadership: ...
...
Accusations that Edwards is angry, aggressive, and confrontational
One of Edwards’ biggest problems has been a relative blackout by our corporate news media. When the media is forced to acknowledge him, as during the 3-way debate in South Carolina last week, his popularity surges. But when our corporate news media isn’t blacking him out they generally have nothing but criticism for him. These criticisms, when they don’t deal with trivia such as the price of his haircuts, generally deal with his confrontational stance towards corporate greed. One example is the Des Moines Register, which recently explained why they decided not to endorse his candidacy this year:
Oh my! Not only does he talk about economic inequality, but he prescribes aggressive measures to combat it!
And here is some more aggressive criticism of Edwards’ campaign, by Stuart Rothenberg:
So, apparently it’s inconsistent to fight for both the working class and the middle class? And railing against George Bush’s corporate agenda is going to tear our nation apart? Give me a break! Rothenberg’s claim that criticizing corporate America will hurt our economy is reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s trickle down economic theories.
Edwards’ answer to those accusations – an inconvenient truth
Yes, corporate America fears an Edwards presidency. And yes, as Dan Balz explains:
President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal contained numerous statutes that served to greatly reduce income inequality, which is denoted in the above chart as the percent of income made by the richest 10% of Americans. Beginning in the late 1930s, after several decades of the least amount of income inequality in American history, coinciding with the greatest sustained economic boom in U.S. history, the situation began to reverse itself with the onset of the “Reagan Revolution” in 1981. Under George Bush II, income inequality has now again attained Gilded Age proportions.
And not coincidentally, along with this rise in income inequality, we have seen a large increase in poverty under Bush the 2nd, with 5 million more Americans descending into poverty by 2004, to reach a total of 37 million, reflecting the increasing poverty rate in our country under Bush, as depicted in this graph:
...
Fighting poverty is the cornerstone of John Edwards’ campaign for President in 2008. In a previous post I discussed the fact that his plans to address this issue are far superior to those of any other presidential candidate. A recent editorial in The Nation, titled “Time to Act on Inequality”, dealt with this issue, recognizing Edwards’ leadership: ...
...
Accusations that Edwards is angry, aggressive, and confrontational
One of Edwards’ biggest problems has been a relative blackout by our corporate news media. When the media is forced to acknowledge him, as during the 3-way debate in South Carolina last week, his popularity surges. But when our corporate news media isn’t blacking him out they generally have nothing but criticism for him. These criticisms, when they don’t deal with trivia such as the price of his haircuts, generally deal with his confrontational stance towards corporate greed. One example is the Des Moines Register, which recently explained why they decided not to endorse his candidacy this year:
But Edwards is more combative this time around. He is no longer content to talk about economic inequity – he prescribes an aggressive effort to root out special interests in Washington, D.C.
"It is time to give these entrenched interests, that are standing against America, hell," Edwards told thousands of Iowa Democrats this month at the state party's fall fundraiser in Des Moines. "That's the only way we're going to win this fight."
"It is time to give these entrenched interests, that are standing against America, hell," Edwards told thousands of Iowa Democrats this month at the state party's fall fundraiser in Des Moines. "That's the only way we're going to win this fight."
Oh my! Not only does he talk about economic inequality, but he prescribes aggressive measures to combat it!
And here is some more aggressive criticism of Edwards’ campaign, by Stuart Rothenberg:
If Iowa Democrats choose Edwards, they are choosing anger, confrontation and class warfare…Edwards portrays himself as a fighter for the middle class, but his message is decidedly working class and left….
Given the North Carolina Democrat’s rhetoric and agenda, an Edwards Presidency would likely rip the nation apart – even further apart than Bush has torn it. For while Edwards bashes corporate America and “them,” this nation’s economy depends on the success of both small business and big business. Scare the stuffing out of Corporate America and watch the stock market tumble.
Given the North Carolina Democrat’s rhetoric and agenda, an Edwards Presidency would likely rip the nation apart – even further apart than Bush has torn it. For while Edwards bashes corporate America and “them,” this nation’s economy depends on the success of both small business and big business. Scare the stuffing out of Corporate America and watch the stock market tumble.
So, apparently it’s inconsistent to fight for both the working class and the middle class? And railing against George Bush’s corporate agenda is going to tear our nation apart? Give me a break! Rothenberg’s claim that criticizing corporate America will hurt our economy is reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s trickle down economic theories.
Edwards’ answer to those accusations – an inconvenient truth
Yes, corporate America fears an Edwards presidency. And yes, as Dan Balz explains:
The enemy he sees is corporate America and corporate greed. His message seeks not to unite America but to finish what he describes as "an epic struggle" against forces that are, literally, killing America – destroying jobs, holding down wages, putting ordinary Americans out of work or denying them medical care. "You need somebody in the arena who will never back down," he says. ...
Monday, January 21, 2008
American public is persuaded to believe this pleasant myth of the “free and open election process,” ...
The Great American Election Charade | by Ernest Partridge | January 16, 2008
...
The more the American public is persuaded to believe this pleasant myth of the “free and open election process,” the longer that public will believe that each new Chief Executive is the legitimate "people's choice." And that persisting public belief suits the powers that be in the military-industrial-corporate-media complex (MICMC) just fine.
...
(As numerous polls have disclosed, John Edwards is potentially the strongest Democratic candidate against the Republicans, and Hillary Clinton is the weakest. Yet Edwards, who finished second in the Iowa caucuses, has vanished from the pages of the mainstream media, from the columns of the punditocracy, and even from the press conferences of The Democratic Leadership Council – the Republican wing of the Democratic party).
...
...
The more the American public is persuaded to believe this pleasant myth of the “free and open election process,” the longer that public will believe that each new Chief Executive is the legitimate "people's choice." And that persisting public belief suits the powers that be in the military-industrial-corporate-media complex (MICMC) just fine.
...
(As numerous polls have disclosed, John Edwards is potentially the strongest Democratic candidate against the Republicans, and Hillary Clinton is the weakest. Yet Edwards, who finished second in the Iowa caucuses, has vanished from the pages of the mainstream media, from the columns of the punditocracy, and even from the press conferences of The Democratic Leadership Council – the Republican wing of the Democratic party).
...
At long last, more and more ordinary Americans are getting the message that they have been lied to, that they can no longer trust the mainstream media, that their public treasury has been looted, that their children’s and grandchildren’s future has been mortgaged, and that they are living under the darkening shadow of despotism.
Still the establishment MICMC rolls on in its arguably pre-determined course, “populism” and the public be damned. Matt Taibbi on Bill Maher’s “Real Time” last Friday summed it up perfectly:
The [campaign] theme for awhile was that the voters were sick and tired of being told by the media who was going to be their nominee. But it seems to have come full circle now, and it looks like we may end up getting the same people we were going to get in the first place: [McCain and Clinton]....
Seventy percent of the country wants to withdraw from Iraq, and we get two pro-war candidates. If that doesn’t tell you how f****d-up the system is, I don’t know what does. ...
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Edwards: claim[s] inadequate and unfair press coverage ... [study] indicate that from January 6-11, Edwards received just a fraction of the coverage
January 17, 2008 | Edwards takes aim at media
WASHINGTON (CNN) — John Edwards' campaign is launching a full-on assault on the media for what they claim is inadequate and unfair press coverage of the former North Carolina senator's presidential bid.
"For the better part of a year the media has focused on two celebrity candidates,” Edwards Communications Director Chris Kofinis said Thursday. “And they continue to act as if there were only two candidates in the race, even after John Edwards beat Senator Clinton in Iowa and poll after poll show competitive races in Nevada, South Carolina and other key states."
On Thursday, the campaign went live with a Web site that sites several recent news headlines that only include Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It also includes recent statistics from the Project for Excellence in Journalism that indicate that from January 6-11, Edwards received just a fraction of the news coverage allotted to his two rivals.
The campaign has even produced a Web video, "What about John Edwards?", that scrolls through several clips of media pundits discussing only Clinton and Obama, and ends with the results of a focus group that suggested Edwards won the most recent debate in Las Vegas.
And on Wednesday, Edwards' spokesman Eric Schultz sent out an e-mail that suggested the senator's low poll numbers nationally are directly linked to his limited media coverage.
The candidate himself has brought up the issue repeatedly on the trail of late, and on Thursday one town-hall supporter urged the crowd to directly complain to media outlets about the lack of coverage. Edwards said he agreed, and that it was time to speak out.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — John Edwards' campaign is launching a full-on assault on the media for what they claim is inadequate and unfair press coverage of the former North Carolina senator's presidential bid.
"For the better part of a year the media has focused on two celebrity candidates,” Edwards Communications Director Chris Kofinis said Thursday. “And they continue to act as if there were only two candidates in the race, even after John Edwards beat Senator Clinton in Iowa and poll after poll show competitive races in Nevada, South Carolina and other key states."
On Thursday, the campaign went live with a Web site that sites several recent news headlines that only include Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It also includes recent statistics from the Project for Excellence in Journalism that indicate that from January 6-11, Edwards received just a fraction of the news coverage allotted to his two rivals.
The campaign has even produced a Web video, "What about John Edwards?", that scrolls through several clips of media pundits discussing only Clinton and Obama, and ends with the results of a focus group that suggested Edwards won the most recent debate in Las Vegas.
And on Wednesday, Edwards' spokesman Eric Schultz sent out an e-mail that suggested the senator's low poll numbers nationally are directly linked to his limited media coverage.
The candidate himself has brought up the issue repeatedly on the trail of late, and on Thursday one town-hall supporter urged the crowd to directly complain to media outlets about the lack of coverage. Edwards said he agreed, and that it was time to speak out.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Chamber of Commerce vows to punish anti-business candidates ... with more than $60M in presidential election
Chamber of Commerce vows to punish anti-business candidates | AP | By Tom Hamburger, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer | January 8, 2008
“We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed,” chamber President Tom Donohue said.
The group indicates it will spend in excess of the approximately $60 million it put out in the last presidential cycle.
WASHINGTON -- Alarmed at the increasingly populist tone of the 2008 political campaign, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is set to issue a fiery promise to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business.
"We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said. ...
...
Presidential candidates in particular have responded to the public concern. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has been the bluntest populist voice, but other front-running Democrats, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, have also called for change on behalf of middle-class voters.
On the Republican side, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee -- emerging as an unexpected front-runner after winning the Iowa caucuses -- has used populist themes in his effort to woo independent voters, blasting bonus pay for corporate chief executives and the effect of unfettered globalization on workers. ...
“We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed,” chamber President Tom Donohue said.
The group indicates it will spend in excess of the approximately $60 million it put out in the last presidential cycle.
WASHINGTON -- Alarmed at the increasingly populist tone of the 2008 political campaign, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is set to issue a fiery promise to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business.
"We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said. ...
...
Presidential candidates in particular have responded to the public concern. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has been the bluntest populist voice, but other front-running Democrats, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, have also called for change on behalf of middle-class voters.
On the Republican side, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee -- emerging as an unexpected front-runner after winning the Iowa caucuses -- has used populist themes in his effort to woo independent voters, blasting bonus pay for corporate chief executives and the effect of unfettered globalization on workers. ...
Iran: US media has increasingly become a mouthpiece of the Bush administration, perpetuating and ventilating the fears ...
The Iran Fixation | How the American Media Enables Bush | By Ayesha Ijaz KhanY
...
To the contrary, US media has increasingly become a mouthpiece of the Bush administration, perpetuating and ventilating the fears which prevent a population from thinking rationally about important issues. I happened to be in New York a few months ago when President Ahmedinijad arrived to address the United Nations General Assembly. The day he landed, local press ran shocking headlines in the newspapers. "Tehran Thug Comes To Town," read one; "Terror Has Landed," said another. It was the kind of diction one expects from a grade school bully, not intellectually honest analysis of issues with global ramifications.
Dismissing some of the local papers as tabloids, I picked up a copy of The New Yorker magazine, only to find on its cover a demeaning representation of President Ahmedinijad sitting on the toilet, pants down, playing footsie with the man in the next stall. Surely, for the American audience, it was a take on the Republican Senator from Idaho who had recently been caught doing just that with an undercover cop at an airport bathroom and a jibe simultaneously at Ahmedinijad, who had denied in his speech at Columbia University that homosexuality existed in Iran.
But to many American Muslims it was flagrant cultural insensitivity to caricaturize a head of state in such a way, and also a reminder that Iran was being demeaned through its President only so the attack could soon be justified. It reminded Muslims of the early nineties when Saddam toilet paper had taken America by storm, only to be followed by operation Desert Storm. That is how the propaganda machine works. First you degrade and then you attack. ...
...
But what would have happened if the Iranians sat tight and did not offer their version? What will happen in months to come? Will the Bush administration continue to find excuses to throw America into another unjustifiable war? Will the American media just sit on the sidelines and watch while that happens? Is their obligation to the people of the United States or to the Bush administration?
Ayesha Ijaz Khan is a London-based lawyer and writer and can be contacted via her website www.ayeshaijazkhan.com
...
To the contrary, US media has increasingly become a mouthpiece of the Bush administration, perpetuating and ventilating the fears which prevent a population from thinking rationally about important issues. I happened to be in New York a few months ago when President Ahmedinijad arrived to address the United Nations General Assembly. The day he landed, local press ran shocking headlines in the newspapers. "Tehran Thug Comes To Town," read one; "Terror Has Landed," said another. It was the kind of diction one expects from a grade school bully, not intellectually honest analysis of issues with global ramifications.
Dismissing some of the local papers as tabloids, I picked up a copy of The New Yorker magazine, only to find on its cover a demeaning representation of President Ahmedinijad sitting on the toilet, pants down, playing footsie with the man in the next stall. Surely, for the American audience, it was a take on the Republican Senator from Idaho who had recently been caught doing just that with an undercover cop at an airport bathroom and a jibe simultaneously at Ahmedinijad, who had denied in his speech at Columbia University that homosexuality existed in Iran.
But to many American Muslims it was flagrant cultural insensitivity to caricaturize a head of state in such a way, and also a reminder that Iran was being demeaned through its President only so the attack could soon be justified. It reminded Muslims of the early nineties when Saddam toilet paper had taken America by storm, only to be followed by operation Desert Storm. That is how the propaganda machine works. First you degrade and then you attack. ...
...
But what would have happened if the Iranians sat tight and did not offer their version? What will happen in months to come? Will the Bush administration continue to find excuses to throw America into another unjustifiable war? Will the American media just sit on the sidelines and watch while that happens? Is their obligation to the people of the United States or to the Bush administration?
Ayesha Ijaz Khan is a London-based lawyer and writer and can be contacted via her website www.ayeshaijazkhan.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)