War On The Press?

Posted by on February 13, 2007 at 10:38 pm. NO Comments :

Slate’s editor at large, Jack Shafer, disputes the notion that the Bush administration is at war with the media. His support for that position is that the New York Times’ James Risen and Eric Lichtblau aren’t imprisoned at Gitmo. He further imagines that…

“A president intent on making war on the press would surely have carpet-bombed Dana Priest and the Washington Post for her secret prisons journalism. By now, Seymour M. Hersh of The New Yorker would have been executed on general principle.”

The entire thrust of his opinion rests on whether or not you take the word “war” literally. Since no one I can think of would ever do that in this context, it seems silly to base his whole argument on it. What kind of idiocy would it require to assert that a war on the press meant sending in the Marines? Shafer knows what war on the press means and he gives a pretty good description of it later in the article:

“…it’s true that the Bush administration hates the press and shouts it out frequently, that it tells lies, that it makes the lives of reporters as miserable as it can, that it plays propaganda games at every step, overclassifies, manufactures “phony news,” and intimidates the press…”

If that’s not a war on the press, I don’t know what is. Shafer ought to admit that the tactics he ascribes to the Bush administration constitute actual hostility to a free press and pose a clear and present danger to honest and independent journalism.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Judith Miller Redux: Has The New York Times Learned Nothing?

Posted by on February 11, 2007 at 3:39 pm. 1 Comments :

I can’t say this much better than Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher, so…

“Saturday’s New York Times features an article, posted at the top of its Web site late Friday, that suggests very strongly that Iran is supplying the “deadliest weapon aimed at American troops” in Iraq. The author notes, “Any assertion of an Iranian contribution to attacks on Americans in Iraq is both politically and diplomatically volatile.”

Reporters like Gordon insist on doing their jobs with prejudice and willful distortion.

What is the source of this volatile information? Nothing less than “civilian and military officials from a broad range of government agencies.”

Sound pretty convincing? Well, almost all the sources in the story are unnamed. It also may be worth noting that the author is Michael R. Gordon, the same Times reporter who, on his own, or with Judith Miller, wrote some of the key, and badly misleading or downright inaccurate, articles about Iraqi WMDs in the run-up to the 2003 invasion. “

In one of Gordon’s badly misleading and downright inaccurate articles, he said this about Colin Powell’s discredited presentation at the United Nations:

“it will be difficult for skeptics to argue that Washington’s case against Iraq is based on groundless suspicions and not intelligence information.”

The only reason for the difficulty is that reporters, no, stenographers like Gordon refuse to do their jobs. Or worse, they insist on doing them with prejudice and willful distortion, merely posing as mouthpieces for anonymous administration flacks. And it isn’t just the NYT. The Washington Post has joined in with its own secret sources:

“The allegations against Iran marked the farthest that coalition forces have gone to make the case that Iran is working to attack U.S. and Iraqi troops. The revelations threaten to further enflame tensions between America and Iran.”

Notice how the author fails to identify the “coalition forces.” Details of the “case” they are said to have made were sketchy and uncorroberated. The mystery analysts would not even allow reporters to record or videotape the meeting. Notice also that these stories are the products of two newspapers considered by some to be the foundation of the so-called liberal media.

Somehow we are, again, expected to accept the assurances of many of the same prevaricators that misled us into Iraq. And our representatives in the fourth estate are repeating the atrocious journalistic performance of 2002-3. It’s obvious that the administration still feels it is able to lie with impunity The press still feels that their only job is to regurgitate the unsubstantiated allegations of known liars. So it is really up to the public to demonstrate whether we have learned anything.

Have we?

Update: [2/12/07] As if there was any need to pile on, The Los Angeles Times as jumped on BushCo’s bandwagon with an article this morning titled:

“U.S. makes case that Iran arms flow into Iraq.”

That’s not “tried” to make the case, or “presses” the case, but the Times states flatly that the case was “made.” The body of the story was much less declaratory, in fact, it introduced a fair amount of skepticism from both independent and government sources. Too bad the headline was so misleading.


Fox Gives You The Business

Posted by on February 10, 2007 at 7:47 pm. 2 Comments :

Not two weeks after Rupert Murdoch confesses to propagandizing in support of the war in Iraq, he visits the confessional again, this time with regard to his new Fox Business Channel. At a media summit sponsored by McGraw-Hill, Murdoch promised the gathered conferees that:

How can any viewer take seriously what they will see on a Fox Business report?

“…a Fox channel would be ‘more business-friendly than CNBC.’ That channel ‘leap[s] on every scandal, or what they think is a scandal,’ he said.”

This admission squares nicely with his previous one. It’s obvious he thinks nothing of manipulating news coverage to achieve his ends. Now he feels that the captains of industry, beleaguered by their own corruption, require his defense. The notion that a news network, business or otherwise, should be “friendly” with the subjects they are covering violates every precept of journalism. After making this announcement, how can any viewer take seriously what they will see on a Fox Business report? How will we know if their chumminess leads to deceptively positive stories? How will we know whether they are neglecting signs of budding scandals to protect their buddies? Had they been around when Enron was imploding, FBC would have reported on the tantalizing fare in the company commissary. I, for one, wouldn’t want to invest based on information that came from such a network.

Murdoch’s accusation that CNBC is somehow hostile to business can only be regarded as a paranoid hallucination. Even Business Week derides that viewpoint as:

“a conclusion almost any observer of the channel will find difficult to support.”

Financial news broadcasting is not an easy business to throw together. In 1991, FNN, the Financial News Network, went out of business, selling its assets to CNBC. More recently, Time, Inc.’s CNNfn couldn’t even get off the ground. New York mayor/billionaire, Michael Bloomberg’s network has about half the subscriber base of CNBC. Murdoch will launch with even less than that.

Despite the obstacles, it’s clear why News Corp. would want to enter this market. Although CNBC’s ratings are low, they can charge more for their ads because they deliver an affluent and influential audience that is highly desirable and difficult to obtain. Fox covets both that audience and those advertisers. Their vertical business structure makes it easy for them to package ad campaigns so that they would benefit other Fox properties like their news network, broadcast network, station group, magazines, and newspapers. And since Fox doesn’t care if their reporting is accurate, so long as it’s “friendly,” corporate advertisers might be inclined to favor Fox with their ad dollars. Remember that the cable companies that would carry FBC, and the media companies that might report on them, are also corporations that may want to take advantage of the pro-business slant that Murdoch is offering.

All of this produces some troubling scenarios. A business news network that promises to be friendly with its subjects is essentially serving as the PR arm of the corporations it covers. Consequently, those corporations that want to enjoy this coverage can show their appreciation by buying more ads. Conversely, the ad sales division of the network could pressure advertisers to pony up if they wanted good news to be included in the next broadcast. This sort of relationship is poisonous from the start, yet it is exactly what Murdoch is proposing.

Another problem is that the existing business channels are going to be nervous about the impending competition with Fox. If they keep their heads about them, focus on the quality of their own product, and exhibit some measure of respect for journalistic ethics, then things should work out. But that isn’t how it’s gone down in the past. As Fox News began to challenge its predecessors, they folded like origami sheep. They concluded that the way to compete with Fox was to be more like Fox. That was a disastrous strategy that landed them squarely in Fox’ shadow.

If Murdoch is allowed to pollute this new market with the aberrent philosophy he stated above, it will be a serious blow to the goals of honest, independent journalism. It will mean that they would control the perceptions of our politics, our culture, and our economy. If we want to preserve a free society that values a thoughtful and informed citizenry, we must be relentlessly vigilant. We must keep close company with our representatives and with the agencies that govern the media. We must take steps to be certain that we are knowledgeable and prepared, because…

…this is serious business!

Update from Forbes: [2/18/07] CNBC hasn’t sat back. Spokesman Kevin Goldman answered the criticism coming from Fox Business Channel: “It doesn’t surprise me that our alleged competition is already starting with its usual lies and propaganda.”

Under the threat of competition, they are starting to, finally, tell it like it is.


Broken News: Anna Nicole Smith Edition

Posted by on February 9, 2007 at 4:42 pm. NO Comments :

The sad discovery of a deceased celebrity is certainly worthy of mention in the press. The real sadness, however, is a private matter shared by family and friends. That privacy is intruded upon when media clowns turn the event into a circus. That’s what happened yesterday (and continues today) to Anna Nicole’s family.

If being dignified and respectful isn’t enough reason for reporters to refrain from being exploitive vultures, maybe journalistic professionalism and pride should be considered. The wall-to-wall coverage of Anna Nicole’s passing was entirely out of proportion to its imapct on the lives of news consumers. ThinkProgress compared the handling of this story with another important topic that has far more relevence to the American public.

References to Anna Nicole and Iraq on Cable Networks After 3PM ET:

NETWORK ANNA NICOLE IRAQ
CNN 141 27
FOX NEWS 112 33
MSNBC 170 24

That’s a pretty heavy overweighting of a tabloid bereavement, especially knowing that dozens of deaths occurred in Iraq the same day, including seven American soldiers.

NBC, though, surpasses all competition for shamelessness by devoting 3 minutes and 13 seconds (14% of their program) on Anna Nicole, and only 14 seconds on Iraq.


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.


Olbermann Runs With Murdoch Confession

Posted by on February 8, 2007 at 1:21 pm. NO Comments :


Thanks to Newshounds for this video wherein Olbermann brilliantly juxtaposes Murdoch’s rare moment of honesty with the instructions William Randolph Hearst gave to an illustrator who couldn’t find any evidence of the war in Cuba that Hearst was jonesing for:

“You furnish the pictures. I’ll furnish the war.”

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

What Part Of NO…

Posted by on February 7, 2007 at 11:53 am. NO Comments :

As yesterday’s debate in the Senate stumbled aimlessly for hours without conclusion, there were moments of clarity from unexpected sources:

“If you believe that this new strategy is flawed or that our cause is hopeless, then vote to stop it. Vote to cut off funds. Vote for a binding timeline for U.S. withdrawal.” ~ Joe Lieberman (I)

Here, here. Of course Joe was making a completely different point than what this soundbite implies. The rest of his mutterings affirmed his well known affection for the Bush Doctrine and his purpose was to help Republicans in the senate quash an open and substantive debate.

The debate that Democrats are attempting to hold in the senate has already been held in the rest of the country. Though you wouldn’t know it by the news reports, the American people have made an overwhelming and durable decision that the war in Iraq does not serve the interests of our soldiers, our security, or our country. Poll after poll bears this out. And yet Congress still feels a need to have a debate. They are so far behind the people they purport to serve that they can’t even see us in the distance.

This representational disconnect is all the more perplexing when you consider that our representatives have just emerged from a campaign that was utterly devoid of ambiguity. November 7, 2006, was a rebuke of the Bush administration due almost entirely to their stubborn insistence on prosecuting this unnecessary, unpopular, and counter-productive war in Iraq. The Republican Party lost both chambers of Congress because the people were sick and tired of suffering the loss of human life and national honor. But now, with the Democratic victors in Washington, the people are still waiting for leadership.

The Democratic Party would be wise to heed Sen. Lieberman’s advice. We need a vote NOW to STOP the war. The people have made their decision and it is time for our servants in Washington to pay attention to US. Ignore the pundits and the liars who have been wrong for four years running. Ignore the media that continues to promulgate myths from decades past. Ending the war does not mean we don’t support the troops. Ending the war does not make us weak on defense. To the contrary, it strengthens our defensive position by allowing us to deploy the troops in the real war against terrorism for which Iraq was never the central front.

If the newly minted Democratic Congress is not able to follow the instructions we gave a mere three months ago, then it is not just the war in Iraq that is hopeless. We need to start worrying about the viability of Democracy. How much louder do we need to shout? It isn’t that they can’t hear us, it’s that they don’t want to. But they know we can hear them. Even Sen. Lieberman knows that:

“…we are being heard across America by our constituents, who are wondering if their Congress is capable of serious action, not just hollow posturing.”

But, sadly, Jon Stewart makes the most cogent observation in response:

“Turns out they weren’t even capable of hollow posturing.”

Vote to STOP the war!


Murdoch’s Senior Moment In Davos

Posted by on February 5, 2007 at 2:18 pm. NO Comments :

Since Saturday, when I first posted this article, Murdoch Confesses To Propaganda On Iraq, the news has been defying Mark Twain’s axiom that “A lie can make it half way around the world before the truth has time to put its boots on.”

The truth’s boots are on and it is logging miles like crazy. Rupert Murdoch’s admission that he tried to use his media empire to shape the agenda on Iraq is spreading like wildfire. Newshounds, Crooks and Liars, Huffington Post, Carpetbagger, Juan Cole, Raw Story, and scads of lesser known but just as dedicated bloggers are trumpeting this surprising shard of honesty that escaped from Rupert’s lips.

I’m still trying to figure out how such an unguarded comment could have occurred. Is he just so brazenly arrogant now that he thinks he can come clean without repercussions? Is it a coded appeal to his neo-con audience for help to reverse the downward ratings spiral he’s engulfed in? Was it a run of the mill slip of the tongue by a 77 year old with weakening cognition skills?

While I can’t explain what was going through his diabolical mind, I can point to the reason that this story is getting so much play. And, ironically, it’s also something that Murdoch said in Davos. Referring to the Internet, he said that:

…traditional media are also “put right immediately” these days when making mistakes. […] Similarly, Murdoch said “government now has to be much more open” because of the Web

Indeed, the Internet has proven to be the conventional media’s fact-checker. And it isn’t just government whose openness has to be reaffirmed. It’s getting more difficult to use the propagandistic arts because there now exists a public forum over which the message controllers have not yet imposed their domination. I emphasize “not yet.”

The Internet is a powerful medium and the most significant contribution to a democratized media since Gutenburg. But it is not impervious to attack or capture. There is a reason that the Big Media megaliths want to kill network neutrality. There is a reason they want to remove ownership caps for television and newspapers. There is a reason the right wing elements at the FCC, the FEC, and other government agencies relentlessly push for deregulation. These are all ways of transferring the brute force of the Internet into the hands of corporatist elites who will lower its volume and polish its edges. When they are done it will no longer be fit for discourse or dissent. But it will serve nicely for comfort and commerce.

The manner by which this story has been propelled by bloggers and citizen journalists should serve as a reminder that the people still have a voice. But we, the people, must not get complacent either. Events like this will surely stir the media bears, and they are still the most dangerous beast in the forest. Be vigilant and be active because, if you are not, this medium will be lost to us – like all other media before it. Think about that.


Murdoch Confesses To Propaganda On Iraq

Posted by on February 3, 2007 at 5:46 pm. 25 Comments :

Last Friday, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Rupert Murdoch sat on a panel where he lamented what he described as a “loss of power” due to the ascension of the Internet and other new media. The notion that this captain of one of the most dominant media conglomerates in the world is trembling in the shadow of bloggers is simply absurd. Especially when you consider the fact that his company is also a dominant player on the Internet with an aggressive acquisitiveness that includes MySpace, the world’s largest online social networking site.

But there was a more shocking exchange that took place that ought to have caused more of a stir amongst professional journalists and all freedom loving people. It was an exchange that revealed something that most conscious beings knew, but which I have never seen explicitly articulated.

Murdoch was asked if News Corp. had managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq. His answer?

“No, I don’t think so. We tried.” Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: “We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East…but we have been very critical of his execution.”

Let me repeat this: “We Tried!”

Rupert Murdoch in DavosSetting aside the nonsense that they had ever been critical of Bush’s adventures in Baghdad, having confessed to being deliberatly deceitful raises some questions. For instance, how can anyone ever again take seriously Fox News or any of Murdoch’s other instruments of bias? How can News Corp. continue to pretend that they are “fair and balanced?” How can any other media company exhibit the slightest expression of respect or patronization?

And speaking of other media companies, where are they now? The Chairman and CEO of a media empire that includes the number one rated cable news network, and numerous newspapers around the world, has just admitted that he tried to use that empire to “shape the agenda” in support of a partisan political goal with consequences of life, death, and global destabilization. Why has the media, who you might think would have some interest in this subject, virtually ignored these remarks? We know they were there because, on the very same day, there was a media tempest over remarks by John Kerry on whether Bush had turned the U. S. into an international pariah. That trumped up commotion was led, of course, by Fox News. Even the Hollywood Reporter downplayed the most startling portion of Murdoch’s presentation by headlining their story: “Big media has less sway on Internet.” They apparently felt that that was a more weighty revelation than the attempted thought-control exposed by Murdoch.

Where is the outrage? Where are the calls to disband this mammoth and unlawful propaganda machine? Murdoch, who was made an American citizen by an act of Congress because, otherwise, he could not own an American television network, should have his citizenship revoked and be deported back to Australia. Think of the precedent this sets for any other wealthy and ambitious ideologue that seeks to manipulate public opinion. There are plenty of wealthy and ambitious ideologues in the Middle East and elsewhere who may view Murdoch as a role model.

At the very least, it needs to be broadcast far and wide that News Corp. and Fox News are nothing but a tool of the neo-con operatives in government. You might say we already knew that, but this is different. We are not merely accusing them of this stance, they have now admitted it. And it can not be tolerated! Not by any standard of journalistic ethics. Not by a nation that values a free press so much that it incorporated that freedom into its Constitution.

Update (8/22/07): Here’s the video:


Artists Terrorize America With Toys

Posted by on February 2, 2007 at 3:11 am. 1 Comments :

You really have to wonder who the enemy is in the War On Terror™ when the battle is waged against innocent Americans whose only offense is a desire to publicize their cartoon show.

The terrorist’s arsenal.

The city of Boston screeched to a halt Wednesday because somebody felt threatened by a child’s toy that was altered to advertise the new season of the Aqua Teen Hunger Force. These “improvised promotion devices” (IPDs) were scattered around the city where they surreptitiously stalked unsuspecting consumers.

The alert law enforcement authorities of Boston leapt into action to protect the citizenry. In a matter of hours they had identified 10 of the IPDs that were deployed up to two weeks earlier. They quickly moved to shut down traffic, bridges and even evacuated a hospital. Despite the fact that the guerrilla PR campaign had invaded 10 American cities, Boston was the only one to mobilize its Homeland Security forces in response to the threat.

The media played a critical role in performing its public safety duties by rushing incomplete and uninformed reports on to the air. The rapid succession of substanceless Breaking News updates may have saved countless lives by creating just the right environment for needless panic.

Once again we are reminded of the ever-present danger posed to society by artists. The free exercise of creative expression continues to be amongst the more serious threats to an ordered and manageable population. No wonder responsible governments spend so much of their time and resources suppressing such subversions. Without such efforts we would be forever vulnerable to the horrors of independent thought and action.

It’s gratifying to know that the terrorists have not won. We are still a proud and free people. Our enemies will not see us cower. Sure, they’ve seen the passage of the Patriot Act that limits long-held freedoms. They’ve seen our government listening in on our phone calls and monitoring our financial transactions. They see us lining up at airport terminals shoeless and forced to surrender our shampoo and Evian water. They see us resort to preemptive war and torture and submission to imperial, undemocratic leaders. And now they see us fearful and frantic in the presence of toys. But they will never have the satisfaction of seeing us recoil from militarism or the comforting imposition of martial law.