Censorship

GE And News Corp: The Saga Continues

Posted by on August 8, 2009 at 2:19 pm. 5 Comments :

As previously reported, executives at GE and News Corp have been attempting to broker a deal that would end the bickering between the networks and, mostly, Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly. I continue to maintain that it would be a violation of journalistic ethics for the execs to interfere with the judgment of their commentators. But the brass at GE and News Corp don’t seem to agree with me.

The first attempt at a truce was broken within 48 hours by Olbermann who, on returning from vacation, skewered O’Reilly royally, just like the good old days. O’Reilly took up the gauntlet and, as per his routine, ignored Olbermann and went straight after his boss at GE, Jeffrey Immelt. The tactic of bypassing Olbermann and aiming at Immelt is said to have been personally suggested by Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. With the war on again, the combatants began to reveal some of their innermost thoughts – particularly Ailes who, according to the Washington Post, summarized the situation thusly:

Ailes offered a blunt, if slightly jocular, diagnosis of the problem. He could control his nutcases, Ailes said, but Immelt couldn’t control his.

That says so much. First, Ailes is acknowledging that his people are nutcases (as if we didn’t already know). And second, Ailes is admitting that he has the power to manipulate the content and views of the nutcases who host Fox programs.

GE has issued a statement saying that they haven’t “told anyone at NBC News or MSNBC how to report the news.” But the New York Times claims to have sources who said that, not only was there a deal that covered Olbermann and O’Reilly, but also…

“Employees of daytime programs on MSNBC were specifically told by executives not to mention Fox hosts in segments critical of conservative media figures.”

What I want to know is, how can you produce a segment critical of conservative media figures without mentioning Fox hosts?

Olbermann (and anyone in his position) deserves respect for standing up to interference from the suits in the suites. It is the ethical thing to do in the news business. You simply do not let them intrude on your news judgment, especially if your job is to provide analysis and opinion. Unless, of course, you’re Bill O’Reilly, who is a coward, and a puppet for Ailes, who has previously admitted that he has the ability to direct what is said by Murdoch-owned pundits on TV and in print (over which he has no executive authority):

“Ailes warned that if Olbermann didn’t stop such attacks against Fox, he would unleash O’Reilly against NBC and would use the New York Post as well.”

This was basically extortion on the part of Ailes who literally served notice on GE saying that, “If you stop, we’ll stop.” The objective by both the GE and News Corp executives has nothing to do with the pursuit of news. Rather, it is a self-serving plot to tamp down any criticism of the parent companies. They are looking after their corporate interest, not the public interest.

This whole affair is a near perfect illustration of why monolithic corporations, with vested interests in far flung business and government affairs, should not be permitted to own news enterprises.

Bill O’Reilly Books, Then Bumps, WorldNetDaily Birther

Posted by on August 3, 2009 at 12:57 pm. 7 Comments :

Joseph Farah is the editor of the uber-conservative WorldNetDaily. He is also one of the chief proponents of the Birther Conspiracy that holds that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president because, they hysterically allege, he isn’t a U.S. citizen. This thoroughly caramelized nut case for reversing last November’s election has been debunked repeatedly, but continues to be peddled by dogged rightist reality deniers.

Now, the WorldNetDaily is reporting that their leader, Mr. Farrah, was all set to appear on The O’Reilly Factor until his list of demands was rejected by Bill O’Reilly himself. Here is the list as printed at WND:

  • Though a sober and civil discourse is always welcome, shouting is not;
  • No other guests on during the segment with Mr. Farah;
  • Discussion to be limited to the facts of the story;
  • Accurate, approved description of Mr. Farah and news organization he represents;
  • Screen ID chyron to be approved by Mr. Farah.

If this account is true, then O’Reilly retracted his invitation to Farrah because he objected to constraints on his freedom to shout at people and distort facts. But just the fact that a right wing web editor felt it necessary to itemize a list of criteria that included no shouting, stick with the facts, and chyron approval, for a right wing TV host, is pretty delicious irony. Even O’Reilly’s natural allies don’t trust him.

GE And FOX Agree To Censor Their News Divisions

Posted by on August 1, 2009 at 2:58 pm. 7 Comments :

In a report in the New York Times, the corporate parents of NBC and Fox News were brought together at a summit for CEO’s in an attempt to settle a long-simmering feud. Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE, and Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp, sat down to try to work things out.

What they were striving to resolve was the eternal and bitter competition between MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Fox’s Bill O’Reilly. This affair has been a rancorous, and often humorous, battle wherein Olbermann frequently awarded O’Reilly his “Worst Person in the World,” trophy, and O’Reilly countered by slandering NBC, GE, and Immelt personally (O’Reilly would never utter Olbermann’s name). According to the Times’ Brian Stelter…

“It was a media cage fight, televised every weeknight at 8 p.m. But the match was halted when the blood started to spray executives in the high-priced seats.”

There are two things that are immensely disturbing about this backroom handshake. First and foremost, the corporate parents of news enterprises ought not to be dictating the content of their news divisions, or the opinions of their commentators. That is especially true if the reason for the ivory tower interference is to dampen any blowback on the parent company’s business or executives resulting from controversial positions. This is about the best example of why it is unwise for corporations with vested interests in broader business and government affairs to own news publishers to begin with.

Secondly, the result of this inter-cable warfare is precisely what Fox News wanted. MSNBC is caving in to a deliberate tactic designed to halt criticism of Fox and its personnel. It is a one-sided victory for Fox that comes at the expense of MSNBC’s best interests and dignity. It was less than four months ago that Fox News CEO, Roger Ailes, laid down the threat from which they are now reaping the harvest. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post reported the tantrum Ailes threw in response to the escalating on-air debate:

“Ailes warned that if Olbermann didn’t stop such attacks against Fox, he would unleash O’Reilly against NBC and would use the New York Post as well.”

That’s precisely what happened, and it didn’t even take two weeks for Fox to follow through on its threat. Now we see this truce in effect at least partly because Immelt doesn’t like being called “a despicable human being” by O’Reilly. And the worst part is that Fox’s blatant bullying is being rewarded with a complete capitulation by MSNBC.

For these networks to enforce this agreement is nothing short of censorship. Olbermann responded with an email that said that he was not a party to any agreement, but he also seems to have halted his once routine attacks on O’Reilly and Fox News. As for Fox, their position now is that it is appropriate to direct their commentators to steer clear of certain topics. But that appears to apply only to topics that negatively impact the company brass. Just last week, after Glenn Beck called President Obama a racist, Fox released a statement that said that beck had merely…

“…expressed a personal opinion which represented his own views, not those of the Fox News Channel. And as with all commentators in the cable news arena, he is given the freedom to express his opinions.”

That freedom, of course, has limitations. From the Fox News point of view, it is alright for one of their hosts to comment disparagingly on the President of the United States, but it is not OK to comment on the president of the company. The company, after all, is sacrosanct and its interests are superior to those of the nation.

It is disheartening to see this sort of corporate thuggery imposed on what should be independent news divisions. One can only hope that the truce will fail and free expression will prevail.

Update: Olbermann returned from vacation and struck down any notion that the network brass would dictate the content of his program. To prove it, he returned Bill O’Reilly to the “World’s Worst” list and reprised his old “Bill-O the Clown” routine. Apparently, news of a network truce were exaggerated. That’s good news.

Emmy News: Nominations – PBS 41 / Fox News 0

Posted by on July 14, 2009 at 5:57 pm. 1 Comments :

The Emmy nominations for News and Documentaries were released today by the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. PBS scored the lion’s share with 41 nominations, including two more for Bill Moyers, who has won more than 30 Emmys already. CBS was a distant second with 23. One notable name missing from the list of honorees is the #1 cable news network in the country, Fox News. There are two principle reasons for the absence of Fox News.

First, Fox claims to have declined to participate because they believe that the Emmys are biased against them. That’s a rather piddling complaint that, more than anything, exposes their self-centered pettiness with an attitude that recalls a school child taking the ball and going home.

The more likely reason for their Emmy snub is that Fox is not actually a news network and, knowing this, they are acknowledging that nominations will not be forthcoming. I suspect that they are preparing to submit their programming for Emmys in the drama and, perhaps, comedy categories, where they have a better chance of being recognized. Of course then their other fictional fare, like “24” and “The Simpsons” will have to compete against the far more flagrant fiction produced by Fox News. Whatever will they do?

Well, we can expect Bill O’Reilly to issue a blistering condemnation of the Academy shortly. He did the same thing when the Peabodys snubbed him (again), despite honoring Moyers and Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert on multiple occasions. What does it say when a comedy network’s fake news programs receive more plaudits from their journalism “peers” than a network that pretends to be a bona fide news enterprise? And furthermore, what does it say about the viewers of a so-called news network that is held in such ill repute by other news professionals?

Amongst the Emmy hopefuls is David Barstow, the New York Times reporter who wrote Message Machine. This article, which has already won a Pulitzer Prize and the New York Press Club’s Golden Keyboard, described how the Pentagon in the Bush administration conspired to train and deploy former military personnel to spread propaganda in support of the war in Iraq. And if that weren’t bad enough, the program also permitted them to use their high profile media platform to enrich themselves and the defense contractors to whom they were attached.

Despite the acclaim the article has received, Barstow has still yet to be invited to tell this important story in any conventional media venue. The only in-depth broadcast interview was conducted by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. This may be the most egregious example of a heralded, Pulitzer caliber investigation being so brazenly suppressed. The obvious explanation is that the media organizations that have actively blackballed the story are also the subjects of it. They are the news enterprises employing the compromised Pentagon Pundits, and they have a vested interest in preventing the truth from getting out.

Now that the report has been awarded another honor, will Barstow’s phone start to ring? Will the media pay attention to what may be the worst instance of propaganda executed by the U.S. government against its own people? At the very least, MSNBC has a special obligation to pursue this story. They have a contractual relationship with the New York Times, and their own John Harwood is a frequent guest on both MSNBC and CNBC. Why on earth wouldn’t the Times be lobbying to promote a story by their own Pulitzer award winning reporter who has now been nominated for an Emmy?

Contact MSNBC and tell them to book David Barstow:
MSNBC General
Keith Olbermann
Rachel Maddow
Ed Schultz
David Shuster
Chris Matthews

SPINCOM: Still A Deafening Silence

Posted by on May 20, 2009 at 2:50 pm. NO Comments :

A couple of weeks ago, I posted this story on David Barstow, the author of Message Machine for the New York Times. Yesterday, the New York Press Club awarded Barstow it’s Golden Keyboard Award. Barstow had previously won a Pulitzer for the story.

Message Machine described how the Pentagon in the Bush administration conspired to train and deploy former military personnel to spread propaganda in support of the war in Iraq. And if that weren’t bad enough, the program also permitted them to use their high profile media platform to enrich themselves and the defense contractors to whom they were attached.

To date, Barstow has still not been invited to appear on any of the major news networks to discuss his article. The allegations have been investigated by Congress and by the Inspector General of the Pentagon. The Department of Defense halted the programs exposed by Barstow. He is continuing to receive accolades from his peers, but none of this is enough to persuade television news editors to book him.

We can eliminate Fox News as a potential host for a discussion with Barstow. But at the very least we ought to be able to get MSNBC to schedule a segment or two. Feel free to give them some encouragement.

Contact MSNBC:
MSNBC General
Keith Olbermann
Rachel Maddow
Ed Schultz
David Shuster
Chris Matthews

Carrie Prejean Dishonors The First Amendment

Posted by on May 12, 2009 at 4:31 pm. 6 Comments :

In last month’s Miss USA pageant, Carrie Prejean replied to Perez Hilton that she believed that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. That response ignited a controversy that extended well beyond her role as Miss California. The controversy has since snowballed into a soapy opera that is dripping with deceit, pornography, and greed.

This morning Prejean’s crown was pulled from the fire by pageant owner Donald Trump with his pronouncement that she will be permitted to continue her reign. But there is a story here that diverges from the debate over gay marriage and beauty queens. And it’s a story that has just as much impact on Constitutional liberties.

Much of the debate circling around Prejean has been focused on the content of her answer and whether same-sex marriage should be recognized under the law. But underlying that discussion were allegations that she was being discriminated against for her point of view and/or her religion. She was amongst the first to decry what she felt was the violation of her right to free speech. But she was not the last. Numerous pundits piled on with their hysterical assertions that Prejean was not being allowed to speak.

That imaginary allegation peaked this morning with the speech Prejean gave (YouTube) during a news conference with Trump. The speech presented a severely contorted view of the First Amendment and her rights under it. First of all, since there was no government entity involved with any of the alleged stifling, the First Amendment was not violated because the law only applies to suppression by the state. But even her complaints that she was unable to express herself were absurd fabrications. At the press conference she said:

“Three weeks ago I was asked a politically-charged question with a hidden personal agenda. I answered my question honestly and sincerely from my heart […] As [Perez Hilton] was trying to be self-promoting and hateful while I have remained silent since, I am honored to be here today to finally let my voice be heard and address the hateful attacks, despicable rumors and false allegations I have had within the last three weeks.”

I’m not even going to enter into speculation about how Prejean knew there was a “hidden personal agenda” or her disparagement of Hilton as “hateful,” and “self-promoting” (like beauty pageant contestants don’t promote themselves). But her statement that she has “remained silent” until today and that only now can she “finally let [her] voice be heard.” is outright delusional. She has been a fixture on TV news for most of the three weeks since losing the Miss USA pageant. She has been interviewed by Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, Megyn Kelly, and Courtney Friel – all of Fox News. In addition she appeared with James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Pat Robertson (700 Club/CBN), and Matt Lauer (Today/NBC). If that represents suppression of speech, what on Earth would free expression require? Perhaps her own primetime network talk show? In her speech she also offered a tearful remembrance of her veteran grandfather:

“On April 19th, on that stage, I exercised my freedom of speech and I was punished for doing so. This should not happen in America. It undermines the Constitutional rights for which my grandfather fought for.”

So what’s all the fuss about about? Here she admits that she was in fact allowed to exercise her freedom of speech. Her assertion that she was punished for doing so is utterly without foundation. Some reports indicate that she was behind in scoring even before her fateful question. It appears that what she is actually bemoaning is that there is also freedom of expression for anyone who happens to disagree with her. She is one of those who believes that free speech is defined as the right to speak your mind without fear of rebuttal.

There is a peculiar irony in the fact that Prejean is so disturbed by her imagined slights; that after flooding the airwaves with her opinions, she perceives herself as being silenced. But she has only praise for Trump and the pageant operators who are affirmatively constricting her public appearances and utterances:

Meanwhile, if Ms. Prejean wants to speak publicly about same-sex marriage in the future, she will have to go through the Miss California USA pageant officials to discuss the platform where she will speak and how she will present her opinion.

“We’re not changing our rules for Carrie,” Keith Lewis, a co-executive director of the California pageant, said in an interview. “We’re bringing her back into compliance with her contract; every appearance is approved by us, every statement is a reflection of us.” He said that if she is asked about her views, she should answer honestly, but that pageant officials would help her “fine tune” her response so that it “is accommodating to both parties.”

Wait a minute. Didn’t she just finish saying that “That should not happen in America?

When people exploit false arguments that rely on claims to Constitutional liberties, they trivialize those liberties. It is a form of crying wolf that harms all of those who have legitimate grievances. Prejean’s views on marriage are her own business, and she has a right to form and convey her opinions as she chooses. But that right does not include imposing a gag on everyone else. She must be tolerant of opposing views and she ought not to wrap herself in the Constitution when her situation is so far removed from any reasonable interpretation of it.

In the case of Carrie Prejean, not only was she not constrained by the government, she was not constrained period. And whining about her perceived victimhood makes for a distinctly unattractive beauty queen.

Update: This was inevitable: Prejean has been tapped to fill in for Gretchen Carlson (Miss America, 1989) on Fox & Friends on May 27. Also, Sarah Palin (Miss Wasilla, 1984) made a statement in support of Prejean wherein she doubled down on the misunderstanding of the First Amendment.

Why We Need A Blogosphere

Posted by on May 9, 2009 at 4:29 pm. NO Comments :

Television news was a great idea. Just think of it: A box that sits in your living room and brings you important information from around the block or around the world. Sounds too good to be true. And apparently it is.

Whatever value television adds to the distribution of news must be weighed against the harm it produces through its incorporation of bias, selective editing, and the pursuit of its own self interest.

SpinComFor example, last year David Barstow of the New York Times wrote a meticulously well researched and documented story that should have sparked a national uproar. The story described how the Pentagon in the Bush administration conspired to train and deploy former military personnel to spread propaganda in support of the war in Iraq. And if that weren’t bad enough, the program also permitted them to use their high profile media platform to enrich themselves and the defense contractors to whom they were attached.

Barstow’s story was received with what some call a “deafening silence,” particularly from the TV news community. Then, last week, Barstow won a Pulitzer Prize for the story. The silence built into a crushing whisper. Even progressive media icons like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow only glanced over this story. Obviously there are strong arm tactics being employed to prevent the public from learning that our government purposefully and unlawfully engaged in propaganda directed squarely at us. The TV news networks are simply covering their own asses since it was primarily their facilities that hosted the phony military analysts.

Yesterday, Barstow was interviewed by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now to discuss the announcement that the Pentagon inspector general’s office had withdrawn its own report that had previously exoneraed the program. In the interview Goodman asked Barstow to comment on the lack of reporting on his story. Barstow said…

“You know, to be honest with you, I haven’t received many invitations-in fact, any invitations-to appear on any of the main network or cable programs. I can’t say I’m hugely shocked by that.”

“On the other hand, while there’s been kind of deafening silence, as you put it, on the network side of this, the stories have had-sparked an enormous debate in the blogosphere. And to this day, I continue to get regular phone calls from not just in this country but around the world, where other democracies are confronting similar kinds of issues about the control of their media and the influence of their media by the government.”

“So it’s been an interesting experience to see the sort of two reactions, one being silence from the networks and the cable programs, and the other being this really lively debate in the blogosphere. “

When an important and newsworthy story that exposes government wrongdoing at the highest levels – a story that appears on the front page of the New York Times and wins a Pulitzer Prize – cannot get the attention of television news outlets, there is something seriously wrong with that medium. When a respected journalist has to console himself with having his story get traction only on the Internet, it tells us a great deal about how corrupt the corporate-run news divisions of America have become.

Barstow should not have to be satisfied with generating lively debate in the blogosphere. The revelations in his article illustrate a betrayal of trust on the part of our government. The public deserves and needs to know the facts about this affair. But the failure of the television news enterprises to responsibly carry out their duties is also a betrayal of trust. How are we supposed to rely on their journalistic integrity if they refuse to exhibit any?

I don’t expect Sean Hannity to be issuing an invitation to Barstow anytime soon. Fox News has always been as deeply integrated into the Bush administration’s propaganda machine as any of these Pentagon Pundits. But if Olbermann, Maddow, Ed Schultz, or even Chris Matthews don’t extend an invitation to Barstow, then we need to let them know that they are failing to serve the public and they are buckling under to a media conspiracy to keep the people ignorant.

If it embarrasses NBC/MSNBC to admit that they participated in this charade, they need to suck it up, take responsibility, and ask for forgiveness. Permitting these phony analysts on their air was bad enough. They should not compound the offense by attempting to cover it up.

Barstow is right about the blogosphere. But we need to shape it into something more than a forum for debate. We need to use it to make the old media behave responsibly; to hold their feet to the fire. And this is as good an issue as any with which to assert that principle.

Contact MSNBC
MSNBC General
Keith Olbermann
Rachel Maddow
Ed Schultz
David Shuster
Chris Matthews

The Fox News Blackout Of President Obama

Posted by on March 19, 2009 at 4:05 pm. 3 Comments :

Granted there are a lot of stories vying for coverage these days. The economy, AIG bonuses, the fiscal stimulus bill, etc. There are also a couple of wars, a health care crisis, and a dangerously warming planet (in case anyone still cares about those trivialities). But since when did the President of the United States cease to be newsworthy?

The past three days has seen President Obama making appearances around the country in support of his economic program. Some of those appearances were town halls that included questions from the public. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the issues at play are amongst the most serious our country has encountered in decades. So how has the media handled these events?

CNN and MSNBC have broadcast some or all of Obama’s appearances live.
Fox News has broadcast NONE of them.

It appears that Fox News has decided to refrain from any coverage of the President other than that which has been prepackaged by their in-house cadre of anti-Obama ranters. They are preserving their airtime for scripted hit pieces where they can selectively misrepresent Obama’s remarks and follow that up with vitriolic responses to outrages that they have invented.

For anyone who still thinks that Fox should be treated as a bona fide news enterprise, this should put the final coffin nail in that point of view. And if Fox News isn’t going to cede any airtime to the President, than Democrats should respond in kind by not appearing on Fox News. If Democrats submit to this blatant unfairness, they are, in effect, rewarding Fox for discriminating against them.

It has been obvious for years that Fox is a partisan cheerleader for Republicans and an active basher of Democrats. But this behavior is beyond the pale. Fox has implemented a de facto blackout of the President in unedited public forums. This is a deliberate tactic to control their message by preventing the administration from communicating freely with citizens.

If Fox wants to manipulate the news, and the public’s access to their leaders, they must not be permitted to do it with the help of other Democrats. We must let Fox know that they aren’t getting away with anything. We know what they’re up to, and we won’t be accomplices to it. This overt censorship must not be tolerated.

It’s as simple as this: STAY THE HELL OFF OF FOX NEWS!

Bush Era Of Secrecy May Be Coming To An End

Posted by on January 14, 2009 at 3:16 pm. NO Comments :

George W. Bush has presided over the most secrecy-obsessed administration in the history of the country. More documents have been classified than at any other time. White House officials have defied court orders to disclose data, calendars, and emails. They even claimed that the vice-president was not subject to Congressional demands for information from the White House because he was not a part of the executive branch of government.

Bill Moyers, in a superb speech commemorating the 20th anniversary of the National Security Archive brilliantly articulated the urgency with which Bush pursued the suppression of public data:

“Bush and Cheney have made the Freedom of Information Act their number one target, more fervently pursued for elimination than Osama Bin Laden. No sooner had he come to office than George W. Bush set out to eviscerate both FOIA and the Presidential Records Act. He has been determined to protect his father’s secrets when the first Bush was Vice President and then President – as well as his own. Call it Bush Omerta.”

Last week some sunlight pierced the Bush-imposed darkness:

The end may finally be in sight to the seven-year battle historians and archivists have waged to overturn President Bush’s Executive Order 13233 of November 2001 that restricted access to presidential records. On January 7, 2009, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 35, the “Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2009,” by an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote of 359-58.

The bill offered by Edolphus Towns (D-NY) has now been sent to Joe Lieberman’s Homeland Security Committee in the Senate where it is expected to be welcomed and passed. Previous versions of this legislation were held up by Senate Republicans and threatened with a Bush veto. At this time, such opposition is not given much credence as the bill could likely muster 60 votes to achieve cloture and President-elect Barack Obama appears to be supportive. While not explicitly citing Bush’s Executive Order, Obama’s ethics agenda includes this statement:

Release Presidential Records: Obama and Biden will nullify attempts to make the timely release of presidential records more difficult.

The National Coalition for History, a non-profit educational project hosted by the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University, has composed a detailed description of the bill’s provisions. Here is a summary:

  • Overturn Bush Executive Order 13233
  • Establish a Deadline for Review of Records
  • Limit the Authority of Former Presidents to Withhold Presidential Records
  • Require the President to Make Privilege Claims Personally
  • Eliminate Executive Privilege Claims for Vice Presidents
  • Deny Access to Anyone Convicted of a Crime Relating to the Archives

Passage of this bill would mark a profound step back from Bush’s attempts to conceal the crimes and corruption of his office. Joseph Wheelan, of George Mason University’s History News Network, expressed the very real risks of allowing the Bush Doctrine of Secrecy to endure:

“Executive Order 13233 portends a day when spin, the currency of politics, may become the province, too, of presidential history. One can envision a future when a presidential library’s watchdogs would allow only ‘safe’ historians to sift through the library’s holdings for material to cook up a bracingly whitewashed version of his subject’s actions. Objective historians, denied access to the panegyrist’s primary sources and all the juicy details, would be placed at a severe disadvantage. Which version do you think would get the seven-figure publishing advance and the lavish promotional campaign?”

Rep. Towns, and his colleagues in the House, have done a great service to the country with the passage of this bill. In a comment to the press, Towns said:

“President Bush’s executive order created an imbalanced and restrictive process. The Presidential Records Act preserves the important intent of the original post-Watergate law, which was to assure timely accessibility and preservation of official White House records for historical and, if necessary, legal purposes.”

The emphasis added at the end of that quote was mine, because of the hope it implies that justice can still be achieved, that the criminality of the outgoing administration does not go unpunished, and that their unconstitutional behavior is not set as a precedent.

I have long advocated that Executive Order 13233 be rescinded by the next Democratic president. Now Obama has the chance to do that with the added force of law behind it. I expect that he will gladly follow through, but first it has to get out of the senate and onto his desk. This would be good time to contact your senators and request that they support this bill.

Brit Hume Doesn’t Get The Internet – Or Journalism

Posted by on December 12, 2008 at 3:26 am. 5 Comments :

It’s a good thing that Brit Hume has already announced his retirement. When the primary anchor and managing editor of the Washington bureau for Fox News has such a total misconception of modern media, it is well past time for him to leave the scene. On the December 11 broadcast of the Fox News Special Report, Hume led off his Political Grapevine segment with this:

“The Obama-Biden transition team has launched a new feature on its Web site called “Open for Questions” which is designed to be an open forum for users to ask policy and issue questions. However, it is subject to what amounts to censorship by other users because the more votes an entry gets the higher it moves on the overall list. But some questions are being downplayed by Obama supporters who are trying to remove the entries entirely.”

Someone needs to explain to the old feller what “community moderation” is on social networks. They could start by telling Grandpa Hume that it is sort of like Democracy. He may remember what that is.

The whole point of the Open For Questions project is to solicit the public’s views on what issues the new administration should pursue. By allowing people to vote on the suggestions submitted, it presents a community consensus of what ought to take priority. But Hume is complaining that some comments were poorly received, or even flagged as inappropriate. He cites as an example this question:

“Is Barack Obama aware of any communications in the last six weeks between Rod Blagojevich or anyone representing Rod Blagojevich and any of Obama’s top aides?”

That may be interesting question if you’re a Republican toady trying to smear Obama, but it is not a policy suggestion for the President-elect. So it should come as no surprise that it would not rate highly, and that it might even be deemed inappropriate. It is certainly irrelevant and a distraction from the topic at hand.

Nevertheless, Hume’s assertion that the results of the public’s voting amounts to censorship is both ridiculous and utterly false. While some instances of the Blagojevich question were removed as inappropriate, many more remain on the site – just farther down the list. What’s more, commentary that went even further off topic, and could only be characterized as intentionally disruptive (not to mention immature), was also available for all to read. For instance…

  • Will Rev. Wright sing God (bleep) America at your inauguration?
  • Besides Rezko, the governor, and Bill Ayers, are there any other crooks you associated yourself with that we need to know about?
  • Are you a Muslim Terrorist in disguise? I do not believe you are American, prove it to us!
  • Is Michelle proud of America now that you are the president-elect?
  • Did you beat Clinton ’cause for the Dems it’s Bros befo’ Hos?
  • Are you a natural born citizen and if so will you show an authentic birth certificate?
  • Is it hard to be such a fucking phony all the time?

The fact that none of these items were removed proves that there is no censorship being practiced on the web site. It also proves that there are a lot of childish Republican smart asses clogging up the blogosphere. More to the point, it proves that Brit Hume is a lousy reporter and a flagrant promoter of disinformation. It took me all of fifteen minutes to compile this list. What kind of reporter is Hume if he cannot even use the search function provided on the web page to look for any information except that which affirms his predetermined view?

The transparency of Hume’s agenda driven ravings is testimony to the lie that Fox News is fair and balanced. It is further confirmation that Hume and his colleagues are dishonest and brazen purveyors of propaganda. And it is evidence that Hume is past his prime and unable to keep up with advances in new media. The sooner he trades in his anchor’s chair for a rocking chair the better. Buh bye, Brit.

Update: It appears that Hume’s source for his non-reporting is Ben Smith at Politico. Smith made the same inane accusation of censorship a day before Hume.