Behind the Eavesdropping Story, a Loud Silence - New York Times: "By BYRON CALAME | Published: January 1, 2006
THE New York Times's explanation of its decision to report, after what it said was a one-year delay, that the National Security Agency is eavesdropping domestically without court-approved warrants was woefully inadequate. And I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation for readers, despite the paper's repeated pledges of greater transparency.
For the first time since I became public editor, the executive editor and the publisher have declined to respond to my requests for information about news-related decision-making. My queries concerned the timing of the exclusive Dec. 16 article about President Bush's secret decision in the months after 9/11 to authorize the warrantless eavesdropping on Americans in the United States.
I e-mailed a list of 28 questions to Bill Keller, the executive editor, on Dec. 19, three days after the article appeared. He promptly declined to respond to them. I then sent the same questions to Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher, who also declined to respond. They held out no hope for a fuller explanation in the future.
Despite this stonewalling, my objectives today are to assess the flawed handling of the original explanation of the article's path into print, ...
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Thursday, December 29, 2005
The Mounting Powers of Secrecy - New York Times
The Mounting Powers of Secrecy - New York Times: "The Mounting Powers of Secrecy | Published: December 29, 2005
The open government law that guaranteed greater freedom of information to the public will soon be 40 years old and desperately in need of legislative overhaul, thanks to the Bush administration. The White House's sweeping enlargement of agency powers has already nearly doubled the rate of newly classified documents to 15 million a year. At the same time, the administration has choked back the annual volume of documents declassified for public access, from 200 million in 1998 to 44 million lately.
At the heart of this thickening veil are direct presidential orders and former Attorney General John Ashcroft's blanket assurance of legal defense to any agency erring on the side of secrecy in sealing off documents. This reversed the Clinton administration's 'presumption of disclosure' when it came to public requests. The 9/11 commission has already pointed out that this general retreat from the intent of the law hardly discourages terrorists; in fact, it was the government's internal failure to share information that contributed to that tragedy." ...
The open government law that guaranteed greater freedom of information to the public will soon be 40 years old and desperately in need of legislative overhaul, thanks to the Bush administration. The White House's sweeping enlargement of agency powers has already nearly doubled the rate of newly classified documents to 15 million a year. At the same time, the administration has choked back the annual volume of documents declassified for public access, from 200 million in 1998 to 44 million lately.
At the heart of this thickening veil are direct presidential orders and former Attorney General John Ashcroft's blanket assurance of legal defense to any agency erring on the side of secrecy in sealing off documents. This reversed the Clinton administration's 'presumption of disclosure' when it came to public requests. The 9/11 commission has already pointed out that this general retreat from the intent of the law hardly discourages terrorists; in fact, it was the government's internal failure to share information that contributed to that tragedy." ...
Sunday, December 18, 2005
NY Times held off publishing for a year at request of White House ...
At the Times, a Scoop Deferred: "By Paul Farhi |`Washington Post Staff Writer | Saturday, December 17, 2005; Page A07
The New York Times' revelation yesterday that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct domestic eavesdropping raised eyebrows in political and media circles, for both its stunning disclosures and the circumstances of its publication.
In an unusual note, the Times said in its story that it held off publishing the 3,600-word article for a year after the newspaper's representatives met with White House officials. It said the White House had asked the paper not to publish the story at all, 'arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.' ...
The New York Times' revelation yesterday that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct domestic eavesdropping raised eyebrows in political and media circles, for both its stunning disclosures and the circumstances of its publication.
In an unusual note, the Times said in its story that it held off publishing the 3,600-word article for a year after the newspaper's representatives met with White House officials. It said the White House had asked the paper not to publish the story at all, 'arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.' ...
Columnist resigned after ...he took payments from the lobbyist Jack Abramoff in exchange for writing columns favorable to his clients
Columnist Admits Being Paid, Resigns From Cato Institute… | The Huffington Post: "New York Times | ANNE E. KORNBLUT | Posted December 17, 2005 12:05 AM | READ MORE: Jack Abramoff
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 - A senior scholar at the Cato Institute, the respected libertarian research organization, has resigned after revelations that he took payments from the lobbyist Jack Abramoff in exchange for writing columns favorable to his clients.
The scholar, Doug Bandow, who wrote a column for the Copley News Service in addition to serving as a Cato fellow, acknowledged to executives at the organization that he had taken money from Mr. Abramoff after he was confronted about the payments by a reporter from BusinessWeek Online. ...
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 - A senior scholar at the Cato Institute, the respected libertarian research organization, has resigned after revelations that he took payments from the lobbyist Jack Abramoff in exchange for writing columns favorable to his clients.
The scholar, Doug Bandow, who wrote a column for the Copley News Service in addition to serving as a Cato fellow, acknowledged to executives at the organization that he had taken money from Mr. Abramoff after he was confronted about the payments by a reporter from BusinessWeek Online. ...
Thursday, December 15, 2005
New York Times admits it held [warantless] domestic spying story for a full year
The Raw Story | New York Times admits it held domestic spying story for a full year:RAW STORY | Print This | Email This
On the second page of a report which reveals the White House engaged in warantless domestic spying, the New York Times reveals that it held the story for a full year at the request of the Bush Administration, RAW STORY can reveal.
The Times also reveals that senior members of Congress from both parties knew about Bush's decision to spy on Americans who were making international calls or emails without warrants.
Further, the Times notes that they have omitted information in the article they did write, agreeing with the Bush Administration that the information could be useful for terrorists. Excerpts from the Times' article follow. ...
On the second page of a report which reveals the White House engaged in warantless domestic spying, the New York Times reveals that it held the story for a full year at the request of the Bush Administration, RAW STORY can reveal.
The Times also reveals that senior members of Congress from both parties knew about Bush's decision to spy on Americans who were making international calls or emails without warrants.
Further, the Times notes that they have omitted information in the article they did write, agreeing with the Bush Administration that the information could be useful for terrorists. Excerpts from the Times' article follow. ...
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Congress Researchers say Environmental Protection Agency skewed its analysis of air pollution legislation to favor President Bush's plan
Print Story: Congress Researchers Fault EPA Studies on Yahoo! News: "By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press WriterFri Dec 2, 5:08 PM ET
Researchers who work for Congress say the Environmental Protection Agency skewed its analysis of air pollution legislation to favor President Bush's plan.
EPA's analysis 'works in favor of' Bush's plan by overstating some costs of competing bills, said a report Friday by the Congressional Research Service. The 2002 Bush plan, dubbed 'Clear Skies,' remains stalled in Congress."
...
But the agency overestimated costs of installing the high-tech controls for mercury and assumes natural gas will more plentiful and available at cheaper prices than the Energy Department estimates, according to congressional researchers James McCarthy and Larry Parker. ...
Researchers who work for Congress say the Environmental Protection Agency skewed its analysis of air pollution legislation to favor President Bush's plan.
EPA's analysis 'works in favor of' Bush's plan by overstating some costs of competing bills, said a report Friday by the Congressional Research Service. The 2002 Bush plan, dubbed 'Clear Skies,' remains stalled in Congress."
...
But the agency overestimated costs of installing the high-tech controls for mercury and assumes natural gas will more plentiful and available at cheaper prices than the Energy Department estimates, according to congressional researchers James McCarthy and Larry Parker. ...
95 per cent US dailies ignored Military autopsy reports provide indisputable proof that detainees are being tortured to death
NEWSWATCH INDIA: � 95 per cent US dailies ignored report on torture of Iraqi prisoners: "
Military autopsy reports provide indisputable proof that detainees are being tortured to death while in US military custody. Yet the corporate media of the United States (US) is covering it with the seriousness of a garage sale for the local Baptist Church, media research organisation Project Censored has said.
According to Prof Peter Phillips, director, Project Censored, a press release on these deaths by torture was issued by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on October 25, 2005 and was immediately picked up by Associated Press (AP) and United Press International (UPI) wire services, making the story available to the US corporate media. A thorough check of Nexus-Lexus and Proquest electronic data bases, using the keywords ACLU and autopsy, showed that at least 95 per cent of the daily papers in the US didn't bother to pick up the story.
The Los Angeles Times covered the story on page A-4 with a 635-word report headlined 'Autopsies Support Abuse Allegations.' Fewer than a dozen other daily newspapers including: Bangor Daily News, Maine; Telegraph-Herald, Dubuque Iowa; Charleston Gazette; Advocate, Baton Rouge; and a half dozen others actually covered the story.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Seattle Times buried the story inside general Iraq news articles. USA Today posted the story on its website. MSNBC posted the story to its website, but apparently did not consider it newsworthy enough to air on television.
'The Randi Rhodes Show,' on Air America Radio, covered the story. AP/UPI news releases and direct quotes from the ACLU website appeared widely on Internet sites and on various news-based listservs around the world, including Common Dreams, Truthout, New Standard, Science Daily, and numerous others, Phillips said.
What little attention the news of the US torturing prisoners to death did get has completely disappeared as context for the torture stories now appearing in corporate media. A Nexus-Lexus search November 30, 2005 of the major papers in the US using the word torture turned up over 1,000 stories in the last 30 days. None of these included the ACLU report as supporting documentation on the issue.
The Project Censored director wondered, 'How can the American public understand the gravity of the torture that is currently being committed in our name when the issue is being reported with no reference to the extent to which these crimes against humanity have gone? Has the Internet become the only source of real news for mainstream Americans while the corporate media only tells us what they want us to know?'" ...
Military autopsy reports provide indisputable proof that detainees are being tortured to death while in US military custody. Yet the corporate media of the United States (US) is covering it with the seriousness of a garage sale for the local Baptist Church, media research organisation Project Censored has said.
According to Prof Peter Phillips, director, Project Censored, a press release on these deaths by torture was issued by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on October 25, 2005 and was immediately picked up by Associated Press (AP) and United Press International (UPI) wire services, making the story available to the US corporate media. A thorough check of Nexus-Lexus and Proquest electronic data bases, using the keywords ACLU and autopsy, showed that at least 95 per cent of the daily papers in the US didn't bother to pick up the story.
The Los Angeles Times covered the story on page A-4 with a 635-word report headlined 'Autopsies Support Abuse Allegations.' Fewer than a dozen other daily newspapers including: Bangor Daily News, Maine; Telegraph-Herald, Dubuque Iowa; Charleston Gazette; Advocate, Baton Rouge; and a half dozen others actually covered the story.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Seattle Times buried the story inside general Iraq news articles. USA Today posted the story on its website. MSNBC posted the story to its website, but apparently did not consider it newsworthy enough to air on television.
'The Randi Rhodes Show,' on Air America Radio, covered the story. AP/UPI news releases and direct quotes from the ACLU website appeared widely on Internet sites and on various news-based listservs around the world, including Common Dreams, Truthout, New Standard, Science Daily, and numerous others, Phillips said.
What little attention the news of the US torturing prisoners to death did get has completely disappeared as context for the torture stories now appearing in corporate media. A Nexus-Lexus search November 30, 2005 of the major papers in the US using the word torture turned up over 1,000 stories in the last 30 days. None of these included the ACLU report as supporting documentation on the issue.
The Project Censored director wondered, 'How can the American public understand the gravity of the torture that is currently being committed in our name when the issue is being reported with no reference to the extent to which these crimes against humanity have gone? Has the Internet become the only source of real news for mainstream Americans while the corporate media only tells us what they want us to know?'" ...
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Pentagon is paying millions more ...for work that appears to violate fundamental principles of Western journalism....
U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers - New York Times: "By JEFF GERTH and SCOTT SHANE
Published: December 1, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 - Titled "The Sands Are Blowing Toward a Democratic Iraq," an article written this week for publication in the Iraqi press was scornful of outsiders' pessimism about the country's future.
"Western press and frequently those self-styled 'objective' observers of Iraq are often critics of how we, the people of Iraq, are proceeding down the path in determining what is best for our nation," the article began. Quoting the Prophet Muhammad, it pleaded for unity and nonviolence.
But far from being the heartfelt opinion of an Iraqi writer, as its language implied, the article was prepared by the United States military as part of a multimillion-dollar covert campaign to plant paid propaganda in the Iraqi news media and pay friendly Iraqi journalists monthly stipends, military contractors and officials said.
...
Even as the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development pay contractors millions of dollars to help train journalists and promote a professional and independent Iraqi media, the Pentagon is paying millions more to the Lincoln Group for work that appears to violate fundamental principles of Western journalism. ...
Published: December 1, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 - Titled "The Sands Are Blowing Toward a Democratic Iraq," an article written this week for publication in the Iraqi press was scornful of outsiders' pessimism about the country's future.
"Western press and frequently those self-styled 'objective' observers of Iraq are often critics of how we, the people of Iraq, are proceeding down the path in determining what is best for our nation," the article began. Quoting the Prophet Muhammad, it pleaded for unity and nonviolence.
But far from being the heartfelt opinion of an Iraqi writer, as its language implied, the article was prepared by the United States military as part of a multimillion-dollar covert campaign to plant paid propaganda in the Iraqi news media and pay friendly Iraqi journalists monthly stipends, military contractors and officials said.
...
Even as the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development pay contractors millions of dollars to help train journalists and promote a professional and independent Iraqi media, the Pentagon is paying millions more to the Lincoln Group for work that appears to violate fundamental principles of Western journalism. ...
Morley Safer, one of the real old timers of CBS, once again bemoaning the almost total loss of freedom in reporting on these invasions and occupations
None Dare Call It Censorship by Jack D. Douglas: "
All serious and intelligent journalists today know that the U.S. government has massive media management brigades to carefully control what Americans see in the media and, thus, what they are very likely to believe about things of which they have no direct experience, such as high-level politics, finance and foreign affairs. They also know that the government is extremely effective in secretly censoring the news by using devices such as 'embedded reporting' in nations like Afghanistan and Iraq which the U.S. government invades, occupies, and governs.
Yesterday I saw Morley Safer, one of the real old timers of CBS, once again bemoaning the almost total loss of freedom in reporting on these invasions and occupations. As he said, in Vietnam, U.S. and other national reporters could hop a ride on U.S. or other vehicles to cover anything they wanted to cover, which led directly to their exposing the Big Lies of the U.S. military and politicians about what was going on there. In Iraq and Afghanistan the reporters are 'in-bedded' (as I call it) with the military to prevent such free lancing and the soaring dangers of guerilla attacks almost totally prevents their even trying to circumvent the official censorship. Of course, none dare call it censorship for fear of being fired and ostracized to Alaska, so he did not use that forbidden word." ...
All serious and intelligent journalists today know that the U.S. government has massive media management brigades to carefully control what Americans see in the media and, thus, what they are very likely to believe about things of which they have no direct experience, such as high-level politics, finance and foreign affairs. They also know that the government is extremely effective in secretly censoring the news by using devices such as 'embedded reporting' in nations like Afghanistan and Iraq which the U.S. government invades, occupies, and governs.
Yesterday I saw Morley Safer, one of the real old timers of CBS, once again bemoaning the almost total loss of freedom in reporting on these invasions and occupations. As he said, in Vietnam, U.S. and other national reporters could hop a ride on U.S. or other vehicles to cover anything they wanted to cover, which led directly to their exposing the Big Lies of the U.S. military and politicians about what was going on there. In Iraq and Afghanistan the reporters are 'in-bedded' (as I call it) with the military to prevent such free lancing and the soaring dangers of guerilla attacks almost totally prevents their even trying to circumvent the official censorship. Of course, none dare call it censorship for fear of being fired and ostracized to Alaska, so he did not use that forbidden word." ...
Friday, November 25, 2005
Ain't no free speech allowed in Dubya's America
Capitol Hill Blue: Ain't no free speech allowed in Dubya's America: "By DOUG THOMPSON | Nov 24, 2005, 07:10
In George W. Bush’s America, protest and free speech are illegal acts. Just ask those arrested Wednesday for staging a peaceful protest against the Iraq war near the President’s ranch in Crawford, Texas.
Camping on the same land that antiwar mom Cindy Sheehan used to stage her highly-publicized protest in August, the activists quickly ran afoul of a new county law, hastily passed at the White House's orging, prohibiting public gatherings.
That’s right. The public no longer has a right to protest the President’s policies on public land near the President’s home in Crawford.
“The ordinance was very plainly meant to prevent people from protesting in front of Bush's ranch,” Dave Jensen, a 54-year-old former Marine told reporters. “We feel that's a First Amendment issue. It's intentionally designed to curtail freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.”
But the First Amendment doesn’t mean much to cops in Texas or the Bush administration as a dozen protestors, including Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon papers fame along with the sister of Cindy Sheehan.
Such arrests, says Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, is just another example of how the Bush administration seeks to stifle debate on the Iraq war." ...
In George W. Bush’s America, protest and free speech are illegal acts. Just ask those arrested Wednesday for staging a peaceful protest against the Iraq war near the President’s ranch in Crawford, Texas.
Camping on the same land that antiwar mom Cindy Sheehan used to stage her highly-publicized protest in August, the activists quickly ran afoul of a new county law, hastily passed at the White House's orging, prohibiting public gatherings.
That’s right. The public no longer has a right to protest the President’s policies on public land near the President’s home in Crawford.
“The ordinance was very plainly meant to prevent people from protesting in front of Bush's ranch,” Dave Jensen, a 54-year-old former Marine told reporters. “We feel that's a First Amendment issue. It's intentionally designed to curtail freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.”
But the First Amendment doesn’t mean much to cops in Texas or the Bush administration as a dozen protestors, including Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon papers fame along with the sister of Cindy Sheehan.
Such arrests, says Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, is just another example of how the Bush administration seeks to stifle debate on the Iraq war." ...
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Majority Believe White House Misleads Public, Poll Shows
WSJ.com - Majority Believe White House Misleads Public, Poll Shows: "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE | November 23, 2005
A majority of U.S. adults believe the Bush administration generally misleads the public on current issues, while fewer than a third of Americans believe the information provided by the administration is generally accurate, the latest Harris Interactive poll finds.
While the telephone survey of 1,011 U.S. adults indicates about 64% of Americans believe the Bush administration 'generally misleads the American public on current issues to achieve its own ends,' opinion on the topic is clearly divided along party lines. A large majority (68% to 28%) of Republicans say the Bush administration generally provides accurate information. However, even larger majorities of Democrats (91% to 7%) and Independents (73% to 25%) think the information is generally misleading. ...
A majority of U.S. adults believe the Bush administration generally misleads the public on current issues, while fewer than a third of Americans believe the information provided by the administration is generally accurate, the latest Harris Interactive poll finds.
While the telephone survey of 1,011 U.S. adults indicates about 64% of Americans believe the Bush administration 'generally misleads the American public on current issues to achieve its own ends,' opinion on the topic is clearly divided along party lines. A large majority (68% to 28%) of Republicans say the Bush administration generally provides accurate information. However, even larger majorities of Democrats (91% to 7%) and Independents (73% to 25%) think the information is generally misleading. ...
Top 3 papaer make Just 36 requests Freedom of Information requests of the Pentagon between 2000 and February 2005
The Raw Story | Freedom of Information logs shed light on media's military curiosity: "John Byrne
A listing of all requests made of the Pentagon under the Freedom of Information Act since 2000, acquired by RAW STORY, provides new insight into the aggressiveness of American news agencies.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, the public can request records of government agencies. Records seen as jeopardizing national security or individual rights are typically exempted. All requests are public.
The request for a list of all who made inquiries of the Pentagon was filed by Michael Petrelis (http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/, a San Francisco-based activist and blogger. He provided a copy to RAW STORY, which will be released in full next week.
The Pentagon’s records reveal that the law is broadly used—more than 10,000 requests have been made since 2000. But they also illuminate a seeming dearth of curiosity by news organizations about the internal files of the U.S. military establishment.
This lack of curiosity appears particularly evident among the nation’s three largest newspapers.
In total, the three papers with daily circulations greater than one million--USA Today, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times -- made just 36 requests of the Pentagon between 2000 and February 2005. USA Today made nine; the Journal, six; and the Times, 21. ...
A listing of all requests made of the Pentagon under the Freedom of Information Act since 2000, acquired by RAW STORY, provides new insight into the aggressiveness of American news agencies.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, the public can request records of government agencies. Records seen as jeopardizing national security or individual rights are typically exempted. All requests are public.
The request for a list of all who made inquiries of the Pentagon was filed by Michael Petrelis (http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/, a San Francisco-based activist and blogger. He provided a copy to RAW STORY, which will be released in full next week.
The Pentagon’s records reveal that the law is broadly used—more than 10,000 requests have been made since 2000. But they also illuminate a seeming dearth of curiosity by news organizations about the internal files of the U.S. military establishment.
This lack of curiosity appears particularly evident among the nation’s three largest newspapers.
In total, the three papers with daily circulations greater than one million--USA Today, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times -- made just 36 requests of the Pentagon between 2000 and February 2005. USA Today made nine; the Journal, six; and the Times, 21. ...
Five page memo, stamped Top Secret, alleging that President Bush had threatened to undertake military action against al-Jazeera
The Raw Story | UK press gags news outlets over minutes of meeting discussing al Jazeera bombing: "Larisa Alexandrovna
The Mirror, a UK publication which reported Tuesday on an alleged US plan to bomb an Arab TV station seen as anti-US, has been gagged from reporting any further on the memo and its contents by Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, RAW STORY has learned.
The publication reported on the contents of a five page memo, stamped Top Secret, alleging that President Bush had threatened to undertake military action against al-Jazeera, a TV station located in the country of Qatar. While al-Jazeera is seen by some in the Bush administration to be largely anti-West, Qatar is an American ally.
According to sources familiar with the case, it was the recent attack on Fallujah that had Bush concerned about what al-Jazeera might report." ...
The Mirror, a UK publication which reported Tuesday on an alleged US plan to bomb an Arab TV station seen as anti-US, has been gagged from reporting any further on the memo and its contents by Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, RAW STORY has learned.
The publication reported on the contents of a five page memo, stamped Top Secret, alleging that President Bush had threatened to undertake military action against al-Jazeera, a TV station located in the country of Qatar. While al-Jazeera is seen by some in the Bush administration to be largely anti-West, Qatar is an American ally.
According to sources familiar with the case, it was the recent attack on Fallujah that had Bush concerned about what al-Jazeera might report." ...
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Ex-Chief of Public TV Violated Federal Law - to combat what he saw as liberal bias! ... scathing report ... violated the Public Broadcasting Act
Report Says Ex-Chief of Public TV Violated Federal Law - New York Times: "By STEPHEN LABATON | Published: November 15, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 - Investigators at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting concluded today that its former chairman repeatedly broke federal law and its own regulations in a campaign to combat what he saw as liberal bias.
A scathing report by the corporation's inspector general described a dysfunctional organization that violated the Public Broadcasting Act, which created the corporation and was written to insulate programming decisions from politics. ...
WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 - Investigators at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting concluded today that its former chairman repeatedly broke federal law and its own regulations in a campaign to combat what he saw as liberal bias.
A scathing report by the corporation's inspector general described a dysfunctional organization that violated the Public Broadcasting Act, which created the corporation and was written to insulate programming decisions from politics. ...
Monday, October 31, 2005
US Ranks 44th in Worldwide Press Freedom Index
OhmyNews International: "Nation's openness sinking after Sept. 11, northern Europe tops the list
The annual worldwide press freedom index from Reporters Without Borders shows the United States, which is supposedly spreading freedom and liberty throughout the world, is in a fast decline regarding the freedom of its own press.
The report ranked the United States in 44th place, an atomic drop from a favorable position of 22nd held last year, and from a handsome 17th place in 2002.
The organization mentioned that several journalists were expelled from the country since the terrorist attacks of 2001.
...
Repeated evidence of the media printing government propaganda and misleading information leading up to the U.S.-led Iraq invasion have surely made the decline of mainstream readers accelerate. ...
The annual worldwide press freedom index from Reporters Without Borders shows the United States, which is supposedly spreading freedom and liberty throughout the world, is in a fast decline regarding the freedom of its own press.
The report ranked the United States in 44th place, an atomic drop from a favorable position of 22nd held last year, and from a handsome 17th place in 2002.
The organization mentioned that several journalists were expelled from the country since the terrorist attacks of 2001.
...
Repeated evidence of the media printing government propaganda and misleading information leading up to the U.S.-led Iraq invasion have surely made the decline of mainstream readers accelerate. ...
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Maureen Dowd on Judith Miller [CIA leak, WMD promotion, Chalabi defender ...] ... Judy's stories about W.M.D. fit too perfectly with the White House
THE NEWS BLOG: "Let me put it this way, if anyone liked me like MoDo says she likes Miller, well, I'd have to check to see if I owed them child support.
" I've always liked Judy Miller. I have often wondered what Waugh or Thackeray would have made of the Fourth Estate's Becky Sharp.
The traits she has that drive many reporters at The Times crazy - her tropism [involuntary orientation by an organism or one of its parts that involves turning or curving by movement ... broadly : a natural inclination] toward powerful men, her frantic intensity and her peculiar mixture of hard work and hauteur - have never bothered me. I enjoy operatic types.
She never knew when to quit. That was her talent and her flaw. Sorely in need of a tight editorial leash, she was kept on no leash at all, and that has hurt this paper and its trust with readers. She more than earned her sobriquet "Miss Run Amok."
Judy's stories about W.M.D. fit too perfectly with the White House's case for war. She was close to Ahmad Chalabi, the con man who was conning the neocons to knock out Saddam so he could get his hands on Iraq, ..................
Even last April, when I wrote a column critical of Mr. Chalabi, she fired off e-mail to me defending him.
................... This cagey confusion is what makes people wonder whether her stint in the Alexandria jail was in part a career rehabilitation project.
................... But before turning Judy's case into a First Amendment battle, they should have nailed her to a chair and extracted the entire story of her escapade.
Judy told The Times that she plans to write a book and intends to return to the newsroom, hoping to cover "the same thing I've always covered - threats to our country." If that were to happen, the institution most in danger would be the newspaper in your hands. "
Ok, after calling her a drama queen and a whore, tropism being a fancy word for women who likes powerful men and fucks them, she then goes after her bosses for not supervising her and letting her hurt the paper.
Then she suggests that Miller's jail stint had other motives.
Then, finally, calls for her to be fired.
And Gail Collins might as well have cosigned it.
Why? It ran on the op-ed page, she's her nominal boss.
This is call putting your business in the street. This is the consensus opinion of the Times staff, except for the open hatred some folks had for Miller. ...
" I've always liked Judy Miller. I have often wondered what Waugh or Thackeray would have made of the Fourth Estate's Becky Sharp.
The traits she has that drive many reporters at The Times crazy - her tropism [involuntary orientation by an organism or one of its parts that involves turning or curving by movement ... broadly : a natural inclination] toward powerful men, her frantic intensity and her peculiar mixture of hard work and hauteur - have never bothered me. I enjoy operatic types.
She never knew when to quit. That was her talent and her flaw. Sorely in need of a tight editorial leash, she was kept on no leash at all, and that has hurt this paper and its trust with readers. She more than earned her sobriquet "Miss Run Amok."
Judy's stories about W.M.D. fit too perfectly with the White House's case for war. She was close to Ahmad Chalabi, the con man who was conning the neocons to knock out Saddam so he could get his hands on Iraq, ..................
Even last April, when I wrote a column critical of Mr. Chalabi, she fired off e-mail to me defending him.
................... This cagey confusion is what makes people wonder whether her stint in the Alexandria jail was in part a career rehabilitation project.
................... But before turning Judy's case into a First Amendment battle, they should have nailed her to a chair and extracted the entire story of her escapade.
Judy told The Times that she plans to write a book and intends to return to the newsroom, hoping to cover "the same thing I've always covered - threats to our country." If that were to happen, the institution most in danger would be the newspaper in your hands. "
Ok, after calling her a drama queen and a whore, tropism being a fancy word for women who likes powerful men and fucks them, she then goes after her bosses for not supervising her and letting her hurt the paper.
Then she suggests that Miller's jail stint had other motives.
Then, finally, calls for her to be fired.
And Gail Collins might as well have cosigned it.
Why? It ran on the op-ed page, she's her nominal boss.
This is call putting your business in the street. This is the consensus opinion of the Times staff, except for the open hatred some folks had for Miller. ...
Friday, October 21, 2005
Hardball's pattern of misinformation and imbala ... [Media Matters]
Hardball's pattern of misinformation and imbala ... [Media Matters]: "Hardball panels skew right
A review of Hardball programming since July 2 revealed nine separate discussions of the Plame investigation with panels solely composed of Republicans, prominent conservatives, and journalists or political figures with no public partisan or ideological affiliation. By contrast, Media Matters found only one instance of a panel that was arguably skewed left: In a July 5 discussion on whether journalists should have federal protections against revealing their sources to prosecutors, Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant was paired with Barbara Cochran, president of the nonpartisan professional organization the Radio-Television News Directors Association. (Oliphant is occasionally paired with a conservative commentator on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer -- here, for example.) The nine panels that skewed right are:
* July 15 (with NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory guest-hosting): Andrea Mitchell and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX);
* July 15: Washington Post correspondent Dana Milbank and National Review White House correspondent Byron York;
* July 21: Washington Post staff writer Jim VandeHei and Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley;
* July 22: Hotline editor Chuck Todd and Weekly Standard staff writer Stephen F. Hayes;
* September 30: Todd and Hayes;
* October 6: Newsweek investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff, Washington Post national political editor John Harris, and Hayes;
* October 12: Republican attorney Victoria Toensing and former Kenneth Starr deputy independent counsel Sol Wisenberg;
* October 18: MSNBC contributor and former Republican presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan and former presidential adviser David Gergen;
* October 18: Newsweek political analyst Howard Fineman and Hayes."
A review of Hardball programming since July 2 revealed nine separate discussions of the Plame investigation with panels solely composed of Republicans, prominent conservatives, and journalists or political figures with no public partisan or ideological affiliation. By contrast, Media Matters found only one instance of a panel that was arguably skewed left: In a July 5 discussion on whether journalists should have federal protections against revealing their sources to prosecutors, Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant was paired with Barbara Cochran, president of the nonpartisan professional organization the Radio-Television News Directors Association. (Oliphant is occasionally paired with a conservative commentator on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer -- here, for example.) The nine panels that skewed right are:
* July 15 (with NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory guest-hosting): Andrea Mitchell and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX);
* July 15: Washington Post correspondent Dana Milbank and National Review White House correspondent Byron York;
* July 21: Washington Post staff writer Jim VandeHei and Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley;
* July 22: Hotline editor Chuck Todd and Weekly Standard staff writer Stephen F. Hayes;
* September 30: Todd and Hayes;
* October 6: Newsweek investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff, Washington Post national political editor John Harris, and Hayes;
* October 12: Republican attorney Victoria Toensing and former Kenneth Starr deputy independent counsel Sol Wisenberg;
* October 18: MSNBC contributor and former Republican presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan and former presidential adviser David Gergen;
* October 18: Newsweek political analyst Howard Fineman and Hayes."
Editor Says He Missed Miller 'Alarm Bells' - might have been more willing to compromise with Special Counsel given "details of Judy's entanglement"
Editor Says He Missed Miller 'Alarm Bells' - Yahoo! News: "By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer 26 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The New York Times' Judith Miller belatedly gave prosecutors her notes of a key meeting in the
CIA leak probe only after being shown White House records of it, and her boss declared Friday she appeared to have misled the newspaper about her role.
In a dramatic e-mail, Executive Editor Bill Keller wrote Times' employees he wished he'd more carefully interviewed Miller and had "missed what should have been significant alarm bells" that she had been the recipient of leaked information about the CIA officer at the heart of the case.
"Judy seems to have misled (Times Washington bureau chief) Phil Taubman about the extent of her involvement," Keller wrote in what he described as a lessons-learned e-mail. "This alone should have been enough to make me probe deeper."
Keller said he might have been more willing to compromise with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald "if I had known the details of Judy's entanglement" with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. ...
WASHINGTON - The New York Times' Judith Miller belatedly gave prosecutors her notes of a key meeting in the
CIA leak probe only after being shown White House records of it, and her boss declared Friday she appeared to have misled the newspaper about her role.
In a dramatic e-mail, Executive Editor Bill Keller wrote Times' employees he wished he'd more carefully interviewed Miller and had "missed what should have been significant alarm bells" that she had been the recipient of leaked information about the CIA officer at the heart of the case.
"Judy seems to have misled (Times Washington bureau chief) Phil Taubman about the extent of her involvement," Keller wrote in what he described as a lessons-learned e-mail. "This alone should have been enough to make me probe deeper."
Keller said he might have been more willing to compromise with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald "if I had known the details of Judy's entanglement" with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. ...
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Curiously, America’s Greatest Newspaper (not!) has never mentioned the White House Iraq Group. Not once ...
The Grey Lady that did not bark in the night | CorrenteWire: "Submitted by lambert on Fri, 2005-10-14 23:18.
Curiously, America’s Greatest Newspaper (not!) has never mentioned the White House Iraq Group. Not once.
Why is this curious? Because to make the case for Bush’s war of choice in Iraq, the W.H.I.G. was tasked with fixing the facts and the intelligence around the policy through a disinformation campaign that involved more than 50 planted stories in the press. The W.H.I.G. membership? Karen Hughes, Andrew Card, Mary Matalin, James Wilkinson, Karl Rove—and “Scooter” Libby, the source Judy “Kneepads” Miller was, erm, “protecting.”
Why would the Times not cover this story? Why wouldn’t anyone else? Here are some theories, in increasing order of institutional corruption. ....
Curiously, America’s Greatest Newspaper (not!) has never mentioned the White House Iraq Group. Not once.
Why is this curious? Because to make the case for Bush’s war of choice in Iraq, the W.H.I.G. was tasked with fixing the facts and the intelligence around the policy through a disinformation campaign that involved more than 50 planted stories in the press. The W.H.I.G. membership? Karen Hughes, Andrew Card, Mary Matalin, James Wilkinson, Karl Rove—and “Scooter” Libby, the source Judy “Kneepads” Miller was, erm, “protecting.”
Why would the Times not cover this story? Why wouldn’t anyone else? Here are some theories, in increasing order of institutional corruption. ....
Monday, October 17, 2005
During the propaganda buildup for the invasion of Iraq, Judith Miller and the New York Times served as a key asset of the warfare state
AlterNet: Judith Miller, the Fourth Estate and the Warfare State: "By Norman Solomon, AlterNet. Posted October 17, 2005.
During the propaganda buildup for the invasion of Iraq, Judith Miller and the New York Times served as a key asset of the warfare state.
More than any other New York Times reporter, Judith Miller took the lead with stories claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Now, a few years later, she's facing heightened scrutiny in the aftermath of a pair of articles that appeared in the Times on Sunday -- a lengthy investigative piece about Miller plus her own first-person account of how she got entangled in the case of the Bush administration's "outing" of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.
It now seems that Miller functioned with more accountability to U.S. military intelligence officials than to New York Times editors. Most of the way through her article, Miller slipped in this sentence: "During the Iraq war, the Pentagon had given me clearance to see secret information as part of my assignment 'embedded' with a special military unit hunting for unconventional weapons." And, according to the same article, she ultimately told the grand jury that during a July 8, 2003, meeting with the vice president's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, "I might have expressed frustration to Mr. Libby that I was not permitted to discuss with editors some of the more sensitive information about Iraq." ...
During the propaganda buildup for the invasion of Iraq, Judith Miller and the New York Times served as a key asset of the warfare state.
More than any other New York Times reporter, Judith Miller took the lead with stories claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Now, a few years later, she's facing heightened scrutiny in the aftermath of a pair of articles that appeared in the Times on Sunday -- a lengthy investigative piece about Miller plus her own first-person account of how she got entangled in the case of the Bush administration's "outing" of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.
It now seems that Miller functioned with more accountability to U.S. military intelligence officials than to New York Times editors. Most of the way through her article, Miller slipped in this sentence: "During the Iraq war, the Pentagon had given me clearance to see secret information as part of my assignment 'embedded' with a special military unit hunting for unconventional weapons." And, according to the same article, she ultimately told the grand jury that during a July 8, 2003, meeting with the vice president's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, "I might have expressed frustration to Mr. Libby that I was not permitted to discuss with editors some of the more sensitive information about Iraq." ...
50 False News Stories By Bush Propaganda Machine
50 False News Stories By Bush Propaganda Machine: "50 False News Stories By Bush Propaganda Machine | A Strategy of Lies: How the White House Fed the Public a Steady Diet of Falsehoods | Earth Island.net | 11-10-3
Colonel Sam Gardiner (USAF, Ret.) has identified 50 false news stories created and leaked by a secretive White House propaganda apparatus.
Bush administration officials are probably having second thoughts about their decision to play hardball with former US Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Joe Wilson is a contender. When you play hardball with Joe, you better be prepared to deal with some serious rebound. ...
...
Gardiner's dogged research identified a long list of stories that passed through Rumsfeld's propaganda mill. According to Gardiner, "there were over 50 stories manufactured or at least engineered that distorted the picture of Gulf II for the American and British people." Those stories include:
The link between terrorism, Iraq and 9/11
Iraqi agents meeting with 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta
Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons.
Iraq's purchase of nuclear materials from Niger.
Saddam Hussein's development of nuclear weapons.
Aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons
The existence of Iraqi drones, WMD cluster bombs and Scud missiles.
Iraq's threat to target the US with cyber warfare attacks.
The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch.
The surrender of a 5,000-man Iraqi brigade.
Iraq executing Coalition POWs.
Iraqi soldiers dressing in US and UK uniforms to commit atrocities.
The exact location of WMD facilities
WMDs moved to Syria.
Colonel Sam Gardiner (USAF, Ret.) has identified 50 false news stories created and leaked by a secretive White House propaganda apparatus.
Bush administration officials are probably having second thoughts about their decision to play hardball with former US Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Joe Wilson is a contender. When you play hardball with Joe, you better be prepared to deal with some serious rebound. ...
...
Gardiner's dogged research identified a long list of stories that passed through Rumsfeld's propaganda mill. According to Gardiner, "there were over 50 stories manufactured or at least engineered that distorted the picture of Gulf II for the American and British people." Those stories include:
The link between terrorism, Iraq and 9/11
Iraqi agents meeting with 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta
Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons.
Iraq's purchase of nuclear materials from Niger.
Saddam Hussein's development of nuclear weapons.
Aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons
The existence of Iraqi drones, WMD cluster bombs and Scud missiles.
Iraq's threat to target the US with cyber warfare attacks.
The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch.
The surrender of a 5,000-man Iraqi brigade.
Iraq executing Coalition POWs.
Iraqi soldiers dressing in US and UK uniforms to commit atrocities.
The exact location of WMD facilities
WMDs moved to Syria.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Political Appointees Re-Write Commerce Department Report On Offshore Outsourcing; Original Analysis Is Missing From Final Version
Political Appointees Re-Write Commerce Department Report On Offshore Outsourcing; Original Analysis Is Missing From Final Version: "BY RICHARD McCORMACK richard@manufacturingnews.com | October 12, 2005 Volume 12, No. 18
The Commerce Department has responded to a half-year-old request by Manufacturing and Technology News for the release a long-awaited study on the issue of 'offshore outsourcing' of IT service-sector jobs and high-tech industries. But the 12-page document represented by the agency as its final report is not what was written by its analysts. Rather, it was crafted by political appointees at Commerce and at the White House, according to those familiar with it.
...
According to those who have tracked the report's whereabouts, it was completed well before the November 2004 presidential election but was delayed for clearance by the White House and the Republican-controlled Congress due to the controversial nature of the subject. Outsourcing had become a contentious campaign issue, particularly in the swing states.
...
The 12-page version that was released focuses on the allegedly positive impacts for the U.S. economy of the offshore outsourcing -- and "insourcing" -- of jobs in the IT, semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries, argue those who have read it. The report quotes research conducted by organizations and individuals that have been funded by multinationals that benefit from shifting jobs overseas. No mention is made of the conflict of interest inherent in the studies cited by the Commerce report.
The Commerce Department has responded to a half-year-old request by Manufacturing and Technology News for the release a long-awaited study on the issue of 'offshore outsourcing' of IT service-sector jobs and high-tech industries. But the 12-page document represented by the agency as its final report is not what was written by its analysts. Rather, it was crafted by political appointees at Commerce and at the White House, according to those familiar with it.
...
According to those who have tracked the report's whereabouts, it was completed well before the November 2004 presidential election but was delayed for clearance by the White House and the Republican-controlled Congress due to the controversial nature of the subject. Outsourcing had become a contentious campaign issue, particularly in the swing states.
...
The 12-page version that was released focuses on the allegedly positive impacts for the U.S. economy of the offshore outsourcing -- and "insourcing" -- of jobs in the IT, semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries, argue those who have read it. The report quotes research conducted by organizations and individuals that have been funded by multinationals that benefit from shifting jobs overseas. No mention is made of the conflict of interest inherent in the studies cited by the Commerce report.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
FOXNews.com - Politics - Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged .... "carefully scripted publicity stunt."
FOXNews.com - Politics - Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged: "Thursday, October 13, 2005
WASHINGTON — It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution.
"This is an important time," Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. "The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you." ...
...
A brief rehearsal ensued.
"OK, so let's just walk through this," Barber said. "Captain Kennedy, you answer the first question and you hand the mike to whom?" ...
...
Paul Rieckhoff, director of the New York-based Operation Truth (search), an advocacy group for U.S. veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, denounced the event as a "carefully scripted publicity stunt." Five of the 10 U.S. troops involved were officers, he said. ....
WASHINGTON — It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution.
"This is an important time," Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. "The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you." ...
...
A brief rehearsal ensued.
"OK, so let's just walk through this," Barber said. "Captain Kennedy, you answer the first question and you hand the mike to whom?" ...
...
Paul Rieckhoff, director of the New York-based Operation Truth (search), an advocacy group for U.S. veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, denounced the event as a "carefully scripted publicity stunt." Five of the 10 U.S. troops involved were officers, he said. ....
Thursday, October 06, 2005
viability of Representative Democracy rests on well-informed citizenry ... White house ad runs on TV, MoveOn.org is blocked
TomPaine.com - Our Democracy Has Been Hollowed Out: "Al Gore, Jr. | October 06, 2005
I came here today because I believe that American democracy is in grave danger. It is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse. I know that I am not the only one who feels that something has gone basically and badly wrong in the way America's fabled "marketplace of ideas" now functions.
...
Are we still routinely torturing helpless prisoners, and if so, does it feel right that we as American citizens are not outraged by the practice? And does it feel right to have no ongoing discussion of whether or not this abhorrent, medieval behavior is being carried out in the name of the American people? If the gap between rich and poor is widening steadily and economic stress is mounting for low-income families, why do we seem increasingly apathetic and lethargic in our role as citizens?
...
Their faith [founding fathers] in the viability of Representative Democracy rested on their trust in the wisdom of a well-informed citizenry. But they placed particular emphasis on insuring that the public could be well-informed. And they took great care to protect the openness of the marketplace of ideas in order to ensure the free-flow of knowledge.
...
Our founders knew all about the Roman Forum and the Agora in ancient Athens. They also understood quite well that in America, our public forum would be an ongoing conversation about democracy in which individual citizens would participate not only by speaking directly in the presence of others -- but more commonly by communicating with their fellow citizens over great distances by means of the printed word. Thus they not only protected Freedom of Assembly as a basic right, they made a special point - in the First Amendment - of protecting the freedom of the printing press.
...
And what if an individual citizen, or a group of citizens wants to enter the public debate by expressing their views on television? Since they cannot simply join the conversation, some of them have resorted to raising money in order to buy 30 seconds in which to express their opinion. But they are not even allowed to do that.
Moveon.org tried to buy ads last year to express opposition to Bush's Medicare proposal which was then being debated by Congress. They were told "issue advocacy" was not permissible. Then, one of the networks that had refused the Moveon ad began running advertisements by the White House in favor of the President's Medicare proposal. So Moveon complained and the White House ad was temporarily removed. By temporary, I mean it was removed until the White House complained and the network immediately put the ad back on, yet still refused to present the Moveon ad.
I came here today because I believe that American democracy is in grave danger. It is no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse. I know that I am not the only one who feels that something has gone basically and badly wrong in the way America's fabled "marketplace of ideas" now functions.
...
Are we still routinely torturing helpless prisoners, and if so, does it feel right that we as American citizens are not outraged by the practice? And does it feel right to have no ongoing discussion of whether or not this abhorrent, medieval behavior is being carried out in the name of the American people? If the gap between rich and poor is widening steadily and economic stress is mounting for low-income families, why do we seem increasingly apathetic and lethargic in our role as citizens?
...
Their faith [founding fathers] in the viability of Representative Democracy rested on their trust in the wisdom of a well-informed citizenry. But they placed particular emphasis on insuring that the public could be well-informed. And they took great care to protect the openness of the marketplace of ideas in order to ensure the free-flow of knowledge.
...
Our founders knew all about the Roman Forum and the Agora in ancient Athens. They also understood quite well that in America, our public forum would be an ongoing conversation about democracy in which individual citizens would participate not only by speaking directly in the presence of others -- but more commonly by communicating with their fellow citizens over great distances by means of the printed word. Thus they not only protected Freedom of Assembly as a basic right, they made a special point - in the First Amendment - of protecting the freedom of the printing press.
...
And what if an individual citizen, or a group of citizens wants to enter the public debate by expressing their views on television? Since they cannot simply join the conversation, some of them have resorted to raising money in order to buy 30 seconds in which to express their opinion. But they are not even allowed to do that.
Moveon.org tried to buy ads last year to express opposition to Bush's Medicare proposal which was then being debated by Congress. They were told "issue advocacy" was not permissible. Then, one of the networks that had refused the Moveon ad began running advertisements by the White House in favor of the President's Medicare proposal. So Moveon complained and the White House ad was temporarily removed. By temporary, I mean it was removed until the White House complained and the network immediately put the ad back on, yet still refused to present the Moveon ad.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal - "Engaging in a purely political activity such as this is not a proper use of appropriated funds."
Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal - New York Times: "By ROBERT PEAR | Published: October 1, 2005
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.
In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.
The contract with Mr. Williams and the general contours of the public relations campaign had been known for months. The report Friday provided the first definitive ruling on the legality of the activities.
Lawyers from the accountability office, an independent nonpartisan arm of Congress, found that the administration systematically analyzed news articles to see if they carried the message, "The Bush administration/the G.O.P. is committed to education."
The auditors declared: "We see no use for such information except for partisan political purposes. Engaging in a purely political activity such as this is not a proper use of appropriated funds." ....
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.
In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.
The contract with Mr. Williams and the general contours of the public relations campaign had been known for months. The report Friday provided the first definitive ruling on the legality of the activities.
Lawyers from the accountability office, an independent nonpartisan arm of Congress, found that the administration systematically analyzed news articles to see if they carried the message, "The Bush administration/the G.O.P. is committed to education."
The auditors declared: "We see no use for such information except for partisan political purposes. Engaging in a purely political activity such as this is not a proper use of appropriated funds." ....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)