Scandalous

Hannity’s Call To Arms

Posted by on August 31, 2006 at 1:54 am. NO Comments :

In a fit of patriopathic® zeal, the sort that might have inspired Booth or Oswald, Sean Hannity, on his radio show, lashes out against a fearsome destiny that summons the faithful to the battlefield.

“I want to talk to you Republicans out there, both candidates and voters. Here’s some unsolicited advice: Ignore the polls, ignore the media, ignore the pundits. It’s 70 days to go. The end is not here yet. We still can turn this thing around.”

The “Thing” he hopes to turn around is the potential consequence of unrestrained democracy – a Democratic majority in Congress. So he issues what amounts to a fatwa.

“This is the moment to say that there are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of ’em is making sure Nancy Pelosi doesn’t become the speaker.”

If this isn’t a contract on the Democratic leader in the House, I don’t know what is. Even if this is not his meaning, it is grossly irresponsible for a broadcaster to make an appeal that could persuade loyal listeners to carry out a literal consummation of his ramblings. What would his response be if Ms. Pelosi announced that one of the things in life that is worth dying for is keeping Hannity off of radio and TV?

These are the kinds of desperate and fanatical statements that generally foreshadow an empire’s decline. They reek of intolerance, aggression and tyranny. They come from Pat Robertson, praying for Supreme Court justices to die. They come from from Ann Coulter, disappointed that Sen. Chaffee has not been assassinated. They come from Glenn Beck, fantasizing about choking Michael Moore to death. They come from Bill O’Reilly, inviting al Qaeda to blow up San Francisco. Now they come from Sean Hannity.

Obviously Hannity is not alone in his lust for blood or his aversion to democracy. The best we can hope for is that his listeners selectively heed his advice, paying particular attention to the admonition to ignore the media and the pundits, which, of course, prominently includes Fox News and Sean Hannity.

Triple Crossed By National Geographic

Posted by on August 23, 2006 at 7:59 pm. NO Comments :

As if the Able Danger affair didn’t stir up enough controversy by itself…

Peter Lance, the author of the book, “Triple Cross: Bin Laden’s Spy in America,” is claiming that a cover up is in progress that pits him against the federal government and the National Geographic Channel. NatGeo is broadcasting their version of the book on August 28. Lance has removed himself from the project because, he says:

“They hijacked my work. The documentary is now skewed so much in favor of the feds that it actually distorts the facts of the story.”

The network denies Lance’s claims, but there are additional reasons to be suspicious. First of all, the National Geographic Channel is majority owned by propagandist and right-wing media baron, Rupert Murdoch. Also, Curt Weldon (R-PA), the House Armed Services Committee vice chair, has also requested that his appearances be removed because he does not believe the documentary presents an unbiased view. His committee has held hearings looking into Able Danger.

The question now is, is Murdoch’s cable net purposefully mischaracterizing the conclusions of the book it is supposed to be adapting? We will have to wait for it to air because the author has not been allowed to preview it without first signing a non-disparagement agreement, which he refuses to do. The upside here is that the TV documentary, however skewed, may drive more viewers to purchase the book. At least there is that published document on which to base a judgment.

Feds Assault California’s Reporter’s Shield Law

Posted by on August 22, 2006 at 2:18 pm. NO Comments :

Josh Wolf is the blogger who has been sitting in a jail cell for refusing to turn over video he took at a public rally. Now Peter Scheer at the California First Amendment Coalition is weighing in on the question of states rights:

If I were Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger or California Chief Justice Ronald George, I would be deeply troubled by these developments—not only because of the First Amendment issues at stake, which are huge, but because these federal actions against journalists in California represent a wholesale usurpation of state sovereignty. The Bush administration, which has been justly criticized for attempting to enhance executive power at the expense of Congress, is now eviscerating states’ rights in order to expand the power of the federal government.

This case has been questionable from the start. The Feds justification for getting involved is that a police car, which was paid for partially with federal funds, was damaged. Anyone not presently in a persistent vegetative state can see that this was just a pretense to get around California’s shield law for reporters.

By taking this fight to the governor, Scheer makes the point that this tactic effectively invalidates the state law. A reporter can’t know in advance whether an encounter with a source would lead to the feds or the state claiming jurisdiction in a future legal proceeding. Consequently, the only safe course to take would be for the reporter to avoid the encounter entirely. What use, then, is the state’s shield law?

Obviously this does not serve the principles of freedom of the press and the people’s right to know. And by stepping on the toes of states sovereignty, it calls out for leadership form Sacramento.

Update: The Society of Professional Journalists voted to donate $30,000 to Wolf’s legal defense, saying:

“This case is evidence of a disturbing trend in which federal prosecutors are attempting to turn journalists into arms of law enforcement,” said SPJ President David Carlson. “It cannot be allowed to continue. The public’s right to know will be forever harmed.”

Malkin’s Centanni Conspiracy Theory

Posted by on August 22, 2006 at 2:59 am. NO Comments :

Cameraman Olaf Wiig, of New Zealand, and American correspondent Steve Centanni are Fox News journalists who were kidnapped last week. Their abduction was reported widely but, consistent with modern news cycling, the story has been suplanted by newer, more sensational stories.

But this doesn’t stop Michelle Malkin from regurgitating speculation, that she attributes to her readers, that the real reason there has not been more reporting (and outrage) is because the media at large just doesn’t care about the folks at Fox:

“The most common suspicion among my readers is that bias against Fox News Channel is coming into play.”

What a despicable notion for her to promote. This reveals much about her readers, and even more about her for choosing to spotlight it. Especially because there was no shortage of coverage a week ago when the two went missing. Beyond the shamefulness of this, she demonstrates complete ignorance of how the media operates. Does she think this drama-addicted press could settle its gaze on a story with nothing breaking and no pictures when JonBenet Ramsey’s alleged murderer is flying business class to L. A.?

She does mention the possibility that the press is treading lightly because there may be sensitive negotiations taking place to secure their release, but that doesn’t excuse her shock news-jock tactics that have no foundation whatsoever. She does not, however, mention that this may not be a kidnapping at all. Since all of the usual supects have denied responsibility, and there has been no communication with lists of demands or ransom, this may just be a terrible crime that is unrelated to the politics or conflict in the region.

Who, exactly is perpetrating this bias against Fox? This allegation cannot be directed at the media, because Fox is itself the top rated cable news channel, and their coverage is identical to the coverage of the rest of the pack. She is aping the tactics of her mentor, Bill O’Reilly, who frequently disparages the media for its bias and subserviance to the far left secularists. He does this from atop the perch of his number one rated cable news program. Who do they think the media is?

Malkin doesn’t bother to offer any support for the theory she is spreading, but I suppose it may be too much to expect anything like jounalistic ethics from her.

Republicans Sucking Up Telecom Dollars

Posted by on August 18, 2006 at 3:22 pm. NO Comments :

In a year with a major Telecom bill before congress, numerous regulatory issues on the table, and Net Neutrality still hovering ominously over the webiverse, the big Telecom companies, and their lobbyists, have gotten out their checkbooks. From the National Journal:

“Officials of dominant telephone and cable TV companies vying for an upper hand in pending telecommunications legislation are contributing heavily this election season to Republican incumbents who share those firms’ deregulatory outlook.”

Let’s take a look at the money flow from these interested parties:

  • AT&T – $1,700,000.
  • National Cable and Telecommunications Association – $1,048,444.
  • Verizon Communications – $905,700.
  • BellSouth – $686,850.
  • Comcast – $581,000.
  • National Association of Broadcasters – $403,820.
  • Qwest Communications International – $384,702.
  • Clear Channel Communications – $342,000.
  • Time Warner – $309,750.

These corporations are aggressively pursuing their interests, which include killing Net Neutrality and removing barriers to more consolidation. Now, let’s look at where that money went:

  • George Allen – $260,132.
  • Conrad Burns – $210,941.
  • John Ensign – $203,439.
  • Rick Santorum – $168,000.
  • Dennis Hastert – $158,350.
  • Joe Barton – $155,129.
  • Fred Upton – 152,400.

These are Washington honchos that shape legislation and hold the federal government’s purse strings. The money they are receiving is sorely needed now. Burns is the most endangered incumbent in the senate due in part to his having received more money from convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff than any other senator. Santorum is presently behind in his senate reelection bid. And Republicans in general are suffering from the low ratings of congress and the president.

So the Telecom industry has come to the rescue in hopes that they will be rewarded with legislative perks and deregulation. Let’s hope they don’t get their money’s worth.

The FCC Wakes Up To Video News Releases

Posted by on August 14, 2006 at 1:55 pm. NO Comments :

From Reuters:
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission plans to send letters of inquiry on Friday to several television stations as it probes whether news broadcasts properly disclosed the source of video news releases [VNR] they used, said a source familiar with the matter.

This is an encouraging first step by a commission that has failed for years to fulfill its mission. The VNRs referenced here are produced by the government and/or private PR firms to promote a partisan or commercial interest. They are then distributed to television stations that, in some cases, air them without identifying their source.

There is a word for that: Propaganda. And it’s illegal. Let’s see if the FCC follows up on these inquiries.

Cybercrime Treaty Threatens US Constitution

Posted by on August 13, 2006 at 11:45 am. NO Comments :

Last week, the Senate ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime Treaty. This international treaty was ostensibly designed to aid countries seeking to prosecute hackers, virus developers, and child pornographers. But because the treaty does not require the targeted crimes to be unlawful in both countries, it could require the American government to enforce foreign laws that may violate the rights of Americans, including the right to free speech.

The ACLU’s Marv Johnson said:

“The stark reality is that now the American government will be able to conduct surveillance on an individual who hasn’t broken any American law to help enforce the law of a country without the same protections and respect for the freedoms we cherish.”

The Electronic Privacy Information Center’s position states that:

“the treaty seems more like a law enforcement ‘wish list’ than an international instrument truly respectful of human rights already enshrined in many international conventions […] The US government’s support for the ratification of the Convention on Cybercrime… appears like an attempt to obtain more powers than what it could obtain with the USA PATRIOT Act.”

With the potential to undermine our Constitution, what kind of treatment did this treaty get in the American press? So far as I can tell, there was a wire report from the Associated Press that contained six short paragraphs. The only sources cited in the article were Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, both of whom were predictably supportive of the agreement. Judging from this article, it would appear that there was no opposition to this treaty, despite the foreboding statements from the ACLU and EPIC above.

Is the media just continuing to fail in its mission to inform the public, or is there an incentive for their silence? The Internet represents the most serious competitive threat that newspapers and television have ever faced. This treaty addresses only Internet-related criminal activity. It’s existence reinforces the notion that the Internet is a scary and dangerous place. And by broadening the government’s powers to surveil and investigate suspects associated with the Internet, the treaty establishes another avenue for intimidation of online journalists and activists. The conventional media must view this with glee.

Pentagon Orders Soldiers to Stop Shooting – Videos

Posted by on August 6, 2006 at 2:31 am. NO Comments :

American soldiers in Iraq have been making videos of their wartime experiences and posting them to web sites for their friends and families back home to view. The Guardian reports that:

“these homemade war videos offer an insight into modern warfare and the psyche of the average serviceman which conventional broadcast news and current affairs coverage cannot get close to.”

Indeed, the mainstream press sanitizes this war to the point that it could be included in a video game and still be considered lame by the teenagers that play it. Maybe that sort of desensitizing is intentional, so as not to dampen recruiting efforts. The reality is much more difficult to endure. The soldiers shooting these videos are engaging in a form of self-expression that can be gut wrenching, but that very quality is what makes it so much more relevant and enlightening than anything the media is producing.

Well, the military brass will have none of that. This, after all, is the government that forbids photographs of ceremonies honoring fallen soldiers as their remains are returned to Dover Air Force Base. This is the Commander in Chief that has never attended a funeral for a casualty of his misbegotten war. Why then would anyone expect that they would allow a candid expression from a soldier like this one who said:

“it made him feel good to bring the gruesome reality of a soldier’s life in Iraq to those living safely behind their ‘clean, white picket fences at home’.”

The media has been embarrassingly absent in coverage of this war. From the beginning with Judith Miller’s discredited ramblings on Iraq’s imagined threat, to the farce of embedding reporters with troops, there have been very few revelations emanating from the mainstream press. Even major stories like Abu Ghraib would not have come to light but for the very kind of amateur video the Pentagon nows seeks to abolish.

So now, an administration whose PR regularly regurgitates rosy scenarios is banning laptop computers from U.S. bases in Iraq. A government that is steeped in secrecy is infringing on the free speech of soldiers serving in combat. It kind of makes you wonder what they are fighting for.

UPDATE: There are reports that the Pentagon is keeping a tight watch on the Internet with civilian contractors monitoring sites like YouTube and MySpace.

“…US Central Command – which is responsible for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan – does have a team reading blogs and responding to what they consider inaccuracies about the so-called war on terror.”

It makes me feel so much safer knowing that CenCom is surveiling the web while insurgents are burying IEDs in the Green Zone.

Lock Up The Bloggers

Posted by on August 4, 2006 at 10:42 am. 1 Comments :

Josh Wolf is in trouble. The San Francisco journalist/activist is in jail on contempt charges for refusing to comply with a federal subpoe0na. The Feds want to see a video he took of a protest where a cop was injured and some property damaged.

I’ve been struggling with the merits of this case because, on the one hand, I’m inclined to be sympathetic to an independent media advocate who is under pressure to submit to government demands. On the other hand, this is a difficult case to argue for a reporter’s privilege. The key issue is that Wolf is not protecting an external source, but is declining to provide potential evidence to an event to which he was a witness.

If the videotape in question was given to Wolf in confidence, he would have every right to withhold it and to defy the court order. But this is video he took himself, so who is he protecting? The problem I had with Judith Miller’s claim of privilege was that she was not protecting a source, but that she was a participant in the events on which she was reporting. I don’t believe she had the right to withhold testimony from the grand jury regarding a crime she was helping to facilitate. Of course, there is no allegation that Wolf was involved in anything criminal himself and the state cannot engage in witch hunts.

Despite the conflicting arguments in this matter, I have remained troubled by Wolf’s predicament, and this story from Editors and Publishers has helped me understand why:

Trying to compel journalists to testify is an increasingly popular tactic among federal investigators seeking all types of information. Even the occasional incarceration of reporters is enough to put the squeeze on the news media.

The article goes on to make the point that this case was bumped to the federal courts because California has a strong reporter’s shield law, while the feds have none at all. In addition, there appears to be an escalation of legal pressure being placed on journalists to, in effect, do the work of law enforcement. Lucy A. Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said:

“This is the first time it’s been pretty clear to me the federal government is interested in what bloggers do.” And that, “While jailings are infrequent, the number of subpoenas seeking to force reporters to testify has grown.”

The problem here is the trend. As the government seeks to intimidate reporters, it is also silencing the voices of its critics. For an administration that has elevated secrecy to an art form, there is no greater achievement than the dismantling of the first amendment. Josh Wolf may not be the perfect banner carrier for this battle, but he is at least collateral damage and his dilemma should be troubling to anyone who reveres a free press.

Is The IRS Meddling In Politics? Again!

Posted by on July 19, 2006 at 1:52 pm. 1 Comments :

The Political Activity Compliance Initiative (PACI). Sounds ominous, doesn’t it? That’s what the IRS is calling its program to investigate churches and other non-profit groups that they suspect of engaging in impermissible political activity.

Tax-exempt organizations are properly prohibited from overtly engaging in partisan politics. It’s entirely appropriate to keep religious institutions and others from operating as tax-free front groups for politicians while avoiding campaign finance laws. The problem with PACI is that it doesn’t provide a workable definition for the activity it seeks to regulate. Consequently, the affected institutions have no clear guidelines for when they may be in violation. In addition, the agency can use the initiative to target groups for partisan purposes. The result would be political activity compliance, alright.

Indeed, amongst the more high profile investigations are those against the NAACP and the All Saints Church, a predominately liberal congregation in Pasadena, CA. Last year, Congressman Kendrick Meek (D-FL) sent a letter to IRS Commissioner, Mark W. Everson, asking him to look into whether black churches in Florida were being unfairly singled out.

OMB Watch prepared a report detailing the pitfalls of the IRS program. They summarized several factors that they believe raise constitutional concerns:

  • The vagueness of the “facts and circumstances” test
  • Secrecy regarding enforcement action
  • IRS statements regarding its intent to prevent repeat violations before an election
  • The threat that an organization’s tax-exempt status will be revoked
  • Lack of deadlines for closing cases

In addition to these concerns is the potential for partisan mischief if politically motivated people or groups chose to file complaints against opponents as a strategy to suppress free expression. The IRS would then be obligated to conduct an investigation which could lead to the revocation of the non-profit’s tax-exempt status. This would have a chilling effect on free speech as well as the free exercise of religion.

Could it be more than a curious coincidence that this initiative is being advanced at this time during an election year? This is not the first time the IRS has made a point of chasing down churches and charities. In June of 2004, Everson appeared before a Senate committee to announce an unprecedented audit effort against these groups. That announcement also came in the midst of election year politics.

This administration has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to tell the truth or to act honorably. The lies it told prior to the Iraq war, its incompetence in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, the innumerable examples of partisanship with regard to legislating, judges, executive appointees, election fraud, etc., are all good reasons to be suspicious of their motivation for launching this initiative. Would you trust the IRS to administer this program fairly? Commissioner Everson came right from the Bush White House, where he was deputy director for management for the Office of Management and Budget. His wife, Nanette, was a White House counsel. One of his first projects at IRS was a plan to cross-check applications for tax-exempt status against terrorist watch lists. These lists were notoriously inaccurate. He also considered sharing IRS data with other agencies in spite of the fact that it was illegal to do so. He was said to believe that 9/11 legislation gave him the authority to act without the laws being changed. Sound familiar?

The rubber stamp Republican congress cannot be depended on to fulfill its oversight responsibilities. The media won’t be any help either. So if the IRS accuses liberal non-profits of politicking, without also going after the Falwells and the Dobsons, it will be up to the people to set the media and the government straight.

UPDATE: I wonder if any action has been taken concerning this pastor who told his congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Kerry should either leave the church or repent?