Anthony DiMaggio: Gaming the Ghetto May 31 / June 1, 2008 |
Grand Theft Auto IV, Racist Media and the Concrete Jungle
...
GTA IV has been celebrated, as with its award winning predecessors, as one of the best games of all time.Game Informer magazine deemed it a work of “perfection,” surpassing “epic gaming experiences” in its “stunning realism” and “unbelievable” action. Electronic Gaming Monthly deemed it a “magnificent” specimen of “destructive mayhem,” and a “truly exciting” gaming experience.
...
... Niko works for the Bratva (Russian mafia), conducting various assassinations and other jobs, keeping with the standard motif of the series. GTA IV’s depiction of the Eastern European “other” is merely one of many stereotypes employed throughout GTA’s history.
Previous games were centered on members of the Cosa Nostra (Italian mafia) and various black and Latino street gangs located in American cities. Perhaps the most flagrantly racist of all the games was GTA: San Andreas (2004), which was advertised on television alongside the tune “Welcome to the Jungle” (by Guns N’ Roses).
The advertisement portrayed inner city blacks and Latinos walking around with missile launchers and multiple Uzi’s, riding in bouncing low-riders, and partaking in drive-bys, carjackings, police chases, prostitution, and gambling. The not-so-subtle racist imagery and stereotypes of GTA: San Andreas were hard to miss, even for the game’s most ardent defenders. Inner city minorities were dehumanized and mongrelized in the construction of the city as the concrete jungle.
...
Political-Communication scholars Robert Entman and Andrew Rojecki have uncovered evidence of a “racial subtext of Chicago’s local news.” In the period of coverage they examined during the 1990s, “white victims outnumbered Blacks in news reports – even though Blacks in Chicago and most core cities are more likely to be victimized.” Stories featuring black victims of violence were consistently shorter than those that focused on white victims, with a “total story time” ratio imbalance of 3:1 in favor of whites. Studies have also implicated violent media images in negatively affecting audience beliefs and perceptions.
Such studies go far beyond the simplistic, clumsy and unsubstantiated claims of those conservatives in the media who blame entertainment and video game consumption for “causing” children and teens to engage in violence against their family, friends, and peers. Rather, a substantial body of literature has developed in implicating media in far more subtly “cultivating” conservative, racist, and militaristic thinking within the minds of heavy television consumers. Heavy viewers of television programming have been found to be more likely to “express fear of crime,” particularly amongst those viewers who are white, and/or middle or upper income elites.
...
... Subsequently, those who more heavily consume television programs – including reality based crime shows and news reports – are significantly more likely to provide “higher estimates of crime prevalence” in society. It is perhaps the subtle effects of media violence on individual perceptions of crime and race that makes the Grand Theft Auto series so problematic. ...
Monday, June 02, 2008
Who'll Unplug Big Media? US since its founding, relied on freedom of the press to rest authority in the people
Who'll Unplug Big Media? Stay TunedBy Robert W. McChesney & John Nichols | May 29, 2008
...
... With a voice vote that confirmed the near-unanimous sentiment of senators who had heard from hundreds of thousands of Americans demanding that they act, the legislators moved to nullify an FCC attempt to permit a radical form of media consolidation: a rule change designed to permit one corporation to own daily and weekly newspapers as well as television and radio stations in the same local market. The removal of the historic bar to newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership has long been a top priority of Big Media. They want to dramatically increase revenues by buying up major media properties in American cities, shutting down competing newsrooms and creating a one-size-fits-all local discourse that's great for the bottom line but lousy for the communities they are supposed to serve and a nightmare for democracy.
...
... Public broadcasting, community broadcasting and cable access channels have withstood assault from corporate interlopers, fundamentalist censors and the GOP Congressional allies they share in common. And against a full-frontal attack from two industries, telephone and cable--whose entire business model is based on lobbying Congress and regulators to get monopoly privileges--a grassroots movement has preserved network neutrality, the first amendment of the digital epoch, which holds that Internet service providers shall not censor or discriminate against particular websites or services. So successful has this challenge to the telecom lobbies been that the House may soon endorse the Internet Freedom Preservation Act.
...
... In sum, we need to establish rules and structures designed to create a cultural environment that will enlighten, empower and energize citizens so they can realize the full promise of an American experiment that has, since its founding, relied on freedom of the press to rest authority in the people.
Despite all the revelations exposing government assaults on a free press, too many media outlets continue to tell the politically and economically powerful, "Lie to me!" Five years into a war made possible by the persistent refusal of the major media to distinguish fact from Bush Administration spin, we learned this spring about the Pentagon's PR machine's multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign that seeded willing broadcast and cable news programs with "expert" generals who parroted the White House line right up to the point at which the fraud was exposed. Even after the New York Times broke the story, the networks still chose to cover their shame rather than expose a war that has gone far worse than most Americans know. ...
...
... With a voice vote that confirmed the near-unanimous sentiment of senators who had heard from hundreds of thousands of Americans demanding that they act, the legislators moved to nullify an FCC attempt to permit a radical form of media consolidation: a rule change designed to permit one corporation to own daily and weekly newspapers as well as television and radio stations in the same local market. The removal of the historic bar to newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership has long been a top priority of Big Media. They want to dramatically increase revenues by buying up major media properties in American cities, shutting down competing newsrooms and creating a one-size-fits-all local discourse that's great for the bottom line but lousy for the communities they are supposed to serve and a nightmare for democracy.
...
... Public broadcasting, community broadcasting and cable access channels have withstood assault from corporate interlopers, fundamentalist censors and the GOP Congressional allies they share in common. And against a full-frontal attack from two industries, telephone and cable--whose entire business model is based on lobbying Congress and regulators to get monopoly privileges--a grassroots movement has preserved network neutrality, the first amendment of the digital epoch, which holds that Internet service providers shall not censor or discriminate against particular websites or services. So successful has this challenge to the telecom lobbies been that the House may soon endorse the Internet Freedom Preservation Act.
...
... In sum, we need to establish rules and structures designed to create a cultural environment that will enlighten, empower and energize citizens so they can realize the full promise of an American experiment that has, since its founding, relied on freedom of the press to rest authority in the people.
Despite all the revelations exposing government assaults on a free press, too many media outlets continue to tell the politically and economically powerful, "Lie to me!" Five years into a war made possible by the persistent refusal of the major media to distinguish fact from Bush Administration spin, we learned this spring about the Pentagon's PR machine's multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign that seeded willing broadcast and cable news programs with "expert" generals who parroted the White House line right up to the point at which the fraud was exposed. Even after the New York Times broke the story, the networks still chose to cover their shame rather than expose a war that has gone far worse than most Americans know. ...
Tutu's Trip to Gaza Censored by the US media : Information Clearing House - ICH
Tutu's Trip to Gaza Censored by the US media : Information Clearing House - ICHBy Mike Whitney
“There can be no justice, no peace, no stability, not for Israel, not for the Palestinians, without accountability for human rights violations." Archbishop Desmond Tutu
01/06/08 "ICH" -- - Why was Desmond Tutu's trip to Gaza censored by the US media?
When Nobel Laureate and world renowned peacemaker Desmond Tutu goes to Gaza to visit the site of an Israeli massacre; that's news, right? So why is it impossible to find any account of his trip in America's leading newspapers? Is it because any information that is incompatible with the territorial ambitions of the Israeli leadership is simply “disappeared” into the media-ether?
Archbishop Tutu was a leader in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. He is neaither a terrorist nor an anti-Semite. His work as a human rights activist spans 4 decades. Like former president Jimmy Carter he was shunned by the Israeli government and refused entry into Gaza.
...
Bishop Tutu had to go through Eqypt to get to Beit Hanoun; the town where 18 members of the al-Athamna family--including 14 women and children--were killed by Israeli artillery fire in November 2006. Tutu said that hearing "from the survivors of the massacre" had left him in a "state of shock".
Christine Chinkin, professor of international law at the London School of Economics, told the UK Guardian that her preliminary assessment of the attack was that it was a breach of international law.
"Firing in a way that cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants is clearly a violation of international humanitarian law," she said. "I don't think that the idea of a technical mistake takes away from the initial responsibility of the action of firing where civilian casualties are clearly foreseeable ... it has to be foreseeable when you give yourself such a small margin that any error has the potential to lead to civilian casualties." (UK Guardian)
Chinkin is right, of course. It was a massacre and should be thoroughly investigated by the international community. The responsible parties need to be held accountable.
According to the UK Telegraph, “No soldiers were ever charged in connection with the incident. Israel blocked attempts by the UN's Human Rights Council to investigate the shelling, saying that members of the body were "biased". ...
“There can be no justice, no peace, no stability, not for Israel, not for the Palestinians, without accountability for human rights violations." Archbishop Desmond Tutu
01/06/08 "ICH" -- - Why was Desmond Tutu's trip to Gaza censored by the US media?
When Nobel Laureate and world renowned peacemaker Desmond Tutu goes to Gaza to visit the site of an Israeli massacre; that's news, right? So why is it impossible to find any account of his trip in America's leading newspapers? Is it because any information that is incompatible with the territorial ambitions of the Israeli leadership is simply “disappeared” into the media-ether?
Archbishop Tutu was a leader in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. He is neaither a terrorist nor an anti-Semite. His work as a human rights activist spans 4 decades. Like former president Jimmy Carter he was shunned by the Israeli government and refused entry into Gaza.
...
Bishop Tutu had to go through Eqypt to get to Beit Hanoun; the town where 18 members of the al-Athamna family--including 14 women and children--were killed by Israeli artillery fire in November 2006. Tutu said that hearing "from the survivors of the massacre" had left him in a "state of shock".
Christine Chinkin, professor of international law at the London School of Economics, told the UK Guardian that her preliminary assessment of the attack was that it was a breach of international law.
"Firing in a way that cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants is clearly a violation of international humanitarian law," she said. "I don't think that the idea of a technical mistake takes away from the initial responsibility of the action of firing where civilian casualties are clearly foreseeable ... it has to be foreseeable when you give yourself such a small margin that any error has the potential to lead to civilian casualties." (UK Guardian)
Chinkin is right, of course. It was a massacre and should be thoroughly investigated by the international community. The responsible parties need to be held accountable.
According to the UK Telegraph, “No soldiers were ever charged in connection with the incident. Israel blocked attempts by the UN's Human Rights Council to investigate the shelling, saying that members of the body were "biased". ...
Wolf_Blitzer_defends_CNN_preIraq_war_0529.html">Blitzer on defense: CNN had 'pretty strong' anti-war coverage
Blitzer on defense: CNN had 'pretty strong' anti-war coverage | David Edwards and Muriel Kane | Published: Thursday May 29, 2008
From the point of view of a network anchor like CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "one of the most provocative allegations" in former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's new book is his assertion that "those of us in the news media who cover the president" were "too deferential to the White House" during the run-up to the Iraq war.
Blitzer strongly defended CNN's pre-war reporting, pointing out that he had frequently interviewed people like Scott Ritter, who made the case that there was no evidence for Iraqi possession of WMD's. "I think we were pretty strong," Blitzer stated, "but certainly with hindsight, we could have done an even better job. There were a lot of things missing in our coverage. ... I think we asked the tough questions, but we could have done better."
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post pointed out to Blitzer that "anti-war voiced had limited access, it seemed, to the airwaves, while administration officials were on every day."
...
From the point of view of a network anchor like CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "one of the most provocative allegations" in former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's new book is his assertion that "those of us in the news media who cover the president" were "too deferential to the White House" during the run-up to the Iraq war.
Blitzer strongly defended CNN's pre-war reporting, pointing out that he had frequently interviewed people like Scott Ritter, who made the case that there was no evidence for Iraqi possession of WMD's. "I think we were pretty strong," Blitzer stated, "but certainly with hindsight, we could have done an even better job. There were a lot of things missing in our coverage. ... I think we asked the tough questions, but we could have done better."
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post pointed out to Blitzer that "anti-war voiced had limited access, it seemed, to the airwaves, while administration officials were on every day."
...
CNN/MSNBC reporter: Corporate executives forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative - enormous pressure from corporate executives
CNN/MSNBC reporter: Corporate executives forced pro-Bush, pro-war narrative - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.comThursday May 29, 2008
Jessica Yellin -- currently a CNN correspondent who covered the White House for ABC News and MSNBC in 2002 and 2003 -- was on with Anderson Cooper last night discussing Scott McClellan's book, and made one of the most significant admissions heard on television in quite some time:
JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think the press corps dropped the ball at the beginning. When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings.And my own experience at the White House was that, the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives -- and I was not at this network at the time -- but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president.
I think, over time...
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?
YELLIN: Not in that exact -- they wouldn't say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces. They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical and try to put on pieces that were more positive, yes. That was my experience. ...
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
[Bush Press Secretary:] "I spent countless hours defending the administration ... some of them were badly misguided"
Exclusive: McClellan whacks Bush, White House | By MIKE ALLEN | 5/27/08 6:18 PM EST
...
McClellan, who turned 40 in February, was press secretary from July 2003 to April 2006. An Austin native from a political family, he began working as a gubernatorial spokesman for then-Gov. Bush in early 1999, was traveling press secretary for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and was chief deputy to Press Secretary Ari Fleischer at the beginning of Bush’s first term.
“I still like and admire President Bush,” McClellan writes. “But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war. … In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security.”
...
“I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood,” McClellan writes. “It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn’t learn that what I’d said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later.
...
Among other notable passages:
...
• “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.” ...
...
McClellan, who turned 40 in February, was press secretary from July 2003 to April 2006. An Austin native from a political family, he began working as a gubernatorial spokesman for then-Gov. Bush in early 1999, was traveling press secretary for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and was chief deputy to Press Secretary Ari Fleischer at the beginning of Bush’s first term.
“I still like and admire President Bush,” McClellan writes. “But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war. … In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security.”
...
“I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood,” McClellan writes. “It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn’t learn that what I’d said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later.
...
Among other notable passages:
...
• “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.” ...
Whitehouse Press Secretary: Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war ... press corps too easy on the administration .. “badly misguided.” briefings
Ex-Press Secretary Throws Bush Under the Bus | Posted on May 27, 2008
Scott McClellan was one of George W. Bush’s most loyal aides, so it is surprising to learn that he savages the president and his administration in his new memoir. Among other bombshells, McClellan refers to the administration’s “propaganda campaign” to sell the war and accuses Karl Rove and Scooter Libby of meeting in secret during the Plamegate scandal in order to get their stories straight.
Politico:
Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95):
—McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.
—He says the White House press corps went too easy on the administration.
—He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.”
—The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them - and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him the full facts.
—McClellan asserts that the aides—Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff - “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform ... media military analysts "into a kind..Trojan horse
Media Matters - Military analysts named in Times exposé appeared or were quoted more than 4,500 times on broadcast nets, cables, NPR | Tue, May 13, 2008 8:25am ET
Summary: A New York Times article detailed the connection between numerous media military analysts and the Pentagon and defense industries, reporting that "the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts "into a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks." A Media Matters review found that since January 1, 2002, the analysts named in the Times article -- many identified as having ties to the defense industry -- collectively appeared or were quoted as experts more than 4,500 times on ABC, ABC News Now, CBS, CBS Radio Network, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR. ...
Summary: A New York Times article detailed the connection between numerous media military analysts and the Pentagon and defense industries, reporting that "the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts "into a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks." A Media Matters review found that since January 1, 2002, the analysts named in the Times article -- many identified as having ties to the defense industry -- collectively appeared or were quoted as experts more than 4,500 times on ABC, ABC News Now, CBS, CBS Radio Network, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR. ...
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
I hope your editorial board is willing to take on this lightly veiled appeal to bigotry.
Tribune, Kathleen Parker owe readers an apology -- -- chicagotribune.com May 14, 2008
I recognize that your columnists are meant to recognize a diversity of opinions. But you owe your readers an apology for today's column by Kathleen Parker ("The 'Bubba' vote," May 14). It represents a level of venom that merits either a reprimand or an explanation from your editorial board. "Blood equity" is Parker's phrase to defend assaults on multi-culturalism, gun control, or indeed any critiques of religion. Two hundred years of continuous residence is apparently the requirement for an American in order to have "equity" in her society. "Generations of sacrifice" is the badge of honor to defend "their heritage." Those arriving after 1808 need not apply. We have heard this language before, from segregationists (is this part of "their heritage?"); from prohibitionists; from anti-suffrage advocates. "Full-blooded" Americans "get this," Parker concludes in this impassioned defense of ethnocentrism. I hope your editorial board is willing to take on this lightly veiled appeal to bigotry.
I recognize that your columnists are meant to recognize a diversity of opinions. But you owe your readers an apology for today's column by Kathleen Parker ("The 'Bubba' vote," May 14). It represents a level of venom that merits either a reprimand or an explanation from your editorial board. "Blood equity" is Parker's phrase to defend assaults on multi-culturalism, gun control, or indeed any critiques of religion. Two hundred years of continuous residence is apparently the requirement for an American in order to have "equity" in her society. "Generations of sacrifice" is the badge of honor to defend "their heritage." Those arriving after 1808 need not apply. We have heard this language before, from segregationists (is this part of "their heritage?"); from prohibitionists; from anti-suffrage advocates. "Full-blooded" Americans "get this," Parker concludes in this impassioned defense of ethnocentrism. I hope your editorial board is willing to take on this lightly veiled appeal to bigotry.
syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker defended Fry's claim that Obama is something other than "a full-blooded American."
High Standards at the Washington Post Op-Ed page - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
Last week, The Financial Times highlighted some of the ugly sentiment in West Virginia against Barack Obama, including comments such as "I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife's an atheist." The article reported that "several people said they believed he was a Muslim." It ended by quoting West Virginian Josh Fry as saying "he would feel more comfortable with Mr. McCain" than Obama because: "I want someone who is a full-blooded American as president."
In one of the most repellent columns one will ever read, syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker defended Fry's claim that Obama is something other than "a full-blooded American." Advancing an argument that Atrios guest blogger aimai aptly described as "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!," Parker said "we now have a patriot divide" in America that "has nothing to do with a flag lapel pin . . . or even military service." Instead:
It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.It goes on and on like that. So according to Parker, what makes McCain a "full-blooded American," but not Obama, has to do with "blood equity," "heritage," "rapidly changing demographic[s]," and "bloodlines." She then wrote that "white Americans primarily -- and Southerners, rural and small-town folks especially -- have been put on the defensive," and that:Some run deeper than others and therein lies the truth of Josh Fry's political sense. In a country that is rapidly changing demographically -- and where new neighbors may have arrived last year, not last century -- there is a very real sense that once-upon-a-time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity.
We love to boast that we are a nation of immigrants — and we are. But there's a different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines back through generations of sacrifice.
What they know is that their forefathers fought and died for an America that has worked pretty well for more than 200 years. What they sense is that their heritage is being swept under the carpet while multiculturalism becomes the new national narrative. And they fear what else might get lost in the remodeling of America. ...
[Court] rules in favor of the whistleblower only one percent of the time: The policy suggests that public integrity is more dangerous than treason.
Daily Kos: State of the Nationby Deep Harm | Fri May 16, 2008
... But, hardly anything is written about another kangaroo court; one that hears cases of American citizens - federal government employees who report lawbreaking, negligence and abuses of power by government officials.
The outcomes of those cases, involving issues of national security, public health and environmental safety, affect everyone; for, often the cases are the only times officials face being held accountable. So, what does it say to you that the court that hears those cases rules in favor of the whistleblower only one percent of the time - one pitiful percent? [1]
No jury, no transparency, no justice
The court referenced above is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the only court where federal government whistleblowers can go if they do not succeed at the Office of Special Counsel (2.5 percent success rate) or at the Merit Systems Protection Board (success rate less than 5 percent) [2]. And, because there is no provision at any step of the process for a jury trial and there is no requirement to publish details, evidence of official wrongdoing routinely disappears. Worsening the dilemma for honest feds, in many cases they are required by law or the code of ethics to report wrongdoing, as whistleblower attorney David Colapinto explained at a Congressional forum last week.
All whistleblowers are vulnerable to retaliation. But, national security whistleblowers are the most vulnerable because they have the fewest rights. Agencies typically revoke their security clearances, and there is no meaningful due process currently available to them. As Colapinto pointed out, federal whistleblowers, even if they have had security clearances for years, are denied access to classified evidence needed to win their cases. In contrast, the courts allow defendants accused of espionage to have access to classified documents. The policy suggests that public integrity is more dangerous than treason. ...
... But, hardly anything is written about another kangaroo court; one that hears cases of American citizens - federal government employees who report lawbreaking, negligence and abuses of power by government officials.
The outcomes of those cases, involving issues of national security, public health and environmental safety, affect everyone; for, often the cases are the only times officials face being held accountable. So, what does it say to you that the court that hears those cases rules in favor of the whistleblower only one percent of the time - one pitiful percent? [1]
No jury, no transparency, no justice
The court referenced above is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the only court where federal government whistleblowers can go if they do not succeed at the Office of Special Counsel (2.5 percent success rate) or at the Merit Systems Protection Board (success rate less than 5 percent) [2]. And, because there is no provision at any step of the process for a jury trial and there is no requirement to publish details, evidence of official wrongdoing routinely disappears. Worsening the dilemma for honest feds, in many cases they are required by law or the code of ethics to report wrongdoing, as whistleblower attorney David Colapinto explained at a Congressional forum last week.
All whistleblowers are vulnerable to retaliation. But, national security whistleblowers are the most vulnerable because they have the fewest rights. Agencies typically revoke their security clearances, and there is no meaningful due process currently available to them. As Colapinto pointed out, federal whistleblowers, even if they have had security clearances for years, are denied access to classified evidence needed to win their cases. In contrast, the courts allow defendants accused of espionage to have access to classified documents. The policy suggests that public integrity is more dangerous than treason. ...
Monday, May 05, 2008
Media Cesca: Have You Left No Sense Of Decency? -
Bob Cesca: Have You Left No Sense Of Decency? - Media on The Huffington Post | Bob Cesca | April 29, 2008
If the corporate media had been as diligent about watchdogging President Bush as they have been about watchdogging Reverend Wright, it's very likely we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
If the corporate media had spent as much time exposing the obvious flaws and grotesque inequalities of Reaganomics throughout the last 30 years as they've spent on Wright, we wouldn't necessarily be staring into the maw of another depression.
If the corporate media were as diligent about debunking the lies surrounding Iran's so-called nuclear program as they've been about Wright, there wouldn't be such a sense of inevitability in terms of attacking -- or entirely obliterating -- Iran.
...
... And -- bonus! -- there's videotape of this angry, shouting black man suggesting that America is partly to blame for the attacks of September 11!
Wait, wait. That claim sounds familiar. Who else besides, you know, the 9/11 Commission has claimed that American foreign policy in the Middle East was partly to blame for the September 11 attacks? In other words, who else has basically said -- and repeatedly so -- that America's "chickens have come home to roost"?
That'd be Republican Congressman Ron Paul. So let's see here... Which Republicans must, by their own standards, be held accountable for their relationship with such an obvious America-hater? Who ought to be forced to repeatedly renounce and reject Congressman Paul?
...
What about other white Republicans who have said equally crazy things? Pastor Hagee, who has endorsed Senator McCain, just recently claimed that God "damned" New Orleans. Add that statement to the anti-Semitic statements and the anti-Catholic statements and you've got yourself a controversy. But are the cable networks cutting to live coverage of Pastor Hagee for two hours at a stretch? Are ABC and Fox News going to question Senator McCain about his relationship with Hagee -- the same questions over and over again, backed with the same footage over and over again? Of course not. ...
If the corporate media had been as diligent about watchdogging President Bush as they have been about watchdogging Reverend Wright, it's very likely we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
If the corporate media had spent as much time exposing the obvious flaws and grotesque inequalities of Reaganomics throughout the last 30 years as they've spent on Wright, we wouldn't necessarily be staring into the maw of another depression.
If the corporate media were as diligent about debunking the lies surrounding Iran's so-called nuclear program as they've been about Wright, there wouldn't be such a sense of inevitability in terms of attacking -- or entirely obliterating -- Iran.
...
... And -- bonus! -- there's videotape of this angry, shouting black man suggesting that America is partly to blame for the attacks of September 11!
Wait, wait. That claim sounds familiar. Who else besides, you know, the 9/11 Commission has claimed that American foreign policy in the Middle East was partly to blame for the September 11 attacks? In other words, who else has basically said -- and repeatedly so -- that America's "chickens have come home to roost"?
That'd be Republican Congressman Ron Paul. So let's see here... Which Republicans must, by their own standards, be held accountable for their relationship with such an obvious America-hater? Who ought to be forced to repeatedly renounce and reject Congressman Paul?
...
What about other white Republicans who have said equally crazy things? Pastor Hagee, who has endorsed Senator McCain, just recently claimed that God "damned" New Orleans. Add that statement to the anti-Semitic statements and the anti-Catholic statements and you've got yourself a controversy. But are the cable networks cutting to live coverage of Pastor Hagee for two hours at a stretch? Are ABC and Fox News going to question Senator McCain about his relationship with Hagee -- the same questions over and over again, backed with the same footage over and over again? Of course not. ...
Critic accuses Hollywood of vilifying Arabs: examined the treatment of Arabs and Muslims in some 1,000 films
Critic accuses Hollywood of vilifying Arabs | Thu May 1, 2008 | By Tom Perry | REUTERS
BEIRUT (Reuters) - American films and TV dramas shot since the September 11 attacks have reinforced screen images of Arabs and Muslims as fanatics and villains, ingraining harmful stereotypes, argues an author on the subject.
In his book "Guilty -- Hollywood's Verdict on Arabs after 9/11", Jack Shaheen praises some post-September 11 films for offering a more sympathetic image of Arabs and Muslims, who he argues have been castigated for decades by Hollywood.
But he says that too many have portrayed them in ever darker shades, criticizing films including "The Kingdom" (2007) and "The Four Feathers" (2002) and condemning the creation of a new "Arab-American bogeyman" in TV dramas such as "24".
"In the United States, you can say anything you want about Islam and Arabs and get away with it. In other words, as someone said, 'You can hit an Arab free'," said Shaheen -- also author of "Reel Bad Arabs -- How Hollywood Vilifies a People".
Shaheen, an American of Lebanese descent, has examined the treatment of Arabs and Muslims in some 1,000 films, including more than 100 shot since September 11.
From action movies such as "True Lies" (1994) to comedies including "Father of the Bride Part II" (1995) and Disney's animated "Aladdin" (1992), Shaheen identifies films that have perpetuated damaging stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims.
"The images have remained primarily fixed and have only been changed in the sense that they have become more vindictive and damaging," he told Reuters in an interview in Beirut. ...
...
Hollywood's depiction of Arabs has eased the path for U.S. administration policy, he argues. Decades of portraying Arabs and Muslims as the enemy "made it that much easier for us to go into Iraq", he said. "There were very few people protesting.
"The images help enforce policy," he said. "As the policy becomes more even-handed, perhaps films will reflect that.
"Plato said: 'Those who tell the stories rule society'. Nothing has changed, and the story tellers of today have a tremendous impact on the world as we perceive it."
BEIRUT (Reuters) - American films and TV dramas shot since the September 11 attacks have reinforced screen images of Arabs and Muslims as fanatics and villains, ingraining harmful stereotypes, argues an author on the subject.
In his book "Guilty -- Hollywood's Verdict on Arabs after 9/11", Jack Shaheen praises some post-September 11 films for offering a more sympathetic image of Arabs and Muslims, who he argues have been castigated for decades by Hollywood.
But he says that too many have portrayed them in ever darker shades, criticizing films including "The Kingdom" (2007) and "The Four Feathers" (2002) and condemning the creation of a new "Arab-American bogeyman" in TV dramas such as "24".
"In the United States, you can say anything you want about Islam and Arabs and get away with it. In other words, as someone said, 'You can hit an Arab free'," said Shaheen -- also author of "Reel Bad Arabs -- How Hollywood Vilifies a People".
Shaheen, an American of Lebanese descent, has examined the treatment of Arabs and Muslims in some 1,000 films, including more than 100 shot since September 11.
From action movies such as "True Lies" (1994) to comedies including "Father of the Bride Part II" (1995) and Disney's animated "Aladdin" (1992), Shaheen identifies films that have perpetuated damaging stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims.
"The images have remained primarily fixed and have only been changed in the sense that they have become more vindictive and damaging," he told Reuters in an interview in Beirut. ...
...
Hollywood's depiction of Arabs has eased the path for U.S. administration policy, he argues. Decades of portraying Arabs and Muslims as the enemy "made it that much easier for us to go into Iraq", he said. "There were very few people protesting.
"The images help enforce policy," he said. "As the policy becomes more even-handed, perhaps films will reflect that.
"Plato said: 'Those who tell the stories rule society'. Nothing has changed, and the story tellers of today have a tremendous impact on the world as we perceive it."
double standard for black and white politicians at play in too much of news media...even gay men may hold more G.O.P. positions of power than blacks.
The All-White Elephant in the Room | By FRANK RICH | Published: May 4, 2008
BORED by those endless replays of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? If so, go directly to YouTube, search for “John Hagee Roman Church Hitler,” and be recharged by a fresh jolt of clerical jive.
BORED by those endless replays of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? If so, go directly to YouTube, search for “John Hagee Roman Church Hitler,” and be recharged by a fresh jolt of clerical jive.
What you’ll find is a white televangelist, the Rev. John Hagee, lecturing in front of an enormous diorama. Wielding a pointer, he pokes at the image of a woman with Pamela Anderson-sized breasts, her hand raising a golden chalice. The woman is “the Great Whore,” Mr. Hagee explains, and she is drinking “the blood of the Jewish people.” That’s because the Great Whore represents “the Roman Church,” which, in his view, has thirsted for Jewish blood throughout history, from the Crusades to the Holocaust.
Mr. Hagee is not a fringe kook but the pastor of a Texas megachurch. On Feb. 27, he stood with John McCain and endorsed him over the religious conservatives’ favorite, Mike Huckabee, who was then still in the race.
...
Mr. Hagee, it’s true, did not blame the American government for concocting AIDS. But he did say that God created Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for its sins, particularly a scheduled “homosexual parade there on the Monday that Katrina came.”
...
Mr. Hagee didn’t make that claim in obscure circumstances, either. He broadcast it on one of America’s most widely heard radio programs, “Fresh Air” on NPR, back in September 2006. He reaffirmed it in a radio interview less than two weeks ago. Only after a reporter asked Mr. McCain about this Katrina homily on April 24 did the candidate brand it as “nonsense” and the preacher retract it.
...
That defense implies, incorrectly, that Mr. McCain was a passive recipient of this bigot’s endorsement. In fact, by his own account, Mr. McCain sought out Mr. Hagee, who is perhaps best known for trying to drum up a pre-emptive “holy war” with Iran.
...
There is not just a double standard for black and white politicians at play in too much of the news media and political establishment, but there is also a glaring double standard for our political parties. The Clintons and Mr. Obama are always held accountable for their racial stands, as they should be, but the elephant in the room of our politics is rarely acknowledged: In the 21st century, the so-called party of Lincoln does not have a single African-American among its collective 247 senators and representatives in Washington. Yes, there are appointees like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice, but, as we learned during the Mark Foley scandal, even gay men may hold more G.O.P. positions of power than blacks. ...
...
... Yet the holier-than-thou politicians and pundits on the right passing shrill moral judgment over every Democratic racial skirmish are almost never asked to confront or even acknowledge the racial dysfunction in their own house. In our mainstream political culture, this de facto apartheid is simply accepted as an intractable given, unworthy of notice, and just too embarrassing to mention aloud in polite Beltway company. Those who dare are instantly accused of “political correctness” or “reverse racism.” ...
Huffington wouldn’t be booked on any NBC-affiliated show to promote her book, but refused to explain why ...
Crooks and Liars » Tim Russert Takes Offense, Bans Arianna Huffington From NBC NewsBy: Nicole Belle on Wednesday, April 30th, 2008
It seems that Arianna Huffington has run up against the impenetrable wall that is Tim Russert’s ego. Huffington, who is currently on tour for her new book Right Is Wrong: How The Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded The Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe, will be appearing on CNN, ABC, and CBS. She had been booked on Morning Joe and Countdown with Keith Olbermann as well, but those bookings were suddenly and inexplicably cancelled.
NBC confirmed that Huffington wouldn’t be booked on any NBC-affiliated show to promote her book, but refused to explain why. Huffington’s people say that this is Tim Russert’s doing, that Russert is out for revenge because Huffington called him a “conventional wisdom zombie” in her book and devoted seven pages to faulting Russert for allowing his Meet the Press guests to go unchallenged (not to mention HuffPo’s RussertWatch). ...Precision Media Hit On Obama, A Pass For Clinton ... mediamake us care about bowling and coffee machines ...
RJ Eskow: Coffeecups and Gutterballs: A Precision Media Hit On Obama, A Pass For Clinton - Media on The Huffington PostRJ ESKOW | Posted May 2, 2008
...
But, stop already! Isn't this all ridiculous? Isn't it trivial to concern ourselves with whether the next president is able to go bowling or get a cup of coffee from a vending machine? Of course! But the media make us care about these things. They have an enormous ability to influence what we think about, and they've chosen to emphasize the reality-show aspects of this race. Then, having done that, they skew the race in favor of different candidates in a naked display of their ability to influence the outcome. That's the lesson of the bowling incident and the coffee-cup video: One gets exposure and the other doesn't, because the narrative has already been written. ...
Let's start with a hypothetical situation: Suppose a small group of people controlled the press, and they wanted to ensure a Republican victory in November. A few weeks ago Obama seemed to be riding a wave of inevitability and positive perception. The Democrats seemed to have settled on a candidate, and he scored well against the Republicans because he was seen as post-racial and post-partisan. If this group were to write a memo to the media, what would it say?
Their game plan would have very specific objectives:
1. Extend the Democratic primary race as long as possible.
2. Remind the public that the seemingly "post-racial" Obama is a black man; make him seem as scary-black as possible.
3. Strengthen Hillary Clinton's image with white working-class voters by making her appear populist, folksy, and one of them. Conversely, characterize Obama as an elitist who is out of touch with "real people."
4. Break down Obama's post-partisan appeal to independents and Republicans by linking him to the divisive left/right politics of the 1960s.
...
But, stop already! Isn't this all ridiculous? Isn't it trivial to concern ourselves with whether the next president is able to go bowling or get a cup of coffee from a vending machine? Of course! But the media make us care about these things. They have an enormous ability to influence what we think about, and they've chosen to emphasize the reality-show aspects of this race. Then, having done that, they skew the race in favor of different candidates in a naked display of their ability to influence the outcome. That's the lesson of the bowling incident and the coffee-cup video: One gets exposure and the other doesn't, because the narrative has already been written. ...
Friday, May 02, 2008
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand - New York Times ... consultants and military contractors ...
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand - New York TimesMessage Machine | By DAVID BARSTOW | Published: April 20, 2008
...
The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.
...
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. ...
...
The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.
...
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. ...
Greg Mitchell: The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media - Politics on The Huffington Post
Greg Mitchell: The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media - Politics on The Huffington PostGREG MITCHELL | April 16, 2008
In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin -- while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.
Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of right-wing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued.
More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and -- you name it. Gibson only got excited complaining that someone might raise his capital gains tax. Yet neither candidate had the courage to ask the moderators to turn to those far more important issues. Talking heads on other networks followed up by not pressing that point either. The crowd booed Gibson near the end. Why didn't every other responsible journalist on TV? ...
Thursday, May 01, 2008
senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama.: [emails] dail
Peter Dreier: Sidney Blumenthal Uses Former Right-Wing Foes To Attack Obama - Off The Bus on The Huffington PostMay 1, 2008 | Peter Dreier
Former journalist Sidney Blumenthal has been widely credited with coining the term "vast right-wing conspiracy" used by Hillary Clinton in 1998 to describe the alliance of conservative media, think tanks, and political operatives that sought to destroy the Clinton White House where he worked as a high-level aide. A decade later, and now acting as a senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama. And he's not hesitating to use the same sort of guilt-by-association tactics that have been the hallmark of the political right dating back to the McCarthy era.
Almost every day over the past six months, I have been the recipient of an email that attacks Obama's character, political views, electability, and real or manufactured associations. The original source of many of these hit pieces are virulent and sometimes extreme right-wing websites, bloggers, and publications. But they aren't being emailed out from some fringe right-wing group that somehow managed to get my email address. Instead, it is Sidney Blumenthal who, on a regular basis, methodically dispatches these email mudballs to an influential list of opinion shapers -- including journalists, former Clinton administration officials, academics, policy entrepreneurs, and think tankers -- in what is an obvious attempt to create an echo chamber that reverberates among talk shows, columnists, and Democratic Party funders and activists. One of the recipients of the Blumenthal email blast, himself a Clinton supporter, forwards the material to me and perhaps to others.
...
To cite just one recent example, Blumenthal circulated an article taken from the fervently hard-right AIM website on February 18 entitled, "Obama's Communist Mentor" by Cliff Kincaid. Kincaid is a right-wing writer and activist, a longtime critic of the United Nations, whose group, America's Survival, has been funded by foundations controlled by conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife, the same millionaire who helped fund attacks on the Clintons during their White House years. Scaife also funds AIM, the right-wing media "watchdog" group. ...
Meanwhile, how are we evaluating the would-be Democratic nominee? Based on orange juice, of course. Why? Because the Republicans say so.
Bob Cesca: The Very Serious Debate, Starring The Very Serious GeorgePosted April 17, 2008 | Bob Cesca
We like to joke about the "very serious" traditional media. The truth is that while they claim exclusive lordship over integrity and professionalism -- not to mention a corner on the world's supply of pants made of smarty -- they're really a freak show with serious haircuts and suits. They're a wing of the Republican corporatist conspiracy against America. And the very serious moderators of last night's Democratic debate couldn't have been less serious if they had been wearing clown suits made of dildos while simultaneously tickling each other with monkeys.
I don't really even need to write this. The nation has witnessed, firsthand, George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson for who they really are: pandering yellow journalists. Carnival barkers. They're Penn & Teller without the talent or insight.
To wit... 50 minutes without a single substantive question. Fifty. ...
...
Whether the questions were about Wright and Bosnia, or about guns and Iran, every single topic was framed from the perspective of the Republicans, with an eye on what the Republicans might say about him or her in the general election. So, I have to ask: since when did this become a primary race about which Democrat most resembles George W. Bush and John W. McCain?
It confounds logic that, on one hand, Senator Obama is repeatedly asked to explain why rural America is bitter, while, on the other hand, his qualifications for the presidency are being evaluated based on his goddamn bowling skills. Seriously, what the hell is going on here? The Bush Republicans are responsible for perhaps the worst economic crisis since World War II. They're responsible for a $3 trillion occupation and decades of future blowback. They're responsible for selling our sovereignty to foreign governments. They're responsible for trampling our liberty and national character. And there was Senator McCain on Hardball the other night talking about war in Iran, while pledging to make permanent the Bush tax cuts for the super rich. Both of which would make matters far, far worse.
Meanwhile, how are we evaluating the would-be Democratic nominee? Based on orange juice, of course. Why? Because the Republicans say so. ...
We like to joke about the "very serious" traditional media. The truth is that while they claim exclusive lordship over integrity and professionalism -- not to mention a corner on the world's supply of pants made of smarty -- they're really a freak show with serious haircuts and suits. They're a wing of the Republican corporatist conspiracy against America. And the very serious moderators of last night's Democratic debate couldn't have been less serious if they had been wearing clown suits made of dildos while simultaneously tickling each other with monkeys.
I don't really even need to write this. The nation has witnessed, firsthand, George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson for who they really are: pandering yellow journalists. Carnival barkers. They're Penn & Teller without the talent or insight.
To wit... 50 minutes without a single substantive question. Fifty. ...
...
Whether the questions were about Wright and Bosnia, or about guns and Iran, every single topic was framed from the perspective of the Republicans, with an eye on what the Republicans might say about him or her in the general election. So, I have to ask: since when did this become a primary race about which Democrat most resembles George W. Bush and John W. McCain?
It confounds logic that, on one hand, Senator Obama is repeatedly asked to explain why rural America is bitter, while, on the other hand, his qualifications for the presidency are being evaluated based on his goddamn bowling skills. Seriously, what the hell is going on here? The Bush Republicans are responsible for perhaps the worst economic crisis since World War II. They're responsible for a $3 trillion occupation and decades of future blowback. They're responsible for selling our sovereignty to foreign governments. They're responsible for trampling our liberty and national character. And there was Senator McCain on Hardball the other night talking about war in Iran, while pledging to make permanent the Bush tax cuts for the super rich. Both of which would make matters far, far worse.
Meanwhile, how are we evaluating the would-be Democratic nominee? Based on orange juice, of course. Why? Because the Republicans say so. ...
Sunday, April 27, 2008
TV Military ‘Analysts’ Are Part Ike's ... unwarranted influence ...by the military-industrial complex [Propaganda]
TV Military ‘Analysts’ Are Part of What Ike Warned AgainstA New York Times report shines a light on how the military-industrial complex tries to shape broadcast news. - CommonDreams.orgSunday, April 27, 2008 by the Maine Sunday Telegram
...
They were the faces of nine retired military officers (there were more inside the paper) who appear regularly on network and cable television news to give viewers informed, independent assessments of the war in Iraq.
At least that was the idea.
What viewers have been getting, the Times revealed, is something quite different. The paper reported convincingly that some retired officers appearing as “military analysts” have been pushing Pentagon propaganda in return for continued access to top officials and financial benefit for themselves.
According to the Times report, “Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department.
“In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated,” the report said. “Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access. A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public.”
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, an enthusiastic golfer in his presidential years, left behind more than spike marks on the White House floor. He stood at a convergence in American history. He knew it. And he gave voice to a solemn warning, delivered in 1961, three days before he left office.
Eisenhower, a renowned World War II general, declared, “Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
“In the councils of government,” he warned, “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. ...
...
They were the faces of nine retired military officers (there were more inside the paper) who appear regularly on network and cable television news to give viewers informed, independent assessments of the war in Iraq.
At least that was the idea.
What viewers have been getting, the Times revealed, is something quite different. The paper reported convincingly that some retired officers appearing as “military analysts” have been pushing Pentagon propaganda in return for continued access to top officials and financial benefit for themselves.
According to the Times report, “Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department.
“In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated,” the report said. “Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access. A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public.”
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, an enthusiastic golfer in his presidential years, left behind more than spike marks on the White House floor. He stood at a convergence in American history. He knew it. And he gave voice to a solemn warning, delivered in 1961, three days before he left office.
Eisenhower, a renowned World War II general, declared, “Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
“In the councils of government,” he warned, “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. ...
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
government program to corrupt the free flow of information that serves
Propaganda at Home - CommonDreams.orgTuesday, April 22, 2008 by The Boston Globe
Anyone who has watched the military analysts hired by TV networks has heard rosy assessments of the war in Iraq. The similarities between their judgments and the Pentagon’s are not coincidental. As The New York Times demonstrated by suing the Pentagon to obtain 8,000 pages of documents, those analysts were enlisted by the Defense Department in a psychological warfare operation targeting the domestic audience. And, as the newspaper reported Sunday, many of the retired military officers appearing on news shows were using their access to the Pentagon and the airwaves to procure lucrative contracts for some 150 defense contractors, which employed them as consultants, board members, lobbyists, or executives.
This is no subtle attempt to influence public opinion. It is a government program to corrupt the free flow of information that serves, in a healthy democracy, to inoculate the public against official lies, bad policy, and misbegotten wars.One straightforward corrective would be for TV news executives to require full disclosure of their analysts’ business interests as well as their contacts and junkets with military and government officials. Ideally, the television news shows would not have to rely on paid outside experts. They should trust their own reporters to gather news from disparate sources, and to interview former and serving officers who can offer informed commentary from diverse viewpoints.
...
This is a tactic more suitable for Vladimir Putin’s Russia. In fact, the Pentagon’s manipulation of the media has been more deft than the Kremlin’s because it was better hidden.
In the end, the government’s disguised lies have done more damage to American democracy and the national interest than to any foreign enemy. History’s epitaph for the Pentagon’s psywar operation will be: “We fooled ourselves.”
Anyone who has watched the military analysts hired by TV networks has heard rosy assessments of the war in Iraq. The similarities between their judgments and the Pentagon’s are not coincidental. As The New York Times demonstrated by suing the Pentagon to obtain 8,000 pages of documents, those analysts were enlisted by the Defense Department in a psychological warfare operation targeting the domestic audience. And, as the newspaper reported Sunday, many of the retired military officers appearing on news shows were using their access to the Pentagon and the airwaves to procure lucrative contracts for some 150 defense contractors, which employed them as consultants, board members, lobbyists, or executives.
This is no subtle attempt to influence public opinion. It is a government program to corrupt the free flow of information that serves, in a healthy democracy, to inoculate the public against official lies, bad policy, and misbegotten wars.One straightforward corrective would be for TV news executives to require full disclosure of their analysts’ business interests as well as their contacts and junkets with military and government officials. Ideally, the television news shows would not have to rely on paid outside experts. They should trust their own reporters to gather news from disparate sources, and to interview former and serving officers who can offer informed commentary from diverse viewpoints.
...
This is a tactic more suitable for Vladimir Putin’s Russia. In fact, the Pentagon’s manipulation of the media has been more deft than the Kremlin’s because it was better hidden.
In the end, the government’s disguised lies have done more damage to American democracy and the national interest than to any foreign enemy. History’s epitaph for the Pentagon’s psywar operation will be: “We fooled ourselves.”
Thursday, April 17, 2008
question that came out of right-wing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos.
Greg Mitchell: The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media - Politics on The Huffington PostPosted April 16, 2008
In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin -- while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.
Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of right-wing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued. ...
More than Half Agree with Obama's Comments ... [while media, Clinton and McCain try to drive controversy ...
Obama’s Explanation of “Controversial” Remarks Moves Democrats and Independents ...-- Among All Parties: More than Half Agree with His Comments -- Flemington, NJ, April 14, 2008
...
Do you agree with Senator Obama’s comments regarding working class voters in states like Pennsylvania?
...
...
Do you agree with Senator Obama’s comments regarding working class voters in states like Pennsylvania?
POST VIEWING OF VIDEO
| Democrats | Republicans | Independents |
Yes | 64% | 38% | 56% |
No | 22% | 46% | 29% |
Not Sure | 14% | 16% | 15% |
Instead of focusing on... jobs ... schools,... taxes ... manufacturing ... HRC’s spin on Obama’s words (elitism) ... McCain puerile attacks ...
Robert Reich's Blog: Obama, Bitterness, Meet the Press, and the Old Politics | Sunday, April 13, 2008
... The stagnation of middle-class wages and the expansion of povety. Male hourly wages began to drop in the early 1970s, adjusted for inflation. The average man in his 30s is earning less than his father did thirty years ago. Yet America is far richer. Where did the money go? To the top.
Are Americans who have been left behind frustrated? Of course. And their frustrations, their anger and, yes, sometimes their bitterness, have been used since then -- by demagogues, by nationalists and xenophobes, by radical conservatives, by political nuts and fanatical fruitcakes – to blame immigrants and foreign traders, to blame blacks and the poor, to blame "liberal elites," to blame anyone and anything.
Rather than counter all this, the American media have wallowed in it. Some, like Fox News and talk radio, have given the haters and blamers their very own megaphones. The rest have merely "reported on" it. Instead of focusing on how to get Americans good jobs again; instead of admitting too many of our schools are failing and our kids are falling behind their contemporaries in Europe, Japan, and even China; instead of showing why we need a more progressive tax system to finance better schools and access to health care, and green technologies that might create new manufacturing jobs, our national discussion has been mired in the old politics.
Listen to this morning’s “Meet the Press” if you want an example. Tim Russert, one of the smartest guys on television, interviewed four political consultants – Carville and Matalin, Bob Schrum, and Michael Murphy. Political consultants are paid huge sums to help politicians spin words and avoid real talk. They’re part of the problem. And what do Russert and these four consultants talk about? The potential damage to Barack Obama from saying that lots of people in Pennsylvania are bitter that the economy has left them behind; about HRC’s spin on Obama’s words (he’s an “elitist,” she said); and John McCain’s similarly puerile attack. ...
... The stagnation of middle-class wages and the expansion of povety. Male hourly wages began to drop in the early 1970s, adjusted for inflation. The average man in his 30s is earning less than his father did thirty years ago. Yet America is far richer. Where did the money go? To the top.
Are Americans who have been left behind frustrated? Of course. And their frustrations, their anger and, yes, sometimes their bitterness, have been used since then -- by demagogues, by nationalists and xenophobes, by radical conservatives, by political nuts and fanatical fruitcakes – to blame immigrants and foreign traders, to blame blacks and the poor, to blame "liberal elites," to blame anyone and anything.
Rather than counter all this, the American media have wallowed in it. Some, like Fox News and talk radio, have given the haters and blamers their very own megaphones. The rest have merely "reported on" it. Instead of focusing on how to get Americans good jobs again; instead of admitting too many of our schools are failing and our kids are falling behind their contemporaries in Europe, Japan, and even China; instead of showing why we need a more progressive tax system to finance better schools and access to health care, and green technologies that might create new manufacturing jobs, our national discussion has been mired in the old politics.
Listen to this morning’s “Meet the Press” if you want an example. Tim Russert, one of the smartest guys on television, interviewed four political consultants – Carville and Matalin, Bob Schrum, and Michael Murphy. Political consultants are paid huge sums to help politicians spin words and avoid real talk. They’re part of the problem. And what do Russert and these four consultants talk about? The potential damage to Barack Obama from saying that lots of people in Pennsylvania are bitter that the economy has left them behind; about HRC’s spin on Obama’s words (he’s an “elitist,” she said); and John McCain’s similarly puerile attack. ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)