Free Press

The PEP Squad: Perpetually Erroneous Pundits

Posted by on February 9, 2007 at 1:59 am. NO Comments :

The American model of mass media is laden with an abundance of notorious flaws. One of the most pernicious is the clubby environment that embraces the fraternity of professional opiners. Amongst the benefits of membership in the PEP Squad (Perpetually Erroneous Pundits) is that, no matter how much you screw up, you never lose your seat at the table. Commentators who have been wrong for a half dozen years or more, are consistently invited back to deliver more of their bad advice. The problem is that, when your job is to influence public opinion and policy, the consequences of being wrong can be tragic.

For example, there is a dust-up in the bloggerhood that has pit the NRO‘s Jonah Goldberg against Juan Cole. It seems that a couple of years ago, Goldberg challenged Cole’s analysis of the travesty in Iraq saying:

“I do think my judgment is superior to his when it comes to the big picture. So, I have an idea: Since he doesn’t want to debate anything except his own brilliance, let’s make a bet. I predict that Iraq won’t have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it.”

That was two years ago and Goldberg’s predictions are so far off the mark that even he can’t deny it:

“I’ve admitted that Cole would have won. I’ve written that the Iraq War was a mistake. … I join a long list of people whose expectations about the war and its handling turned out to be wrong in whole or in part.”

Goldberg has admitted that he was wrong, but stubbornly insists that he has nothing for which to apologize. Nothing. Not for cheering on the martinets of war. Not for justifying the hostilities of a dishonest administration. Not for misleading his audience with discredited drivel. Not for the misery that has befallen the countless victims of his ignorance. But at least he is able to find comfort in joining “a long list of people” who were as dreadfully wrong as was he. He may also be comforted by his membership in the PEP Squad, knowing that his mistakes will cost him nothing.

The real danger emerges when PEP Squaders are allowed to continue peddling their distortions with impunity. The absence of accountability turns the notion of merit on its head. Thus we have Pulitzer winners like Robert Scheer being thrown over for hacks like Goldberg.

In his latest display of hackery, Goldberg argues that global warming is an equitable trade for economic gains. In fact he calls it “an amazing bargain:”

“The Earth got about 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer in the 20th century while it increased its GDP by 1,800%, by one estimate. […] Given the option of getting another 1,800% richer in exchange for another 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer, I’d take the heat in a heartbeat.”

Unfortunately, if he wins that bet, 100 million other hearts might have to stop beating. That’s the estimate of the population that would be impacted by rising sea levels if the Earth’s temperature were to rise in the amounts he proposes. By making irresponsible claims without the support of science, Goldberg is again substituting his imagination for the wise council of experts. He is engaging in a wager that, should he lose, will result in massive human suffering on a global scale. But look at the bright side. It probably won’t affect him or anyone he cares about, and Jonah and his pals will probably be a little richer. So it hardly matters whether he is right or wrong. We’ve seen how he behaves when he loses a bet; when he’s looking back on his fatally poor judgement. I can almost hear it now:

“I’ve admitted that Gore would have won. I’ve written that global warming was a mistake. … I join a long list of people whose expectations about climate change and its handling turned out to be wrong in whole or in part.”

Thanks Jonah. That makes everything better. The truth is, things won’t actually get any better until the media casts out the Perpetually Erroneous Pundits that are littering the TV and newspapers; until they start to reward superior analysis and intellect; until those who correctly predicted the sad outcome of Bush’s misadventures in Iraq replace the PEP Squad losers who got it so terribly wrong. By rewarding the PEP Squad for their failures, we can be virtually assured that they will continue to saddle the world with their toxic misperceptions. I’m not sure the world can stand it much longer.

CBS: Let Lara Logan Do Her Job

Posted by on January 26, 2007 at 8:11 pm. NO Comments :

CBS News is fortunate to have one of the most dedicated and responsible reporters in broadcast journalism. But they apparently don’t appreciate it.

Lara Logan has been posting honest and courageous reports from Baghdad since before the fall of Saddam. Her latest, though, has been shuffled off to CBS’ web site without being broadcast on the network. If you see the piece, you might understand why it was treated this way. In addition to contradicting much of the administration’s delusional assertions of success, the story is accompanied by images of the brutal reality of life on the streets of Baghdad. Now she needs our help to get this on the air.

CBS has taken it upon themselves to decide that America “can’t handle the truth.” But as Ms. Logan herself says in a letter to MediaChannel:

“…this is not too gruesome to air, but rather too important to ignore.”

The letter also called for supporters to let CBS know that they are interested in these stories and that they want them to air. Here’s the email for the CBS Evening News.

For a little more background on Lara Logan, click more.

Contine reading →

The Military Assault On Free Press And Thought

Posted by on January 18, 2007 at 1:40 am. NO Comments :

Another journalist is being threatened with incarceration for expressing herself, this time for reporting on a soldier who is being threatened with incarceration for expressing himself.

The majority of the American people oppose the occupation of Iraq and that majority is growing daily. So it should come as no surprise that soldiers are arriving at the same conclusions. After all, they are both Americans and people. A recent survey by the Military Times shows that about two thirds of them disapprove of the President’s handling of the war. But if you wear the uniform, don’t get the idea that you can express your views to your fellow citizens. And journalists shouldn’t get that idea either.

At one recent event, the President traveled to Fort Benning, Georgia, to dine with the troops. But the base commander prohibited any of the soldiers there from talking with the assembled reporters. This is just one example of many embarrassing episodes, including some where the brass offer up obviously pre-screened and coached “random” spokespersons. Unfortunately, embarrassment is the least of the problems generated by this censorious trend.

In the course of its execution of the Iraqi occupation, the U.S. government has not been shy about engaging in overtly propagandistic behavior, including paying for stories to be planted in Iraqi newspapers. But they have also brazenly threatened journalists with prosecution for doing their jobs. Recall Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez on“This Week”:

“There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that [prosecution] is a possibility.”

Well, they’re at it again. Sarah Olson is a free-lance journalist from Oakland, CA, who interviewed the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to Iraq, Lt. Ehren Watada. As a result she has now been subpoenaed by military prosecutors who want her to testify at Watada’s court-martial. If Olson does not comply with the subpoena it could wind up costing her six months in jail or $500, along with a felony conviction. She told the San Francisco Chronicle…

“It’s not a reporter’s job to participate in the prosecution of her own sources. When you force a journalist to participate, you run the risk of turning the journalist into an investigative tool of the state.”

Olson is now receiving support from the Society of Professional Journalists, who have written a letter to Army officials on her behalf. They say in part…

“It is highly objectionable that any journalist be forced to become an agent of Army prosecutors. Even more repugnant is compelling a journalist to aid prosecutors who are challenging a military officer’s right to free speech.”

It is really too bad that a conscientious and brave officer is being persecuted for taking a principled stand against a war that is illegal and immoral. You can learn more and offer help for Lt. Watada at this website: Friends and Family of Lt. Watada.

It is also too bad that a responsible and dedicated journalist is being persecuted for telling this soldier’s story. You can learn more and offer help for Ms. Olson at this website: The Free Press Working Group.

Both of these patriotic Americans need and deserve the support of all people who value free speech, justice, peace, and an unshackleded press that is necessary to preserve these values.

FBI Ends Harrassment Of Jack Anderson’s Ghost

Posted by on January 4, 2007 at 12:14 pm. NO Comments :

Last April it was reported that the FBI intended to seek documents from the estate of investigative reporter, Jack Anderson. I wrote at the time that this presented some ominous threats to freedom of the press and the well being of reporters:

“News sources, whistleblowers, and others with information, the disclosure of which is in the public’s interest, would be far less likely to come forward if they know that their identity could be revealed in the event of the reporter’s death […] The government cannot presently force the reporter to reveal his sources without the intervention of the courts. But if the reporter were to die, under the principle being advanced here by the FBI, the government could retrieve the data they want from the reporter’s estate. Consequently, it would be in the government’s interest for the reporter to die.”

It seems that the FBI has decided to back off. James H. Clinger, an Acting Associate Attorney General, responding to questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, now says that…

“The FBI met with the Anderson family in an effort to review the files with their consent. At this time, the FBI is not seeking to reclaim any documents.”

There was no further comment from the FBI or any explanation for the change. For the time being we should just be glad that the inquisition is over. But there is still a need to be vigilant given the history of abuse of the press by this administration.

Gerald Ford’s FOIA Veto

Posted by on December 27, 2006 at 2:15 am. NO Comments :

The passing of former President Gerald Ford will produce a torrent of retrospectives and remembrances. The media will undoubtedly focus on the Nixon resignation, the end of our “long national nightmare,” and the pardons that probably cost Ford the election in 1976. But there is a lesser known story that may have an even longer reach. It’s a story that touches on some of the core values of our liberties and introduces us to a cast of characters that remain on stage today.

The original version of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) of 1966 was a controversial document that prevailed despite some bitter debates and opposition by President Johnson. As Johnson’s press secretary, Bill Moyers, describes it:

“LBJ had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the signing ceremony. He hated the very idea of the Freedom of Information Act; hated the thought of journalists rummaging in government closets; hated them challenging the official view of reality. He dug in his heels and even threatened to pocket veto the bill after it reached the White House.”

This was not an uncommon point of view for presidents, who are generally protective of their executive privileges. Nonetheless, Johnson signed the bill, but its form at the time made it nearly impotent.

Congress endeavored to shore up FOIA and produced legislation to amend it in 1974. The bill was dumped in Ford’s lap at the commencement of his promotion to the White House. Ford’s position on the new bill was that it was negative on its merits but could be problematic to veto in the wake of his ascension to the presidency. He had promised open and honest government, and vetoing a Freedom of Information Act might not be viewed as consistent with either openness or honesty.

Ford eventually was persuaded to veto the bill with the help of a trio of advisors: his Chief of Staff, Donald Rumsfeld; his deputy Chief of Staff, Dick Cheney; and the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, Antonin Scalia. An ominous early assemblage of an evil cabal we know only too well today.

The veto was overridden by Congress and the amendments became law. In the intervening years it has proven to be an invaluable tool to rein in the kind of government arrogance and abuse that is exemplified so well by the Nixon era that preceded its passage.

It’s just too bad that the people responsible for the veto could not also have been overridden so that today we would not have to be suffering still from their destructive, self-serving, and hostile policies. Thousands of American families, and hundreds of thousands in Iraq, have paid dearly for their misguidance. We should keep those families in our thoughts and prayers, today and going forward, just as we do the Ford family.

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.”

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.

When News Is Classified

Posted by on July 10, 2006 at 2:22 pm. NO Comments :

In recent weeks, there has been a flurry of stories that test the boundaries of publishing when classified data is involved. The NSA wiretapping affair, phone companies handing over records to intelligence agencies, and the tracking of the SWIFT financial transactions. Now, the deans of several big dog journalism schools are weighing in with an op-ed in the Washington Post: When in Doubt, Publish.

On the whole, they present a decent argument that is fully conveyed in the opening sentence, “It is the business — and the responsibility — of the press to reveal secrets.” How I wish the press would undertake that responsibility more often. A full reading of the article, however, seems to water down the premise. They describe the journalist’s dilemma as, “choosing between the risk that would result from disclosure and the parallel risk of keeping the public in the dark.” But the risk of keeping the public in the dark, while significant, is not the only risk that lack of disclosure portends.

By choosing to suppress information that is deemed classified, the press is enabling the government’s proclivity for avoiding oversight. The deans acknowledge that governments have made national security claims in the past, when all they were really concerned about was their own political necks. But it goes even deeper than that. Since the executive branch gets to decide what gets classified, they are in the position of being able to cover up criminal acts by simply classifying the evidence. We’ve even seen variations of this in the legal arena with investigations into the administration that were halted when Justice Department lawyers were prohibited from pursuing leads because they lacked security clearances, the issuance of which is also within the purview of the administration being investigated.

Jay Rosen at PressThink, tackles the question of how to cover a classified war. The essay is illuminating and worth reading in full (but stay out of the comments. After the first couple of dozen they get trampled by trolls). Rosen unveils an administration fighting a war that has no generals or governing authority. But the War on Terror, nonetheless, has operations that are shielded from the public by classification. When the New York Times raised questions about those operations, congress passed a resolution condemning the media for endangering national security. At the same time, we have pundits like William Bennett asking, “Who elected the media?” to decide what information the public is entitled to receive. The question itself is irrelevant. The press gets its rights from the Constitution, not the ballot box. Thank heaven for that, because try to imagine the state of journalism if the inverse were true.

This is the most secretive administration in history. They have classified more documents than any before it. They are even re-classifying tens of thousands of documents that have been available for years. They go around the traditional oversight provided by the courts and congress. Even congressional allies are starting to recoil. Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), chairman of the House Intelligence committee, sent a letter to the White House complaining about not having been informed of programs that the law requires be disclosed to the committee.

A free press is expected to be independent and to function with a healthy dose of skepticism. If the press cannot independently analyze government, even with respect to what the government claims should be classified, what good is the press? Should it obediently bow before the government’s royal edicts? Or should it cherish the freedom to think critically and act in accordance with that freedom?

Happy Birthday: Freedom of Information Act Is 40 Today

Posted by on July 4, 2006 at 8:07 pm. NO Comments :

July 4, 1966, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Its purpose was to ensure the public’s right to access information from the federal government. For the first time, the government would bear the burden for certifying why requested information should not be released, and any refusal to release information could be challenged in court.

The FOIA was nearly stillborn as Johnson was bitterly opposed to the legislation. His press secretary, Bill Moyers, described LBJ as having to be:

“…dragged kicking and screaming to the signing ceremony. He hated the very idea of the Freedom of Information Act; hated the thought of journalists rummaging in government closets and opening government files; hated them challenging the official view of reality.”

The National Security Archive at George Washington University discovered more objections to the bill as expressed in LBJ’s signing statements. Via Editors and Publishers:

Draft language from Johnson’s statement arguing that “democracy works best when the people know what their government is doing,” was changed with a handwritten scrawl to read: “Democracy works best when the people have all the info that the security of the nation will permit.” This sentence was eliminated entirely with the same handwritten markings: “Government officials should not be able to pull curtains of secrecy around decisions which can be revealed without injury to the public interest.” Another scratched sentence said the decisions, policies and mistakes of public officials “are always subjected to the scrutiny and judgment of the people.”

In 40 years, the presidential impression of the FOIA has actually declined. the Bush administration has been cited as the most secretive in history. Moyers enumerates many examples in a speech he gave before the Society of Professional Journalists. BushCo intelligence agencies have also been busy re-classifying tens of thousands of documents that were previously available for years. Vice President Cheney, with the help of hunting buddy, Justice Antonin Scalia, won a case to keep secret the names of the energy company cronies on his energy task force. More recently, Don Rumsfeld’s Defense Department ejected all reporters from the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay – except, of course, for Fox News, which was later invited back.

This record of secrecy is compounded by the outright hostility that this administration shows for the institution that our founding fathers designated to maintain our freedom. The press has been subject to accusations of treason and calls for prosecution for publishing stories on the president’s anti-terrorism programs that violate civil liberties. The House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning the media for printing these stories.

As we celebrate that other anniversary that everybody seems to be talking about today, we should take a moment to recognize this 40th birthday of legislation that was enacted in the best spirit of this country’s principles. James Madison seems prescient in his statement back in 1822:

“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance. And a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both.”

Happy Birthday, Freedom of Information Act.

Did The FBI Murder Jack Anderson?

Posted by on April 19, 2006 at 5:52 pm. 2 Comments :

In one of this year’s most under-reported stories, there lies one of this decade’s most ominous threats. Veteran journalist, Jack Anderson, who died last December, is undoubtedly resting uncomfortably while the FBI is seeking access to his files. The FBI contends that certain documents in Anderson’s files are secret and that their release would jeopardize national security.

Anderson was a heralded investigative reporter who broke many stories that surely disturbed some powerful people and institutions. Among them the Keating Five savings and loan affair, and the Iran-Contra scandal. It’s fair to assume that he would have aggressively defended his rights under the first amendment. Anderson’s family and their representatives are declining to cooperate with the FBI’s demands. In a letter to the FBI, the family’s attorneys wrote:

“After much discussion and due deliberation, the family has concluded that were Mr. Anderson alive today, he would not cooperate with the government on this matter. Instead, he would resist the government’s efforts with all the energy he could muster…To honor both his memory and his wishes, the family feels duty bound to do no less.”

Reporters are granted a privilege in the first amendment to the Constitution to conduct their business free of government intervention or intimidation. That includes compiling information and testimony from confidential sources. Without such protection, many knowledgeable, inside sources would decline to talk to reporters at all.

There is a frightening dilution of freedom of the press if that protection ends at the cemetery gates. News sources, whistleblowers, and others with information, the disclosure of which is in the public’s interest, would be far less likely to come forward if they know that their identity could be revealed in the event of the reporter’s death. In many cases this could effectively turn the spigot off with regard to government fraud or misconduct.

There is a far worse scenario that could play out when a source has already spoken to reporter who asserts his rights under the first amendment to keep the source anonymous. The government cannot presently force the reporter to reveal his sources without the intervention of the courts. But if the reporter were to die, under the principle being advanced here by the FBI, the government could retrieve the data they want from the reporter’s estate. Consequently, it would be in the government’s interest for the reporter to die.

Imagine the implications of that, if you dare.