By: John Amato on Tuesday, July 24th, 2007 at 3:34 PM - PDT
I guess they really don’t like him….
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
FOX NEWS labels Arlen Specter a Democrat! [2nd time they've mis-labelled a Republican who asks tough questions of Bush admin]
FOX NEWS labels Arlen Specter a Democrat! |
global media was owned by 50 corporations ... in 2002 down to 9 ... now probably about 5 ...
The Invisible Government ... By John Pilger
In a speech in Chicago, John Pilger describes how propaganda has become such a potent force in our lives and, in the words of one of its founders, represents 'an invisible government'.
07/20/07 "ICH" -- - -The title of this talk is Freedom Next Time, which is the title of my book, and the book is meant as an antidote to the propaganda that is so often disguised as journalism. So I thought I would talk today about journalism, about war by journalism, propaganda, and silence, and how that silence might be broken. ...
...
Consider how the power of this invisible government has grown. In 1983 the principle global media was owned by 50 corporations, most of them American. In 2002 this had fallen to just 9 corporations. Today it is probably about 5. Rupert Murdoch has predicted that there will be just three global media giants, and his company will be one of them. This concentration of power is not exclusive of course to the United States. The BBC has announced it is expanding its broadcasts to the United States, because it believes Americans want principled, objective, neutral journalism for which the BBC is famous. They have launched BBC America. You may have seen the advertising.
The BBC began in 1922, just before the corporate press began in America. Its founder was Lord John Reith, who believed that impartiality and objectivity were the essence of professionalism. In the same year the British establishment was under siege. The unions had called a general strike and the Tories were terrified that a revolution was on the way. The new BBC came to their rescue. In high secrecy, Lord Reith wrote anti-union speeches for the Tory Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin and broadcast them to the nation, while refusing to allow the labor leaders to put their side until the strike was over.
So, a pattern was set. Impartiality was a principle certainly: a principle to be suspended whenever the establishment was under threat. And that principle has been upheld ever since.
...
Take the invasion of Iraq. There are two studies of the BBC's reporting. One shows that the BBC gave just 2 percent of its coverage of Iraq to antiwar dissent—2 percent. That is less than the antiwar coverage of ABC, NBC, and CBS. A second study by the University of Wales shows that in the buildup to the invasion, 90 percent of the BBC's references to weapons of mass destruction suggested that Saddam Hussein actually possessed them, and that by clear implication Bush and Blair were right. We now know that the BBC and other British media were used by the British secret intelligence service MI-6. In what they called Operation Mass Appeal, MI-6 agents planted stories about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, such as weapons hidden in his palaces and in secret underground bunkers. All of these stories were fake. But that's not the point. The point is that the work of MI-6 was unnecessary, because professional journalism on its own would have produced the same result.
...
... At the same time he imposed a medieval siege called economic sanctions, killing as I've mentioned, perhaps a million people, including a documented 500,000 children. Almost none of this carnage was reported in the so-called mainstream media. Last year a study published by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health found that since the invasion of Iraq 655, 000 Iraqis had died as a direct result of the invasion. Official documents show that the Blair government knew this figure to be credible. In February, Les Roberts, the author of the report, said the figure was equal to the figure for deaths in the Fordham University study of the Rwandan genocide. The media response to Robert's shocking revelation was silence. What may well be the greatest episode of organized killing for a generation, in Harold Pinter's words, "Did not happen. It didn't matter."
...
The enduring tragedy of Palestine is due in great part to the silence and compliance of the so-called liberal left. Hamas is described repeatedly as sworn to the destruction of Israel. The New York Times, the Associated Press, the Boston Globe—take your pick. They all use this line as a standard disclaimer, and it is false. That Hamas has called for a ten-year ceasefire is almost never reported. Even more important, that Hamas has undergone an historic ideological shift in the last few years, which amounts to a recognition of what it calls the reality of Israel, is virtually unknown; and that Israel is sworn to the destruction of Palestine is unspeakable.
There is a pioneering study by Glasgow University on the reporting of Palestine. They interviewed young people who watch TV news in Britain. More than 90 percent thought the illegal settlers were Palestinian. The more they watched, the less they knew—Danny Schecter's famous phrase.
...
I believe a fifth estate is possible, the product of a people's movement, that monitors, deconstructs, and counters the corporate media. In every university, in every media college, in every news room, teachers of journalism, journalists themselves need to ask themselves about the part they now play in the bloodshed in the name of a bogus objectivity. ...
...
We need to make haste. Liberal Democracy is moving toward a form of corporate dictatorship ...
In a speech in Chicago, John Pilger describes how propaganda has become such a potent force in our lives and, in the words of one of its founders, represents 'an invisible government'.
07/20/07 "ICH" -- - -The title of this talk is Freedom Next Time, which is the title of my book, and the book is meant as an antidote to the propaganda that is so often disguised as journalism. So I thought I would talk today about journalism, about war by journalism, propaganda, and silence, and how that silence might be broken. ...
...
Consider how the power of this invisible government has grown. In 1983 the principle global media was owned by 50 corporations, most of them American. In 2002 this had fallen to just 9 corporations. Today it is probably about 5. Rupert Murdoch has predicted that there will be just three global media giants, and his company will be one of them. This concentration of power is not exclusive of course to the United States. The BBC has announced it is expanding its broadcasts to the United States, because it believes Americans want principled, objective, neutral journalism for which the BBC is famous. They have launched BBC America. You may have seen the advertising.
The BBC began in 1922, just before the corporate press began in America. Its founder was Lord John Reith, who believed that impartiality and objectivity were the essence of professionalism. In the same year the British establishment was under siege. The unions had called a general strike and the Tories were terrified that a revolution was on the way. The new BBC came to their rescue. In high secrecy, Lord Reith wrote anti-union speeches for the Tory Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin and broadcast them to the nation, while refusing to allow the labor leaders to put their side until the strike was over.
So, a pattern was set. Impartiality was a principle certainly: a principle to be suspended whenever the establishment was under threat. And that principle has been upheld ever since.
...
Take the invasion of Iraq. There are two studies of the BBC's reporting. One shows that the BBC gave just 2 percent of its coverage of Iraq to antiwar dissent—2 percent. That is less than the antiwar coverage of ABC, NBC, and CBS. A second study by the University of Wales shows that in the buildup to the invasion, 90 percent of the BBC's references to weapons of mass destruction suggested that Saddam Hussein actually possessed them, and that by clear implication Bush and Blair were right. We now know that the BBC and other British media were used by the British secret intelligence service MI-6. In what they called Operation Mass Appeal, MI-6 agents planted stories about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, such as weapons hidden in his palaces and in secret underground bunkers. All of these stories were fake. But that's not the point. The point is that the work of MI-6 was unnecessary, because professional journalism on its own would have produced the same result.
...
... At the same time he imposed a medieval siege called economic sanctions, killing as I've mentioned, perhaps a million people, including a documented 500,000 children. Almost none of this carnage was reported in the so-called mainstream media. Last year a study published by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health found that since the invasion of Iraq 655, 000 Iraqis had died as a direct result of the invasion. Official documents show that the Blair government knew this figure to be credible. In February, Les Roberts, the author of the report, said the figure was equal to the figure for deaths in the Fordham University study of the Rwandan genocide. The media response to Robert's shocking revelation was silence. What may well be the greatest episode of organized killing for a generation, in Harold Pinter's words, "Did not happen. It didn't matter."
...
The enduring tragedy of Palestine is due in great part to the silence and compliance of the so-called liberal left. Hamas is described repeatedly as sworn to the destruction of Israel. The New York Times, the Associated Press, the Boston Globe—take your pick. They all use this line as a standard disclaimer, and it is false. That Hamas has called for a ten-year ceasefire is almost never reported. Even more important, that Hamas has undergone an historic ideological shift in the last few years, which amounts to a recognition of what it calls the reality of Israel, is virtually unknown; and that Israel is sworn to the destruction of Palestine is unspeakable.
There is a pioneering study by Glasgow University on the reporting of Palestine. They interviewed young people who watch TV news in Britain. More than 90 percent thought the illegal settlers were Palestinian. The more they watched, the less they knew—Danny Schecter's famous phrase.
...
I believe a fifth estate is possible, the product of a people's movement, that monitors, deconstructs, and counters the corporate media. In every university, in every media college, in every news room, teachers of journalism, journalists themselves need to ask themselves about the part they now play in the bloodshed in the name of a bogus objectivity. ...
...
We need to make haste. Liberal Democracy is moving toward a form of corporate dictatorship ...
[Bush] repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and oppose the Iraq war ...
Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement | Prof. Michel Chossudovsky , Globalresearch.ca | July 20, 2007
A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and oppose the Iraq war.
In substance, the Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of "certain persons" who oppose the US led war in Iraq:
"I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."
The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended to "blocking property" of US citizens and nationals. It targets those "Certain Persons" in America who oppose the Bush Administration's "peace and stability" program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians.
The Executive Order also targets those "Certain Persons" who are "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction", or who, again in plain English, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraq's oil resources, on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants. ...
A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and oppose the Iraq war.
In substance, the Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of "certain persons" who oppose the US led war in Iraq:
"I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."
The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended to "blocking property" of US citizens and nationals. It targets those "Certain Persons" in America who oppose the Bush Administration's "peace and stability" program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians.
The Executive Order also targets those "Certain Persons" who are "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction", or who, again in plain English, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraq's oil resources, on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants. ...
Saturday, July 21, 2007
country whose government silences admirable experts, allows lobbyist payoffs, demeans or arrests whistle blowers, rewards loyalty ...
Kathleen Reardon| BIO | Silencing The Surgeon General -- Just Where Is The Last Straw? | Posted July 11, 2007 | 03:27 PM (EST)
At some time most of us have wondered how diabolical leaders took over countries that were considered civilized. Were the people who allowed it culpable? Well, that's what the world wonders about the U.S. How did Americans let things get so bad? Why such tolerance of deception and endless corruption?
Now we learn that the former Surgeon General was the target of self-serving, White House political machinations. The current Bush administration, Dr. Carmona told a Congressional Panel Tuesday, would not allow him during his 2002 to 2006 term to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues. Top officials delayed for years and tried to "water down" a landmark report on secondhand smoke, he said. Released last year, the report concluded that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm. He was required to mention George Bush's name three times on each page of every speech.
This is the same administration that couldn't get water to Hurricane Katrina victims for days. OK, so let's just say that was botched by Brownie. In fact, let's go with the Gonzales Huh? defense too for a moment and all the other artful and not so artful dodging of responsibility. But now we're hearing from a two time purple heart recipient, M.D. once Surgeon General that he was prevented from informing the American people of significant dangers to their health.
While not shocked, we might wonder how this happened to such a brilliant man who'd defended and served his country honorably? No doubt some of his acquiescence at the time was out of loyalty -- a positive aspect of military or any training when not the only criteria for determining worth. Dr. Carmona attributed his tolerance to not fully appreciating what he stopped short of describing as the pathological political climate in which he'd been called to serve. If Bush and Cheney can keep such a man at bay, then no wonder they're still in charge.
This is what happens to a country whose government silences admirable experts, allows lobbyist payoffs, demeans or arrests whistle blowers, rewards loyalty above all else, hires on the basis of malleability rather than competence, and does what serves the present power cabal no matter how many people are harmed, injured or even killed in the process. ...
At some time most of us have wondered how diabolical leaders took over countries that were considered civilized. Were the people who allowed it culpable? Well, that's what the world wonders about the U.S. How did Americans let things get so bad? Why such tolerance of deception and endless corruption?
Now we learn that the former Surgeon General was the target of self-serving, White House political machinations. The current Bush administration, Dr. Carmona told a Congressional Panel Tuesday, would not allow him during his 2002 to 2006 term to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues. Top officials delayed for years and tried to "water down" a landmark report on secondhand smoke, he said. Released last year, the report concluded that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm. He was required to mention George Bush's name three times on each page of every speech.
This is the same administration that couldn't get water to Hurricane Katrina victims for days. OK, so let's just say that was botched by Brownie. In fact, let's go with the Gonzales Huh? defense too for a moment and all the other artful and not so artful dodging of responsibility. But now we're hearing from a two time purple heart recipient, M.D. once Surgeon General that he was prevented from informing the American people of significant dangers to their health.
While not shocked, we might wonder how this happened to such a brilliant man who'd defended and served his country honorably? No doubt some of his acquiescence at the time was out of loyalty -- a positive aspect of military or any training when not the only criteria for determining worth. Dr. Carmona attributed his tolerance to not fully appreciating what he stopped short of describing as the pathological political climate in which he'd been called to serve. If Bush and Cheney can keep such a man at bay, then no wonder they're still in charge.
This is what happens to a country whose government silences admirable experts, allows lobbyist payoffs, demeans or arrests whistle blowers, rewards loyalty above all else, hires on the basis of malleability rather than competence, and does what serves the present power cabal no matter how many people are harmed, injured or even killed in the process. ...
"What is left out of the version released publicly is the explicit statement that al Qaeda is back and has operations underway,"
Experts: Unclassified Report 'Pure Pablum,' Hides Truth | July 17, 2007 12:10 PM | Brian Ross Reports:
Intelligence analysts and the former White House counterterror official describe as "pure pablum" the unclassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate released today on terror threats to the United States.
"Nothing in here is going to surprise anybody who's been following this," said one senior U.S. intelligence official.
"It's more about what it doesn't say than what it does say," says Richard Clarke, the former White House official who is now an ABC News consultant.
"What is left out of the version released publicly is the explicit statement that al Qaeda is back and has operations underway," Clarke says.
The 2006 version of the National Intelligence Estimate claimed U.S. efforts had "seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa'ida and disrupted its operations."
"That's no longer the case in 2007, and you have to read between the lines to understand how we have lost ground," Clarke says. ...
Intelligence analysts and the former White House counterterror official describe as "pure pablum" the unclassified version of the National Intelligence Estimate released today on terror threats to the United States.
"Nothing in here is going to surprise anybody who's been following this," said one senior U.S. intelligence official.
"It's more about what it doesn't say than what it does say," says Richard Clarke, the former White House official who is now an ABC News consultant.
"What is left out of the version released publicly is the explicit statement that al Qaeda is back and has operations underway," Clarke says.
The 2006 version of the National Intelligence Estimate claimed U.S. efforts had "seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa'ida and disrupted its operations."
"That's no longer the case in 2007, and you have to read between the lines to understand how we have lost ground," Clarke says. ...
have volunteers check for folded cloth signs ... recommends drowning out protesters ... work with the Secret Service ...
The White House Has a Manual for Silencing Protesters and Demonstrations \ By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive. Posted July 14, 2007.
After a myriad of stories about people being excluded from events where the President is speaking, now we know that the White House had a policy manual on just how to do so.
...
In a section entitled "Preventing Demonstrators," the document says: "All Presidential events must be ticketed or accessed by a name list. This is the best method for preventing demonstrators. People who are obviously going to try to disrupt the event can be denied entrance at least to the VIP area between the stage and the main camera platform. ... It is important to have your volunteers at a checkpoint before the Magnetometers in order to stop a demonstrator from getting into the event. Look for signs they may be carrying, and if need be, have volunteers check for folded cloth signs that demonstrators may be bringing."
In another section, entitled "Preparing for Demonstrators," the document makes clear that the intention is to deprive protesters of the right to be seen or heard by the President: "As always, work with the Secret Service and have them ask the local police department to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route."
The document also recommends drowning out protesters or blocking their signs by using what it calls "rally squads." It states: "These squads should be instructed always to look for demonstrators. The rally squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform. If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protestors (USA!, USA!, USA!). As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site." ...
After a myriad of stories about people being excluded from events where the President is speaking, now we know that the White House had a policy manual on just how to do so.
...
In a section entitled "Preventing Demonstrators," the document says: "All Presidential events must be ticketed or accessed by a name list. This is the best method for preventing demonstrators. People who are obviously going to try to disrupt the event can be denied entrance at least to the VIP area between the stage and the main camera platform. ... It is important to have your volunteers at a checkpoint before the Magnetometers in order to stop a demonstrator from getting into the event. Look for signs they may be carrying, and if need be, have volunteers check for folded cloth signs that demonstrators may be bringing."
In another section, entitled "Preparing for Demonstrators," the document makes clear that the intention is to deprive protesters of the right to be seen or heard by the President: "As always, work with the Secret Service and have them ask the local police department to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route."
The document also recommends drowning out protesters or blocking their signs by using what it calls "rally squads." It states: "These squads should be instructed always to look for demonstrators. The rally squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform. If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protestors (USA!, USA!, USA!). As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site." ...
Monday, July 16, 2007
find not a single story connecting the dots, explaining the larger picture: the end of a remarkable democratic experiment which started in 1776 ...
Bush's Mafia Whacks the Republic | By Robert Parry | June 20, 2007
In years to come, historians may look back on U.S. press coverage of George W. Bush’s presidency and wonder why there was not a single front-page story announcing one of the most monumental events of mankind’s modern era – the death of the American Republic and the elimination of the “unalienable rights” pledged to “posterity” by the Founders.
The historians will, of course, find stories about elements of this extraordinary event – Bush’s denial of habeas corpus rights to a fair trial, his secret prisons, his tolerance of torture, his violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches, his “signing statements” overriding laws, the erosion of constitutional checks and balances.
But the historians will scroll through front pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and every other major newspaper – as well as scan the national network news and the 24-hour cable channels – and find not a single story connecting the dots, explaining the larger picture: the end of a remarkable democratic experiment which started in 1776 and which was phased out sometime in the early 21st century.
How, these historians may ask, did the U.S. press corps miss one of history’s most important developments? Was it a case like the proverbial frog that would have jumped to safety if tossed into boiling water but was slowly cooked to death when the water was brought to a slow boil?
Or was it that journalists and politicians intuitively knew that identifying too clearly what was happening in the United States would have compelled them to action, and that action would have meant losing their jobs and livelihoods? Perhaps, too, they understood that there was little they could do to change the larger reality, so why bother? ...
In years to come, historians may look back on U.S. press coverage of George W. Bush’s presidency and wonder why there was not a single front-page story announcing one of the most monumental events of mankind’s modern era – the death of the American Republic and the elimination of the “unalienable rights” pledged to “posterity” by the Founders.
The historians will, of course, find stories about elements of this extraordinary event – Bush’s denial of habeas corpus rights to a fair trial, his secret prisons, his tolerance of torture, his violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches, his “signing statements” overriding laws, the erosion of constitutional checks and balances.
But the historians will scroll through front pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and every other major newspaper – as well as scan the national network news and the 24-hour cable channels – and find not a single story connecting the dots, explaining the larger picture: the end of a remarkable democratic experiment which started in 1776 and which was phased out sometime in the early 21st century.
How, these historians may ask, did the U.S. press corps miss one of history’s most important developments? Was it a case like the proverbial frog that would have jumped to safety if tossed into boiling water but was slowly cooked to death when the water was brought to a slow boil?
Or was it that journalists and politicians intuitively knew that identifying too clearly what was happening in the United States would have compelled them to action, and that action would have meant losing their jobs and livelihoods? Perhaps, too, they understood that there was little they could do to change the larger reality, so why bother? ...
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Now that's Hardball ...What should be routine has become extraordinary.
(July 07, 2007 -- 11:21 AM EDT) | Now that's Hardball.
A month ago, Fouad Ajami, a prominent neocon at Johns Hopkins, wrote a bizarre op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in Scooter Libby's defense. "In 'The Soldier's Creed,'" Ajami wrote, "there is a particularly compelling principle: 'I will never leave a fallen comrade.' ... [Libby] can't be left behind as a casualty of a war our country had once proudly claimed as its own."
Yesterday, David Shuster, guest hosting MSNBC's Hardball, took Ajami to task for comparing Libby to American troops.
Ideally, this should be routine. A marginal neocon appeared on MSNBC to talk about a column he wrote a month ago. A professional broadcaster, who knew what he was talking about, pointed out the guest's errors of fact and judgment for the benefit of the television audience. At the risk of sounding ridiculous, this is what TV shows are supposed to do.
But exchanges like the one between Shuster and Ajami are so rare, that some of us see them and can barely contain our excitement. What should be routine has become extraordinary. ...
A month ago, Fouad Ajami, a prominent neocon at Johns Hopkins, wrote a bizarre op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in Scooter Libby's defense. "In 'The Soldier's Creed,'" Ajami wrote, "there is a particularly compelling principle: 'I will never leave a fallen comrade.' ... [Libby] can't be left behind as a casualty of a war our country had once proudly claimed as its own."
Yesterday, David Shuster, guest hosting MSNBC's Hardball, took Ajami to task for comparing Libby to American troops.
Ideally, this should be routine. A marginal neocon appeared on MSNBC to talk about a column he wrote a month ago. A professional broadcaster, who knew what he was talking about, pointed out the guest's errors of fact and judgment for the benefit of the television audience. At the risk of sounding ridiculous, this is what TV shows are supposed to do.
But exchanges like the one between Shuster and Ajami are so rare, that some of us see them and can barely contain our excitement. What should be routine has become extraordinary. ...
Right-wing talk dominates thanks to multiple market failures.nine out of every ten hours broadcast on talk-radio is exclusively conservative
Right-Wingers Are on the Defensive About Talk Radio Dominance By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted June 29, 2007.
...
But if that were all there was to the phenomenon, a new report by the Center for American Progress and the Free Press on right-wing talk's domination of the airwaves wouldn't be causing as much chagrin among conservative commentators as it has. The report, (PDF), "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," is stirring up the right-wing squawkers because its analysis flies in the face of conventional wisdom; Right-wing talk doesn't dominate AM radio because of the magical hand of a functional free market, it dominates thanks to multiple market failures. Even worse, those failures represent a strong case for better regulation of what goes out on the public's airwaves.
The report contrasts the amount of right-wing talk -- nine out of every ten hours broadcast on talk-radio is exclusively conservative -- with a talk-radio audience that, according to Pew Research, identifies itself as follows: forty-three percent of regular talk radio listeners are conservative, while "23 percent identify as liberal and 30 percent as moderate." In other words, fewer than half of those listening to some of the most feverish voices on the right are themselves self-identified conservatives.
...
An analysis of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations found that stations "owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows." In contrast, "stations controlled by group owners--those with stations in multiple markets or more than three stations in a single market--were statistically more likely to air conservative talk." [i.e. large monoply / oligipoly players broadcast conservate messages !! ed.]
Meanwhile, the national trend is towards ever more concentrated media companies -- local ownership is becoming harder and harder to find in many American markets. Advocates of deregulation have long insisted that it would lead to more rather than less diverse viewpoints on the airwaves, but the opposite has occurred.
Ultimately, that speaks to one of the key issues in media reform -- and one that most observers on the right refuse to acknowledge: Radio broadcasts are only possible using tens of billions of dollars worth of public airwaves. The promises of self-regulation have proven ineffective when it comes to the public's airwaves. That's dues as much to cultural changes in the industry as anything else; those airwaves once came with a sense of responsibility -- an understanding that broadcasters were in some way holding up their end of a public trust -- that is increasingly hard to find in corporate America today. Combined with three decades of almost obsessive deregulation, that cultural shift, ultimately, is the issue that the report's authors argue is among the most important in understanding talk radio's structural imbalance:
[T]he gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management. ...
..
But that's only true if one begins with the premise that the media has an important role in keeping the electorate informed. At the end of the day, that's the antithesis of right-wing talk.
...
But if that were all there was to the phenomenon, a new report by the Center for American Progress and the Free Press on right-wing talk's domination of the airwaves wouldn't be causing as much chagrin among conservative commentators as it has. The report, (PDF), "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," is stirring up the right-wing squawkers because its analysis flies in the face of conventional wisdom; Right-wing talk doesn't dominate AM radio because of the magical hand of a functional free market, it dominates thanks to multiple market failures. Even worse, those failures represent a strong case for better regulation of what goes out on the public's airwaves.
The report contrasts the amount of right-wing talk -- nine out of every ten hours broadcast on talk-radio is exclusively conservative -- with a talk-radio audience that, according to Pew Research, identifies itself as follows: forty-three percent of regular talk radio listeners are conservative, while "23 percent identify as liberal and 30 percent as moderate." In other words, fewer than half of those listening to some of the most feverish voices on the right are themselves self-identified conservatives.
...
An analysis of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations found that stations "owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows." In contrast, "stations controlled by group owners--those with stations in multiple markets or more than three stations in a single market--were statistically more likely to air conservative talk." [i.e. large monoply / oligipoly players broadcast conservate messages !! ed.]
Meanwhile, the national trend is towards ever more concentrated media companies -- local ownership is becoming harder and harder to find in many American markets. Advocates of deregulation have long insisted that it would lead to more rather than less diverse viewpoints on the airwaves, but the opposite has occurred.
Ultimately, that speaks to one of the key issues in media reform -- and one that most observers on the right refuse to acknowledge: Radio broadcasts are only possible using tens of billions of dollars worth of public airwaves. The promises of self-regulation have proven ineffective when it comes to the public's airwaves. That's dues as much to cultural changes in the industry as anything else; those airwaves once came with a sense of responsibility -- an understanding that broadcasters were in some way holding up their end of a public trust -- that is increasingly hard to find in corporate America today. Combined with three decades of almost obsessive deregulation, that cultural shift, ultimately, is the issue that the report's authors argue is among the most important in understanding talk radio's structural imbalance:
[T]he gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management. ...
..
But that's only true if one begins with the premise that the media has an important role in keeping the electorate informed. At the end of the day, that's the antithesis of right-wing talk.
2000 articles on "Whitewater" ... mainstream media have been virtually silent about the issue of election fraud ... despite suspicious 153% Bush surge
Election Fraud: Where’s the Outrage? Ernest Partridge, Co-Editor The Crisis Papers. July 3, 2007
...
Six and a half years and some $70 million taxpayers’ dollars later, Whitewater Special Prosecutor, Ken Starr, told the House Judiciary Committee that he lacked the evidence to continue his investigation. During those six plus years, the Washington Post published over 2000 articles about “Whitewater” (Media Matters, Nexis search), but neglected to give prominent space to Starr’s virtual exoneration of the Clintons.
Now compare this extended media frenzy over what turned out to be a non-story, with another story which, if true, strikes at the very heart of our democracy. This is the substantial and unrebutted evidence that the past two presidential elections, along with the intervening congressional elections, were stolen and that, by implication, the United States has, for the past six years, been ruled by an illegitimate government.
Just last month, astonishing new evidence has come forth that in 2004 millions of Kerry votes were “switched” to Bush, and millions more “graveyard votes” were added to Bush’s total. Mainstream media coverage? Nada! Instead the source is the New Zealand website, Scoop, and subsequently other progressive websites. I will return to this remarkable report later in this essay.
As noted, the mainstream media have been virtually silent about the issue of election fraud. ...
...
About that new evidence:On June 13, the New Zealand based website, Scoop, published Michael Collins’ “Election 2004: The Urban Legend.” In that election, eleven million more votes were cast than in the 2000 election. Of these additional votes, eight million were for Bush, and three million were for Kerry. By comparing the 2000 and 2004 totals from five distinct geographical regions – rural, small towns, suburbs, medium cities, and big cities – Collins has discovered that Bush’s support in the rural areas was unchanged, that he lost support in the small towns, and remained essentially even in the suburbs. These regions were the locations of most of Bush’s “base,” and this net decline indicated a landslide loss in the election.How, then, did Bush win?
We are expected to believe that he did so through an astonishing and totally inexplicable “surge” of support in the medium and large cities. In those big cities, Bush's support increased from 26 percent of the vote in 2000, to 39 percent in 2004, and from 2.3 million votes in 2000, to 5.4 million in 2004 – an increase of 153 percent. This “surge” of Bush-support encompassed urban whites, blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities, whose enthusiasm for Bush was utterly inconspicuous and unanticipated in the pre-election polling. So great was this enthusiasm, that the vote totals, in many urban precincts, exceeded the voter registration. In addition, there were apparently more than a few posthumous votes as well.
This “urban surge” took place, despite the fact that Bush and Cheney did relatively little campaigning in the cities, and that the Bush-Cheney issues (“gays, guns and God”) failed, by and large, to excite the interest of urban voters.With tongue firmly in cheek, Collins concludes,
After four years of national struggle and focus overseas, inner city Americans came to the polls in record numbers, voted more Republican than before or since, and gave George Bush the necessary votes for his victory in 2004!Is this Pattern Plausible or even Possible?
...
Read Collin's article, where you will encounter the numbers, the supporting argument, and extensive documentation. But don’t expect to find any of this it in the mainstream media.
...
Six and a half years and some $70 million taxpayers’ dollars later, Whitewater Special Prosecutor, Ken Starr, told the House Judiciary Committee that he lacked the evidence to continue his investigation. During those six plus years, the Washington Post published over 2000 articles about “Whitewater” (Media Matters, Nexis search), but neglected to give prominent space to Starr’s virtual exoneration of the Clintons.
Now compare this extended media frenzy over what turned out to be a non-story, with another story which, if true, strikes at the very heart of our democracy. This is the substantial and unrebutted evidence that the past two presidential elections, along with the intervening congressional elections, were stolen and that, by implication, the United States has, for the past six years, been ruled by an illegitimate government.
Just last month, astonishing new evidence has come forth that in 2004 millions of Kerry votes were “switched” to Bush, and millions more “graveyard votes” were added to Bush’s total. Mainstream media coverage? Nada! Instead the source is the New Zealand website, Scoop, and subsequently other progressive websites. I will return to this remarkable report later in this essay.
As noted, the mainstream media have been virtually silent about the issue of election fraud. ...
...
About that new evidence:On June 13, the New Zealand based website, Scoop, published Michael Collins’ “Election 2004: The Urban Legend.” In that election, eleven million more votes were cast than in the 2000 election. Of these additional votes, eight million were for Bush, and three million were for Kerry. By comparing the 2000 and 2004 totals from five distinct geographical regions – rural, small towns, suburbs, medium cities, and big cities – Collins has discovered that Bush’s support in the rural areas was unchanged, that he lost support in the small towns, and remained essentially even in the suburbs. These regions were the locations of most of Bush’s “base,” and this net decline indicated a landslide loss in the election.How, then, did Bush win?
We are expected to believe that he did so through an astonishing and totally inexplicable “surge” of support in the medium and large cities. In those big cities, Bush's support increased from 26 percent of the vote in 2000, to 39 percent in 2004, and from 2.3 million votes in 2000, to 5.4 million in 2004 – an increase of 153 percent. This “surge” of Bush-support encompassed urban whites, blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities, whose enthusiasm for Bush was utterly inconspicuous and unanticipated in the pre-election polling. So great was this enthusiasm, that the vote totals, in many urban precincts, exceeded the voter registration. In addition, there were apparently more than a few posthumous votes as well.
This “urban surge” took place, despite the fact that Bush and Cheney did relatively little campaigning in the cities, and that the Bush-Cheney issues (“gays, guns and God”) failed, by and large, to excite the interest of urban voters.With tongue firmly in cheek, Collins concludes,
After four years of national struggle and focus overseas, inner city Americans came to the polls in record numbers, voted more Republican than before or since, and gave George Bush the necessary votes for his victory in 2004!Is this Pattern Plausible or even Possible?
...
Read Collin's article, where you will encounter the numbers, the supporting argument, and extensive documentation. But don’t expect to find any of this it in the mainstream media.
Monday, June 25, 2007
64 percent supported the idea that "government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans ... but CBS says they do not
CBS's 'Sicko' Spin | Americans Don't Want Single-Payer Health—Except They Do | 6/25/07
On the June 22 broadcast of CBS Evening News, reporter Jeff Greenfield's critique of Michael Moore's documentary Sicko relied on a single premise: that the U.S. public and its political leaders do not embrace Moore's preferred solution (a single-payer system, where medical care is provided by private doctors and hospitals but paid for by the government). But that argument is at odds with the available evidence.
...
That assessment is contradicted by recent polling. In a recent CNN poll (5/4-5/6/07), 64 percent of respondents supported the idea that "government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes." And a recent CBS/New York Times poll (2/23-27/07) found 64 percent support for the idea that the federal government should "guarantee health insurance for all," and 60 percent supported paying higher taxes to provide such coverage. Additionally, 50 percent believed "fundamental changes" to the healthcare system were necessary, and another 40 percent thought the country needed to "completely rebuild" the system. ...
On the June 22 broadcast of CBS Evening News, reporter Jeff Greenfield's critique of Michael Moore's documentary Sicko relied on a single premise: that the U.S. public and its political leaders do not embrace Moore's preferred solution (a single-payer system, where medical care is provided by private doctors and hospitals but paid for by the government). But that argument is at odds with the available evidence.
...
That assessment is contradicted by recent polling. In a recent CNN poll (5/4-5/6/07), 64 percent of respondents supported the idea that "government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes." And a recent CBS/New York Times poll (2/23-27/07) found 64 percent support for the idea that the federal government should "guarantee health insurance for all," and 60 percent supported paying higher taxes to provide such coverage. Additionally, 50 percent believed "fundamental changes" to the healthcare system were necessary, and another 40 percent thought the country needed to "completely rebuild" the system. ...
Times suggests Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch bought off top US senator
Times suggests Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch bought off top US senator | John Byrne | Published: Sunday June 24, 2007
The New York Times plans "a look at how Rupert Murdoch has used his media empire to advance his personal and political agendas" in Monday's editions, a source familiar with the paper's planning tells RAW STORY.
The piece opens with the suggestion that Murdoch staved off legislation that could strangle his US business interest by buying off a senator.
"Congress was on the verge of limiting any company from owning local television stations that reached more than 35 percent of American homes. Mr. Murdoch’s Fox stations reached nearly 39 percent, meaning he would have to sell some," the Times reporters write. "In a late-night meeting just before Thanksgiving of 2003, Congressional leaders agreed to raise the limit — to 39 percent."
Sen. Trent Lott had opposed raising the limit.
"But in the end, he, too, agreed to the compromise," reports the Times. "It turns out he had a business connection to Mr. Murdoch. Months before, HarperCollins, Mr. Murdoch’s publishing house, had signed a $250,000 book deal to publish Mr. Lott’s memoir, 'Herding Cats,' records and interviews show." ...
The New York Times plans "a look at how Rupert Murdoch has used his media empire to advance his personal and political agendas" in Monday's editions, a source familiar with the paper's planning tells RAW STORY.
The piece opens with the suggestion that Murdoch staved off legislation that could strangle his US business interest by buying off a senator.
"Congress was on the verge of limiting any company from owning local television stations that reached more than 35 percent of American homes. Mr. Murdoch’s Fox stations reached nearly 39 percent, meaning he would have to sell some," the Times reporters write. "In a late-night meeting just before Thanksgiving of 2003, Congressional leaders agreed to raise the limit — to 39 percent."
Sen. Trent Lott had opposed raising the limit.
"But in the end, he, too, agreed to the compromise," reports the Times. "It turns out he had a business connection to Mr. Murdoch. Months before, HarperCollins, Mr. Murdoch’s publishing house, had signed a $250,000 book deal to publish Mr. Lott’s memoir, 'Herding Cats,' records and interviews show." ...
Laura Bush Falsely Claims That ‘Many’ Iraqi Refugees Have Been Welcomed Into The U.S. [69 vs 1.4 Million in Syria]
Laura Bush Falsely Claims That ‘Many’ Iraqi Refugees Have Been Welcomed Into The U.S.
This morning, during an interview with First Lady Laura Bush, CNN highlighted World Refugee Day and the effect that the war in Iraq has had on the number of refugees around the world. CNN reported Iraqis “who were helping the Americans or even helping their own country” are now targeted and must seek “refuge in other nations, as well as the United States.”
Bush responded saying, “Obviously we’re especially concerned about the Iraqi refugees.” She added, “We welcome many of those refugees, both from Iraq and Afghanistan into the United States.”
...
The First Lady is greatly exaggerating the administration’s policy. As the Baltimore Sun notes today, “as of May, only 69 Iraqis had entered the United States” this fiscal year. In total, the United States has “resettled fewer than 500 Iraqi refugees” since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Meanwhile, the situation in Iraq has become “the world’s fastest-growing refugee crisis.” Syria alone is hosting “1.4 million Iraqi ‘guests’” and Iraqi refugees have become increasingly desperate, some even resorting to prostitution. In total, there are more than two million Iraqi refugees. ...
This morning, during an interview with First Lady Laura Bush, CNN highlighted World Refugee Day and the effect that the war in Iraq has had on the number of refugees around the world. CNN reported Iraqis “who were helping the Americans or even helping their own country” are now targeted and must seek “refuge in other nations, as well as the United States.”
Bush responded saying, “Obviously we’re especially concerned about the Iraqi refugees.” She added, “We welcome many of those refugees, both from Iraq and Afghanistan into the United States.”
...
The First Lady is greatly exaggerating the administration’s policy. As the Baltimore Sun notes today, “as of May, only 69 Iraqis had entered the United States” this fiscal year. In total, the United States has “resettled fewer than 500 Iraqi refugees” since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Meanwhile, the situation in Iraq has become “the world’s fastest-growing refugee crisis.” Syria alone is hosting “1.4 million Iraqi ‘guests’” and Iraqi refugees have become increasingly desperate, some even resorting to prostitution. In total, there are more than two million Iraqi refugees. ...
Thursday, June 21, 2007
impending rate hike ... [passed with] plenty of corporate lobbying, would reward big publishers, while [bankrupting] these smaller periodicals
Small Magazines, Big Ideas | Bill Moyers
It's time to send an SOS for the least among us--I mean small independent magazines. ..
...
Our founding fathers knew this; knew that a low-cost postal incentive was crucial to giving voice to ideas from outside the main tent. So they made sure such publications would get a break in the cost of reaching their readers. That's now in jeopardy.
An impending rate hike, worked out by postal regulators, with almost no public input but plenty of corporate lobbying, would reward big publishers like Time Warner, while forcing these smaller periodicals into higher subscription fees, big cutbacks and even bankruptcy. ...
It's time to send an SOS for the least among us--I mean small independent magazines. ..
...
Our founding fathers knew this; knew that a low-cost postal incentive was crucial to giving voice to ideas from outside the main tent. So they made sure such publications would get a break in the cost of reaching their readers. That's now in jeopardy.
An impending rate hike, worked out by postal regulators, with almost no public input but plenty of corporate lobbying, would reward big publishers like Time Warner, while forcing these smaller periodicals into higher subscription fees, big cutbacks and even bankruptcy. ...
president used the pretext of 'national security' to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his 'war on terrorism,'
U.S. Rank on Press Freedom Slides Lower | By Nora Boustany | Washington Post Foreign Service | Tuesday, October 24, 2006; Page A15
...
The organization's fifth annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index tracks actions against news media through the end of September. The group noted its concern over the declining rankings of some Western democracies as well as the persistence of other countries in imposing harsh punishments on media that criticize political leaders.
...
Northern European countries top the index, with no reported censorship, threats, intimidation or physical reprisals, either by officials or the public, in Finland, Ireland, Iceland and the Netherlands. All of those countries were ranked in first place.
...
Although it ranked 17th on the first list, published in 2002, the United States now stands at 53, having fallen nine places since last year.
"Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of 'national security' to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his 'war on terrorism,' " the group said.
"The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 U.S. states, refuse to recognize the media's right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism," the group said.
...
The organization's fifth annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index tracks actions against news media through the end of September. The group noted its concern over the declining rankings of some Western democracies as well as the persistence of other countries in imposing harsh punishments on media that criticize political leaders.
...
Northern European countries top the index, with no reported censorship, threats, intimidation or physical reprisals, either by officials or the public, in Finland, Ireland, Iceland and the Netherlands. All of those countries were ranked in first place.
...
Although it ranked 17th on the first list, published in 2002, the United States now stands at 53, having fallen nine places since last year.
"Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of 'national security' to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his 'war on terrorism,' " the group said.
"The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 U.S. states, refuse to recognize the media's right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism," the group said.
critics, [MEMRI] is also a dangerous, highly sophisticated propaganda operation, disseminating hate and disinformation
MEMRI is ‘propaganda machine,’ expert says | By Lawrence Swaim, Staff Writer
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) provides daily English translations of film and print media stories originating in Arabic, Iranian and Turkish media.
It also furnishes original analysis of cultural, political and religious trends in the Middle East.
It sends its daily postings to every news outlet in the United States and Europe, in addition to politicians and cultural leaders.
And it’s free, which makes it a Godsend for journalists, editors and policy analysts.
But according to its critics, it is also a dangerous, highly sophisticated propaganda operation, disseminating hate and disinformation on an unprecedented worldwide basis.
...
MEMRI’s obsessive interest in protecting Israel derives from the people and interests that founded, fund and manage the institute’s international operations.
It was founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a former colonel in the Israel Defense Forces (Intelligence Branch) from 1968 until 1988, acting head of civil administration in the West Bank from 1977 to 1982; and Israeli-born Meyrav Wurmser, an extreme rightwing neoconservative now affiliated with the Hudson Institute.
Meyrav is married to David Wurmser, at one time an American Enterprise Institute "scholar" and then a State Department apparatchik under John Bolton.
Both participated in the collective writing of "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," a seminal 1996 neocon document that advocated an end to negotiations with the Palestinians and permanent war against the Arab world.
They also worked with Douglas Feith, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle and other rightwing ideologues who promoted and embellished the fiction that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. ...
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) provides daily English translations of film and print media stories originating in Arabic, Iranian and Turkish media.
It also furnishes original analysis of cultural, political and religious trends in the Middle East.
It sends its daily postings to every news outlet in the United States and Europe, in addition to politicians and cultural leaders.
And it’s free, which makes it a Godsend for journalists, editors and policy analysts.
But according to its critics, it is also a dangerous, highly sophisticated propaganda operation, disseminating hate and disinformation on an unprecedented worldwide basis.
...
MEMRI’s obsessive interest in protecting Israel derives from the people and interests that founded, fund and manage the institute’s international operations.
It was founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a former colonel in the Israel Defense Forces (Intelligence Branch) from 1968 until 1988, acting head of civil administration in the West Bank from 1977 to 1982; and Israeli-born Meyrav Wurmser, an extreme rightwing neoconservative now affiliated with the Hudson Institute.
Meyrav is married to David Wurmser, at one time an American Enterprise Institute "scholar" and then a State Department apparatchik under John Bolton.
Both participated in the collective writing of "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," a seminal 1996 neocon document that advocated an end to negotiations with the Palestinians and permanent war against the Arab world.
They also worked with Douglas Feith, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle and other rightwing ideologues who promoted and embellished the fiction that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. ...
Thursday, June 14, 2007
McCarthyism Watch ... ["they hate our freedom of speech" ... Bush]
McCarthyism Watch |
Iraq Vet Faces Penalty for Protesting War | June 1, 2007 By Matthew Rothschild
“Those who have risked their lives to defend the rights of all Americans have a special claim to those rights when they have completed their service,” says Adam Kokesh, who served as a Marine sergeant in Fallujah.
Vet Prosecuted for Opposing Recruitment in Library | May 14, 2007 By Matthew Rothschild
His wife was putting up 3x5 cards on the window of the room used by the recruiters.
“Don’t fall for it! Military recruiters lie,” said one.
“It’s not honorable to fight for a lying President,” said another.
Then the police came.
Top Teacher Shown the Door After Showing “Baghdad ER” | May 10, 2007 By Matthew Rothschild
“Teachers that teach against the grain often have difficulties with school systems. What has happened to me is certainly not unusual.”
Muslim American Grilled at Border Over Religion, Letter to the Editor | May 9, 2007 By Matthew Rothschild
“Now, not only am I being persecuted for my faith, but I’m being persecuted for a personal opinion. This is getting too Orwellian. Is this what it comes down to? Is this where I live? Is this the country I love?”
...
... and 100 more examples ...
Iraq Vet Faces Penalty for Protesting War | June 1, 2007 By Matthew Rothschild
“Those who have risked their lives to defend the rights of all Americans have a special claim to those rights when they have completed their service,” says Adam Kokesh, who served as a Marine sergeant in Fallujah.
Vet Prosecuted for Opposing Recruitment in Library | May 14, 2007 By Matthew Rothschild
His wife was putting up 3x5 cards on the window of the room used by the recruiters.
“Don’t fall for it! Military recruiters lie,” said one.
“It’s not honorable to fight for a lying President,” said another.
Then the police came.
Top Teacher Shown the Door After Showing “Baghdad ER” | May 10, 2007 By Matthew Rothschild
“Teachers that teach against the grain often have difficulties with school systems. What has happened to me is certainly not unusual.”
Muslim American Grilled at Border Over Religion, Letter to the Editor | May 9, 2007 By Matthew Rothschild
“Now, not only am I being persecuted for my faith, but I’m being persecuted for a personal opinion. This is getting too Orwellian. Is this what it comes down to? Is this where I live? Is this the country I love?”
...
... and 100 more examples ...
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
For seven (7) hours, MSNBC hosted only conservatives and reporters to discuss immigration
Tue, Jun 12, 2007 7:43pm EST | For seven hours, MSNBC hosted only conservatives and reporters to discuss immigration
During the seven hours of the June 11 edition of MSNBC Live (9 a.m.-4 p.m. ET), 15 segments aired about immigration or the Senate immigration bill, none of which featured a Democratic or progressive commentator. Indeed, in nine of the 15 segments, the anchor interviewed a conservative anti-immigration activist who had opposed the bill -- including six separate solo interviews with MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan. The remaining six segments consisted of two panels with Buchanan and conservative activist and Manhattan Institute senior fellow Tamar Jacoby (who, alone among the guests, favored the recent immigration bill), an interview with Congressional Quarterly immigration reporter Michael Sandler, an interview with MSNBC terrorism analyst Joe Cantamessa, and two reports from MSNBC congressional correspondent Mike Viqueira. ...
During the seven hours of the June 11 edition of MSNBC Live (9 a.m.-4 p.m. ET), 15 segments aired about immigration or the Senate immigration bill, none of which featured a Democratic or progressive commentator. Indeed, in nine of the 15 segments, the anchor interviewed a conservative anti-immigration activist who had opposed the bill -- including six separate solo interviews with MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan. The remaining six segments consisted of two panels with Buchanan and conservative activist and Manhattan Institute senior fellow Tamar Jacoby (who, alone among the guests, favored the recent immigration bill), an interview with Congressional Quarterly immigration reporter Michael Sandler, an interview with MSNBC terrorism analyst Joe Cantamessa, and two reports from MSNBC congressional correspondent Mike Viqueira. ...
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Iraq war occupied 20 percent of CNN's daytime news, 18 % of MSNBC ... and 6 % of Fox ...
War takes up less time on Fox News | By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer Mon Jun 11, 9:52 AM ET
NEW YORK - On a winter day when bomb blasts at an Iraqi university killed dozens and the United Nations estimated that 34,000 civilians in Iraq had died in 2006, MSNBC spent nearly nine minutes on the stories during the 1 p.m. hour. A CNN correspondent in Iraq did a three-minute report about the bombings.
Neither story merited a mention on Fox News Channel that hour.
That wasn't unusual. Fox spent half as much time covering the Iraq war than MSNBC during the first three months of the year, and considerably less than CNN, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
The difference was more stark during daytime news hours than in prime-time opinion shows. The Iraq war occupied 20 percent of CNN's daytime news hole and 18 percent of MSNBC's. On Fox, the war was talked about only 6 percent of the time. ...
NEW YORK - On a winter day when bomb blasts at an Iraqi university killed dozens and the United Nations estimated that 34,000 civilians in Iraq had died in 2006, MSNBC spent nearly nine minutes on the stories during the 1 p.m. hour. A CNN correspondent in Iraq did a three-minute report about the bombings.
Neither story merited a mention on Fox News Channel that hour.
That wasn't unusual. Fox spent half as much time covering the Iraq war than MSNBC during the first three months of the year, and considerably less than CNN, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
The difference was more stark during daytime news hours than in prime-time opinion shows. The Iraq war occupied 20 percent of CNN's daytime news hole and 18 percent of MSNBC's. On Fox, the war was talked about only 6 percent of the time. ...
Saturday, June 09, 2007
fifteen minutes on Paris Hilton ... Here are a couple of stories your local news outlet probably did not cover:
TortureJoseph Cannon, Cannonfire | June 8, 2007
Yesterday, my local news station spent nearly fifteen minutes on Paris Hilton. Your news outlet probably did the same. We had a national dialogue on Paris Hilton -- which (Americans being what they are) soon became, in private, a national dialogue on the do-ability of Paris Hilton.
That's what we care about, y'see.
What we don't care about is torture -- torture committed by Americans and funded by taxpayers. Here are a couple of stories your local news outlet probably did not cover: ...
... Two Roman Catholic priests, Jesuit Fr. Steve Kelly and Franciscan Fr. Louie Vitale, are willing to go to prison to expose the fact that young soldiers at Fort Huachuca are being trained to torture. ..
... Psychologists play a large role in American torture: Robert Lifton, as I recall, once did a study on the Nazi doctors. How is it that men (and women) trained to heal could become accessories to evil?
Two years ago, after a leaked report from the International Committee of the Red Cross criticizing the role of health professionals in U.S. interrogations, the American Psychological Association formed its Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS). There were nine voting members. Six of them were connected to the military. At the time, the identities of the panelists were secret. The PENS panel endorsed the continued participation of psychologists in military interrogations. ...
Yesterday, my local news station spent nearly fifteen minutes on Paris Hilton. Your news outlet probably did the same. We had a national dialogue on Paris Hilton -- which (Americans being what they are) soon became, in private, a national dialogue on the do-ability of Paris Hilton.
That's what we care about, y'see.
What we don't care about is torture -- torture committed by Americans and funded by taxpayers. Here are a couple of stories your local news outlet probably did not cover: ...
... Two Roman Catholic priests, Jesuit Fr. Steve Kelly and Franciscan Fr. Louie Vitale, are willing to go to prison to expose the fact that young soldiers at Fort Huachuca are being trained to torture. ..
... Psychologists play a large role in American torture: Robert Lifton, as I recall, once did a study on the Nazi doctors. How is it that men (and women) trained to heal could become accessories to evil?
Two years ago, after a leaked report from the International Committee of the Red Cross criticizing the role of health professionals in U.S. interrogations, the American Psychological Association formed its Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS). There were nine voting members. Six of them were connected to the military. At the time, the identities of the panelists were secret. The PENS panel endorsed the continued participation of psychologists in military interrogations. ...
fear-mongering presidential candidates like Rudy Giuliani wasting no time laying the JFK plot and the Fort Dix plot at the feet of "Islamic terrorists
Arianna Huffington| BIO | The JFK Pipeline "Plot": Another "Chilling" Example of Political and Media Hyperbole | Posted June 6, 2007 | 08:35 PM (EST)
The JFK pipeline plot appears to be the work of yet another gang that couldn't jihad straight.
Its ring leader made a living exporting broken air-conditioner parts to Guyana. Talk about your boom market! Where can I buy stock?
There was no set plan. There was no financing. They didn't have any explosives -- and yet government officials were quoted calling the amorphous plot "one of the most chilling plots imaginable" that almost "resulted in unfathomable damage, deaths, and destruction." And people wonder why the public has become cynical about how the war on terror is being used for political purposes.
What's more, the wave of red alert press coverage turns out to have been based on a misunderstanding of how jet fuel pipelines work. "Such an attack would have crippled America's economy," wailed AP's Adam Goldman. And people wonder why the public has become cynical about how the media uses the war on terror to boost their ratings and circulation.
We've been down this road before, with the Fort Dix Six. We are told again and again that if we don't fight "them" over there, we'll have to fight "them" over here -- perhaps at Circuit City, where all new jihadists take their holy war recruitment tapes to be burned onto a DVD.
And we traveled a similar path with that supposedly terrifying plot to bring down the Sears Tower that was hatched by the "Seas of David" nut jobs down in Liberty City, Florida and egged on by the FBI. These things always seem to follow a pattern: Start with a big media splash: "We got the bad guys! We saved the country!" Then it slowly comes out that the terrorists might not have been so terrifying. Indeed, they are boobs that go to Circuit City to get their jihadist recruitment video burned onto DVD, or they are low-level criminals with delusions of grandeur, goaded into grander fantasies and bigger targets by informants who are getting paid or getting their sentences reduced by the FBI if they deliver.
Then we have fear-mongering presidential candidates like Rudy Giuliani wasting no time laying the JFK plot and the Fort Dix plot at the feet of "Islamic terrorists" -- raising the specter of Osama bin Laden.
It's almost comical how Giuliani keeps trying to present himself as a national security expert. Let's not forget: this is the guy who strongly backed the scandal-plagued Bernie Kerik to be in charge of Homeland Security. Is that the kind of appointment we can expect from President Giuliani (even saying the words makes me feel less safe)? ...
The JFK pipeline plot appears to be the work of yet another gang that couldn't jihad straight.
Its ring leader made a living exporting broken air-conditioner parts to Guyana. Talk about your boom market! Where can I buy stock?
There was no set plan. There was no financing. They didn't have any explosives -- and yet government officials were quoted calling the amorphous plot "one of the most chilling plots imaginable" that almost "resulted in unfathomable damage, deaths, and destruction." And people wonder why the public has become cynical about how the war on terror is being used for political purposes.
What's more, the wave of red alert press coverage turns out to have been based on a misunderstanding of how jet fuel pipelines work. "Such an attack would have crippled America's economy," wailed AP's Adam Goldman. And people wonder why the public has become cynical about how the media uses the war on terror to boost their ratings and circulation.
We've been down this road before, with the Fort Dix Six. We are told again and again that if we don't fight "them" over there, we'll have to fight "them" over here -- perhaps at Circuit City, where all new jihadists take their holy war recruitment tapes to be burned onto a DVD.
And we traveled a similar path with that supposedly terrifying plot to bring down the Sears Tower that was hatched by the "Seas of David" nut jobs down in Liberty City, Florida and egged on by the FBI. These things always seem to follow a pattern: Start with a big media splash: "We got the bad guys! We saved the country!" Then it slowly comes out that the terrorists might not have been so terrifying. Indeed, they are boobs that go to Circuit City to get their jihadist recruitment video burned onto DVD, or they are low-level criminals with delusions of grandeur, goaded into grander fantasies and bigger targets by informants who are getting paid or getting their sentences reduced by the FBI if they deliver.
Then we have fear-mongering presidential candidates like Rudy Giuliani wasting no time laying the JFK plot and the Fort Dix plot at the feet of "Islamic terrorists" -- raising the specter of Osama bin Laden.
It's almost comical how Giuliani keeps trying to present himself as a national security expert. Let's not forget: this is the guy who strongly backed the scandal-plagued Bernie Kerik to be in charge of Homeland Security. Is that the kind of appointment we can expect from President Giuliani (even saying the words makes me feel less safe)? ...
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
So, CNN simply removed the comments and replaced them with apage of comments about last night's Democratic debate
"VANISHED" CNN COMMENTS ON RON PAUL IN THE DEBATE
CNN put up a comments page about tonight's New Hampshire GOP debate at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/03/who-won-the-debate/#comments.
The comments were overwhelmingly for Ron Paul.
So, CNN simply removed the comments and replaced them with apage of comments about last night's Democratic debate.
Here is a copy of the comments as they were before CNN removed before removed them.
June 5, 2007 Who won?
The GOP presidential debate just ended — who shined and who faltered? Add a comment to weigh in.
Filed under Uncategorized Posted 6/5/2007 11:05:00 PM | Permalink 179 Comments comment | Add a comment
Ron Paul
Posted By Neil, Lexington Ky : June 5, 2007 9:13 pm
Ron Paul
Posted By Joe, San Francisco, CA : June 5, 2007 9:14 pm
Only one candidate stood out strongly: Doctor Ron Paul! Ron Paul, Dr. Ron Paul! :)
Posted By Dave, Naples, NY : June 5, 2007 9:15 pm
Ron Paul won. Without a question. It's so ridiculous to see that these guys keep pumping the same neo-conservative line about them "hating our freedoms" when CIA reports have historically said otherwise.
Posted By Elias Ambler : June 5, 2007 9:16 pm
Ron Paul won the debate. He is the only candidate that seems to be honest and not out of touch. He is also anti-amnesty and believes that Americans have the right to privacy and believes in property rights (anti-eminent domain: none of the other candidates have even touched it). Before this debate I was unsure about who to support (Democrat or Republican) and with this debate I'm totally with Ron Paul.
Posted By Jerel Poor, St Louis Missouri : June 5, 2007 9:18 pm
Ron Paul ...
Ron Paul ...
Ron Paul ...
Ron Paul ...
CNN put up a comments page about tonight's New Hampshire GOP debate at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/03/who-won-the-debate/#comments.
The comments were overwhelmingly for Ron Paul.
So, CNN simply removed the comments and replaced them with apage of comments about last night's Democratic debate.
Here is a copy of the comments as they were before CNN removed before removed them.
June 5, 2007 Who won?
The GOP presidential debate just ended — who shined and who faltered? Add a comment to weigh in.
Filed under Uncategorized Posted 6/5/2007 11:05:00 PM | Permalink 179 Comments comment | Add a comment
Ron Paul
Posted By Neil, Lexington Ky : June 5, 2007 9:13 pm
Ron Paul
Posted By Joe, San Francisco, CA : June 5, 2007 9:14 pm
Only one candidate stood out strongly: Doctor Ron Paul! Ron Paul, Dr. Ron Paul! :)
Posted By Dave, Naples, NY : June 5, 2007 9:15 pm
Ron Paul won. Without a question. It's so ridiculous to see that these guys keep pumping the same neo-conservative line about them "hating our freedoms" when CIA reports have historically said otherwise.
Posted By Elias Ambler : June 5, 2007 9:16 pm
Ron Paul won the debate. He is the only candidate that seems to be honest and not out of touch. He is also anti-amnesty and believes that Americans have the right to privacy and believes in property rights (anti-eminent domain: none of the other candidates have even touched it). Before this debate I was unsure about who to support (Democrat or Republican) and with this debate I'm totally with Ron Paul.
Posted By Jerel Poor, St Louis Missouri : June 5, 2007 9:18 pm
Ron Paul ...
Ron Paul ...
Ron Paul ...
Ron Paul ...
Monday, June 04, 2007
JFK airport plot had little chance of success, according to safety experts, who have questioned whether the plot ever posed a real threat.
Experts cast doubt on credibility of JFK terror plot | Monday June 4, 2007
An alleged plot to blow up fuel tanks and pipelines at New York's JFK airport had little chance of success, according to safety experts, who have questioned whether the plot ever posed a real threat.
US authorities said Saturday they had averted an attack that could have resulted in "unfathomable damage, deaths, and destruction," and charged four alleged Islamic radicals with conspiracy to cause an explosion at the airport.
But according to the experts, it would have been next to impossible to cause an explosion in the jet fuel tanks and pipeline. Furthermore, the plotters seem to have lacked the explosives and financial backing to carry out the attack. ...
An alleged plot to blow up fuel tanks and pipelines at New York's JFK airport had little chance of success, according to safety experts, who have questioned whether the plot ever posed a real threat.
US authorities said Saturday they had averted an attack that could have resulted in "unfathomable damage, deaths, and destruction," and charged four alleged Islamic radicals with conspiracy to cause an explosion at the airport.
But according to the experts, it would have been next to impossible to cause an explosion in the jet fuel tanks and pipeline. Furthermore, the plotters seem to have lacked the explosives and financial backing to carry out the attack. ...
[Ed. Freedom in General]: Mr. Cheney still holds hundreds of thousands of stock options that have ballooned by millions of dollars as Halliburton ...
Dick Cheney RulesPublished: June 3, 2007
Americans are accustomed to Vice President Dick Cheney’s waiting out a terrorist threat in a “secure undisclosed location.” Now it seems that Mr. Cheney wears the cloak of invisibility in secure disclosed locations.
The Associated Press reported that Mr. Cheney’s office ordered the Secret Service last September to destroy all records of visitors to the official vice presidential mansion — right after The Washington Post sued for access to the logs. That move was made in secret, naturally. It came out only because of another lawsuit, filed by a private group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, seeking the names of conservative religious figures who visited the vice president’s residence.
This disdain for accountability is distressing, but not surprising. Mr. Cheney has had it on display from his first days in office, when he refused to name the energy-industry executives who met with him behind closed doors to draft an energy policy. ...
...
From 2001 to 2005, Mr. Cheney received “deferred salary payments” from Halliburton that far exceeded what taxpayers gave him. Mr. Cheney still holds hundreds of thousands of stock options that have ballooned by millions of dollars as Halliburton profited handsomely from the war in Iraq.
Reviewing this record — secrecy, impatience with government regulations, backroom dealings, handsome paydays — it dawned on us that Mr. Cheney is in step with the times. He has privatized the job of vice president of the United States.
Americans are accustomed to Vice President Dick Cheney’s waiting out a terrorist threat in a “secure undisclosed location.” Now it seems that Mr. Cheney wears the cloak of invisibility in secure disclosed locations.
The Associated Press reported that Mr. Cheney’s office ordered the Secret Service last September to destroy all records of visitors to the official vice presidential mansion — right after The Washington Post sued for access to the logs. That move was made in secret, naturally. It came out only because of another lawsuit, filed by a private group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, seeking the names of conservative religious figures who visited the vice president’s residence.
This disdain for accountability is distressing, but not surprising. Mr. Cheney has had it on display from his first days in office, when he refused to name the energy-industry executives who met with him behind closed doors to draft an energy policy. ...
...
From 2001 to 2005, Mr. Cheney received “deferred salary payments” from Halliburton that far exceeded what taxpayers gave him. Mr. Cheney still holds hundreds of thousands of stock options that have ballooned by millions of dollars as Halliburton profited handsomely from the war in Iraq.
Reviewing this record — secrecy, impatience with government regulations, backroom dealings, handsome paydays — it dawned on us that Mr. Cheney is in step with the times. He has privatized the job of vice president of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)