CIA Won’t Play Fair Game With Plame

Posted by on June 1, 2007 at 1:55 am. NO Comments :

The CIA is refusing to permit publication of a book by former covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson. Ms. Wilson’s cover was blown by Bush administration officials in retaliation for critical comments made by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, regarding trumped up evidence for the invasion of Iraq. I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby has already been convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for giving false testimony in the investigation of this affair.

The agency is claiming that information in the book, “Fair Game,” is classified and prohibited from publication. That would seem to be a reasonable position had the Agency not already sent unclassified versions of the data to Wilson which was subsequently published in the Congressional Record. Wilson and her publisher, Simon & Shuster, are now suing the Agency to secure permission to publish her memoir.

This is a blatant example of prior restraint and a violation of free speech rights. The notion that data that has previously been publicly disclosed can be forced back into obscurity is absurd, especially in this Internet age when information is widely dispersed and recorded. The data in question regards Wilson’s dates of employment with the Agency, and those dates are even published in the newspaper accounts of this litigation. It’s not exactly top secret.

We need to remember that we are dealing with the most secrecy obsessed administration in history; an administration that has been busily RE-classifying thousands of documents that were previously de-classified, and taking many more steps to inhibit open government and free access to materials of interest to the public.

It is particularly ironic that the White House that cavalierly outed Wilson as part of a political vendetta is now pretending to be concerned about operational security. A spokesman for the CIA gave this explanation for why they were refusing Wilson’s request to publish:

“Official acknowledgment of certain matters could cause some on whom we rely to think that we do not take protecting sensitive equity seriously, or cause them to think twice about assisting us in the future, and that could have serious ramifications.”

If they were truly concerned about the ramifications of not protecting sensitive equity, maybe they shouldn’t have unveiled Wilson’s identity in the first place. And while they are now calling it a “mistake” to have released her dates of employment, there has still been no acknowledgement that blowing her cover might also have been an error. This hypocrisy only affirms that the obvious intent of the CIA, and their bosses in the White House, is to frustrate Wilson’s efforts to tell her story because it might embarrass a corrupt and dishonest administration. Let’s hope that the courts demonstrate more integrity and rule to uphold the First Amendment.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:


MSNBC Growing Faster Than Fox, CNN

Posted by on May 31, 2007 at 3:00 pm. NO Comments :

The all-important May ratings (PDF) period has produced what is becoming a predictably recurrent theme: MSNBC is growing faster than any of its cable news rivals.

Primetime M-F CNN FOX HLN MSNBC
Persons 2+ -13% -2% +14% +51%
Persons 25-54 +8% +14 +22 +40%

Total Day CNN FOX HLN MSNBC
Persons 2+ -2% -4% +12% +14%
Persons 25-54 +4% +6% +11% +19%

Both Fox and CNN declined in persons 2+ for the total day as well as for primetime. Their numbers for the 25-54 demo were better, but still far below the increases at MSNBC. Keith Olbermann’s “Countdown” again set the pace for growth at the network, advancing 63% (P2+) and 35% (25-54) over May 2006. Compare that with the O’Reilly Factor’s tepid 12% (25-54) rise, and an actual drop in total viewers of 1%. Two years ago O’Reilly had 4 times the audience that Olbermann had. Today that is down to 2 times. That’s still a hefty lead, but it’s also a preciptious drop. And since Countdown’s ascendency has not abated over these years, it suggests that the programs could be tied two years from now.

Much of the news this month seems tailor made for a Fox resurgence – a lot of sensationalism and gossip. There was the New Jersey “terrorist” threat (which Fox hammered on), Alberto Gonzalez’ congressional testimony (which Fox almost ignored), tornadoes in Kansas, the war supplemental bill, Jerry Falwell’s death, and, as always, Rosie, Lindsay, and American Idol. Fox also hosted the first Republican presidential primary debate. But none of these things boosted Fox’s performance as one might expect. The Republican debate, in fact, only matched the numbers that O’Reilly gets as the regular program in that time slot.

A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism reported that the story generating the most coverage in the first quarter of 2007 was Iraq. But while the rest of the media was reporting on Bush’s “surge” and what has become the deadliest month of the year to date in Iraq, Fox devoted less than half the airtime to these events than did MSNBC, who provided the most coverage. Could this be part of the reason that Fox viewership is tanking?

Results like these continue to show that there is an underserved market for news consumers who are tired of the antiquated stylings of CNN and repulsed by the scatological, fact-deficient fare that passes for news at Fox. It remains to be seen if the programming geniuses at any of these networks will recognize the obvious and bring back real news.


The Murdoch Family Resemblance

Posted by on May 29, 2007 at 11:53 pm. 2 Comments :

New York Post Kerry GephardtThis is just too much fun. Stroll with me down the serene avenues of yesteryear when the New York Post scooped out the still beating hearts of their media rivals by reporting that the newly minted Democratic nominee for president, John Kerry, had chosen Dick Gephardt to be his running mate. The headline bellowed the triumph of their proud accomplishment. Only one thing could mar this sweet moment of success – It wasn’t true. Kerry, of course, had selected John Edwards to share the ticket with him.

Now we learn that the bad tip may have come from the DNC and was swallowed whole by Rupert’s scion, Lachlan Murdoch, then publisher of the Post. According to former Post staffer, Ian Spiegelman, Lachlan bought the story wholesale and ordered his editorial team to run it. Says Spiegelman…

“Everyone at The Post, including [Editor in chief] Col Allan and his top deputies, knew the story had been planted with Lachlan by the Democratic National Committee to make him, and The Post, appear foolish on a national level.”

Everyone but Lachlan Murdoch. But that didn’t stop him from demanding that his more experienced underlings obey his tyrannical and ignorant decrees. Like father like son.


MySpace Seeks Peek Into Voting Booths

Posted by on May 29, 2007 at 10:00 pm. NO Comments :

In another assault on personal privacy by News Corp. and its progeny, MySpace has announced that they will begin offering a “viral fundraising tool” to candidates for president. The stated purpose of the tool is to allow members to make contributions to the candidates of their choice. On the surface this may not seem worthy of outrage or objection. It might even be considered a public service. The problem with the tool as proposed is that it will also be able to track the donation histories of MySpace members. Do you really want Rupert Murdoch to know to whom you contribute and how much? Do you think that information would be safe in those massive archives that already contain mountains of data about you and your personal life; your buying habits; your professional affairs, etc.?

I would feel a bit nervous permitting an enterprise that has had such a sordid history of privacy violations to be in control of such data. This may be a good time to remind everyone that when MySpace was acquired it was actually as a subsidiary of Intermix, which is the company News Corp. had purchased. Just weeks before the acquisition, Intermix settled a lawsuit with the State of New York with the payment of 7.5 million dollars. They were accused of clandestinely distributing spyware with many of the software and services they provided. I’m sot so sure that the integrity of MySpace’s new owner is any more trustworthy than their previous owners.

This announcement is just the latest escalation of the risk to privacy with regard to voting issues and MySpace. Earlier this year MySpace revealed plans for presidential “Town Halls” and a “virtual primary” to be held on the site next January. These initiatives would provide additional elements of members’ electoral preferences with which to shape sophisticated profiles of MySpace users.

The questions arising from these projects are serious. There is a real threat of the loss of the concept of a secret ballot. This is especially worrisome when the caretaker of the former secrets is a less than reputable mega-corporation. In addition, funds raised via resources provided by MySpace could be construed as bundled contributions. The impact of this fundraising, if successful, might potentially influence candidates’ positions and voting on matters related to News Corp. Is it really worth potentially sacrificing personal privacy and political principle just to participate in a statistically irrelevant exercise in election handicapping? I think not.


CNN’s Non-Apology To Chavez

Posted by on May 29, 2007 at 11:50 am. NO Comments :

The shutdown of Venezuela’s RCTV has incited a heated debate amongst political activists and free speech advocates. On one hand, the station has been accused of promoting disobedience and lawlessness directed at President Hugo Chavez’ government and affiliating with organizations that participated in a 2002 coup attempt of Chavez. It is also part of a corporatist media clique that controls much of Venezuela’s press. On the other hand, state clampdowns on private media should not be tolerated and Reporters Without Borders has condemned the action as a serious violation of freedom of expression.

I believe there is merit to both sides of this debate, but there is another side that is much more clear cut. CNN’s reporting of affairs in Venezuela has included some blatantly partisan coverage. In one instance, CNN aired footage identified as a protest in Venezuela, but was actually from an unrelated protest in Mexico. On another occasion they aired images of Chavez and Osama bin Laden closely together although there was no story linking the two.

In response to complaints from Venezuela’s Information Minister, William Lara, CNN said that they had already issued a “detailed apology” for the Mexican footage and played down any significance of the bin Laden juxtaposition. Their overall stance was that they had not engaged in any coordinated attempt to discredit Chavez or Venezuela. That response amounts to a statement that, “We’re sorry for denigrating your country that we deny having denigrated.”

That certainly clears things up.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

The War Prayer

Posted by on May 28, 2007 at 10:34 pm. NO Comments :

From the Washington Monthly:
In 1904, disgusted by the aftermath of the Spanish-American War and the subsequent Philippine-American War, Mark Twain wrote a short anti-war prose poem called “The War Prayer.” His family begged him not to publish it, his friends advised him to bury it, and his publisher rejected it, thinking it too inflammatory for the times. Twain agreed, but instructed that it be published after his death, saying famously:

“None but the dead are permitted to tell the truth.”

“O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle — be Thou near them! With them — in spirit — we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe.
O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells.
Help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead.
Help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain.
Help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire.
Help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief.
Help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it.
For our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!
We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts.
Amen.”

Happy Memorial Day.


Fox News: War? What War?

Posted by on May 25, 2007 at 4:23 pm. 7 Comments :

The Project for Excellence in Journalism just published the results of their study of news coverage for the first quarter of 2007. The breakdown of stories covered, and the amount of time dedicated to those stories, reveals the priorities of the three main cable news networks. The standout amongst the statistics is that Fox News broadcast significantly less coverage of the war in Iraq than MSNBC or CNN. In fact, Fox devoted less than half the airtime to the subject than MSNBC, whose coverage led the pack.

Percent of Newshole Devoted To Four Major Stories on Cable TV
Dec. 31, ’06 – Mar. 31, ’07

Iraq War Total 2008 Presidential Campaign U.S. Attorney Firing Anna Nicole Smith
MSNBC 31 14 8 6
CNN 25 7 4 4
Fox News 15 9 2 10
All Cable 23% 9% 5% 7%

There is probably no one who would dispute that the war in Iraq, and the Washington debates fueled by it, is the single most important news event of the year (and several preceding years). It dominated the media producing about three times as much coverage as the next most covered story. And yet Fox relegates it to an also-ran, preferring to spend nearly as much time on Anna Nicole Smith as on the war.

Fox also minimized the most serious parade of scandal that has faced the U.S. Justice Department since the Nixon Administration (see John Mitchell and the Saturday Night Massacre). Practically ignoring the scandal surrounding Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the firing of U.S. Attorneys by a partisanly-motivated Justice Department, the 2% of airtime Fox afforded the affair was half of what CNN gave it and a quarter of MSNBC’s scheduling.

The one area in which Fox excelled was in coverage of departed pin-up/heiress, Anna Nicole Smith. Fox’s coverage of Smith approximately doubled the coverage of CNN and MSNBC. Now we know why they had to leave the war footage on the cutting room floor.

These results are an affirmation of the Fox slogan, “We Report, You Decide,” so long as you leave out the first part. However, this may be consistent with their programming strategy which appears to be to drain their reports of as much substance as possible so that you are left unable to decide.

Update: The PEJ also released a study this week that measures the coverage of the presidential candidates. While there was more time spent on Democrats, don’t be too hasty drawing conclusions:

“…nearly two-thirds of the election coverage (61%) was specifically about candidates vying for the Democratic nomination. This was nearly three times those that focused on Republican candidates (24%). Another 13% dealt with both parties. […] conservative talkers, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage were the most Democratic focused of all-75% of their time on Democrats and only 13% focused mainly on Republicans.”

So while there was more “coverage” of Democrats, that extra focus really translates into more time bashing them. If you weren’t already confused, the right-wing media machine is more than happy to further muddy the waters.

O’Reilly Responds: ThinkProgress has a transcript of O’Reilly explaining that the reason Fox has less coverage of Iraq is because another bomb going off “doesn’t mean anything.” The rest of the transcript is equally as disgusting.


The Daily Show To The Media: Be More Honest

Posted by on May 23, 2007 at 10:13 am. NO Comments :

In October of 2004, I wrote an essay entitled, “The Real Fake News.” It was premised on my observation that Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, commonly labeled “fake” news, provided more accurate representations of news events more often (and more compellingly) than the so-called “real” news. And conversely, the “real” news was rampant with plagiarists, fabricators, and shills of both the ideological and paid-for variety.

Since that time, The Daily Show’s popularity and reputation has grown and it continues to embarrass its establishment media elders. Its success is still largely misunderstood by most analysts. The most egregious error is made by those who view the program as political satire. While politics is a part of the recipe, it is not the main ingredient. TDS is, first and foremost, media satire.

Rachel Smolkin, managing editor of the American Journalism Review, has written an article that explores, “What the Mainstream Media Can Learn from Jon Stewart.” To some degree she grasps the conceptual territory covered by TDS, correctly holding that…

“Much of the allure of Stewart’s show lies in its brutal satire of the media. He and his correspondents mimic the stylized performance of network anchors and correspondents. He exposes their gullibility. He derides their contrivances.”

Smolkin could take it a little further by noting that even when politicians are being skewered, it is within the framework of how they are covered by television newscasts. The very structure of the newscasts themselves is often targeted by Stewart’s drollery. A particularly fertile subject is the disintegrating concept of “balance” as currently practiced. Smolkin quotes USC’s Annenberg School for Communication associate dean, Martin Kaplan, who poignantly articulates the problem with modern journalism:

“Every issue can be portrayed as a controversy between two opposite sides, and the journalist is fearful of saying that one side has it right, and the other side does not. It leaves the reader or viewer in the position of having to weigh competing truth claims, often without enough information to decide that one side is manifestly right, and the other side is trying to muddy the water with propaganda.”

Hub Brown, chair of the communications department at Syracuse University’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, puts it even more succinctly:

“The truth itself doesn’t respect point of view. The truth is never balanced.”

How true. The truth always takes its own side, and without the slightest hint of partisanship. But, for some reason, reporters are reluctant to acknowledge truthfulness for fear of being branded as partisan. How did the media get so twisted as to believe that accepting reality as it is has come to be regarded as an expression of partiality? This is the attitude that is mocked by Stewart’s offspring, Stephen Colbert, when he declares that, “truth has a well-known liberal bias.”

To the extent that TDS has transended this problem, it is a beacon for the very reporters it is ridiculing. But rather than expect them to decipher the correct interpretation of these signals, I’ll let Smolkin sum it up for them:

“…the lesson of “The Daily Show” is not that reporters should try to be funny, but that they should try to be honest.”

Adoption of that simple advisory would produce a wholesale transformation of American media. If I could implement just one revision of contemporary journalistic practice it would be to liberate reporters from the absurd notion that they are proscribed from differentiating truth from fiction when covering controversial issues. In fact, I consider such differentiation to be an obligation of ethical journalism. The surreal irony is that this approach is understood and practiced by fake reporters on a comedy program, but not by their ostensibly real counterparts. We can only hope that this lesson will eventually seep through.


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.