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.” ...
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Whitehouse Press Secretary: Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war ... press corps too easy on the administration .. “badly misguided.” briefings
Ex-Press Secretary Throws Bush Under the Bus | Posted on May 27, 2008
Scott McClellan was one of George W. Bush’s most loyal aides, so it is surprising to learn that he savages the president and his administration in his new memoir. Among other bombshells, McClellan refers to the administration’s “propaganda campaign” to sell the war and accuses Karl Rove and Scooter Libby of meeting in secret during the Plamegate scandal in order to get their stories straight.
Politico:
Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95):
—McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.
—He says the White House press corps went too easy on the administration.
—He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.”
—The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them - and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him the full facts.
—McClellan asserts that the aides—Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff - “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform ... media military analysts "into a kind..Trojan horse
Media Matters - Military analysts named in Times exposé appeared or were quoted more than 4,500 times on broadcast nets, cables, NPR | Tue, May 13, 2008 8:25am ET
Summary: A New York Times article detailed the connection between numerous media military analysts and the Pentagon and defense industries, reporting that "the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts "into a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks." A Media Matters review found that since January 1, 2002, the analysts named in the Times article -- many identified as having ties to the defense industry -- collectively appeared or were quoted as experts more than 4,500 times on ABC, ABC News Now, CBS, CBS Radio Network, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR. ...
Summary: A New York Times article detailed the connection between numerous media military analysts and the Pentagon and defense industries, reporting that "the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts "into a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks." A Media Matters review found that since January 1, 2002, the analysts named in the Times article -- many identified as having ties to the defense industry -- collectively appeared or were quoted as experts more than 4,500 times on ABC, ABC News Now, CBS, CBS Radio Network, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR. ...
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
I hope your editorial board is willing to take on this lightly veiled appeal to bigotry.
Tribune, Kathleen Parker owe readers an apology -- -- chicagotribune.com May 14, 2008
I recognize that your columnists are meant to recognize a diversity of opinions. But you owe your readers an apology for today's column by Kathleen Parker ("The 'Bubba' vote," May 14). It represents a level of venom that merits either a reprimand or an explanation from your editorial board. "Blood equity" is Parker's phrase to defend assaults on multi-culturalism, gun control, or indeed any critiques of religion. Two hundred years of continuous residence is apparently the requirement for an American in order to have "equity" in her society. "Generations of sacrifice" is the badge of honor to defend "their heritage." Those arriving after 1808 need not apply. We have heard this language before, from segregationists (is this part of "their heritage?"); from prohibitionists; from anti-suffrage advocates. "Full-blooded" Americans "get this," Parker concludes in this impassioned defense of ethnocentrism. I hope your editorial board is willing to take on this lightly veiled appeal to bigotry.
I recognize that your columnists are meant to recognize a diversity of opinions. But you owe your readers an apology for today's column by Kathleen Parker ("The 'Bubba' vote," May 14). It represents a level of venom that merits either a reprimand or an explanation from your editorial board. "Blood equity" is Parker's phrase to defend assaults on multi-culturalism, gun control, or indeed any critiques of religion. Two hundred years of continuous residence is apparently the requirement for an American in order to have "equity" in her society. "Generations of sacrifice" is the badge of honor to defend "their heritage." Those arriving after 1808 need not apply. We have heard this language before, from segregationists (is this part of "their heritage?"); from prohibitionists; from anti-suffrage advocates. "Full-blooded" Americans "get this," Parker concludes in this impassioned defense of ethnocentrism. I hope your editorial board is willing to take on this lightly veiled appeal to bigotry.
syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker defended Fry's claim that Obama is something other than "a full-blooded American."
High Standards at the Washington Post Op-Ed page - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
Last week, The Financial Times highlighted some of the ugly sentiment in West Virginia against Barack Obama, including comments such as "I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife's an atheist." The article reported that "several people said they believed he was a Muslim." It ended by quoting West Virginian Josh Fry as saying "he would feel more comfortable with Mr. McCain" than Obama because: "I want someone who is a full-blooded American as president."
In one of the most repellent columns one will ever read, syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker defended Fry's claim that Obama is something other than "a full-blooded American." Advancing an argument that Atrios guest blogger aimai aptly described as "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!," Parker said "we now have a patriot divide" in America that "has nothing to do with a flag lapel pin . . . or even military service." Instead:
It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.It goes on and on like that. So according to Parker, what makes McCain a "full-blooded American," but not Obama, has to do with "blood equity," "heritage," "rapidly changing demographic[s]," and "bloodlines." She then wrote that "white Americans primarily -- and Southerners, rural and small-town folks especially -- have been put on the defensive," and that:Some run deeper than others and therein lies the truth of Josh Fry's political sense. In a country that is rapidly changing demographically -- and where new neighbors may have arrived last year, not last century -- there is a very real sense that once-upon-a-time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity.
We love to boast that we are a nation of immigrants — and we are. But there's a different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines back through generations of sacrifice.
What they know is that their forefathers fought and died for an America that has worked pretty well for more than 200 years. What they sense is that their heritage is being swept under the carpet while multiculturalism becomes the new national narrative. And they fear what else might get lost in the remodeling of America. ...
[Court] rules in favor of the whistleblower only one percent of the time: The policy suggests that public integrity is more dangerous than treason.
Daily Kos: State of the Nationby Deep Harm | Fri May 16, 2008
... But, hardly anything is written about another kangaroo court; one that hears cases of American citizens - federal government employees who report lawbreaking, negligence and abuses of power by government officials.
The outcomes of those cases, involving issues of national security, public health and environmental safety, affect everyone; for, often the cases are the only times officials face being held accountable. So, what does it say to you that the court that hears those cases rules in favor of the whistleblower only one percent of the time - one pitiful percent? [1]
No jury, no transparency, no justice
The court referenced above is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the only court where federal government whistleblowers can go if they do not succeed at the Office of Special Counsel (2.5 percent success rate) or at the Merit Systems Protection Board (success rate less than 5 percent) [2]. And, because there is no provision at any step of the process for a jury trial and there is no requirement to publish details, evidence of official wrongdoing routinely disappears. Worsening the dilemma for honest feds, in many cases they are required by law or the code of ethics to report wrongdoing, as whistleblower attorney David Colapinto explained at a Congressional forum last week.
All whistleblowers are vulnerable to retaliation. But, national security whistleblowers are the most vulnerable because they have the fewest rights. Agencies typically revoke their security clearances, and there is no meaningful due process currently available to them. As Colapinto pointed out, federal whistleblowers, even if they have had security clearances for years, are denied access to classified evidence needed to win their cases. In contrast, the courts allow defendants accused of espionage to have access to classified documents. The policy suggests that public integrity is more dangerous than treason. ...
... But, hardly anything is written about another kangaroo court; one that hears cases of American citizens - federal government employees who report lawbreaking, negligence and abuses of power by government officials.
The outcomes of those cases, involving issues of national security, public health and environmental safety, affect everyone; for, often the cases are the only times officials face being held accountable. So, what does it say to you that the court that hears those cases rules in favor of the whistleblower only one percent of the time - one pitiful percent? [1]
No jury, no transparency, no justice
The court referenced above is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the only court where federal government whistleblowers can go if they do not succeed at the Office of Special Counsel (2.5 percent success rate) or at the Merit Systems Protection Board (success rate less than 5 percent) [2]. And, because there is no provision at any step of the process for a jury trial and there is no requirement to publish details, evidence of official wrongdoing routinely disappears. Worsening the dilemma for honest feds, in many cases they are required by law or the code of ethics to report wrongdoing, as whistleblower attorney David Colapinto explained at a Congressional forum last week.
All whistleblowers are vulnerable to retaliation. But, national security whistleblowers are the most vulnerable because they have the fewest rights. Agencies typically revoke their security clearances, and there is no meaningful due process currently available to them. As Colapinto pointed out, federal whistleblowers, even if they have had security clearances for years, are denied access to classified evidence needed to win their cases. In contrast, the courts allow defendants accused of espionage to have access to classified documents. The policy suggests that public integrity is more dangerous than treason. ...
Monday, May 05, 2008
Media Cesca: Have You Left No Sense Of Decency? -
Bob Cesca: Have You Left No Sense Of Decency? - Media on The Huffington Post | Bob Cesca | April 29, 2008
If the corporate media had been as diligent about watchdogging President Bush as they have been about watchdogging Reverend Wright, it's very likely we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
If the corporate media had spent as much time exposing the obvious flaws and grotesque inequalities of Reaganomics throughout the last 30 years as they've spent on Wright, we wouldn't necessarily be staring into the maw of another depression.
If the corporate media were as diligent about debunking the lies surrounding Iran's so-called nuclear program as they've been about Wright, there wouldn't be such a sense of inevitability in terms of attacking -- or entirely obliterating -- Iran.
...
... And -- bonus! -- there's videotape of this angry, shouting black man suggesting that America is partly to blame for the attacks of September 11!
Wait, wait. That claim sounds familiar. Who else besides, you know, the 9/11 Commission has claimed that American foreign policy in the Middle East was partly to blame for the September 11 attacks? In other words, who else has basically said -- and repeatedly so -- that America's "chickens have come home to roost"?
That'd be Republican Congressman Ron Paul. So let's see here... Which Republicans must, by their own standards, be held accountable for their relationship with such an obvious America-hater? Who ought to be forced to repeatedly renounce and reject Congressman Paul?
...
What about other white Republicans who have said equally crazy things? Pastor Hagee, who has endorsed Senator McCain, just recently claimed that God "damned" New Orleans. Add that statement to the anti-Semitic statements and the anti-Catholic statements and you've got yourself a controversy. But are the cable networks cutting to live coverage of Pastor Hagee for two hours at a stretch? Are ABC and Fox News going to question Senator McCain about his relationship with Hagee -- the same questions over and over again, backed with the same footage over and over again? Of course not. ...
If the corporate media had been as diligent about watchdogging President Bush as they have been about watchdogging Reverend Wright, it's very likely we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
If the corporate media had spent as much time exposing the obvious flaws and grotesque inequalities of Reaganomics throughout the last 30 years as they've spent on Wright, we wouldn't necessarily be staring into the maw of another depression.
If the corporate media were as diligent about debunking the lies surrounding Iran's so-called nuclear program as they've been about Wright, there wouldn't be such a sense of inevitability in terms of attacking -- or entirely obliterating -- Iran.
...
... And -- bonus! -- there's videotape of this angry, shouting black man suggesting that America is partly to blame for the attacks of September 11!
Wait, wait. That claim sounds familiar. Who else besides, you know, the 9/11 Commission has claimed that American foreign policy in the Middle East was partly to blame for the September 11 attacks? In other words, who else has basically said -- and repeatedly so -- that America's "chickens have come home to roost"?
That'd be Republican Congressman Ron Paul. So let's see here... Which Republicans must, by their own standards, be held accountable for their relationship with such an obvious America-hater? Who ought to be forced to repeatedly renounce and reject Congressman Paul?
...
What about other white Republicans who have said equally crazy things? Pastor Hagee, who has endorsed Senator McCain, just recently claimed that God "damned" New Orleans. Add that statement to the anti-Semitic statements and the anti-Catholic statements and you've got yourself a controversy. But are the cable networks cutting to live coverage of Pastor Hagee for two hours at a stretch? Are ABC and Fox News going to question Senator McCain about his relationship with Hagee -- the same questions over and over again, backed with the same footage over and over again? Of course not. ...
Critic accuses Hollywood of vilifying Arabs: examined the treatment of Arabs and Muslims in some 1,000 films
Critic accuses Hollywood of vilifying Arabs | Thu May 1, 2008 | By Tom Perry | REUTERS
BEIRUT (Reuters) - American films and TV dramas shot since the September 11 attacks have reinforced screen images of Arabs and Muslims as fanatics and villains, ingraining harmful stereotypes, argues an author on the subject.
In his book "Guilty -- Hollywood's Verdict on Arabs after 9/11", Jack Shaheen praises some post-September 11 films for offering a more sympathetic image of Arabs and Muslims, who he argues have been castigated for decades by Hollywood.
But he says that too many have portrayed them in ever darker shades, criticizing films including "The Kingdom" (2007) and "The Four Feathers" (2002) and condemning the creation of a new "Arab-American bogeyman" in TV dramas such as "24".
"In the United States, you can say anything you want about Islam and Arabs and get away with it. In other words, as someone said, 'You can hit an Arab free'," said Shaheen -- also author of "Reel Bad Arabs -- How Hollywood Vilifies a People".
Shaheen, an American of Lebanese descent, has examined the treatment of Arabs and Muslims in some 1,000 films, including more than 100 shot since September 11.
From action movies such as "True Lies" (1994) to comedies including "Father of the Bride Part II" (1995) and Disney's animated "Aladdin" (1992), Shaheen identifies films that have perpetuated damaging stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims.
"The images have remained primarily fixed and have only been changed in the sense that they have become more vindictive and damaging," he told Reuters in an interview in Beirut. ...
...
Hollywood's depiction of Arabs has eased the path for U.S. administration policy, he argues. Decades of portraying Arabs and Muslims as the enemy "made it that much easier for us to go into Iraq", he said. "There were very few people protesting.
"The images help enforce policy," he said. "As the policy becomes more even-handed, perhaps films will reflect that.
"Plato said: 'Those who tell the stories rule society'. Nothing has changed, and the story tellers of today have a tremendous impact on the world as we perceive it."
BEIRUT (Reuters) - American films and TV dramas shot since the September 11 attacks have reinforced screen images of Arabs and Muslims as fanatics and villains, ingraining harmful stereotypes, argues an author on the subject.
In his book "Guilty -- Hollywood's Verdict on Arabs after 9/11", Jack Shaheen praises some post-September 11 films for offering a more sympathetic image of Arabs and Muslims, who he argues have been castigated for decades by Hollywood.
But he says that too many have portrayed them in ever darker shades, criticizing films including "The Kingdom" (2007) and "The Four Feathers" (2002) and condemning the creation of a new "Arab-American bogeyman" in TV dramas such as "24".
"In the United States, you can say anything you want about Islam and Arabs and get away with it. In other words, as someone said, 'You can hit an Arab free'," said Shaheen -- also author of "Reel Bad Arabs -- How Hollywood Vilifies a People".
Shaheen, an American of Lebanese descent, has examined the treatment of Arabs and Muslims in some 1,000 films, including more than 100 shot since September 11.
From action movies such as "True Lies" (1994) to comedies including "Father of the Bride Part II" (1995) and Disney's animated "Aladdin" (1992), Shaheen identifies films that have perpetuated damaging stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims.
"The images have remained primarily fixed and have only been changed in the sense that they have become more vindictive and damaging," he told Reuters in an interview in Beirut. ...
...
Hollywood's depiction of Arabs has eased the path for U.S. administration policy, he argues. Decades of portraying Arabs and Muslims as the enemy "made it that much easier for us to go into Iraq", he said. "There were very few people protesting.
"The images help enforce policy," he said. "As the policy becomes more even-handed, perhaps films will reflect that.
"Plato said: 'Those who tell the stories rule society'. Nothing has changed, and the story tellers of today have a tremendous impact on the world as we perceive it."
double standard for black and white politicians at play in too much of news media...even gay men may hold more G.O.P. positions of power than blacks.
The All-White Elephant in the Room | By FRANK RICH | Published: May 4, 2008
BORED by those endless replays of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? If so, go directly to YouTube, search for “John Hagee Roman Church Hitler,” and be recharged by a fresh jolt of clerical jive.
BORED by those endless replays of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? If so, go directly to YouTube, search for “John Hagee Roman Church Hitler,” and be recharged by a fresh jolt of clerical jive.
What you’ll find is a white televangelist, the Rev. John Hagee, lecturing in front of an enormous diorama. Wielding a pointer, he pokes at the image of a woman with Pamela Anderson-sized breasts, her hand raising a golden chalice. The woman is “the Great Whore,” Mr. Hagee explains, and she is drinking “the blood of the Jewish people.” That’s because the Great Whore represents “the Roman Church,” which, in his view, has thirsted for Jewish blood throughout history, from the Crusades to the Holocaust.
Mr. Hagee is not a fringe kook but the pastor of a Texas megachurch. On Feb. 27, he stood with John McCain and endorsed him over the religious conservatives’ favorite, Mike Huckabee, who was then still in the race.
...
Mr. Hagee, it’s true, did not blame the American government for concocting AIDS. But he did say that God created Hurricane Katrina to punish New Orleans for its sins, particularly a scheduled “homosexual parade there on the Monday that Katrina came.”
...
Mr. Hagee didn’t make that claim in obscure circumstances, either. He broadcast it on one of America’s most widely heard radio programs, “Fresh Air” on NPR, back in September 2006. He reaffirmed it in a radio interview less than two weeks ago. Only after a reporter asked Mr. McCain about this Katrina homily on April 24 did the candidate brand it as “nonsense” and the preacher retract it.
...
That defense implies, incorrectly, that Mr. McCain was a passive recipient of this bigot’s endorsement. In fact, by his own account, Mr. McCain sought out Mr. Hagee, who is perhaps best known for trying to drum up a pre-emptive “holy war” with Iran.
...
There is not just a double standard for black and white politicians at play in too much of the news media and political establishment, but there is also a glaring double standard for our political parties. The Clintons and Mr. Obama are always held accountable for their racial stands, as they should be, but the elephant in the room of our politics is rarely acknowledged: In the 21st century, the so-called party of Lincoln does not have a single African-American among its collective 247 senators and representatives in Washington. Yes, there are appointees like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice, but, as we learned during the Mark Foley scandal, even gay men may hold more G.O.P. positions of power than blacks. ...
...
... Yet the holier-than-thou politicians and pundits on the right passing shrill moral judgment over every Democratic racial skirmish are almost never asked to confront or even acknowledge the racial dysfunction in their own house. In our mainstream political culture, this de facto apartheid is simply accepted as an intractable given, unworthy of notice, and just too embarrassing to mention aloud in polite Beltway company. Those who dare are instantly accused of “political correctness” or “reverse racism.” ...
Huffington wouldn’t be booked on any NBC-affiliated show to promote her book, but refused to explain why ...
Crooks and Liars » Tim Russert Takes Offense, Bans Arianna Huffington From NBC NewsBy: Nicole Belle on Wednesday, April 30th, 2008
It seems that Arianna Huffington has run up against the impenetrable wall that is Tim Russert’s ego. Huffington, who is currently on tour for her new book Right Is Wrong: How The Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded The Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe, will be appearing on CNN, ABC, and CBS. She had been booked on Morning Joe and Countdown with Keith Olbermann as well, but those bookings were suddenly and inexplicably cancelled.
NBC confirmed that Huffington wouldn’t be booked on any NBC-affiliated show to promote her book, but refused to explain why. Huffington’s people say that this is Tim Russert’s doing, that Russert is out for revenge because Huffington called him a “conventional wisdom zombie” in her book and devoted seven pages to faulting Russert for allowing his Meet the Press guests to go unchallenged (not to mention HuffPo’s RussertWatch). ...Precision Media Hit On Obama, A Pass For Clinton ... mediamake us care about bowling and coffee machines ...
RJ Eskow: Coffeecups and Gutterballs: A Precision Media Hit On Obama, A Pass For Clinton - Media on The Huffington PostRJ ESKOW | Posted May 2, 2008
...
But, stop already! Isn't this all ridiculous? Isn't it trivial to concern ourselves with whether the next president is able to go bowling or get a cup of coffee from a vending machine? Of course! But the media make us care about these things. They have an enormous ability to influence what we think about, and they've chosen to emphasize the reality-show aspects of this race. Then, having done that, they skew the race in favor of different candidates in a naked display of their ability to influence the outcome. That's the lesson of the bowling incident and the coffee-cup video: One gets exposure and the other doesn't, because the narrative has already been written. ...
Let's start with a hypothetical situation: Suppose a small group of people controlled the press, and they wanted to ensure a Republican victory in November. A few weeks ago Obama seemed to be riding a wave of inevitability and positive perception. The Democrats seemed to have settled on a candidate, and he scored well against the Republicans because he was seen as post-racial and post-partisan. If this group were to write a memo to the media, what would it say?
Their game plan would have very specific objectives:
1. Extend the Democratic primary race as long as possible.
2. Remind the public that the seemingly "post-racial" Obama is a black man; make him seem as scary-black as possible.
3. Strengthen Hillary Clinton's image with white working-class voters by making her appear populist, folksy, and one of them. Conversely, characterize Obama as an elitist who is out of touch with "real people."
4. Break down Obama's post-partisan appeal to independents and Republicans by linking him to the divisive left/right politics of the 1960s.
...
But, stop already! Isn't this all ridiculous? Isn't it trivial to concern ourselves with whether the next president is able to go bowling or get a cup of coffee from a vending machine? Of course! But the media make us care about these things. They have an enormous ability to influence what we think about, and they've chosen to emphasize the reality-show aspects of this race. Then, having done that, they skew the race in favor of different candidates in a naked display of their ability to influence the outcome. That's the lesson of the bowling incident and the coffee-cup video: One gets exposure and the other doesn't, because the narrative has already been written. ...
Friday, May 02, 2008
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand - New York Times ... consultants and military contractors ...
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand - New York TimesMessage Machine | By DAVID BARSTOW | Published: April 20, 2008
...
The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.
...
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. ...
...
The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.
...
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. ...
Greg Mitchell: The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media - Politics on The Huffington Post
Greg Mitchell: The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media - Politics on The Huffington PostGREG MITCHELL | April 16, 2008
In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin -- while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.
Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of right-wing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued.
More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and -- you name it. Gibson only got excited complaining that someone might raise his capital gains tax. Yet neither candidate had the courage to ask the moderators to turn to those far more important issues. Talking heads on other networks followed up by not pressing that point either. The crowd booed Gibson near the end. Why didn't every other responsible journalist on TV? ...
Thursday, May 01, 2008
senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama.: [emails] dail
Peter Dreier: Sidney Blumenthal Uses Former Right-Wing Foes To Attack Obama - Off The Bus on The Huffington PostMay 1, 2008 | Peter Dreier
Former journalist Sidney Blumenthal has been widely credited with coining the term "vast right-wing conspiracy" used by Hillary Clinton in 1998 to describe the alliance of conservative media, think tanks, and political operatives that sought to destroy the Clinton White House where he worked as a high-level aide. A decade later, and now acting as a senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama. And he's not hesitating to use the same sort of guilt-by-association tactics that have been the hallmark of the political right dating back to the McCarthy era.
Almost every day over the past six months, I have been the recipient of an email that attacks Obama's character, political views, electability, and real or manufactured associations. The original source of many of these hit pieces are virulent and sometimes extreme right-wing websites, bloggers, and publications. But they aren't being emailed out from some fringe right-wing group that somehow managed to get my email address. Instead, it is Sidney Blumenthal who, on a regular basis, methodically dispatches these email mudballs to an influential list of opinion shapers -- including journalists, former Clinton administration officials, academics, policy entrepreneurs, and think tankers -- in what is an obvious attempt to create an echo chamber that reverberates among talk shows, columnists, and Democratic Party funders and activists. One of the recipients of the Blumenthal email blast, himself a Clinton supporter, forwards the material to me and perhaps to others.
...
To cite just one recent example, Blumenthal circulated an article taken from the fervently hard-right AIM website on February 18 entitled, "Obama's Communist Mentor" by Cliff Kincaid. Kincaid is a right-wing writer and activist, a longtime critic of the United Nations, whose group, America's Survival, has been funded by foundations controlled by conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife, the same millionaire who helped fund attacks on the Clintons during their White House years. Scaife also funds AIM, the right-wing media "watchdog" group. ...
Meanwhile, how are we evaluating the would-be Democratic nominee? Based on orange juice, of course. Why? Because the Republicans say so.
Bob Cesca: The Very Serious Debate, Starring The Very Serious GeorgePosted April 17, 2008 | Bob Cesca
We like to joke about the "very serious" traditional media. The truth is that while they claim exclusive lordship over integrity and professionalism -- not to mention a corner on the world's supply of pants made of smarty -- they're really a freak show with serious haircuts and suits. They're a wing of the Republican corporatist conspiracy against America. And the very serious moderators of last night's Democratic debate couldn't have been less serious if they had been wearing clown suits made of dildos while simultaneously tickling each other with monkeys.
I don't really even need to write this. The nation has witnessed, firsthand, George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson for who they really are: pandering yellow journalists. Carnival barkers. They're Penn & Teller without the talent or insight.
To wit... 50 minutes without a single substantive question. Fifty. ...
...
Whether the questions were about Wright and Bosnia, or about guns and Iran, every single topic was framed from the perspective of the Republicans, with an eye on what the Republicans might say about him or her in the general election. So, I have to ask: since when did this become a primary race about which Democrat most resembles George W. Bush and John W. McCain?
It confounds logic that, on one hand, Senator Obama is repeatedly asked to explain why rural America is bitter, while, on the other hand, his qualifications for the presidency are being evaluated based on his goddamn bowling skills. Seriously, what the hell is going on here? The Bush Republicans are responsible for perhaps the worst economic crisis since World War II. They're responsible for a $3 trillion occupation and decades of future blowback. They're responsible for selling our sovereignty to foreign governments. They're responsible for trampling our liberty and national character. And there was Senator McCain on Hardball the other night talking about war in Iran, while pledging to make permanent the Bush tax cuts for the super rich. Both of which would make matters far, far worse.
Meanwhile, how are we evaluating the would-be Democratic nominee? Based on orange juice, of course. Why? Because the Republicans say so. ...
We like to joke about the "very serious" traditional media. The truth is that while they claim exclusive lordship over integrity and professionalism -- not to mention a corner on the world's supply of pants made of smarty -- they're really a freak show with serious haircuts and suits. They're a wing of the Republican corporatist conspiracy against America. And the very serious moderators of last night's Democratic debate couldn't have been less serious if they had been wearing clown suits made of dildos while simultaneously tickling each other with monkeys.
I don't really even need to write this. The nation has witnessed, firsthand, George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson for who they really are: pandering yellow journalists. Carnival barkers. They're Penn & Teller without the talent or insight.
To wit... 50 minutes without a single substantive question. Fifty. ...
...
Whether the questions were about Wright and Bosnia, or about guns and Iran, every single topic was framed from the perspective of the Republicans, with an eye on what the Republicans might say about him or her in the general election. So, I have to ask: since when did this become a primary race about which Democrat most resembles George W. Bush and John W. McCain?
It confounds logic that, on one hand, Senator Obama is repeatedly asked to explain why rural America is bitter, while, on the other hand, his qualifications for the presidency are being evaluated based on his goddamn bowling skills. Seriously, what the hell is going on here? The Bush Republicans are responsible for perhaps the worst economic crisis since World War II. They're responsible for a $3 trillion occupation and decades of future blowback. They're responsible for selling our sovereignty to foreign governments. They're responsible for trampling our liberty and national character. And there was Senator McCain on Hardball the other night talking about war in Iran, while pledging to make permanent the Bush tax cuts for the super rich. Both of which would make matters far, far worse.
Meanwhile, how are we evaluating the would-be Democratic nominee? Based on orange juice, of course. Why? Because the Republicans say so. ...
Sunday, April 27, 2008
TV Military ‘Analysts’ Are Part Ike's ... unwarranted influence ...by the military-industrial complex [Propaganda]
TV Military ‘Analysts’ Are Part of What Ike Warned AgainstA New York Times report shines a light on how the military-industrial complex tries to shape broadcast news. - CommonDreams.orgSunday, April 27, 2008 by the Maine Sunday Telegram
...
They were the faces of nine retired military officers (there were more inside the paper) who appear regularly on network and cable television news to give viewers informed, independent assessments of the war in Iraq.
At least that was the idea.
What viewers have been getting, the Times revealed, is something quite different. The paper reported convincingly that some retired officers appearing as “military analysts” have been pushing Pentagon propaganda in return for continued access to top officials and financial benefit for themselves.
According to the Times report, “Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department.
“In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated,” the report said. “Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access. A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public.”
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, an enthusiastic golfer in his presidential years, left behind more than spike marks on the White House floor. He stood at a convergence in American history. He knew it. And he gave voice to a solemn warning, delivered in 1961, three days before he left office.
Eisenhower, a renowned World War II general, declared, “Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
“In the councils of government,” he warned, “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. ...
...
They were the faces of nine retired military officers (there were more inside the paper) who appear regularly on network and cable television news to give viewers informed, independent assessments of the war in Iraq.
At least that was the idea.
What viewers have been getting, the Times revealed, is something quite different. The paper reported convincingly that some retired officers appearing as “military analysts” have been pushing Pentagon propaganda in return for continued access to top officials and financial benefit for themselves.
According to the Times report, “Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department.
“In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated,” the report said. “Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access. A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public.”
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, an enthusiastic golfer in his presidential years, left behind more than spike marks on the White House floor. He stood at a convergence in American history. He knew it. And he gave voice to a solemn warning, delivered in 1961, three days before he left office.
Eisenhower, a renowned World War II general, declared, “Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
“In the councils of government,” he warned, “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. ...
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
government program to corrupt the free flow of information that serves
Propaganda at Home - CommonDreams.orgTuesday, April 22, 2008 by The Boston Globe
Anyone who has watched the military analysts hired by TV networks has heard rosy assessments of the war in Iraq. The similarities between their judgments and the Pentagon’s are not coincidental. As The New York Times demonstrated by suing the Pentagon to obtain 8,000 pages of documents, those analysts were enlisted by the Defense Department in a psychological warfare operation targeting the domestic audience. And, as the newspaper reported Sunday, many of the retired military officers appearing on news shows were using their access to the Pentagon and the airwaves to procure lucrative contracts for some 150 defense contractors, which employed them as consultants, board members, lobbyists, or executives.
This is no subtle attempt to influence public opinion. It is a government program to corrupt the free flow of information that serves, in a healthy democracy, to inoculate the public against official lies, bad policy, and misbegotten wars.One straightforward corrective would be for TV news executives to require full disclosure of their analysts’ business interests as well as their contacts and junkets with military and government officials. Ideally, the television news shows would not have to rely on paid outside experts. They should trust their own reporters to gather news from disparate sources, and to interview former and serving officers who can offer informed commentary from diverse viewpoints.
...
This is a tactic more suitable for Vladimir Putin’s Russia. In fact, the Pentagon’s manipulation of the media has been more deft than the Kremlin’s because it was better hidden.
In the end, the government’s disguised lies have done more damage to American democracy and the national interest than to any foreign enemy. History’s epitaph for the Pentagon’s psywar operation will be: “We fooled ourselves.”
Anyone who has watched the military analysts hired by TV networks has heard rosy assessments of the war in Iraq. The similarities between their judgments and the Pentagon’s are not coincidental. As The New York Times demonstrated by suing the Pentagon to obtain 8,000 pages of documents, those analysts were enlisted by the Defense Department in a psychological warfare operation targeting the domestic audience. And, as the newspaper reported Sunday, many of the retired military officers appearing on news shows were using their access to the Pentagon and the airwaves to procure lucrative contracts for some 150 defense contractors, which employed them as consultants, board members, lobbyists, or executives.
This is no subtle attempt to influence public opinion. It is a government program to corrupt the free flow of information that serves, in a healthy democracy, to inoculate the public against official lies, bad policy, and misbegotten wars.One straightforward corrective would be for TV news executives to require full disclosure of their analysts’ business interests as well as their contacts and junkets with military and government officials. Ideally, the television news shows would not have to rely on paid outside experts. They should trust their own reporters to gather news from disparate sources, and to interview former and serving officers who can offer informed commentary from diverse viewpoints.
...
This is a tactic more suitable for Vladimir Putin’s Russia. In fact, the Pentagon’s manipulation of the media has been more deft than the Kremlin’s because it was better hidden.
In the end, the government’s disguised lies have done more damage to American democracy and the national interest than to any foreign enemy. History’s epitaph for the Pentagon’s psywar operation will be: “We fooled ourselves.”
Thursday, April 17, 2008
question that came out of right-wing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos.
Greg Mitchell: The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media - Politics on The Huffington PostPosted April 16, 2008
In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin -- while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.
Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of right-wing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued. ...
More than Half Agree with Obama's Comments ... [while media, Clinton and McCain try to drive controversy ...
Obama’s Explanation of “Controversial” Remarks Moves Democrats and Independents ...-- Among All Parties: More than Half Agree with His Comments -- Flemington, NJ, April 14, 2008
...
Do you agree with Senator Obama’s comments regarding working class voters in states like Pennsylvania?
...
...
Do you agree with Senator Obama’s comments regarding working class voters in states like Pennsylvania?
POST VIEWING OF VIDEO
| Democrats | Republicans | Independents |
Yes | 64% | 38% | 56% |
No | 22% | 46% | 29% |
Not Sure | 14% | 16% | 15% |
Instead of focusing on... jobs ... schools,... taxes ... manufacturing ... HRC’s spin on Obama’s words (elitism) ... McCain puerile attacks ...
Robert Reich's Blog: Obama, Bitterness, Meet the Press, and the Old Politics | Sunday, April 13, 2008
... The stagnation of middle-class wages and the expansion of povety. Male hourly wages began to drop in the early 1970s, adjusted for inflation. The average man in his 30s is earning less than his father did thirty years ago. Yet America is far richer. Where did the money go? To the top.
Are Americans who have been left behind frustrated? Of course. And their frustrations, their anger and, yes, sometimes their bitterness, have been used since then -- by demagogues, by nationalists and xenophobes, by radical conservatives, by political nuts and fanatical fruitcakes – to blame immigrants and foreign traders, to blame blacks and the poor, to blame "liberal elites," to blame anyone and anything.
Rather than counter all this, the American media have wallowed in it. Some, like Fox News and talk radio, have given the haters and blamers their very own megaphones. The rest have merely "reported on" it. Instead of focusing on how to get Americans good jobs again; instead of admitting too many of our schools are failing and our kids are falling behind their contemporaries in Europe, Japan, and even China; instead of showing why we need a more progressive tax system to finance better schools and access to health care, and green technologies that might create new manufacturing jobs, our national discussion has been mired in the old politics.
Listen to this morning’s “Meet the Press” if you want an example. Tim Russert, one of the smartest guys on television, interviewed four political consultants – Carville and Matalin, Bob Schrum, and Michael Murphy. Political consultants are paid huge sums to help politicians spin words and avoid real talk. They’re part of the problem. And what do Russert and these four consultants talk about? The potential damage to Barack Obama from saying that lots of people in Pennsylvania are bitter that the economy has left them behind; about HRC’s spin on Obama’s words (he’s an “elitist,” she said); and John McCain’s similarly puerile attack. ...
... The stagnation of middle-class wages and the expansion of povety. Male hourly wages began to drop in the early 1970s, adjusted for inflation. The average man in his 30s is earning less than his father did thirty years ago. Yet America is far richer. Where did the money go? To the top.
Are Americans who have been left behind frustrated? Of course. And their frustrations, their anger and, yes, sometimes their bitterness, have been used since then -- by demagogues, by nationalists and xenophobes, by radical conservatives, by political nuts and fanatical fruitcakes – to blame immigrants and foreign traders, to blame blacks and the poor, to blame "liberal elites," to blame anyone and anything.
Rather than counter all this, the American media have wallowed in it. Some, like Fox News and talk radio, have given the haters and blamers their very own megaphones. The rest have merely "reported on" it. Instead of focusing on how to get Americans good jobs again; instead of admitting too many of our schools are failing and our kids are falling behind their contemporaries in Europe, Japan, and even China; instead of showing why we need a more progressive tax system to finance better schools and access to health care, and green technologies that might create new manufacturing jobs, our national discussion has been mired in the old politics.
Listen to this morning’s “Meet the Press” if you want an example. Tim Russert, one of the smartest guys on television, interviewed four political consultants – Carville and Matalin, Bob Schrum, and Michael Murphy. Political consultants are paid huge sums to help politicians spin words and avoid real talk. They’re part of the problem. And what do Russert and these four consultants talk about? The potential damage to Barack Obama from saying that lots of people in Pennsylvania are bitter that the economy has left them behind; about HRC’s spin on Obama’s words (he’s an “elitist,” she said); and John McCain’s similarly puerile attack. ...
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Media: “mainstream” has nothing to do with the massively monopolized machine that has a chokehold on our democracy.
February 10, 2008 by CommonDreams.org | There’s Nothing Mainstream About the Corporate Media | by Harvey Wasserman
...
... Today’s mass media is Corporate, not Mainstream, and the distinction is critical.
Calling the Corporate Media (CM) “mainstream” implies that it speaks for mid-road opinion, and it absolutely does not.
...
The mainstream of American opinion wants this country out of Iraq. The Corporate Media does not. It refuses to give serious coverage to the devastating human, spiritual and economic costs of the war, and it marginalizes those demanding it end.
The mainstream of American opinion wants national health care. The CM does not.
The mainstream of American opinion is deeply distrustful and in many ways hostile to the power of large corporations. Obviously, the CM is not.
The mainstream of American opinion strongly questions whether our elections are being manipulated and stolen. The CM treats with contempt those who dare report on the issue.
The Corporate Media takes partisan stands (often in favor of the Republican Party, but always in defense of corporate interests) by sabotaging political candidacies, especially those of candidates who challenge corporate power. This year it blacklisted the populist candidacy of John Edwards, suffocating his ability to compete for the Democratic nomination.
...
Never in our history has the control of the nation’s sources of information been more centralized, or more at odds with what the country as a whole believes.
...
The “news” pushed by the major radio/TV networks and newspapers slants unerringly toward the interests of the five major corporations that own the bulk of them. They bury stories of vital importance while spewing endless hours and column inches at the mind-deadening likes of Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears.
...
But the real profit centers of the corporations that own the CM are not in providing news and information. General Electric, Westinghouse, Disney and the other media-financial-industrial behemoths have too much to lose from an accurate reporting of the true news of the world. To protect their core interests, they are bread-and-circus PR/diversion machines, not real news organizations. They resemble the old Soviet official mouthpieces Izvestia and Pravda far more than the news providers envisioned in the First Amendment, by Founders who saw balanced, aggressive reporting as the lifeblood of democracy.Nor does the corporate right never hesitate to attack. ...
...
The word “mainstream” has nothing to do with the massively monopolized machine that has a chokehold on our democracy. It’s the “Corporate Media,” and there’s nothing mainstream about it.
...
... Today’s mass media is Corporate, not Mainstream, and the distinction is critical.
Calling the Corporate Media (CM) “mainstream” implies that it speaks for mid-road opinion, and it absolutely does not.
...
The mainstream of American opinion wants this country out of Iraq. The Corporate Media does not. It refuses to give serious coverage to the devastating human, spiritual and economic costs of the war, and it marginalizes those demanding it end.
The mainstream of American opinion wants national health care. The CM does not.
The mainstream of American opinion is deeply distrustful and in many ways hostile to the power of large corporations. Obviously, the CM is not.
The mainstream of American opinion strongly questions whether our elections are being manipulated and stolen. The CM treats with contempt those who dare report on the issue.
The Corporate Media takes partisan stands (often in favor of the Republican Party, but always in defense of corporate interests) by sabotaging political candidacies, especially those of candidates who challenge corporate power. This year it blacklisted the populist candidacy of John Edwards, suffocating his ability to compete for the Democratic nomination.
...
Never in our history has the control of the nation’s sources of information been more centralized, or more at odds with what the country as a whole believes.
...
The “news” pushed by the major radio/TV networks and newspapers slants unerringly toward the interests of the five major corporations that own the bulk of them. They bury stories of vital importance while spewing endless hours and column inches at the mind-deadening likes of Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears.
...
But the real profit centers of the corporations that own the CM are not in providing news and information. General Electric, Westinghouse, Disney and the other media-financial-industrial behemoths have too much to lose from an accurate reporting of the true news of the world. To protect their core interests, they are bread-and-circus PR/diversion machines, not real news organizations. They resemble the old Soviet official mouthpieces Izvestia and Pravda far more than the news providers envisioned in the First Amendment, by Founders who saw balanced, aggressive reporting as the lifeblood of democracy.Nor does the corporate right never hesitate to attack. ...
...
The word “mainstream” has nothing to do with the massively monopolized machine that has a chokehold on our democracy. It’s the “Corporate Media,” and there’s nothing mainstream about it.
censorship and oil-industry collusion turned some $2 billion of climate-change research into anti-scientific propaganda
February 1, 2008 by The Providence Journal (Rhode Island) | A New Golden Age for Whistleblowers | by Tom Devine and Adam Miles
...
Whistleblowers use freedom of speech to challenge abuses of power that betray the public trust. They change the course of history by refusing to sacrifice their own principles, unwilling to go along with corrupt practices. By exercising their freedom to warn, they prevent avoidable disasters before all that is left is damage control.
Consider examples of how they have made a difference for America’s families. Disclosures by David Graham, a Food and Drug Administration scientist, forced market withdrawal of the painkiller Vioxx, which caused over 40,000 fatal U.S. heart attacks after our government officially labeled it safe. Climate-change whistleblowers, like Rick Piltz at the White House and James Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, exposed how gags, censorship and oil-industry collusion turned some $2 billion of climate-change research into anti-scientific propaganda and delayed urgently needed action. The Marines’ Franz Gayl demonstrated that hundreds of American combat fatalities in Iraq might be traceable to Pentagon mismanagement, which unnecessarily delayed delivery of mine-explosion-resistant armored vehicles.
The consequences of gagging federal workers are clear. Actuary Richard Foster was threatened with termination if he exposed the Medicare prescription-drug bill’s true price tag. Congress ended up passing a law (by one vote) that cost $200 billion above its stated price. Whistleblowers protect the federal Treasury. Since public citizens were empowered to file whistleblower lawsuits on behalf of taxpayers in 1985, they have increased the government’s civil fraud recovery 120-fold, from $26 million to $3.14 billion last year.
The voting public understands the value of whistleblowers. A Democracy Corps survey last February found 79 percent of voters are more likely to support a Congress that passes “a strong whistleblower law to protect government employees from retribution if they report waste or corruption.” This was second only to stopping illegal government spending.
...
Congress needs to promptly finish what it started and stand up to the president. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’s insight over a century ago retains its wisdom today: “If corruption is a social disease, sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
...
Whistleblowers use freedom of speech to challenge abuses of power that betray the public trust. They change the course of history by refusing to sacrifice their own principles, unwilling to go along with corrupt practices. By exercising their freedom to warn, they prevent avoidable disasters before all that is left is damage control.
Consider examples of how they have made a difference for America’s families. Disclosures by David Graham, a Food and Drug Administration scientist, forced market withdrawal of the painkiller Vioxx, which caused over 40,000 fatal U.S. heart attacks after our government officially labeled it safe. Climate-change whistleblowers, like Rick Piltz at the White House and James Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, exposed how gags, censorship and oil-industry collusion turned some $2 billion of climate-change research into anti-scientific propaganda and delayed urgently needed action. The Marines’ Franz Gayl demonstrated that hundreds of American combat fatalities in Iraq might be traceable to Pentagon mismanagement, which unnecessarily delayed delivery of mine-explosion-resistant armored vehicles.
The consequences of gagging federal workers are clear. Actuary Richard Foster was threatened with termination if he exposed the Medicare prescription-drug bill’s true price tag. Congress ended up passing a law (by one vote) that cost $200 billion above its stated price. Whistleblowers protect the federal Treasury. Since public citizens were empowered to file whistleblower lawsuits on behalf of taxpayers in 1985, they have increased the government’s civil fraud recovery 120-fold, from $26 million to $3.14 billion last year.
The voting public understands the value of whistleblowers. A Democracy Corps survey last February found 79 percent of voters are more likely to support a Congress that passes “a strong whistleblower law to protect government employees from retribution if they report waste or corruption.” This was second only to stopping illegal government spending.
...
Congress needs to promptly finish what it started and stand up to the president. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’s insight over a century ago retains its wisdom today: “If corruption is a social disease, sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
Truth or Terrorism? The Real Story Behind Five Years of High Alerts ... most dubious terror scares
Truth or Terrorism? The Real Story Behind Five Years of High Alerts | TIM DICKINSONPosted Feb 07, 2008 7:55 AM
A history of the Bush administration's most dubious terror scares — and the headlines they buried
July 7 2006
The Threat: New York Daily News breaks news of plot to bomb Holland Tunnel, flood Wall Street. FBI Assistant Director Mark Mershon calls threat "the real deal."
The Reality: Suspect had been arrested three months earlier, after bragging about his planned exploits in an Internet chat room. Said one CIA officer, "The plot, if that is what we would call it, was not well conceived, and there was no possibility of flooding Wall Street. There was no connection to a cell in the US. Finally, professional terrorists generally do not discuss targeting on open channels."
The Real News: News of plot leaked to coincide with the first anniversary of the July 7, 2005 London bombings.
...
September 10, 2002
The Threat: Bush personally announces the first nationwide Orange Alert. Cheney flees to a "secure location" as Ashcroft warns that Al Qaeda appears to be targeting "transportation and energy sectors."
The Reality: There was no specific threat against any American target.
The Real News: The heightened terror alert went into effect just in time for the president's address to the nation from Ellis Island on the first anniversary of 9/11.
...
May 26, 2004
The Threat: Memorial Day again: "They are going to attack and hit us hard," warns a senior intelligence official. Ashcroft relays an Al Qaeda threat that "ninety percent of the arrangements for an attack in the United States were complete."
The Reality: The threat Ashcroft attributed to Al Qaeda was actually made by a discredited group that falsely claimed credit for the Madrid train bombings. This group "is not really taken seriously by Western intelligence," says one expert.
The Real News: The Abu Ghraib torture scandal has come to a full boil.
A history of the Bush administration's most dubious terror scares — and the headlines they buried
July 7 2006
The Threat: New York Daily News breaks news of plot to bomb Holland Tunnel, flood Wall Street. FBI Assistant Director Mark Mershon calls threat "the real deal."
The Reality: Suspect had been arrested three months earlier, after bragging about his planned exploits in an Internet chat room. Said one CIA officer, "The plot, if that is what we would call it, was not well conceived, and there was no possibility of flooding Wall Street. There was no connection to a cell in the US. Finally, professional terrorists generally do not discuss targeting on open channels."
The Real News: News of plot leaked to coincide with the first anniversary of the July 7, 2005 London bombings.
...
September 10, 2002
The Threat: Bush personally announces the first nationwide Orange Alert. Cheney flees to a "secure location" as Ashcroft warns that Al Qaeda appears to be targeting "transportation and energy sectors."
The Reality: There was no specific threat against any American target.
The Real News: The heightened terror alert went into effect just in time for the president's address to the nation from Ellis Island on the first anniversary of 9/11.
...
May 26, 2004
The Threat: Memorial Day again: "They are going to attack and hit us hard," warns a senior intelligence official. Ashcroft relays an Al Qaeda threat that "ninety percent of the arrangements for an attack in the United States were complete."
The Reality: The threat Ashcroft attributed to Al Qaeda was actually made by a discredited group that falsely claimed credit for the Madrid train bombings. This group "is not really taken seriously by Western intelligence," says one expert.
The Real News: The Abu Ghraib torture scandal has come to a full boil.
ironic that Taxi’s content is too “controversial,” considering it depicts real acts [tortured to death] perpetrated by the Bush administration
Discovery Channel Drops Plans To Air ‘Taxi To The Dark Side’ Because It Is Too ‘Controversial’
Taxi to the Dark Side, a documentary about an innocent Afghan taxi driver tortured to death by U.S. officials at Bagram Air Base, has received wide critical acclaim since its debut in April at the Tribeca Film Festival. The New York Times’s A.O. Scott said, “If recent American history is ever going to be discussed with the necessary clarity and ethical rigor, this film will be essential.”
Taxi to the Dark Side, a documentary about an innocent Afghan taxi driver tortured to death by U.S. officials at Bagram Air Base, has received wide critical acclaim since its debut in April at the Tribeca Film Festival. The New York Times’s A.O. Scott said, “If recent American history is ever going to be discussed with the necessary clarity and ethical rigor, this film will be essential.”
Director Alex Gibney agreed to sell the rights of Taxi to the Discovery Channel because executives convinced him they would “give the film a prominent broadcast.” Now, however, Discovery has dropped its plans to air the documentary because the film is too controversial. Gibney responded to the news in a press release this week:
It’s ironic that Taxi’s content is too “controversial,” considering it depicts real acts perpetrated by the current Bush administration. ...Now, I am told that ‘it doesn’t fit into Discovery’s plans,’ and that the film’s controversial content might damage Discovery’s public offering.
Having directed ‘Enron,’ very little about this kind of corporate behavior shocks me, but I am surprised that a network that touts itself as a supporter of documentaries would be so shamelessly craven. This is a film that, in an election year, is of critical interest to the viewing public. What Discovery is doing is tantamount to political censorship.
Friday, March 14, 2008
POLL: Over Half Of Americans Say They Do Not Trust The Press
POLL: Over Half Of Americans Say They Do Not Trust The Press March 6, 2008
A new Harris Interactive poll finds that over half of Americans — 54 percent — say they tend not to trust the press, “with only 30 percent tending to trust the press.” More Americans (41 percent) trust “Internet news and information sites” than they do the mainstream media. Radio tends to do best among Americans as 44 percent say they tend to trust it.
A new Harris Interactive poll finds that over half of Americans — 54 percent — say they tend not to trust the press, “with only 30 percent tending to trust the press.” More Americans (41 percent) trust “Internet news and information sites” than they do the mainstream media. Radio tends to do best among Americans as 44 percent say they tend to trust it.
The Harris results reflect the findings of a Harvard University study conducted last year, which found “nearly two-thirds of Americans do not trust campaign coverage by the news media.” A few other recent surveys offer some explanation for the public’s distrust:
– Two thirds of Americans - 67% - believe traditional journalism is out of touch with what Americans want from their news.
– The harshest indictments of the press come from the growing segment that relies on the internet as its main source for news. The internet news audience is particularly likely to criticize news organizations for their lack of empathy, their failure to “stand up for America,” and political bias.
– Democrats, Republicans and independents have decreased confidence in the accuracy of media reports on the war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)