Murdoch’s Definition Of Independent

Posted by on May 22, 2007 at 12:31 am. NO Comments :

Ever since Rupert Murdoch announced his bid to acquire Dow Jones and its star property, the Wall Street Journal, people have been speculating as to how the new management would deal with the journalistic direction of the renowned newspaper. In an effort to quell a firestorm of anxiety, Murdoch quickly stepped up to assure all concerned that he had no intention of interfering with the paper’s editorial independence. Said Murdoch…

“Apart from breaching the public’s trust, it would simply be bad business.”

It would be hard to elicit a more comforting endorsement of independence than that. It suggests an awareness of both public service and the inherent value of a free press. There’s just one problem: It’s Rupert Murdoch talking.

Thanks to a legal dispute currently playing out between Murdoch’s New York Post and former gossip columnist Jared Paul Stern, we have access to testimony that reveals precisely what Murdoch means when he refers to independence. Ian Spiegelman, a former Post staffer called as a witness for Stern, discloses the reality of life in a Murdoch-run newsroom:

“Spiegelman claims that Murdoch ordered his editors at The Post to kill any negative stories about President Clinton and his wife Hillary.” And if that’s not enough…“He also said that Murdoch ordered a story about a Chinese diplomat and his visits to a New York strip club to be killed because it might have angered the Communist regime and endangered News Corp’s broadcasting privileges in China.”

Ordering editors to kill stories does not fit any definition of independence that I have been able to uncover. This should put into perspective Murdoch’s professed interest in the public trust. And if you take seriously his quote above, then by his own standard he is engaging in bad business practices.

Contrary to his assurances, any news organization with Murdoch at the helm is very likely to be compromised in the same manner as the New York Post, the Fox News Channel, or any other News Corp. enterprise. These revelations should weigh heavily on the minds of the shareholders of Dow Jones and the staff at the Wall Street Journal.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Al Gore Assaults Reasoning Of Diane Sawyer

Posted by on May 21, 2007 at 11:33 am. NO Comments :

In an interview this morning with Diane Sawyer, Al Gore had to dodge the typical press fixation and speculation on his non-existent presidential campaign plans. His appearance was to promote the release of his new book, “The Assault on Reason“. The book’s content is largely concerned with the trivializing of public discourse, in politics and media, and how that presents obstacles to effective solutions to society’s problems. But that didn’t stop Sawyer from trivializing public discourse and throwing up her own obstacles. She asked Gore three times about his presidential aspirations, including one question that hinged his future plans on his diet and weight.

After some patient endurance of this nonsense, Gore finally let Sawyer know what he thought of her pseudo-journalistic style:

“Listen to your questions. You know, the horserace, the cosmetic parts of this – and, look, that’s all understandable and natural. But while we’re focused on, you know, Britney and K-Fed and Anna Nicole Smith and all this stuff, meanwhile, very quietly, our country has been making some very serious mistakes that could be avoided if we, the people, including the news media, are involved in a full and vigorous discussion of what our choices are.”

It’s fairly safe to assume that Gore’s advice went in one ear and out the other, seeing as there is probably very little brain mass in the way to impede it. And I would lay odds that Sawyer’s first question in any subsequent interview of Gore will be about whether he is running for president.

Video clip at Think Progress.


Sicko Gets Thumbs Up From…Fox?

Posted by on May 19, 2007 at 2:52 pm. 1 Comments :

Michael Moore’s new film, “Sicko,” got a critical boost today from an unexpected source. Roger Friedman, the Fox411 entertainment reporter, lavished praise on the film in his online column:

“Filmmaker Michael Moore’s brilliant and uplifting new documentary, “Sicko,” deals with the failings of the U.S. healthcare system, both real and perceived. But this time around, the controversial documentarian seems to be letting the subject matter do the talking, and in the process shows a new maturity.”

Maybe this is not really all that unexpected. Friedman also reviewed Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” saying…

“It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.” He continued, “…a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty – and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice.”

I wonder how Friedman managed to evade security at the Fox compound and seed the conservosphere with such disinformation. It appears he may have risen from a covert assignment at Murdoch’s New York Post before infiltrating the mother ship.

Friedman is not, however, out of danger. Having predicted last September that Sicko will be “a huge, huge hit…another cultural phenomenon,” Friedman, is directly challenging Fox’s heavy artillery, Bill O’Reilly, who has his own security force, and has already declared Sicko a failure that won’t make any money. Of course, O’Reilly also famously mis-forecast that the double-platinum selling, 5-time Grammy winning Dixie Chicks’ CD “Taking the Long Way” would flop.

We’ll know in a couple of months who prevails. My money is on Friedman.


Banksy Speaks For Me

Posted by on May 18, 2007 at 4:50 pm. NO Comments :

Banksy is perhaps my favorite living artist in terms of message. His work is profound and inspiring. So are his words from this recent interview.

On the persistence of vision:
“I originally set out to try and save the world, but now I’m not sure I like it enough.”

On selling out:
“I love the way capitalism finds a place – even for its enemies. It’s definitely boom time in the discontent industry.”

My sentiments exactly!


Rush Limbaugh: The Elephant In The Room

Posted by on May 18, 2007 at 2:39 pm. NO Comments :

After last week’s Republican primary debate, Rush Limbaugh responded to a caller who commented on Limbaugh’s influence in Republican politics. Limbaugh agreed and declared that:

“I alone have the power to move the [Republican] base.”

That’s an audacious statement, to say the least. I would certainly concede that he can throw his considerable weight around in right-wing circles, but to claim that he “alone” has this power reeks of delusions of grandeur. And he wasn’t through:

“The exercise of my ‘power’ – it’s not something I’m really conscious of on a daily basis, but it would be foolish and silly for me to deny that I possess it […] It’s the elephant in the room. Why deny it?”

The elephant in the room is Limbaugh’s ego, which is so big that it obscures his view of reality, to say nothing of humility. It even obstructs his ability to see the semantic risk in referring to his corpulent self and elephants in the same paragraph. But you’ve got to give him credit for skillfully associating his famous girth and his mammoth ego and his jumbo imagination with the traditional symbol of the GOP, or Grand Ole Pachyderms.


The Cult Of Foxonality™

Posted by on May 17, 2007 at 1:47 pm. 7 Comments :

The Republican presidential primary debate threw off some interesting bones for chewing. I’m not talking about Rudy Giuliani’s exploitation of 9/11 at every turn, especially his smack down of Ron Paul’s refreshingly rational attempt to offer up a more complex explanation for terrorism than, “they hate us for our freedom.” I’m not talking about Mitt Romney’s pandering to sadists with his applause-bait on Guantanamo and torture. I’m not talking about John McCain’s ludicrous and insensitive promise to be “the last man standing” in Iraq, as if he were volunteering for active duty. And I’m not even talking about the graphics and sound effects that seem to have been lifted from broadcasts of professional wrestling.

What I find interesting is that 2.4 million people watched the GOP debate that aired on the Republican News Network (aka Fox).That is just slightly more than the 2.3 million viewers who watched the Democrats debate on MSNBC. But when Republicans debated on MSNBC, they only managed to pull in 1.7 million viewers. Maybe that was because it was on opposite the O’Reilly Factor which itself snared 2.3 million. So Fox drew the same size audience for their Republican debate as O’Reilly did when Republicans were debating elsewhere.

What this tells us is that a little less than two and half million viewers will show up to watch Fox in that timeslot whether there is a debate on or not. It also tells us that Fox viewers will turn out to get their O’Reilly fix even if there is a Republican debate on another network. [See update in comments].

What this does not tell us is why O’Reilly performs 35% better than a Republican debate on MSNBC. And we can only speculate as to why the Republican debate on Fox performs no better than their daily scheduled program. My speculation to both questions is that Fox viewers are married to the channel and couldn’t care less what’s playing down the dial. Their hypnotic attachment filters out all other sensory stimulation, even if it’s something that would ordinarily excite them.

One way of looking at this would be to acknowledge the success of Fox’s marketing strategy for having developed a powerful brand that inspires loyalty. But I prefer a more paranoid analysis. Most liberals (and objective observers) recognize the tight-knit relationship between Fox and the GOP. However, while we fret about the Murdoch/RNC cabal, we may be missing an even more frightening scenario. Fox viewers appear to be more loyal to Fox than to Republicans or conservatism. This misdirected allegiance bestows a far more influential authority onto a media entity than ought ever to be considered. It suggests that the bombastic demagogues that Fox has shaped into celebrity anchors truly do weigh down their transfixed disciples.

Are Fox viewers more attached to their tele-mentors than to the party and politics they profess? The evidence suggests that this may be so. People who might ordinarily be considered reliable party stalwarts are straying from the pack to trail behind Fox pundits who have come to criticize the administration on issues like Iraq, immigration, and the federal budget. Granted, the criticism is emanating from an even further right stance than the DC GOP has taken, but the result is the same: It’s the Foxebrities that are leading, not elected representatives of the people.

Some may take the view that the people are voting with their remotes, but you have to wonder where all of this could end. Television personalities are still built by marketing and promotion, not principle. If Paris Hilton can command the chunk of media real estate that she does, then clearly intelligence, insight, talent, and vision, are irrelevant in determining who viewers admire. And when admiration swells to idolization in the political realm, how far down the road will fans follow the flickering object of the affection? And how far will the Pundicrats ask their flock to go?

Bill O’Beale: “I’m mad as Hell!”

Paddy Chayefky’s “Network” introduced us to Howard Beale, a new model newscaster that implored his audience to cast off their docility and think for themselves. But today’s Fox version would likely produce Beale’s polar opposite who would only inspire a feverish fealty to himself and his omnipotent infallibility. That is indeed a foreboding picture of a bleak future. Do we have the time and/or will to steer away from it? Or is it already upon us?

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

To YouTube Or Not To YouTube

Posted by on May 15, 2007 at 3:27 pm. NO Comments :

As a follow up to my article yesterday on press freedom which reported the Pentagon’s order barring soldiers from using YouTube, MySpace, and other social networks, there were a couple of notable stories published today:

DoD Flip-Flop: YouTube Banned, But Watch It.
“One day after the Pentagon banned US military personnel worldwide from accessing the wildly popular YouTube Web site via DoD computers and networks, the weekly electronic newsletter of the US-led Multi-National Forces-Iraq (MNF-I) today makes a banner appeal for US forces and others to watch MNF-I’s new YouTube channel.”

Warner Blasts Pentagon Internet Move.
“There is nothing more important to the men and women of the armed forces than to have that connection to home,” said [Sen. John] Warner, who served in the U.S. Navy. “I will be looking into it today.”

Talk about your mixed messages.


The Fear Of Censorship

Posted by on May 15, 2007 at 4:56 am. 6 Comments :

John Roberts has been CNN’s senior national correspondent and its anchor of the awkwardly-named This Week at War (sounds like a VH1 Top 20 Countdown). He was recently named a new co-host of CNN’s American Morning. In his former position at CBS he served as the network’s White House correspondent and was embedded with Marines during the invasion of Iraq. Now, in an interview with Broadcasting & Cable, this experienced and connected professional speaks out about the handling of the coverage of the war in Iraq and, despite his participation, he has some rather unflattering critiques of what transpired.

In the article, Roberts concedes that the media was unprepared to properly cover events on the ground and should have been more vigilant in the run-up to the war. But by far the more notable observation that Roberts imparts is one that reflects on current coverage:

“If we showed people the full extent of what we see every day in Iraq, we would either have no one watching us because they couldn’t stand to see the pictures, or we would get so many letters of complaint that some organization would come down on us to stop.”

With current polls showing that two thirds of the American public are already opposed to the war in Iraq, the notion that we have not yet reached the nadir of our disapproval is somewhat unsettling. Especially if the reason is that, as Roberts contends, the “full extent” of what the press sees every day has been withheld from us by a media establishment that is afraid of mail and of losing viewers. And I get no consolation from Roberts’ informing me that things are much worse than I ever imagined.

Indeed, the pictures that are presently darkening our TV screens with bloodshed, blasts, and blackened smoke, are enough to sow depression in the most optimistic amongst us. But that is not sufficient reason for responsible journalists to soft-peddle even a harsh reality. In an open democratic society, citizens need to be fully informed because, contrary to the monarchal delusions of President Bush, we are the deciders. If exposure to the truth produces more dissatisfaction, it is not up to editors and programmers to shield us from our own tender sensitivities. That is not the way to cultivate an informed electorate. That is not the way to promote Democracy.

The public’s appetite for this war has steadily declined over the past four years and would likely have declined further and faster had the news been presented impartially and honestly. In fact, we might never have gone to war in the first place if the vigilance of which Roberts spoke had been practiced at the outset by a conscientious and ethical press corps.

There are two problems (at least) with Roberts’ statement above. One is that he gives too much weight to the notion that Americans don’t have the stomach to manage the nation as our Constitution requires. The other is that his fear that “some organization” would put a stop to honest, unfettered reporting, resulted in that fear becoming manifest. The fear of censorship produced censorship and the people were deprived of knowledge. The only organization that profited from this suppression is an administration that was predisposed to execute a war of aggression and preferred to avoid the pesky interference of the will of the people.

To paraphrase Roberts:

If we, the people, show the full extent of what we see and feel every day about Iraq, they would know that we are watching, and they would get so many letters of complaint that our organization of citizens would come down on them to stop suppressing the truth; stop embracing unscrupulous pseudo-leaders; and stop this god-awful war.

This practice of Nanny Journalism is all too common in American media. They think we can’t handle the truth. But it’s funny (by which I mean pathetic) that they keep coming back after the fact to confess their mea culpas.


Iran, Iraq, America: Where Is The Press More Free?

Posted by on May 14, 2007 at 5:58 pm. NO Comments :

In a tale of three troubled and repressive regimes, there is news today of a puzzling variation of values. Stories from a trio of nations put on display the character of the media in our world and show how that world has been turned upside down.

The Iran Story:
The Associated Press reports that two pro-reform newspapers, which had previously been shut down, are now being permitted to resume publication.

“The decision to allow the papers to reopen appeared to reflect a feeling among Iran’s top leadership — made up of Shiite clerics — that the country must allow a margin of expression for the opposition amid mounting discontent with Ahmadinejad at home. The papers were allowed to resume publishing by a new order from the judiciary, which is controlled by the clerical leadership […] The clerical leadership may be hoping the return of some reformist newspapers will provide a safety valve for the discontent.”

The Iraq Story:
In Iraq, however, the press is being prohibited access to scenes of violence, which would make it near impossible to report on the conduct of the war. The result, of course, will be that the citizens of Iraq, as well as the citizens and lawmakers in the United States, will have even less of the information that is so crucial to their/our lives.

“In a move sure to provoke open contempt and a firestorm of protests from journalists and news organizations, the Iraqi government will soon routinely ban journalists from the sites of bombings and other violent incidents, Iraqi Interior Ministry Operations Director Brigadier General Abdul Karim Khalaf announced today.”

When a theocratic nation like Iran, that is known for abusing and jailing its critics in the press, can show up their Iraqi neighbors, who are supposed to be emblems of freedom’s virtue, as proffered by their American benefactors, there is something terribly wrong going on. But sadly, it isn’t terribly surprising.

The America Story:
Here at home, the Pentagon has announced that soldiers will not be allowed to access Internet sites like YouTube, MySpace, and others.

“Soldiers serving overseas will lose some of their online links to friends and loved ones back home under a Department of Defense policy that a high-ranking Army official said would take effect Monday.”

The soldiers will also be losing the opportunity to relate their experiences to a world that is being kept in increasing darkness. If reporters are not permitted to document the realities of this war, and soldiers are likewise silenced, the truth becomes an evermore distant memory. The White House frequently complains that the good news from Baghdad never gets reported. Now the Pentagon is making sure that those with the best perspective will be mute. What does that say about the Pentagon’s confidence in the stories that soldiers might tell.

With the muzzling of American soldiers and the censorship of the reporters in Iraq, this would have been a bad day for the media were it not for Iran’s demonstration of liberty for the press. How bizarre is that?


Glenn Beck Defends Terrorists To Attack Olbermann

Posted by on May 12, 2007 at 3:35 pm. 2 Comments :

Last week Keith Olbermann delivered a whithering verbal assault on the New Jersey nutjobs accused of plotting a terrorist attack on Fort Dix. These brain surgeons took a video of their training exercises to a Photo Mat for duplication. Olbermann succinctly articulated what everyone else was thinking about these jerks:

There have been far too many instances of over-hyped, hero- worshiping, morality plays being thrust on the public as if we were children over the past half dozen years.

Olbermann: “In other words, the FBI has arrested six morons.”

But for some reason, Glenn Beck is offended by Olbermann’s insult. Beck is upset that the reputations of these fine, young, upstanding terrorists are being belittled and he is coming to their defense. [Transcript / YouTube]

Beck: “…and then it’s six morons, huh, Keith? Is that really what we’ve come to? We can`t even take one night to applaud law enforcement or the FBI for protecting us and our soldiers that are here and they’re saving lives without launching into insults and politics?

How dare you, Keith! These are some the best terrorists America’s broken borders have to offer, and all you have to say is that they’re dumb. Show some respect for heaven’s sake.

To be fair (not that Beck would recognize fairness if he saw it), Beck’s pique actually appears to stem from the notion that apprehending stupid terrorists is a less worthy acheivement than were they Mensa terrorists. Beck would prefer that the plotters be characterized as masterminds of evil so that the FBI heroes could be lauded as mighty dragon slayers who shielded civilization from certain doom. Olbermann, by merely pointing out the obvious, let the air out of that fable. That’s what irks Beck.

This would not be the first time that tales have been woven to craft an idealized version of history. There have been far too many instances of over-hyped, hero-worshiping, morality plays being thrust on the public as if we were children over the past half dozen years. The fabricated legends of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman stand as evidence of how far our government, in concert with a compliant media, will go to deceive and manipulate us. And shills like Beck encourage the dissemination of falsehoods in the service of propaganda.

The truth is that the heroism of patriots like Lynch and Tillman is evident in their character and their pride of service. It does not need to be embellished by the lies of self-serving promoters of war. And when law enforcement professionals in the FBI and elsewhere do their jobs with dignity and skill, I couldn’t care less about the IQ of the perp. In fact, I presume that most captured criminals are less than brilliant. First of all, they chose crime as their profession. Secondly, they weren’t good enough at it to avoid being caught. For me, that does nothing to degrade the value of good police work, as it does for Beck.

But beck takes his condescension even further by depreciating the contribution of the FBI in the Fort Dix affair:

“…we the people, are the best and sometimes only defense against terrorism. Remember, if it wasn’t for one alert Circuit City employee, we might be talking about a completely different situation right now.”

I think the FBI might take issue with that statement. I doubt that they view an untrained and distracted populace as the best and/or only defense against terrorism. And while they are surely grateful that an observant, concerned video store clerk brought a suspicious activity to their attention in this case, that doesn’t mean they believe that they would not have uncovered and foiled the plot had this citizen not come forward.

So while Beck pretends to be supporting law enforcement, he is actually insulting them. And when Olbermann insults terrorists, Becks rises to their defense. Could he possibly have got this more backwards? Or is he just this desperate for a reason to attack his TV rival?