Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand - New York TimesMessage Machine | By DAVID BARSTOW | Published: April 20, 2008
...
The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.
...
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. ...
Friday, May 02, 2008
Greg Mitchell: The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media - Politics on The Huffington Post
Greg Mitchell: The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media - Politics on The Huffington PostGREG MITCHELL | April 16, 2008
In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin -- while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.
Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of right-wing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued.
More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and -- you name it. Gibson only got excited complaining that someone might raise his capital gains tax. Yet neither candidate had the courage to ask the moderators to turn to those far more important issues. Talking heads on other networks followed up by not pressing that point either. The crowd booed Gibson near the end. Why didn't every other responsible journalist on TV? ...
Thursday, May 01, 2008
senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama.: [emails] dail
Peter Dreier: Sidney Blumenthal Uses Former Right-Wing Foes To Attack Obama - Off The Bus on The Huffington PostMay 1, 2008 | Peter Dreier
Former journalist Sidney Blumenthal has been widely credited with coining the term "vast right-wing conspiracy" used by Hillary Clinton in 1998 to describe the alliance of conservative media, think tanks, and political operatives that sought to destroy the Clinton White House where he worked as a high-level aide. A decade later, and now acting as a senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama. And he's not hesitating to use the same sort of guilt-by-association tactics that have been the hallmark of the political right dating back to the McCarthy era.
Almost every day over the past six months, I have been the recipient of an email that attacks Obama's character, political views, electability, and real or manufactured associations. The original source of many of these hit pieces are virulent and sometimes extreme right-wing websites, bloggers, and publications. But they aren't being emailed out from some fringe right-wing group that somehow managed to get my email address. Instead, it is Sidney Blumenthal who, on a regular basis, methodically dispatches these email mudballs to an influential list of opinion shapers -- including journalists, former Clinton administration officials, academics, policy entrepreneurs, and think tankers -- in what is an obvious attempt to create an echo chamber that reverberates among talk shows, columnists, and Democratic Party funders and activists. One of the recipients of the Blumenthal email blast, himself a Clinton supporter, forwards the material to me and perhaps to others.
...
To cite just one recent example, Blumenthal circulated an article taken from the fervently hard-right AIM website on February 18 entitled, "Obama's Communist Mentor" by Cliff Kincaid. Kincaid is a right-wing writer and activist, a longtime critic of the United Nations, whose group, America's Survival, has been funded by foundations controlled by conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife, the same millionaire who helped fund attacks on the Clintons during their White House years. Scaife also funds AIM, the right-wing media "watchdog" group. ...
Meanwhile, how are we evaluating the would-be Democratic nominee? Based on orange juice, of course. Why? Because the Republicans say so.
Bob Cesca: The Very Serious Debate, Starring The Very Serious GeorgePosted April 17, 2008 | Bob Cesca
We like to joke about the "very serious" traditional media. The truth is that while they claim exclusive lordship over integrity and professionalism -- not to mention a corner on the world's supply of pants made of smarty -- they're really a freak show with serious haircuts and suits. They're a wing of the Republican corporatist conspiracy against America. And the very serious moderators of last night's Democratic debate couldn't have been less serious if they had been wearing clown suits made of dildos while simultaneously tickling each other with monkeys.
I don't really even need to write this. The nation has witnessed, firsthand, George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson for who they really are: pandering yellow journalists. Carnival barkers. They're Penn & Teller without the talent or insight.
To wit... 50 minutes without a single substantive question. Fifty. ...
...
Whether the questions were about Wright and Bosnia, or about guns and Iran, every single topic was framed from the perspective of the Republicans, with an eye on what the Republicans might say about him or her in the general election. So, I have to ask: since when did this become a primary race about which Democrat most resembles George W. Bush and John W. McCain?
It confounds logic that, on one hand, Senator Obama is repeatedly asked to explain why rural America is bitter, while, on the other hand, his qualifications for the presidency are being evaluated based on his goddamn bowling skills. Seriously, what the hell is going on here? The Bush Republicans are responsible for perhaps the worst economic crisis since World War II. They're responsible for a $3 trillion occupation and decades of future blowback. They're responsible for selling our sovereignty to foreign governments. They're responsible for trampling our liberty and national character. And there was Senator McCain on Hardball the other night talking about war in Iran, while pledging to make permanent the Bush tax cuts for the super rich. Both of which would make matters far, far worse.
Meanwhile, how are we evaluating the would-be Democratic nominee? Based on orange juice, of course. Why? Because the Republicans say so. ...
We like to joke about the "very serious" traditional media. The truth is that while they claim exclusive lordship over integrity and professionalism -- not to mention a corner on the world's supply of pants made of smarty -- they're really a freak show with serious haircuts and suits. They're a wing of the Republican corporatist conspiracy against America. And the very serious moderators of last night's Democratic debate couldn't have been less serious if they had been wearing clown suits made of dildos while simultaneously tickling each other with monkeys.
I don't really even need to write this. The nation has witnessed, firsthand, George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson for who they really are: pandering yellow journalists. Carnival barkers. They're Penn & Teller without the talent or insight.
To wit... 50 minutes without a single substantive question. Fifty. ...
...
Whether the questions were about Wright and Bosnia, or about guns and Iran, every single topic was framed from the perspective of the Republicans, with an eye on what the Republicans might say about him or her in the general election. So, I have to ask: since when did this become a primary race about which Democrat most resembles George W. Bush and John W. McCain?
It confounds logic that, on one hand, Senator Obama is repeatedly asked to explain why rural America is bitter, while, on the other hand, his qualifications for the presidency are being evaluated based on his goddamn bowling skills. Seriously, what the hell is going on here? The Bush Republicans are responsible for perhaps the worst economic crisis since World War II. They're responsible for a $3 trillion occupation and decades of future blowback. They're responsible for selling our sovereignty to foreign governments. They're responsible for trampling our liberty and national character. And there was Senator McCain on Hardball the other night talking about war in Iran, while pledging to make permanent the Bush tax cuts for the super rich. Both of which would make matters far, far worse.
Meanwhile, how are we evaluating the would-be Democratic nominee? Based on orange juice, of course. Why? Because the Republicans say so. ...
Sunday, April 27, 2008
TV Military ‘Analysts’ Are Part Ike's ... unwarranted influence ...by the military-industrial complex [Propaganda]
TV Military ‘Analysts’ Are Part of What Ike Warned AgainstA New York Times report shines a light on how the military-industrial complex tries to shape broadcast news. - CommonDreams.orgSunday, April 27, 2008 by the Maine Sunday Telegram
...
They were the faces of nine retired military officers (there were more inside the paper) who appear regularly on network and cable television news to give viewers informed, independent assessments of the war in Iraq.
At least that was the idea.
What viewers have been getting, the Times revealed, is something quite different. The paper reported convincingly that some retired officers appearing as “military analysts” have been pushing Pentagon propaganda in return for continued access to top officials and financial benefit for themselves.
According to the Times report, “Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department.
“In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated,” the report said. “Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access. A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public.”
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, an enthusiastic golfer in his presidential years, left behind more than spike marks on the White House floor. He stood at a convergence in American history. He knew it. And he gave voice to a solemn warning, delivered in 1961, three days before he left office.
Eisenhower, a renowned World War II general, declared, “Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
“In the councils of government,” he warned, “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. ...
...
They were the faces of nine retired military officers (there were more inside the paper) who appear regularly on network and cable television news to give viewers informed, independent assessments of the war in Iraq.
At least that was the idea.
What viewers have been getting, the Times revealed, is something quite different. The paper reported convincingly that some retired officers appearing as “military analysts” have been pushing Pentagon propaganda in return for continued access to top officials and financial benefit for themselves.
According to the Times report, “Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department.
“In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated,” the report said. “Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access. A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public.”
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, an enthusiastic golfer in his presidential years, left behind more than spike marks on the White House floor. He stood at a convergence in American history. He knew it. And he gave voice to a solemn warning, delivered in 1961, three days before he left office.
Eisenhower, a renowned World War II general, declared, “Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
“In the councils of government,” he warned, “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. ...
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
government program to corrupt the free flow of information that serves
Propaganda at Home - CommonDreams.orgTuesday, April 22, 2008 by The Boston Globe
Anyone who has watched the military analysts hired by TV networks has heard rosy assessments of the war in Iraq. The similarities between their judgments and the Pentagon’s are not coincidental. As The New York Times demonstrated by suing the Pentagon to obtain 8,000 pages of documents, those analysts were enlisted by the Defense Department in a psychological warfare operation targeting the domestic audience. And, as the newspaper reported Sunday, many of the retired military officers appearing on news shows were using their access to the Pentagon and the airwaves to procure lucrative contracts for some 150 defense contractors, which employed them as consultants, board members, lobbyists, or executives.
This is no subtle attempt to influence public opinion. It is a government program to corrupt the free flow of information that serves, in a healthy democracy, to inoculate the public against official lies, bad policy, and misbegotten wars.One straightforward corrective would be for TV news executives to require full disclosure of their analysts’ business interests as well as their contacts and junkets with military and government officials. Ideally, the television news shows would not have to rely on paid outside experts. They should trust their own reporters to gather news from disparate sources, and to interview former and serving officers who can offer informed commentary from diverse viewpoints.
...
This is a tactic more suitable for Vladimir Putin’s Russia. In fact, the Pentagon’s manipulation of the media has been more deft than the Kremlin’s because it was better hidden.
In the end, the government’s disguised lies have done more damage to American democracy and the national interest than to any foreign enemy. History’s epitaph for the Pentagon’s psywar operation will be: “We fooled ourselves.”
Anyone who has watched the military analysts hired by TV networks has heard rosy assessments of the war in Iraq. The similarities between their judgments and the Pentagon’s are not coincidental. As The New York Times demonstrated by suing the Pentagon to obtain 8,000 pages of documents, those analysts were enlisted by the Defense Department in a psychological warfare operation targeting the domestic audience. And, as the newspaper reported Sunday, many of the retired military officers appearing on news shows were using their access to the Pentagon and the airwaves to procure lucrative contracts for some 150 defense contractors, which employed them as consultants, board members, lobbyists, or executives.
This is no subtle attempt to influence public opinion. It is a government program to corrupt the free flow of information that serves, in a healthy democracy, to inoculate the public against official lies, bad policy, and misbegotten wars.One straightforward corrective would be for TV news executives to require full disclosure of their analysts’ business interests as well as their contacts and junkets with military and government officials. Ideally, the television news shows would not have to rely on paid outside experts. They should trust their own reporters to gather news from disparate sources, and to interview former and serving officers who can offer informed commentary from diverse viewpoints.
...
This is a tactic more suitable for Vladimir Putin’s Russia. In fact, the Pentagon’s manipulation of the media has been more deft than the Kremlin’s because it was better hidden.
In the end, the government’s disguised lies have done more damage to American democracy and the national interest than to any foreign enemy. History’s epitaph for the Pentagon’s psywar operation will be: “We fooled ourselves.”
Thursday, April 17, 2008
question that came out of right-wing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos.
Greg Mitchell: The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media - Politics on The Huffington PostPosted April 16, 2008
In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin -- while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.
Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of right-wing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued. ...
More than Half Agree with Obama's Comments ... [while media, Clinton and McCain try to drive controversy ...
Obama’s Explanation of “Controversial” Remarks Moves Democrats and Independents ...-- Among All Parties: More than Half Agree with His Comments -- Flemington, NJ, April 14, 2008
...
Do you agree with Senator Obama’s comments regarding working class voters in states like Pennsylvania?
...
...
Do you agree with Senator Obama’s comments regarding working class voters in states like Pennsylvania?
POST VIEWING OF VIDEO
| Democrats | Republicans | Independents |
Yes | 64% | 38% | 56% |
No | 22% | 46% | 29% |
Not Sure | 14% | 16% | 15% |
Instead of focusing on... jobs ... schools,... taxes ... manufacturing ... HRC’s spin on Obama’s words (elitism) ... McCain puerile attacks ...
Robert Reich's Blog: Obama, Bitterness, Meet the Press, and the Old Politics | Sunday, April 13, 2008
... The stagnation of middle-class wages and the expansion of povety. Male hourly wages began to drop in the early 1970s, adjusted for inflation. The average man in his 30s is earning less than his father did thirty years ago. Yet America is far richer. Where did the money go? To the top.
Are Americans who have been left behind frustrated? Of course. And their frustrations, their anger and, yes, sometimes their bitterness, have been used since then -- by demagogues, by nationalists and xenophobes, by radical conservatives, by political nuts and fanatical fruitcakes – to blame immigrants and foreign traders, to blame blacks and the poor, to blame "liberal elites," to blame anyone and anything.
Rather than counter all this, the American media have wallowed in it. Some, like Fox News and talk radio, have given the haters and blamers their very own megaphones. The rest have merely "reported on" it. Instead of focusing on how to get Americans good jobs again; instead of admitting too many of our schools are failing and our kids are falling behind their contemporaries in Europe, Japan, and even China; instead of showing why we need a more progressive tax system to finance better schools and access to health care, and green technologies that might create new manufacturing jobs, our national discussion has been mired in the old politics.
Listen to this morning’s “Meet the Press” if you want an example. Tim Russert, one of the smartest guys on television, interviewed four political consultants – Carville and Matalin, Bob Schrum, and Michael Murphy. Political consultants are paid huge sums to help politicians spin words and avoid real talk. They’re part of the problem. And what do Russert and these four consultants talk about? The potential damage to Barack Obama from saying that lots of people in Pennsylvania are bitter that the economy has left them behind; about HRC’s spin on Obama’s words (he’s an “elitist,” she said); and John McCain’s similarly puerile attack. ...
... The stagnation of middle-class wages and the expansion of povety. Male hourly wages began to drop in the early 1970s, adjusted for inflation. The average man in his 30s is earning less than his father did thirty years ago. Yet America is far richer. Where did the money go? To the top.
Are Americans who have been left behind frustrated? Of course. And their frustrations, their anger and, yes, sometimes their bitterness, have been used since then -- by demagogues, by nationalists and xenophobes, by radical conservatives, by political nuts and fanatical fruitcakes – to blame immigrants and foreign traders, to blame blacks and the poor, to blame "liberal elites," to blame anyone and anything.
Rather than counter all this, the American media have wallowed in it. Some, like Fox News and talk radio, have given the haters and blamers their very own megaphones. The rest have merely "reported on" it. Instead of focusing on how to get Americans good jobs again; instead of admitting too many of our schools are failing and our kids are falling behind their contemporaries in Europe, Japan, and even China; instead of showing why we need a more progressive tax system to finance better schools and access to health care, and green technologies that might create new manufacturing jobs, our national discussion has been mired in the old politics.
Listen to this morning’s “Meet the Press” if you want an example. Tim Russert, one of the smartest guys on television, interviewed four political consultants – Carville and Matalin, Bob Schrum, and Michael Murphy. Political consultants are paid huge sums to help politicians spin words and avoid real talk. They’re part of the problem. And what do Russert and these four consultants talk about? The potential damage to Barack Obama from saying that lots of people in Pennsylvania are bitter that the economy has left them behind; about HRC’s spin on Obama’s words (he’s an “elitist,” she said); and John McCain’s similarly puerile attack. ...
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Media: “mainstream” has nothing to do with the massively monopolized machine that has a chokehold on our democracy.
February 10, 2008 by CommonDreams.org | There’s Nothing Mainstream About the Corporate Media | by Harvey Wasserman
...
... Today’s mass media is Corporate, not Mainstream, and the distinction is critical.
Calling the Corporate Media (CM) “mainstream” implies that it speaks for mid-road opinion, and it absolutely does not.
...
The mainstream of American opinion wants this country out of Iraq. The Corporate Media does not. It refuses to give serious coverage to the devastating human, spiritual and economic costs of the war, and it marginalizes those demanding it end.
The mainstream of American opinion wants national health care. The CM does not.
The mainstream of American opinion is deeply distrustful and in many ways hostile to the power of large corporations. Obviously, the CM is not.
The mainstream of American opinion strongly questions whether our elections are being manipulated and stolen. The CM treats with contempt those who dare report on the issue.
The Corporate Media takes partisan stands (often in favor of the Republican Party, but always in defense of corporate interests) by sabotaging political candidacies, especially those of candidates who challenge corporate power. This year it blacklisted the populist candidacy of John Edwards, suffocating his ability to compete for the Democratic nomination.
...
Never in our history has the control of the nation’s sources of information been more centralized, or more at odds with what the country as a whole believes.
...
The “news” pushed by the major radio/TV networks and newspapers slants unerringly toward the interests of the five major corporations that own the bulk of them. They bury stories of vital importance while spewing endless hours and column inches at the mind-deadening likes of Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears.
...
But the real profit centers of the corporations that own the CM are not in providing news and information. General Electric, Westinghouse, Disney and the other media-financial-industrial behemoths have too much to lose from an accurate reporting of the true news of the world. To protect their core interests, they are bread-and-circus PR/diversion machines, not real news organizations. They resemble the old Soviet official mouthpieces Izvestia and Pravda far more than the news providers envisioned in the First Amendment, by Founders who saw balanced, aggressive reporting as the lifeblood of democracy.Nor does the corporate right never hesitate to attack. ...
...
The word “mainstream” has nothing to do with the massively monopolized machine that has a chokehold on our democracy. It’s the “Corporate Media,” and there’s nothing mainstream about it.
...
... Today’s mass media is Corporate, not Mainstream, and the distinction is critical.
Calling the Corporate Media (CM) “mainstream” implies that it speaks for mid-road opinion, and it absolutely does not.
...
The mainstream of American opinion wants this country out of Iraq. The Corporate Media does not. It refuses to give serious coverage to the devastating human, spiritual and economic costs of the war, and it marginalizes those demanding it end.
The mainstream of American opinion wants national health care. The CM does not.
The mainstream of American opinion is deeply distrustful and in many ways hostile to the power of large corporations. Obviously, the CM is not.
The mainstream of American opinion strongly questions whether our elections are being manipulated and stolen. The CM treats with contempt those who dare report on the issue.
The Corporate Media takes partisan stands (often in favor of the Republican Party, but always in defense of corporate interests) by sabotaging political candidacies, especially those of candidates who challenge corporate power. This year it blacklisted the populist candidacy of John Edwards, suffocating his ability to compete for the Democratic nomination.
...
Never in our history has the control of the nation’s sources of information been more centralized, or more at odds with what the country as a whole believes.
...
The “news” pushed by the major radio/TV networks and newspapers slants unerringly toward the interests of the five major corporations that own the bulk of them. They bury stories of vital importance while spewing endless hours and column inches at the mind-deadening likes of Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears.
...
But the real profit centers of the corporations that own the CM are not in providing news and information. General Electric, Westinghouse, Disney and the other media-financial-industrial behemoths have too much to lose from an accurate reporting of the true news of the world. To protect their core interests, they are bread-and-circus PR/diversion machines, not real news organizations. They resemble the old Soviet official mouthpieces Izvestia and Pravda far more than the news providers envisioned in the First Amendment, by Founders who saw balanced, aggressive reporting as the lifeblood of democracy.Nor does the corporate right never hesitate to attack. ...
...
The word “mainstream” has nothing to do with the massively monopolized machine that has a chokehold on our democracy. It’s the “Corporate Media,” and there’s nothing mainstream about it.
censorship and oil-industry collusion turned some $2 billion of climate-change research into anti-scientific propaganda
February 1, 2008 by The Providence Journal (Rhode Island) | A New Golden Age for Whistleblowers | by Tom Devine and Adam Miles
...
Whistleblowers use freedom of speech to challenge abuses of power that betray the public trust. They change the course of history by refusing to sacrifice their own principles, unwilling to go along with corrupt practices. By exercising their freedom to warn, they prevent avoidable disasters before all that is left is damage control.
Consider examples of how they have made a difference for America’s families. Disclosures by David Graham, a Food and Drug Administration scientist, forced market withdrawal of the painkiller Vioxx, which caused over 40,000 fatal U.S. heart attacks after our government officially labeled it safe. Climate-change whistleblowers, like Rick Piltz at the White House and James Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, exposed how gags, censorship and oil-industry collusion turned some $2 billion of climate-change research into anti-scientific propaganda and delayed urgently needed action. The Marines’ Franz Gayl demonstrated that hundreds of American combat fatalities in Iraq might be traceable to Pentagon mismanagement, which unnecessarily delayed delivery of mine-explosion-resistant armored vehicles.
The consequences of gagging federal workers are clear. Actuary Richard Foster was threatened with termination if he exposed the Medicare prescription-drug bill’s true price tag. Congress ended up passing a law (by one vote) that cost $200 billion above its stated price. Whistleblowers protect the federal Treasury. Since public citizens were empowered to file whistleblower lawsuits on behalf of taxpayers in 1985, they have increased the government’s civil fraud recovery 120-fold, from $26 million to $3.14 billion last year.
The voting public understands the value of whistleblowers. A Democracy Corps survey last February found 79 percent of voters are more likely to support a Congress that passes “a strong whistleblower law to protect government employees from retribution if they report waste or corruption.” This was second only to stopping illegal government spending.
...
Congress needs to promptly finish what it started and stand up to the president. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’s insight over a century ago retains its wisdom today: “If corruption is a social disease, sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
...
Whistleblowers use freedom of speech to challenge abuses of power that betray the public trust. They change the course of history by refusing to sacrifice their own principles, unwilling to go along with corrupt practices. By exercising their freedom to warn, they prevent avoidable disasters before all that is left is damage control.
Consider examples of how they have made a difference for America’s families. Disclosures by David Graham, a Food and Drug Administration scientist, forced market withdrawal of the painkiller Vioxx, which caused over 40,000 fatal U.S. heart attacks after our government officially labeled it safe. Climate-change whistleblowers, like Rick Piltz at the White House and James Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, exposed how gags, censorship and oil-industry collusion turned some $2 billion of climate-change research into anti-scientific propaganda and delayed urgently needed action. The Marines’ Franz Gayl demonstrated that hundreds of American combat fatalities in Iraq might be traceable to Pentagon mismanagement, which unnecessarily delayed delivery of mine-explosion-resistant armored vehicles.
The consequences of gagging federal workers are clear. Actuary Richard Foster was threatened with termination if he exposed the Medicare prescription-drug bill’s true price tag. Congress ended up passing a law (by one vote) that cost $200 billion above its stated price. Whistleblowers protect the federal Treasury. Since public citizens were empowered to file whistleblower lawsuits on behalf of taxpayers in 1985, they have increased the government’s civil fraud recovery 120-fold, from $26 million to $3.14 billion last year.
The voting public understands the value of whistleblowers. A Democracy Corps survey last February found 79 percent of voters are more likely to support a Congress that passes “a strong whistleblower law to protect government employees from retribution if they report waste or corruption.” This was second only to stopping illegal government spending.
...
Congress needs to promptly finish what it started and stand up to the president. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’s insight over a century ago retains its wisdom today: “If corruption is a social disease, sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
Truth or Terrorism? The Real Story Behind Five Years of High Alerts ... most dubious terror scares
Truth or Terrorism? The Real Story Behind Five Years of High Alerts | TIM DICKINSONPosted Feb 07, 2008 7:55 AM
A history of the Bush administration's most dubious terror scares — and the headlines they buried
July 7 2006
The Threat: New York Daily News breaks news of plot to bomb Holland Tunnel, flood Wall Street. FBI Assistant Director Mark Mershon calls threat "the real deal."
The Reality: Suspect had been arrested three months earlier, after bragging about his planned exploits in an Internet chat room. Said one CIA officer, "The plot, if that is what we would call it, was not well conceived, and there was no possibility of flooding Wall Street. There was no connection to a cell in the US. Finally, professional terrorists generally do not discuss targeting on open channels."
The Real News: News of plot leaked to coincide with the first anniversary of the July 7, 2005 London bombings.
...
September 10, 2002
The Threat: Bush personally announces the first nationwide Orange Alert. Cheney flees to a "secure location" as Ashcroft warns that Al Qaeda appears to be targeting "transportation and energy sectors."
The Reality: There was no specific threat against any American target.
The Real News: The heightened terror alert went into effect just in time for the president's address to the nation from Ellis Island on the first anniversary of 9/11.
...
May 26, 2004
The Threat: Memorial Day again: "They are going to attack and hit us hard," warns a senior intelligence official. Ashcroft relays an Al Qaeda threat that "ninety percent of the arrangements for an attack in the United States were complete."
The Reality: The threat Ashcroft attributed to Al Qaeda was actually made by a discredited group that falsely claimed credit for the Madrid train bombings. This group "is not really taken seriously by Western intelligence," says one expert.
The Real News: The Abu Ghraib torture scandal has come to a full boil.
A history of the Bush administration's most dubious terror scares — and the headlines they buried
July 7 2006
The Threat: New York Daily News breaks news of plot to bomb Holland Tunnel, flood Wall Street. FBI Assistant Director Mark Mershon calls threat "the real deal."
The Reality: Suspect had been arrested three months earlier, after bragging about his planned exploits in an Internet chat room. Said one CIA officer, "The plot, if that is what we would call it, was not well conceived, and there was no possibility of flooding Wall Street. There was no connection to a cell in the US. Finally, professional terrorists generally do not discuss targeting on open channels."
The Real News: News of plot leaked to coincide with the first anniversary of the July 7, 2005 London bombings.
...
September 10, 2002
The Threat: Bush personally announces the first nationwide Orange Alert. Cheney flees to a "secure location" as Ashcroft warns that Al Qaeda appears to be targeting "transportation and energy sectors."
The Reality: There was no specific threat against any American target.
The Real News: The heightened terror alert went into effect just in time for the president's address to the nation from Ellis Island on the first anniversary of 9/11.
...
May 26, 2004
The Threat: Memorial Day again: "They are going to attack and hit us hard," warns a senior intelligence official. Ashcroft relays an Al Qaeda threat that "ninety percent of the arrangements for an attack in the United States were complete."
The Reality: The threat Ashcroft attributed to Al Qaeda was actually made by a discredited group that falsely claimed credit for the Madrid train bombings. This group "is not really taken seriously by Western intelligence," says one expert.
The Real News: The Abu Ghraib torture scandal has come to a full boil.
ironic that Taxi’s content is too “controversial,” considering it depicts real acts [tortured to death] perpetrated by the Bush administration
Discovery Channel Drops Plans To Air ‘Taxi To The Dark Side’ Because It Is Too ‘Controversial’
Taxi to the Dark Side, a documentary about an innocent Afghan taxi driver tortured to death by U.S. officials at Bagram Air Base, has received wide critical acclaim since its debut in April at the Tribeca Film Festival. The New York Times’s A.O. Scott said, “If recent American history is ever going to be discussed with the necessary clarity and ethical rigor, this film will be essential.”
Taxi to the Dark Side, a documentary about an innocent Afghan taxi driver tortured to death by U.S. officials at Bagram Air Base, has received wide critical acclaim since its debut in April at the Tribeca Film Festival. The New York Times’s A.O. Scott said, “If recent American history is ever going to be discussed with the necessary clarity and ethical rigor, this film will be essential.”
Director Alex Gibney agreed to sell the rights of Taxi to the Discovery Channel because executives convinced him they would “give the film a prominent broadcast.” Now, however, Discovery has dropped its plans to air the documentary because the film is too controversial. Gibney responded to the news in a press release this week:
It’s ironic that Taxi’s content is too “controversial,” considering it depicts real acts perpetrated by the current Bush administration. ...Now, I am told that ‘it doesn’t fit into Discovery’s plans,’ and that the film’s controversial content might damage Discovery’s public offering.
Having directed ‘Enron,’ very little about this kind of corporate behavior shocks me, but I am surprised that a network that touts itself as a supporter of documentaries would be so shamelessly craven. This is a film that, in an election year, is of critical interest to the viewing public. What Discovery is doing is tantamount to political censorship.
Friday, March 14, 2008
POLL: Over Half Of Americans Say They Do Not Trust The Press
POLL: Over Half Of Americans Say They Do Not Trust The Press March 6, 2008
A new Harris Interactive poll finds that over half of Americans — 54 percent — say they tend not to trust the press, “with only 30 percent tending to trust the press.” More Americans (41 percent) trust “Internet news and information sites” than they do the mainstream media. Radio tends to do best among Americans as 44 percent say they tend to trust it.
A new Harris Interactive poll finds that over half of Americans — 54 percent — say they tend not to trust the press, “with only 30 percent tending to trust the press.” More Americans (41 percent) trust “Internet news and information sites” than they do the mainstream media. Radio tends to do best among Americans as 44 percent say they tend to trust it.
The Harris results reflect the findings of a Harvard University study conducted last year, which found “nearly two-thirds of Americans do not trust campaign coverage by the news media.” A few other recent surveys offer some explanation for the public’s distrust:
– Two thirds of Americans - 67% - believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news.
– The harshest indictments of the press come from the growing segment that relies on the internet as its main source for news. The internet news audience is particularly likely to criticize news organizations for their lack of empathy, their failure to “stand up for America,” and political bias.
– Democrats, Republicans and independents have decreased confidence in the accuracy of media reports on the war.
Pentagon Report on Saddam's Iraq Censored? shows [no] evidence of a direct connection between Saddam's Iraq and the al Qaeda
Pentagon Report on Saddam's Iraq Censored? | March 12, 2008 1:58 PM
ABC News' Jonathan Karl Reports: The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report's release and will no longer make the report available online.
The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website this afternoon, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report will be made available only to those who ask for it, and it will be sent via U.S. mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.
It won't be emailed to reporters and it won't be posted online.
Asked why the report would not be posted online and could not be emailed, the spokesman for Joint Forces Command said: "We're making the report available to anyone who wishes to have it, and we'll send it out via CD in the mail."
Another Pentagon official said initial press reports on the study made it "too politically sensitive."
ABC News obtained the comprehensive military study of Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism on Tuesday. Read the report's executive summary HERE.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Ever wondered before if big providers would block access to certain content on the Internet if there were no forced neutrality?
Comcast Blocks Access To Net Neutrality Meeting | by huntsu | Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 12:38:04 PM PST
[Thanks to everyone who rec'd this diary, especially since it really wasn't too much related to me. Boing Boing deserves the credit for it, but I'm happy to take the rec! Please also visit the great state blog Blue Jersey where I also post.]
Ever wondered before if big providers would block access to certain content on the Internet if there were no forced neutrality? Well, Comcast answered the question themselves by blocking access to a Net Neutrality meeting at Harvard. (via BoingBoing)
This is pretty unbelievable--- there was an FCC hearing about Net Neutrality in Harvard yesterday where we had a booth. Comcast was PAYING PEOPLE TO FILL UP SEATS AND CHEER FOR THEM. Tons of folks, including reporters, got turned away. For people that still have a hard time wrapping their heads around what net neutrality is, this about sums up what's happening. ...
[Thanks to everyone who rec'd this diary, especially since it really wasn't too much related to me. Boing Boing deserves the credit for it, but I'm happy to take the rec! Please also visit the great state blog Blue Jersey where I also post.]
Ever wondered before if big providers would block access to certain content on the Internet if there were no forced neutrality? Well, Comcast answered the question themselves by blocking access to a Net Neutrality meeting at Harvard. (via BoingBoing)
This is pretty unbelievable--- there was an FCC hearing about Net Neutrality in Harvard yesterday where we had a booth. Comcast was PAYING PEOPLE TO FILL UP SEATS AND CHEER FOR THEM. Tons of folks, including reporters, got turned away. For people that still have a hard time wrapping their heads around what net neutrality is, this about sums up what's happening. ...
CBS affiliate, went dark Sunday evening during a “60 minutes” .. about [possibly] "wrongly convicted" Democratic governor
WHNT’s Technical Glitches | Published: February 27, 2008
In 1955, when WLBT-TV, the NBC affiliate in Jackson, Miss., did not want to run a network report about racial desegregation, it famously hung up the sign: “Sorry, Cable Trouble.” Audiences in northern Alabama might have suspected the same tactics when WHNT-TV, the CBS affiliate, went dark Sunday evening during a “60 minutes” segment that strongly suggested that Don Siegelman, Alabama’s former Democratic governor, was wrongly convicted of corruption last year.
The report presented new evidence that the charges against Mr. Siegelman may have been concocted by politically motivated Republican prosecutors — and orchestrated by Karl Rove. Unfortunately, WHNT had “technical problems” that prevented it from broadcasting a segment (the problems were resolved in time for the next part of the show) that many residents of Alabama would no doubt have found quite interesting.
After initially blaming the glitch on CBS in New York, the affiliate said it learned “upon investigation,” and following a rebuke from the network, that “the problem was on our end.” It re-broadcast the segment at 10 p.m., pitting it against the Academy Awards on rival ABC, before Daniel Day-Lewis won the best actor Oscar. As public criticism grew, it ran it again at 6 p.m. on Monday. ...
In 1955, when WLBT-TV, the NBC affiliate in Jackson, Miss., did not want to run a network report about racial desegregation, it famously hung up the sign: “Sorry, Cable Trouble.” Audiences in northern Alabama might have suspected the same tactics when WHNT-TV, the CBS affiliate, went dark Sunday evening during a “60 minutes” segment that strongly suggested that Don Siegelman, Alabama’s former Democratic governor, was wrongly convicted of corruption last year.
The report presented new evidence that the charges against Mr. Siegelman may have been concocted by politically motivated Republican prosecutors — and orchestrated by Karl Rove. Unfortunately, WHNT had “technical problems” that prevented it from broadcasting a segment (the problems were resolved in time for the next part of the show) that many residents of Alabama would no doubt have found quite interesting.
After initially blaming the glitch on CBS in New York, the affiliate said it learned “upon investigation,” and following a rebuke from the network, that “the problem was on our end.” It re-broadcast the segment at 10 p.m., pitting it against the Academy Awards on rival ABC, before Daniel Day-Lewis won the best actor Oscar. As public criticism grew, it ran it again at 6 p.m. on Monday. ...
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
US court attacks web freedom ... trying to close down an entire site in this way is truly unprecedented.
Internet Censorship: US court attacks web freedom; enjoins Wikileaks.org out of existence | By Stephen Soldz | Feb 18, 2008, 20:19
One of the most important web sites in recent months has been Wikileaks.org. Created by several brave journalists committed to transparency, Wikileaks has published important leaked documents, such as the Rules of Engagement for Iraq [see my The Secret Rules of Engagement in Iraq], the 2003 and 2004 Guantanamo Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures, and evidence of major bank fraud in Kenya [see also here] that apparently affected the Kenyan elections. Wikileaks has upset the Chinese government enough that they are attempting to censor it, as is the Thai military junta.
Now censorship has extended to the United States of America, land of the First Amendment. As of Friday, February 15, those going to Wikileaks.org have gotten Server not found messages. ...
...
There have, of course, been previous attempts by the U.S. Government and others to block publication of particular documents, most famously in 1971 when the Nixon administration attempted to stop publication by the New York Times of excerpts from the Pentagon Papers, leaked by Daniel Ellsberg. But trying to close down an entire site in this way is truly unprecedented. Not even the Nixon administration, when they sought to block publication of the Pentagon Papers, considered closing down the New York Times in response. ...
One of the most important web sites in recent months has been Wikileaks.org. Created by several brave journalists committed to transparency, Wikileaks has published important leaked documents, such as the Rules of Engagement for Iraq [see my The Secret Rules of Engagement in Iraq], the 2003 and 2004 Guantanamo Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures, and evidence of major bank fraud in Kenya [see also here] that apparently affected the Kenyan elections. Wikileaks has upset the Chinese government enough that they are attempting to censor it, as is the Thai military junta.
Now censorship has extended to the United States of America, land of the First Amendment. As of Friday, February 15, those going to Wikileaks.org have gotten Server not found messages. ...
...
There have, of course, been previous attempts by the U.S. Government and others to block publication of particular documents, most famously in 1971 when the Nixon administration attempted to stop publication by the New York Times of excerpts from the Pentagon Papers, leaked by Daniel Ellsberg. But trying to close down an entire site in this way is truly unprecedented. Not even the Nixon administration, when they sought to block publication of the Pentagon Papers, considered closing down the New York Times in response. ...
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Bush to Congress: No Freedom Of Information Act Ombudsman [not funded !]
Feb 08, 2005 | Bush to Congress: No FOIA Ombudsman
Those that thought the President's recent signing of the recent FOIA amendments law was too good to be true were greeted Monday with the other shoe dropping. In his most recent budget proposal, the President failed to provide any funding for the FOIA Ombudsman's Office in the National Archives and Records Administration and attempts to shift the responsibilities of that office to the Department of Justice. Reaction as shown in this article was widespread and critical of the President's decision.
Readers of my blog know I stated that without providing funding for FOIA Operations, this law had minimal impact. Unfortunately it only took one month (and a full eleven months before many of the provisions of the law become effective) for me to be correct. ...
Those that thought the President's recent signing of the recent FOIA amendments law was too good to be true were greeted Monday with the other shoe dropping. In his most recent budget proposal, the President failed to provide any funding for the FOIA Ombudsman's Office in the National Archives and Records Administration and attempts to shift the responsibilities of that office to the Department of Justice. Reaction as shown in this article was widespread and critical of the President's decision.
Readers of my blog know I stated that without providing funding for FOIA Operations, this law had minimal impact. Unfortunately it only took one month (and a full eleven months before many of the provisions of the law become effective) for me to be correct. ...
Friday, February 08, 2008
CBS Falsifies Iraq War History by Robert Parry
Headlined on 2/5/08: Our corporate-controlled (Orwellian) mass media | by Richard Clark
| http://www.opednews.com
CBS Falsifies Iraq War History by Robert Parry In a world of objective reality, a reporter would simply say that the United States launched an unprovoked invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003 under the false pretense that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction -- and did this even after UN inspectors, completely unopposed by Saddam, had failed to find any WMD. "For a man who drew America into two wars and countless military engagements, we never knew what Saddam Hussein was thinking," Pelley said in introducing the segment on the interrogation of Hussein about his WMD stockpiles. "Why did he choose war with the United States?"
...
In line with Bush's version of history, "60 Minutes" correspondent Scott Pelley asked FBI interrogator George Piro why Hussein kept pretending that he had WMD even as U.S. troops massed on Iraq's borders, when a simple announcement that the WMD was gone would have prevented the war.
Pelly never mentions the fact that Hussein's government did in fact disclose that it had eliminated its WMD. Instead Pelley presses Piro on the irrelevant question of why Hussein was hiding the fact that he had no WMD....
60 Minutes Caves to Pressure from White House on Siegelman Story
60 Minutes Caves to Pressure from White House on Siegelman Story... | February 05, 2008
Well folks, seems that 60 Minutes is postponing (read "killing") its Siegelman story. The excuse I am told for this lapse in ethics is that the network needs more time to vet the whistle-blower, Dana Jill Simpson. You see, the reason the network suddenly needs more time to vet Simpson is that the White House has launched a direct campaign inside CBS to discredit her and just to make sure the dirt sticks, they have called in some favors too. I am told that Senator Jeff Sessions has been instructed to help the White House discredit Simpson as part of his "Senatorial" duties. Nice system of government we have here, eh? ...
Well folks, seems that 60 Minutes is postponing (read "killing") its Siegelman story. The excuse I am told for this lapse in ethics is that the network needs more time to vet the whistle-blower, Dana Jill Simpson. You see, the reason the network suddenly needs more time to vet Simpson is that the White House has launched a direct campaign inside CBS to discredit her and just to make sure the dirt sticks, they have called in some favors too. I am told that Senator Jeff Sessions has been instructed to help the White House discredit Simpson as part of his "Senatorial" duties. Nice system of government we have here, eh? ...
[latest signing statement: not reported] in US outside Boston and Capitol Hill was out of luck. ... AP touched on the topic but avoided the main point
Editorial Pages Report the News | Submitted by davidswanson on Sun, 2008-02-03 16:00. Media | By David Swanson
Increasingly, all the news that's fit to print does not include the news that editorial writers deem significant. The New York Times and many other newspapers have developed the habit of writing lengthy editorials about news stories that never make it into the news section. One example of this trend is the story of last Monday's presidential signing statement. If you don't know what a signing statement is, you should consider flipping first to the editorial page to get your news.
Congressional Quarterly, which has a readership of about 8, first reported the story in an honest-to-goodness straight news report, with all the bells and whistles of pretended "objectivity." The Boston Globe did the same. The Globe's article presents its readers with the basic facts of what happened, written in the manner which people have been trained to find most credible and important. The Guardian newspaper in England did the same. But the United States outside Boston and Capitol Hill was out of luck. An Associated Press article touched on the topic but avoided the main points. A Virginian Pilot article buried the lede. And a late-coming Washington Post article missed the boat.
But editorial page writers clearly believed the public deserved to hear about the end of its representative democracy. The New York Times led the way, followed by the Roanoke Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a chain of New England newspapers, the Times Argus, the Denver Post, the Charleston Gazette, and the Las Vegas Sun. These editorials both presented the information and took an opinion on it, all of them sharing the same basic perspective: the President of the United States had just shockingly seized unconstitutional powers, effectively elimintating the legislative branch of our government.
...
Why is the Boston Globe the only newspaper willing to report this type of story as a news story? ... If you ran a story on the president's efective elimination of Congress, how would you be able to keep printing all the usual stories based on the notion that Congress still exists? ...
Increasingly, all the news that's fit to print does not include the news that editorial writers deem significant. The New York Times and many other newspapers have developed the habit of writing lengthy editorials about news stories that never make it into the news section. One example of this trend is the story of last Monday's presidential signing statement. If you don't know what a signing statement is, you should consider flipping first to the editorial page to get your news.
Congressional Quarterly, which has a readership of about 8, first reported the story in an honest-to-goodness straight news report, with all the bells and whistles of pretended "objectivity." The Boston Globe did the same. The Globe's article presents its readers with the basic facts of what happened, written in the manner which people have been trained to find most credible and important. The Guardian newspaper in England did the same. But the United States outside Boston and Capitol Hill was out of luck. An Associated Press article touched on the topic but avoided the main points. A Virginian Pilot article buried the lede. And a late-coming Washington Post article missed the boat.
But editorial page writers clearly believed the public deserved to hear about the end of its representative democracy. The New York Times led the way, followed by the Roanoke Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, a chain of New England newspapers, the Times Argus, the Denver Post, the Charleston Gazette, and the Las Vegas Sun. These editorials both presented the information and took an opinion on it, all of them sharing the same basic perspective: the President of the United States had just shockingly seized unconstitutional powers, effectively elimintating the legislative branch of our government.
...
Why is the Boston Globe the only newspaper willing to report this type of story as a news story? ... If you ran a story on the president's efective elimination of Congress, how would you be able to keep printing all the usual stories based on the notion that Congress still exists? ...
wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional ‘int’ validation of the Bush administration’s false statements ... 935 lies, Bush told 259 before war
George W Bush, White House told 935 lies after September 11 | By staff writers | January 23, 2008 06:24pm | news.com.au
US President George W Bush and other top officials issued almost one thousand false statements about the national security threat from Iraq following the September 11 attacks, according to a study by two not-for-profit organisations.
The Associated Press reports the study, published on the website of the Centre for Public Integrity, concluded the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanised public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretences”.
...
“In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.”
The study found that President Bush alone made 259 false statements – 231 about weapons of mass destruction and 28 about Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda.
...
“Some journalists – indeed, even some entire news organisations – have since acknowledged that their coverage during those pre-war months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional ‘independent’ validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq.”
US President George W Bush and other top officials issued almost one thousand false statements about the national security threat from Iraq following the September 11 attacks, according to a study by two not-for-profit organisations.
The Associated Press reports the study, published on the website of the Centre for Public Integrity, concluded the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanised public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretences”.
...
“In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.”
The study found that President Bush alone made 259 false statements – 231 about weapons of mass destruction and 28 about Iraq’s links to al-Qaeda.
...
“Some journalists – indeed, even some entire news organisations – have since acknowledged that their coverage during those pre-war months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional ‘independent’ validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq.”
It appears that we’re being exposed to a wide range of ideas, when in fact certain opinions and facts will never be seen or heard
Published on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 by CommonDreams.org | Not in the Script | by Sheila Casey
...
... almost all our media is controlled by just six corporations: Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp, Bertelsmann, and General Electric. Their holdings include the major TV networks, movie studios, book and magazine publishers, radio stations, cable channels, sports teams, theme parks and comic books. Except for conversations with family and friends, millions of Americans are never exposed to a point of view not vetted by the Big Six.
It appears that we’re being exposed to a wide range of ideas, when in fact certain opinions and facts will never be seen or heard, but by those few who aggressively search out alternative sources.
...
If you’re still under the spell of the Big Six, this may seem preposterous. We’ve been taught that we have freedom of the press, and perhaps we did, 25 years ago, when 50 corporations controlled our media, not five.
It’s beyond the scope of this essay to go into what is being hidden, and why. You can find out, if you really want to know. First you must have some inkling that there are important things you don’t know, and it’s no accident that you don’t know them. ...
...
... almost all our media is controlled by just six corporations: Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp, Bertelsmann, and General Electric. Their holdings include the major TV networks, movie studios, book and magazine publishers, radio stations, cable channels, sports teams, theme parks and comic books. Except for conversations with family and friends, millions of Americans are never exposed to a point of view not vetted by the Big Six.
It appears that we’re being exposed to a wide range of ideas, when in fact certain opinions and facts will never be seen or heard, but by those few who aggressively search out alternative sources.
...
If you’re still under the spell of the Big Six, this may seem preposterous. We’ve been taught that we have freedom of the press, and perhaps we did, 25 years ago, when 50 corporations controlled our media, not five.
It’s beyond the scope of this essay to go into what is being hidden, and why. You can find out, if you really want to know. First you must have some inkling that there are important things you don’t know, and it’s no accident that you don’t know them. ...
No Questions On Global Warming Asked At CNN’s Coal Industry-Sponsored Presidential Debates
No Questions On Global Warming Asked At CNN’s Coal Industry-Sponsored Presidential Debates
In Democratic presidential debate last night, CNN once again failed to ask any questions about global warming. Perhaps not surprisingly, last night’s debate was sponsored by the coal front group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC). Watch an ad for the debate:
ABEC also co-sponsored November’s CNN/YouTube debates in Nevada and Florida, at which no questions about global warming were asked.
...
What is ABEC receiving in return for its support of CNN’s debate? Besides branding on tv and newspaper ads, ThinkProgress has learned that at November’s Democratic debate in Nevada, ABEC was given a special area near the debate’s entrance to hand out “clean coal” brochures. No other organizations were allowed to distribute materials in that prime area. ....
In Democratic presidential debate last night, CNN once again failed to ask any questions about global warming. Perhaps not surprisingly, last night’s debate was sponsored by the coal front group Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC). Watch an ad for the debate:
ABEC also co-sponsored November’s CNN/YouTube debates in Nevada and Florida, at which no questions about global warming were asked.
...
What is ABEC receiving in return for its support of CNN’s debate? Besides branding on tv and newspaper ads, ThinkProgress has learned that at November’s Democratic debate in Nevada, ABEC was given a special area near the debate’s entrance to hand out “clean coal” brochures. No other organizations were allowed to distribute materials in that prime area. ....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)