Recently in
Media Reform Category

I met this woman at a peace vigil the other night and admired her t-shirt. I read my weekend newspaper stories, and then had time to look at some commentary. It didn't take long to substantiate the message on her t-shirt! I wanted to share this piece by Ted Rall, one of my favorite alternative cartoonists. Consider that this "study" by the Heritage Foundation was dutifully and unquestioningly reported by major news media.

KILL THE POOR
Phony Poverty Study Fools Lazy Journalists

NEW YORK--They're baaack! Once again the Heritage Foundation is mangling statistics to whitewash the ugly facts of life in Republican-run America.

Last time, in 2005, they attacked the image of U.S. soldiers as cannon fodder being exploited for Halliburton. Au contraire, claimed the conservative propaganda mill. American troops, they said were actually "wealthier, more educated and more rural than the average" citizen. Of course, this wasn't true. "Military personnel are poorer and less educated" than the average Joe, I found when I took a closer look. Heritage's soldier study used junk logic and apples-to-oranges statistics to promote the GOP's wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. And it worked.

The lazy men who run the big newspapers and TV networks, deluded into believing there are two sides to every story, dutifully repeated Heritage's lies. They never questioned a word. More soldiers died. The Heritage story made us feel less guilty about it.

Now Heritage is telling us that there are no poor people--very few, anyway, and then only for short periods of time--in the United States. The truth is that capitalism is failing millions of Americans. The less we think about the problem, the less we think it is a problem, the worse it will become.

The pseudoacademic demagogues of the right want us to distrust our own eyes. Panhandlers? "Homeless by choice" urban campers, Ronald Reagan, patron saint of modern Republicanism, called them. Single mothers? He said they were "welfare queens." Americans who live in the sprawling slums of the inner cities, the washed-up Walmarted Main Streets of the farm belt, and the scary barred-window suburbs of California and Georgia and Illinois? They're living large, says the Heritage Foundation in a "study" whose dubious findings have already been reprinted--completely unquestioned, as usual--by hundreds of newspapers read by millions of gullible subscribers.

The Census Bureau says that 36.5 million Americans--one in eight--are poor. But "if poverty means a lack of nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, then very few of the people identified as living 'in poverty' would, in fact, be characterized as poor," says Heritage's Robert Rector. "The typical person defined as 'poor' by the Census has cable or satellite TV, air conditioning, a microwave, a DVD player or VCR, and two color TVs."

No doubt, poor people in a technologically advanced nation like the United States don't live as minimally as those in undeveloped states like Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, on the other hand, a middle-class American homeowner would be spectacularly wealthy. A man worth $500,000 could become a warlord. There are no Afghan billionaires. Poverty is relative.

Even the claim that gadget ownership is incompatible with true poverty doesn't hold up: Rector refers to "a DVD player or VCR." But VCRs are antiquated, a decade out of date. It's like saying that someone who owns "a computer or a typewriter" isn't poor.

"Poor Americans living in houses or apartments, on average, have more living space per person than does the average citizen living in European countries such as England, France and Germany," the Heritage study asserts. There's a footnote--but the source material doesn't include figures for per-capita housing density in Europe. (As far as I can tell, such data doesn't exist.) Even if it's true, though, it's a factoid without a point. Europe, urbanized for the past 2000 years, has an overall higher population density than we do--yet enjoys the world's highest standard of living.

The more you think about Heritage's BS, the worse it gets.

(story continues below)

And let me be clear - I'm not talking about a Progressive alternative propaganda machine to Feaux News - I'm talking about an actual, factual news service. Like the news used to be. Remember? It was pretty much just the facts, ma'am.

Correspondents would reference WH positions by stating them as such, instead of stating them as the lead-in to their story, followed by who disagrees with said position.

[Image credit: Wichita State College]

It seems that many a Republican presidential candidate are finding themselves with they YouTube jitters, and the CNN YouTube debate may not happen at all.

1. Why do you think the candidates are trying to avoid this format of debate?

2. What question would you ask a Republican candidate via You Tube that you think would have a hope in hell of getting through the selection process?

3. Do you agree that there should be, as some have suggested, an American Idol type call in voting immediately following the each of the future Democratic and Republican debates, to get people used to voting for political candidates and not just entertainment stars?

4. Did you think that question number three was a real question? It wasn't. I made up the whole thing, especially the "some people have suggested part". See how easy it is to be a journalist? All you have to do is add "some people" into any question, and it can make any idiotic assertion look like a plausible and reasonable question to ask. Right up there with asking Barack Obama if he's "black enough".

5. What the hell does "black enough" mean?

6. Anyone here think that Alberto is trying to get himself out of perjury charges by pretending to spill the beans on "other intelligence activities" as a cover?

7. And is it the height of incompetence to suggest that you have committed a lesser sin than perjury by admitting instead that you were talking about a whole other program of spying, so heinous in its illegality, that half of the Justice Department was ready to take a walk if they didn't knock it off?

8. Was the Hillary/Obama "fight", carried on thoughout last week to the interest of almost no one, utterly stupid and vapid?

9. Anyone know who did the John Edwards "hair video"? It's an education in itself how to react to this sort of absolutely idiotic nonsense, namely the hubub about his haircut. You respond with ridicule. If you missed it, it's here for viewing. And by viewing, I mean viewing in non-partisan terms, but as a piece of strategy and response in today's media culture. I don't endorse any candidate for office. I endorse solid political thinking.

10. Will Solicitor General Paul Clement appoint a special prosecutor to the DOJ USA firings investigation? The best I can come up with is, maybe. I am positive that if Ted Olsen were still the Solicitor General of the United States, he would and do so swiftly. As much as I dislike Olsen's stand on any number of social issues, I have always admired him as a good legal scholar who loves the law. Same goes for James Comey, and many, if not most of the employees at the justice department. So the question becomes, does Paul Clement love the law, or does he love some other ideology which ascends some folks above the reach of the Rule of Law for its namesake?

BONUS QUESTION: Now that Inslee is putting a Gonazales impeachment bill in the hopper, has Harry Reid thought about the problem of President Bush using the August recess to dump Gonzales and do a recess appointment of a new Attorney General without any Congressional oversight? Hmmm...

I have questions. You have answers. Pick a question or ten and let's get the discussion going.

I keep seeing and hearing frustrated exchanges about how unresponsive our government and media are to concerned individuals such as we in the progressive blogosphere.

These recent posts to the DCP blog are typical of the kind of comments being made in all manner of other online venues as well:

When can we, as a nation (not just bloggers) call 'bull$h*te' on these war criminals "leading" us and say "Enough!"???
-- Posted by: NonnyO

How about this for an idea about "when" change will occur -- when the bloggers figure out how to reach out beyond the blogosphere ghetto. I can tell you that in my blue-collar, economically declining, city, 85% of the people do not use the internet at all. Probably 80% to 90% do not read a newspaper daily. They get most of their information via television and radio. Many of these people now know that Bush is bad but they are not quite sure why, and they are not quite sure what to do about it.
-- Posted by: Ralpheh

The Pew Research Group provides some insight in this report entitled "Cable and Internet Loom Large in Fragmented Political News Universe." This table makes it quite clear that the Internet, while growing in importance, has some stiff competition from corporate-controlled "mainstream media." They looked particularly at campaign-related news, but the same sources disseminate most of our news.

There has been a shift in how the public gets election (and presumably other) news. Television leads but broadcast television popularity has eroded. The Internet, on the other hand, has grown in importance but is still overshadowed by television. Young people are increasingly seeking out alternative sources of information, such as comedy shows and the Internet. Local news has suffered over time, as have newspapers and other print media, as far as market share.

Internet election news climbed from 9% in 2000 to 13% in 2004 for regular campaign news consumers, and from 15% to 20% for occasional ones. This does not measure those individuals who are politically unaware, do not vote or do not care.

I would like to propose that Congress reinstate the Fairness Doctrine within the FCC. The Fairness Doctrine is something that I've heard of now and then, but I didn't realize that it was repealed under the Reagan Administration in 1987. It's one of those things I learn as an NPR-listening commuter.

I had heard now and again about the "equal time rule" or that news coverage needed to be "fair and balanced" and that is what the Fairness Doctrine was supposed to guarantee. Yet the Fairness Doctrine is a thing of the past. It was abandoned with the proliferation of cable, leaving broadcasters little incentive to present fair coverage.

When Sinclair Broadcasting removed its offensive documentary during the 2004 election cycle, it wasn't because of the Fairness Doctrine, which no longer existed, but because its stock was tanking due to public outcry.

What was the Fairness Doctrine? Why was it repealed? Should it be reinstated? If so, why?

What was it?

The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the United States' Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner.It was established to acknowledge the fact that there are more people with opinions than there are broadcast licenses, and public access needs to be fair and balanced.

The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to devote some airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. How this was to be done was at the discretion of the station. This FCC rule held forth from 1949 until 1987.

Citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine to expand speech and debate by allowing input from both sides for ballot measures and it had the support of grassroots groups across the political spectrum. If one view received a lot of coverage in prime-time, response time would be allowed. It was up to listeners to notice imbalance but its existence encouraged their participation, as they had some recourse. Without the Fairness Doctrine, there is less of an organized route to get action when an issue is presented primarily by one side.

According to a report by the Center for American Progress entitled The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio, 91% of political talk radio was conservative last year. There was ten times as much conservative as progressive talk. 76% of news/talk radio in the Top Ten markets was conservative, while 24% was progressive.

Years before the onset of the Fairness Doctrine, some realized the need for fair and balanced coverage.

drawing by DiAnne Greiser

A new study has been done at Indiana University, without the involvement of any special interest group, that analyzes the editorial communication style of news commentator Bill O'Reilly. It was published May 2 and has just been put out as a press release and the article will appear in the Spring issue of Journalism Studies.

O'Reilly was chosen because in a 2005 Annenberg survey, 40 percent of respondents considered him to be a journalist. The intent was not to highlight political left or right, but to examine the premise of whether his television editorials are indeed fair and balanced, as represented by its host network.

The methodology involved studying six months worth (115 episodes) of O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo", using propaganda analysis techniques.

At the beginning of his program, O'Reilly tells Fox News viewers that they are entering the "No Spin Zone." The new study reveals the ways in which he is actually and consistently painting certain people and groups as villains and others as victims.

TIME thinks its readers are stupid. Really, it's the only explanation I can think of for this nonsense.

Exhibit A: TIME's cover for the
United States this week

Exhibit B: TIME's cover for the
rest of the universe this week

Now I ask you, during the week in which our members of Congress are voting on essential funding for the war in Afghanistan, which cover story do you think is more important for Americans to read? The case FOR teaching the Bible in school, or the real story about the Taliban in Afghanistan?

(And as a side note, what business does TIME magazine have pimping the teaching of the Bible in public schools? If we teach the Bible in public schools, are we going to be teaching the Qu'ran, too? The Torah? And who decides how these are taught?)

As you can see from just the few questions in parenthesis above, the discussion of teaching the Bible in school can be an interesting one. However, in terms of critical importance to both the immediate and long term future of America in the world, when it comes to the editorial choice of which story is more important to US readership --

Should a major news magazine either cover (a) Making the case for teaching the Bible in schools, or cover (b) The truth about the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan?

It seems obvious to me that choosing (a) over (b) is not only stupid, but a dangerous suppression of vital information. The Editor of TIME should be called upon to explain his choice.

If you would like to write to the Editor of Time Magazine, Rick Stengel, their US e-mail address is letters@time.com Please do not send attachments. Their fax number is 1-212-522-8949. Or you can send your letter to: TIME Magazine Letters, Time & Life Building, Rockefeller Center, New York, N.Y. 10020. Letters should include the writer's full name, address and home telephone and may be edited for purposes of clarity and space.

We would love it if you would share any letter you write with us in the comments section below.

TIME magazine thinks we are stupid. Let's show them just how wrong they are.

A.J. Liebling once said that "Freedom of the Press belongs to those who own one." If so, then the concept of freedom of the press in our society is more endangered now than it has ever been before.

It's no secret that big corporations have been taking over the mainstream media. Fewer and fewer people now control more and more sources of news and information, and that means they now control more and more of what you see and hear.

The current administration's policies have made it possible for big money and big corporations to take over the print media, the cable broadcast media, and even the radio and television broadcast media. That last part is the most important part, because while print and cable media rely on privately-owned presses and distribution systems, the broadcast airwaves are public property.

Bush is escorted from Air Force One by Russia President Vladimir Putin after arriving in Moscow on Wednesday.
(Photo and caption courtesy of Associated Press)

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., talks to state business leaders in this Thursday, Nov. 2, 2006 file photo, at the annual MEC 'hobnob' meeting between the state's elected officials and business leaders in Jackson, Miss. Lott, ousted from the top Senate Republican leadership job four years ago because of remarks considered racially insensitive, won election to the No. 2 post Wednesday for the minority GOP in the next Congress. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis, FILE) (Photo and caption courtesy of Associated Press)

Any comments?

Today's question is brought to us courtesy of Media Matters.

Why is CBS paying Nicolle Wallace to sound like Tony Snow?

On September 25, CBS News announced the hiring of Nicolle Wallace, who left her job as White House communications director three months ago, as a "political consultant." Two days later, Wallace made her first appearance on CBS in this capacity and immediately repeated talking points recently advanced by the White House communications office and President Bush himself.

On the September 27 edition of CBS' Early Show, co-host Harry Smith sat down with Wallace for a brief discussion of the recently released National Intelligence Estimate -- completed in April -- which concluded that the Iraq war has led to an increase in global terrorism. Smith first asked her, "What do you make of all of it?" Her response:

WALLACE: I think the most telling thing now is that this NIE has formed the basis of the public communications that the White House has engaged in, in a very concerted effort over the last six weeks to communicate directly to the American people about the stakes in Iraq. And they've made a lot of these points that are ... being played up and that are being politicized by Democrats --have been made by the president.

This would have been a nice time for Harry to say, "Gee Nicolle, even thought you work here at CBS now, you still sound like the President's mouthpiece. I see that's going to be a hard habit to break..."

Go read the whole exchange and watch the video here.

It's not so much the hiring or the presence of Mrs. Wallace that bothers me. It's the complete lack of any other version of reality offered it's viewers by CBS. We get Nicolle Devenish Wallace but no Dee Dee Myers?

This looks like a desperate attempt by corporate media to skew the elections in November by providing a network based daily Republican Talking Points segment that is sure to be entirely fact free.

Which brings me to my next point. Is it possible that progressives will organize some sort of fact finding campaign to expose this nonsense and protest to CBS? Would you become part of such an effort? The research will likely be provided by Media Matters. All folks would need to do is use that information in a write in/call in campaign. Would anyone here be interested in leading such an effort?

And what do you think is the motiviation behind CBS' decision to become the offical headquarters of the White House and RNC Communication Team? Why was Karl Rove's handmaiden hired as the lone political voice at CBS?

We have questions. You have the answers. Let's hear it.

From Rising Hegemon, Atta J. Turk catches Newsweek's different covers from around the world. Note the difference between what you would see if you lived anywhere, but the United States:

That's an entry that just speaks for itself, doesn't it?

But, for the record, maybe I am wrong. Maybe Jon Meachem isn't a complete Bush Administration whore. So, let's have it--what's the alternate explanation for this? What would YOU have titled this post?

While I think it was a direct attempt by Meachem and company to manipulate the news, manipulate American's understanding of the war in Afhganistan, and manipulate the political process, again, maybe I am all wrong here. What do you think? What do you think Jon Meachem's intent was here in changing the cover art about the country's most pressing national security issue just six weeks before the election?

Here are a couple of early morning questions that are on my mind:

If we can get a fair voting system in Iraq, why can't we get one here?

What's it gonna take for people to realize this is a serious problem?

Where the media? Kitty Pilgrim has been covering it on Lou Dobbs, but most of the LSM is MIA or AWOL.

Why is it so hard to get people interested in this subject? Is it because they feel like their vote doesn't matter anyway? Even the hard core activists seem to snooze at the subject. How do we make this issue interesting and engaging to people?

And what about mandatory voting? I would love to see mandatory voting. I think people need to take responsibility for the moral choices their governments makes, especially those contained in that most morally expressive of documents, The Budget of The Unites States.

I have questions. You have answers. Let's hear them.

Here are a couple of early morning questions that are on my mind:

If we can get a fair voting system in Iraq, why can't we get one here?

What's it gonna take for people to realize this is a serious problem?

Where the media? Kitty Pilgrim has been covering it on Lou Dobbs, but most of the LSM is MIA or AWOL.

Why is it so hard to get people interested in this subject? Is it because they feel like their vote doesn't matter anyway? Even the hard core activists seem to snooze at the subject. How do we make this issue interesting and engaging to people?

And what about mandatory voting? I would love to see mandatory voting. I think people need to take responsibility for the moral choices their governments makes, especially those contained in that most morally expressive of documents, The Budget of The Unites States.

I have questions. You have answers. Let's hear them.

My first reaction to this story was shock.

(hattip to Kos Diarist, A Peaceful Warrior)

From Palast's website ( which is scatty at the moment due to high traffic):

Yes, the rumor's true. Greg Palast is facing a criminal complaint from the Department of Homeland Security stemming from his filming the Hurricane Katrina investigation for Link TV and Democracy Now. The film's producer, Matt Pascarella, is also facing the legal wrath of Big Brother.

It appears the complaint is about filming a sensitive national security site owned by Exxon petroleum. It seems that photographing major Bush donors is now a federal offense.

Reached at an undisclosed location, Palast says, "Let's not get over-excited. They haven't measured us for our orange suits yet."

During questioning by Homeland Security, Palast asked, "Hey, aren't you supposed to be looking for Osama? Or for guys with exploding shoes? ... We're journalists." At Palast's request, Homeland Security confirmed that Louisiana is, indeed, still part of the USA but did not respond when asked if the First Amendment applies there.

It seems that Homeland Security, in its infinite wisdom, has determined that Greg Palast is a bigger terrorist threat than, say, Osama bin Laden. Hence, they are pursuing a criminal investigation and charges against Palast, and not pursing 9-11 related charges against Osama, either through the CIA or the Justice Department.

In another reporter harassment and intimidation story (hattip to John Aravosis):

Two CNET News.com reporters' personal telephone records were accessed by a contractor hired by Hewlett-Packard to uncover the source of boardroom leaks to the media, according to the California attorney general's office.

[...]

Kawamoto and Krazit co-wrote a Jan. 23 article outlining a private, long-term strategy session held by HP's board of directors. The article, which quoted an unnamed source at length, prompted HP chairman Patricia Dunn to authorize an investigation into HP's board to determine the identity of the story's source.

Kawamoto and Krazit were apparently not the only reporters targeted by HP's investigators. The personal phone records of nine journalists, including a reporter from The Wall Street Journal, were accessed, HP spokesman Mike Moeller said late Thursday afternoon. He declined to comment on the timeframe over which the incidents took place or any of the organizations other than the Journal and CNET News.com.

The Journal reported on its Web site that reporter Pui-Wing Tam was targeted. Among other HP stories, Tam wrote in January 2005 about the board's unhappiness with ex-CEO Carly Fiorina. A reporter for The New York Times, John Markoff, also was a pretexting target in 2005, the Times said.

This is part of the effect of members of government holding themselves above the law. This is what happens when there is no public accountability. Corporations think they, too, are above the law. Every parent knows that the real worry of parenting is that your kids watch everything you do. And then repeat it. For better or worse, the government functions to some extent the same way. They lead, people follow. If they lead with criminal acts, then the people begin to wonder why they should obey the law.

Reporters who have written stories critical of the White House, or Hewlett-Packard being singled out for harassment is only the latest development in this disturbing pattern.

As I said, my first response to these stories was shock.

My second thought was, "Well, it was just a matter of time."

And sadly, wasn't it?

UPDATE: Here's how reporters who are friendly with the administration get treated (hint: think Armstrong Williams)hattip Josh Marshall:

At least 10 Florida journalists received regular payments from a U.S. government program aimed at undermining the Cuban government of Fidel Castro, The Miami Herald reported on Friday.

Total payments since 2001 ranged from $1,550 to $174,753 per journalist, according to the newspaper, which said it found no instance in which those involved had disclosed that they were being paid by the U.S. Office of Cuba Broadcasting.

Nice.

[Editor's Note: Greg Palast is author of the several dangerous tomes, such as, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy and Armed Madhouse]

Photo courtesy of Warner Brothers films

There's an Orwellian flourish to this week, with ABC network's apparently steadfast refusal to pull the docu-drama "Path to 9-11" from this weekend's TV lineup. The blogosphere is very well lit up with calls for activism to pull this show off the air. Former President Clinton has joined the fray.

With the week's buzz rising to a crescendo, I suggest we all check out Steven D's excellent diary, All Karl Rove's Gloves Are Off Now at Daily Kos.

...the most dangerous instrument in Rove's arsenal of deceits comes from the subversion of a major multinational media company, The Disney Corporation, to do his bidding.

...this corruption of the public airwaves by Mr. Rove and the Disney Corporation is further evidence, that our Republic has embarked even further on that very dangerous path which leads to a totalitarianism...

Its almost laughable to says that its just midterms, and the battle for media presence is on for the parties--business as usual. In this case, though I think we need to stay alert to this EXCEPTION.

This is one of the most important, volatile and harrowing iconic experiences in our country's history, and its being re-worked to become a lie. Again, from the diary (excerpted):

However, in the case of Disney and ABC, for the first time we have a major media company (other than Fox), and one of the Big 3 Networks, directly lying to the American public in Prime Time...It is no longer merely a case of sinning by omission. With this broadcast, ABC not only marches down the same path that Fox News has trod so many times before, it leap frog's over its sister in crime. A notably giant leap toward the complete and utter control of all major American media by a single political faction. One which, if followed to its logical endpoint, can only result in a totalitarian regime in Washington, D.C. in place of the democracy we once knew and cherished.

I am reminded of this exchange between Evey and V in "V for Vendetta":

Evey: My father was a writer. You would've liked him. He used to say that artists use lies to tell the truth while politicians use them to cover it up.
V: A man after my own heart.

Let us know what you think.

In the future, when someone describes something as creepy, I will have a new frame of reference to use: The media coverage of Jon Benet Ramsey and John Mark Karr. I'll say, "By creepy, do you mean, "regular" creepy, or do you mean "the way the media covered Jon Benet Ramsey and John Mark Karr" level of super creepy?

Is it me, or does the coverage of this non-incident seem downright pornographic? Weird? Freakish?

If the media harpies and saprophytes want to talk about beautiful dead girls, this Kos diarist has it right. Why not talk about these beautiful dead girls?

Not for nothing Dana Milbank, but we've been pointing this out for, what five-six years now? From WaPo:

The White House press corps spent its first day in exile yesterday, banished from the White House compound for the first time since the John Adams presidency while the West Wing briefing room undergoes a renovation.

Bush has traveled out of the Washington area at least seven times this year without a press plane, including four times in the past month to fundraisers closed to the press. This development, devised by a secretive White House and enabled by cash-strapped media outlets, has helped Bush to stage a series of father-protector photo ops with few of those pesky questions that reporters tend to ask. (emphasis added)

Sooooo, it's been months of this, and you folks are just picking your heads up off the bar and noticing it now? And only one of you is writing about it now?

As if to deepen the isolation, press secretary Tony Snow, stepping over some plywood and into the new digs on Jackson Place NW for his daily briefing, adopted the Borscht Belt comics' practice of answering questions with questions.

Does President Bush think the cease-fire in Israel and Lebanon will undermine support for Hezbollah?

"Well, we're going to find out, aren't we?" Snow replied.

"Did the president call for the respect of sovereignty by both sides?"

"Respect of sovereignty?" Snow parried.

Does Bush support the Republican candidate for Senate in Connecticut, Alan Schlesinger?

"Why do you ask?" Snow counterquestioned. "Is there something about the candidate that I should know about that would lead to judgments?"

So we should not assume the president will automatically support Republican nominees?

"Why don't you wait and see what happens?" proposed Snow, citing "peculiar characteristics" in Connecticut.

Snow's performance, in addition to making life even more miserable for candidate Schlesinger (6 percent support in a new poll that finds Sen. Joseph Lieberman and Democratic nominee Ned Lamont neck-and-neck), fits neatly in a renewed Bush administration effort to keep the media at a safe distance.(emphasis mine)

Well, here's a tip Dana, they've been doing this for years, son. And while you are trading pithy Borscht Belt insider humor that only about 5% of the people reading this will get, maybe you or one of your crackerjack wide awake buddies hanging around the snooze department should be reminding Tony Snow that just two short months ago this was the plan:

WASHINGTON -President Bush will hold a news conference Friday in Chicago as the White House explores new venues for putting the president before the public.

It will be his first full scale news conference since June 14 in the Rose Garden on his return from a surprise visit to Iraq.

[...]

Bartlett said the Chicago trip was the beginning of occasional presidential trips around the country to learn what's on Americans' minds.

Ah, memories...

It would be nice if the media would step up and remind Mr. Snow and Company of the earlier bamboozlements. What's that called?

Oh yeah, doing their job.

[graphics love to Chinimooman]

I woke up this morning wanting to write about something other than this. But it doesn't seem to stop, it doesn't change, and it's time for folks to call them what they are.

They are the War Pornographers. They are the lamestream media.

I am disgusted by the fact that the media seems to have a resurgence of war lust that is nothing less than obscene, sending a bazillion reporters into "The Crisis In The Middle East". It's like the beginning of the Iraq War redux. Moreover, it's as if Iraq is no longer part of the Middle East. Or in fact, on the map at all.

Afghanistan? Forgotten. Iraq? Forgotten.

Nope, the media has moved on to the declare the Lebanon-Israel conflict as the only war going on in the Middle East.

The Lebanon-Israeli conflict is the new wife; younger, prettier, shinier, with more jiggle and action-packed. Iraq and Afghanistan are, like, sooooo four years ago. This screen shot says it all, doesn't it?

New war, new ratings.

Well, using human suffering to boost ratings is execrable.

Ultimately, war is humanity's greatest failure, not it's most glorious achievement.

War is tragedy that is largely preventable.

The media needs to stop the breathless reporting, the overcoverage, the endless speculation, the intellectualizing of human suffering. It only serves to fuel those mindless idiots who would see war as some sort of wonderful opportunity. They need to start reporting the truth of war.

The truth of war is that nations are ruined, lives are destroyed, and families are ripped apart forever.

The truth of war is that hope, humanity and civilization are set back generations at a time.

The truth of war is that the wounds never heal.

Where's that part of the reporting?

UPDATE: CNN jacks up the hype and drama with this idiocy.

President Bush has decided to travel the country to find out what's on people's minds. From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON -President Bush will hold a news conference Friday in Chicago as the White House explores new venues for putting the president before the public.

It will be his first full scale news conference since June 14 in the Rose Garden on his return from a surprise visit to Iraq.

[...]

Bartlett said the Chicago trip was the beginning of occasional presidential trips around the country to learn what's on Americans' minds.

How nice. He want to know what's on Americans minds. Occasionally. But I think we all realize that the President could figure out what's on people minds from, oh, say, reading the damn newspaper like the rest of us.

Or I could just save him the trip and send him this birthday post, courtesy of the powerful photo essay blogging of Hecate.

But before we jump to any conclusions such as, Bush will be meeting the ordinary townsfolk (you know, the ones that do the living and fighting and working and dying that the Bush policies have forced on them) I think we need to ask, is this another Bamboozlepalooza Tour?

Is this just going to be another series of staged events wherein the President speaks to worshipful hand-picked audiences and the press remains somnambulent and silent about this massive fraud at taxpayer expense? And isn't the "adoring fans only" ticketing policy perhaps part of the reason why the President remains isolated and clueless as to what Americans are thinking? And doesn't that same policy perhaps explain Mrs. Bush's oddly delusional view of reality, as evidenced by this excerpt from the Bush's appearance on Larry King Live last night? (emphasis added)

KING: Doesn't it hurt to say more people are -- don't like what I'm doing than like what I'm doing?

G. BUSH: Well...

KING: Does it bother you?

L. BUSH: Not really. I mean, the polls are just...

KING: But it's a sign.

L. BUSH: It's a sign, but it's not necessarily really what we see. I mean, when we travel around the country, when we visit with people, that's not what we hear all the time.

Really, isn't this just a way to get Bush around the country at taxpayer expense to fundraise for beleagured Republicans candidates?

Is anyone in the press corpse going to ask this question?

Let's see if any of them notice this part as a feature of the kick-off event for the "Find Out What's On American's Minds Tour":

Friday's session, around 11 a.m. EDT, is expected to run about an hour and be open to Chicago-area press as well as the White House press corps that accompanies the president, said Dan Bartlett, the president's counselor.

Somebody want to explain to me how the President will be finding out what on American's minds when the event is only open to the press?

I've been accused of being like a dog with a bone when I get on an issue. I can live with that. Proudly. And I am sure some will accuse me of that with my follow-up to Peter King's remarks about what constitutes treasonous behavior, a capitol crime, in this day and age. Again, I will live with that. Proudly.

In my previous post, I stated that enquiring minds want to know if Congressman King was including Karl Rove and Lewis Libby in his remarks about leaking information in wartime being a treasonous act.

So I called his office. Twice so far. I posted the first converstion on the thread of my first post.

Here's my transcript, as best as I could manage and still talk on the phone at the same time, of the second phone call. I imagine there will be a third. But in the meantime:

I called and spoke to "F" at King's office. The standard line from the King office phone staff was handed forth: F can't speak for the Congressman.

I said, "Who asked you to? It's just that the Congressman made remarks on what constitutes treason, and that would seem to include Karl Rove and Lewis Libby. It seems that he should have been on the record about this at some point, so what is his stand on that?"

F: Well, it's not the job of staff to do research for people
so you should look that up for yourself on the internet.

CM: Excuse me? No, that's not an acceptable answer. It is DEFINETLY your job to provide people with information on the Congressman's position on matters which he himself has chosen to take a stance on. So what's the Congressman's stand on people who leak government secrets, treason or not?

F: Well, those are two different things--different than the other.

CM: No F, it isn't. It's the same matter, with the slight moral distinction that one is protected free sppech by the First Amendment, and the other is a base political strategy. So what does the Congressman have to say about Libby and Rove.

F: I don't know. I can't speak for the Congressman, the person you would have to talk to about that is M.I.

CM: I see, and when will MI be available?

F: In two weeks.

CM: F, that's absurd. THe Congressman is getting a lot of media attention over this and you are telling me that the person handling that is out of the office for two weeks? I don't think so. Who's your supervisor, F?

F: (silence)

CM: Who's your supervisor, F?

F: ....no one.

CM: You don't have a supervisor, F? You're telling me that you are just hanging loose at the Congressman's office, doing as you please, with no supervision whatsoever? Is that what your telling me, F?

F: (silence) I have to take another call now. We have lots of calls today.

CM: F, I don't hear any phones ringing. Who's your supervisor? F? Who's your supervisor?

F: Um, A.D.

CM: I see, and what's A.D's title?

F: Intern Supervisor.

CM: So you're an intern, F. I'd like to speak to a real staff member please. How about R.T, the Congressman's Press Secretary?

F: He's busy.

CM: No he's not, F. Put me into his voicemail please.

F: I don't think I can do that.

CM: F, You're an intern, you don't have the authority to blow me off. Seriously, you don't, so put me into the voicemail please.

F: Umm...

CM: F., put me into his voicemail right now, please. Or you can put me into your supervisor's voicemail. It's up to you. I would suggest R.T's voicemail.

F: Okay, have a nice day.

CM: Thanks, F. You, too.
-------

This is the conversation as close as I could type it while I was talking to the intern. There is some part of the conversation left out in the beginning, establishing my bonafides, like F and I were born in the same hospital, that type of stuff. But I pick things up where we get to the meat of the conversation.

Now, will I ever get through the noise machine? I don't know, I will keep you posted. But that's not completely the point, is it?

The point is to make people accountable for what they say. To ask the questions that media should ask. To BE THE MEDIA.

If they won't ask the questions, we will.

Because someone ought to.

Media Math.

You know what that is. It's the math wherein the media says things like, "The country is deeply divided over the Terri Schiavo case", but in reality the country has an approximate 82% view that the government should stay out of the case completely. Or today, when CNN reports today's Supreme Court decision that has the court "deeply divided" over the Eighth Amendment, but the actual vote was 5-4.

Media math. It's not just limited to standing law. It's now available to misinform about future laws.

In Dana Bash's heavily Republican leaning story a few minutes ago, "Guarding Old Glory", she said that a "healthy majority of Americans, 56%, support an amendment against desecrating the flag".

By what special media math is 56% a "healthy" majority? A majority, yes, but hardly a "healthy" majority.

If the media is intent on using descriptive terms to describe the metrics of opinion, fine, but can we have some idea of what the terms they use actually mean? Absent that, it's just a bunch of manipulative nonsense.

Anyone feel like it's August 2004 again?

I do. The media is suckling at the Republican narrative "Dems are divided...Dems are weak on National Security..." teat and what are the Democrats doing? I mean, what are the Democrats doing?

Moreover, what should they be doing?

Here's some advice from TRex over at FDL and I'd like to know what people think of this:

Which brings me to tonight’s topic. As netroots activists, we hear a lot of talk about the importance of "reframing the arguments", and I couldn’t agree more. But so few of our advocates in the public sphere seem to be taking that advice to heart. The whole "Lie and Die" thing is a nice try, Mr. Kerry, it’s short and it rhymes, sure, but it is still a response to the GOP’s charges of us being "cut and run" liberals. It still places us in the argument in a defensive crouch.

As long as we continue to form our strategies and sound bites around defending ourselves, the GOP will always win. They have consistently set the tone for every debate from gay marriage to the War in Iraq by arriving there first, seizing the moral high ground, and hurling accusations, which the vichy Dems seem more than willing to waste their time parrying, ducking and weaving around in a doomed effort to justify themselves to the electorate, no matter how absurd and disingenuous the accusations are. We always enter the debate on terms set by the Republicans. If we continue to do that, we will always, always lose.

Listen to me, Democrats! Never defend. Never explain. Attack, attack, attack! When a right-winger accuses you of something, back up, reframe, ignore the charges, just ATTACK. How hard can this be? Ann Coulter doesn’t waste her time defending herself against our accusations. Neither does Rush Limbaugh. They launch their attacks and the terms of the debate are set from there, and once again, as liberals, we are bringing knives to a gun fight.

To whit:

A Republican says, "All you liberals are cut-and-run traitors! You don’t support the troops!"

Instead of frantically beginning to tap dance and show that you’re not a traitor and that you do support the troops, you fire back, "Why are you Republicans such cowards? Your leaders are all draft-dodgers who’ve never fired a shot at anything but a bunch of canned quails and old lawyers. You’re using the troops as human shields against the midterm elections! Do you like seeing our brave men and women in uniform slaughtered and killed? Or are you just too much of a coward to face the consequences of your failed policies in Iraq? Which is it? Do you just hate the soldiers or do you hate your constituents?"

There. You have just put the burden of proof on the Repugnican that he/she isn’t a coward and that they don’t hate the troops. Then you set up a false dichotomy that they can’t answer without looking like a fool.

The rest of the entry is here. I'd like to know what people think of this approach. Please comment.

There are a couple of other strategies being floated out there and I will post on them later today for discussion.

I am posting these, because, as I have written on before, the Democrats will not be in charge of the narrative, because they are not in charge of the media. The only topics that will be covered in the media wil be Iraq, Immigration, fear and loathing. And it's up to the Democrats to deal with it. So the DCP will be posting several options, and we would appreciate your feedback.

Enough.

Enough of the NY Times lazy crap journalism hit pieces on Democrats.

First it was the fifty interviews and no quotes in a story about Hillary and Bill's sex life. That was bad enough. But this morning, they put out a hit piece on John Kerry for his leadership in trying to end the War in Iraq. From Greg Sargeant at The Horse's Mouth, via Atrios:

Then the paper indulges in some highly questionable sourcing as it strains mightily to portray Kerry as calculating and political:

Senate Democrats have been loath to express their opinions publicly, determined to emphasize a united front. But interviews suggest a frustration with Mr. Kerry, never popular among the caucus, and still unpopular among many Democrats for failing to defeat a president they considered vulnerable. Privately, some of his Democratic peers complain that he is too focused on the next presidential campaign. (Emphasis added.)

Interviews "suggest" a frustration; his "peers" say he's political, though no "peer" is quoted saying so, even anonymously. Meanwhile, the piece also adds high up in the story that Kerry's position leaves Dems "open to Republican taunts that they are `cutting and running' in Iraq" without letting any Dem rebut that argument until the end of the piece. And of course the story features an obligatory reference to Kerry's "I was for it before I was against it" campaign gaffe.

This is really cheap stuff -- thinly sourced, factually questionable and bordering on snide -- and it's truly surprising that it got past any Times editor.

Not so surprising. Things have been steadily getting worse.

Using the passive voice to disguise shoddy journalism has got to end. If people aren't going to speak on the record, the Times needs to say so and say why. If not, they need to leave it out.

Today's assignment: BE THE MEDIA. Write to The New York Times and complain about this kind of garbage journalism.

P.S. Greg also adds in an update that the WaPo, in covering this same story, offers little better, reprinting a GOP press release. It's beginning to sound like some editors got some phone calls from some Republicans...

In the meantime, please write that letter to the NYT and post it here in the comments.

Enough is enough.

UPDATE: Feel free to comment on the numerous inaccuracies in the story, too, and post them throughout the blogosphere. If the NYTimes gets the story wrong, we should do what we can to get the correct information out there.

Gloria Borger tells Howie Kurtz the truth about the media's full, willing and paid participation in the Fourth Estate fluffing of the president that took place last week.

From the June 18 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, via Media Matters:

KURTZ: Gloria Borger, are journalists suckers for this kind of secret trip to Baghdad stuff? I mean, Bush was there less than six hours but got an avalanche of mostly positive coverage.

BORGER: I think we are suckers. Particularly if you're the one who gets to go on the pool, Howie, and gets to travel with the president on a secret trip to Baghdad. We do like these secret trips.

Believe it or not, we kind of like to be surprised, but I think if you're a bureau chief in Washington, you may be asking, "Gee, why didn't we have more information?" And when you ask that question, the answer you always get from the White House is, "Because this has to be shrouded in secrecy because this is a matter of presidential security. So we can't tell you more about this in advance." So you know you're being used, but in a way you kind of like it because it's good pictures.

KURTZ: You enjoy it.

I don't think they are suckers. I think they are whores. Memo to Gloria Borger: Enjoying your work as a media whore doesn't actually make you less of a whore. Nor does it vitiate your responsibility in the matter to tell the truth to your audience that the President of the United States is your john, and corporate media is your pimp.

The truth is not a matter of reflection. Borger and the rest of the media knew they were being used, when they were being used, not after. They said nothing and did nothing about it, in a continuingly bizarre and well-documented attempt to support and cheerlead a failed Presidency with failed policies. Their knowledge of being used by the White House for propaganda purposes was a contemporaneous fact. It should have been treated as such and made part of the original story, not part of an offhand comment during a Sunday chat show that no one watches.

In the meantime, reality continues grimly along (emphasis mine):

BAGHDAD, July 20--Two U.S. soldiers missing since an attack on a checkpoint last week have been found dead near a power plant in Yusifiyah, south of Baghdad, according to an Iraqi defense official.

Maj. Gen. Abdul Aziz Muhammed-Jassim, head of operations at the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, said the soldiers had been "barbarically" killed and that there were traces of torture on their bodies.

So much for the "Hip, Hip, Haditha!" crowd.

And on one other sour note, this story was broken in the media before the families of the soldiers were notified because the Head of the Iraq Ministry of Defense made the announcement.

So much for our tremendous cooperation and coordination with the Iraqi government.

I am sure at some point in the future I will be more disgusted with the media complicity in the Iraq War, but it's hard to imagine when. They jumped into "embed" with the Bush Administration in the run up to the war, and they are still embedding down with them, uncritical and unquestioning.

I should probably stop calling them whores. Gives whores a bad name.

In the meantime, I have to wonder if anyone will ask Senators Mitch McConnell, Lamar Alexander, John Cornyn, Saxby Chambliss and Ted Stevens if they still think amnesty for insurgents who kill US soldiers is a good idea...

[Editors note: The dateline on the Baghdad story is an error on the part of The Washington Post.]

I was only seven years old, but I remember the news reports of the My Lai Massacre.

I remember sitting in the late night glow of the black and white television with my father, watching Tom Snyder on Tomorrow, conduct groundbreaking interviews about the massacre. I remember the public sadness and outrage. It was real. It was palpable.

It was on the Nightly News.

And now we have Haditha. And what is likely the Haditha cover-up. I know that I feel sadness and outrage, and I suspect that all of you reading this post feel that, too, but where is the public sense of right and wrong on this issue?

People I have spoken with either don't know, or don't really "get" the importance of Haditha. I understand the lack of shock. But I don't understand the seeming lack of emotional reaction.

Is it me, or is the public yawning at yet another atrocity commited in the name of democracy?

[UPDATED at 10:40 AM (EST): More from the BBC here, and Iraq Prime Minister statement that US forces are committing violence against Iraqi on a daily basis (registration required for NYT article). Hattip to Aravosis for additional stories. Will this be the tipping point for American outrage? If not, what will?]

Exxon Mobil is a story of what happens when greed meets immorality.

January, 2006

DALLAS - Exxon Mobil Corp. posted record profits for any U.S. company on Monday — $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter and $36.13 billion for the year — as the world’s biggest publicly traded oil company benefited from high oil and natural-gas prices and solid demand for refined products.

The results exceeded Wall Street expectations and Exxon shares rose more than 3 percent in afternoon trading.

The company’s earnings amounted to $1.71 per share for the October-December quarter, up 27 percent from $8.42 billion, or $1.30 per share, in the year ago quarter. The result topped the then-record quarterly profit of $9.92 billion Exxon posted in the third quarter of 2005.

May 29, 2006 Edition of Business Week

Scroll through the financial data of the biggest U.S. corporations and a surprising fact appears: Arguably the mightiest of them all, Exxon Mobil (XOM ), has left its employee pension plans with the biggest funding deficit. Its assets are $11.2 billion short of projected obligations, according to company figures as of Dec. 31 -- greater even than the gaps at struggling Ford Motor (F )and General Motors (GM ).

Exxon could write a check for its underfunding this afternoon. The oil giant has $27 billion in its coffers. It generated free cash of $9 billion last quarter -- almost enough to cover the pension shortfall. And it carries an AAA credit rating.

So why won't it? Exxon says it's in compliance with all labor laws and regulations. "We strenuously object to the use of the word 'underfunded' because we are not, [according to] the terms of the people who set the regulations," says media relations adviser Dave Gardner. "The company has the wherewithal to meet its funding obligations, period."

Well, that depends on what accounting methods you use. Just ask United Airlines pension non-recipients, or Enron, or...the list goes on and on.

The fact is, Exxon could be topping off its tank for employees but isn't. It's declining to put more money away for a rainy day while the sun is shining on the oil industry. And it isn't apologizing, either. "We basically chose not to," says Gardner. "That's not an investment we want to put more into at this point. Our financial strength provides excellent security for any pension." We'll see.

This is how Exxon treats its employees who have worked their whole lives in service of the company. Lee Raymond gets $400 million pension, but the average worker can just eat cat food if the going gets tough.

Shorter version ->> Exxon to employees: Screw you, old people.

There's this kind of crap-masquerading-as-journalism out there to unpack and it's not from the pages of People Magazine, but you'd never know it. It's from The New York Times and The Washington Post as they engage in a breakneck speed race to the bottom of the barrel.

First up, yesterday's front-page tabloidism from NYT:

When the subject of Bill and Hillary Clinton comes up for many prominent Democrats these days, Topic A is the state of their marriage — and how the most dissected relationship in American life might affect Mrs. Clinton's possible bid for the presidency in 2008.

Here's a real question for all of you: When the subject of Hillary running for president in 2008 comes up, does your mind go straight to the panty-sniffing questions of the sexual state of their marriage, or do your questions run more towards the, "Is this the candidate that's going to get us out of this hellhole of problems that the Bush Administration has caused for us?"

I thought so.

The dynamics of a couple's marriage are hard to gauge from the outside, even for a couple as well known as the Clintons. But interviews with some 50 people and a review of their respective activities show that since leaving the White House, Bill and Hillary Clinton have built largely separate lives — partly because of the demands of their distinct career paths and partly as a result of political calculations.

50 people? When you interview five people for a story like this, it's the writer's decision to do it. When you interview 50, it's the editors. Enough said. The message is pretty unmistakable. If Hillary runs, we will all be treated to endless months of discussions about Hillary as the frigid bitch and Bill Clinton's penis.

Congratulations New York Times. You have now made yourselves the moral and information equivalent of the supermarket tabloid, The Globe, which ran this headline on Tuesday:

_"BUSH MARRIAGE BREAKUP! Exclusive! Separate lives in the White House ... Nasty fights ... Booze problems ... Laura urges counseling"

Nice.

Not to be outdone, The Washington Post yesterday published this drippy Bill Frist as sexy-hairy-gorilla-alpha-male-superhero story:

The houses were dark on Bill Frist's street. A morning bird chirped; the others were waiting for dawn. But Frist was awake, and his bedroom light was on. "I'm going to take a shower," the Senate majority leader said brightly. Ten minutes later, the blow dryer roared.

Paging, WaPo editors, pick up the purple prose courtesy phone please, paging the WaPo editors...

From ABC's Brian Ross yesterday:

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.

ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

Now, if the tracking of reporters phone call as part of a leak investigation were all this were limited to, it may be justifiable, but I seriously doubt that's what we're talking about.

I believe what we're talking about is the government using National Security Letters provision of the Patriot Act to tap the phones of anyone it thinks may be thinking about doing a story on leaked information some time in the future. Or whatever.

This is a continuing part of the story where in the Bush Administration declares war on the Rule Of Law. It's just one more way of saying "The Constitution begins with Article II and ends there, and all of crap about Congress and the Courts is just a bunch of typos".

As I said, I was waiting to see what the reactions of reporters would be to this development.

Uh, I'm still waiting. I was pretty surprised last night on "Hardball" when Matthews declined to ask either Michael Isikoff or (more especially) Eric Lichtblau about this story. Nada.

I was expecting to see one of the major newspapers write an editorial brimming with outrage and defense of the First Amendment, but nada.

Is it really such a leap to think that this government, which has now gained infamy for it's many law-breaking activites, would go just one step further and use this information to spy on political opponents, or anyone at all it sees to be a threat to their agenda?

Isn't it time reporter start asking those questions, if not for our sakes, for their own? What will it take to motivate the press corpse to do their jobs if not the threat of the government illegally spying on you in an attempt to send you to jail?

Once again, we are left asking, "Where's the outrage?"

There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

George Orwell, 1984 (1948)

Just in case there was anyone out there left who thought that there was any personal privacy remaining, this ought to put that fantasy to rest:

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

B-b-but, but, but I thought they were only spying on people talking to Al Qaeda? You mean they are keeping records of every phone call we make without a court order?

Yes, Virginia, they are. First they spy. Then they lie. The Fourth Amendment?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's in the shredder.

If I were on the Intelligence Committee, I would raise hell until I got a list of people who have access to this information, and people who have accessed this information in the past.

Here's the list of the members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. Feel free to give them a phone call to voice your concern over this illegal program.

Here's what I will be asking when I call:

I understand that the NSA is amassing the largest database of phone records in history, and those phone records are of ordinary citizens, most of whom have no ties to terrorists, could you tell me what the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution says? And how is this program legal under the Fourth Amendment? And what does Member/Senator X plan to do about it? How do I find out if my phone records have been illegally appropriated?

What will you be asking?

There is an important piece of legislation before the Commerce Committee in Congress this week and everyone who reads this should get involved.

The Democracy Cell Project, as a 501(c)(3) will not argue one way or another on this piece of legislation, except to point out that we think neutrality of access on the net is a principle of democracy, part and parcel of freedom of speech, or in this case, freedom to be heard.

One commentor, as noted over at Eschaton this morning, called this legislation, Medicare Part D for the internet. Kevin Drum doesn't understand it, or why people think it's so bad. You see the problem.

Fortunately, there are MANY MANY posts on blogs about this issue that will help you to understand the fate of the internet is this legislation passes.

Please get involved. Here's a short list of blogs that are posting on this matter with links to the issue. There are also several blogs that have been started to deal specifically with this issue.

My DD - Has a good round-up on the issue

Taylor Marsh guest posting over at FireDogLake with a more in-depth essay and great links

You Tube - This short video explains the issue.

SaveTheInternet.com - The name says it all

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo - Josh gives the crisp explanation

Political Animal - Comment section helps to answers the questions on the issue that Kevin poses that you may share.

Get involved now. The vote could come as soon as tomorrow. The National Journal reports that the raised profile of this issue is making a difference. Be part of that difference.

Go visit the links and make your voice heard today on this important issue.

Shocking. There really is something worse than watching Scott McClellan lie his way through White House press conferences on a daily basis and I know what it is. It's being forced over the last twenty-four hours to watch the White House Press Corpse massive effort at revisionist history and to make McClellan's tenure as the cover-up's cover-up man, seem somehow, well, a noble endeavour.

The chief among those who rewrite McClellan's job description from eager accomplice to hapless victim is CNN's John Roberts. From Media Matters:

Commenting on White House press secretary Scott McClellan's April 19 announcement that he will resign, CNN senior national correspondent John Roberts -- after acknowledging that he would likely get "in trouble in the liberal blogs" for saying it -- said of McClellan: "I think that he is a truth-teller." This is the second time Roberts has praised McClellan as a "truth-teller." As Media Matters for America documented, Roberts -- then with CBS -- described him using that exact term in November 2005.

Why anyone would think of McClellan as a truth-teller is beyond me. Is it because he seemed like a sweaty Pillsbury Doughboy cooking under the hot lights at the podium every afternoon?

Note to media: Just because someone is bad at lying, it doesn't make them a "truth-teller". That's a logical fallacy only a member of the media idiotarian could embrace.

And how many stories do we need to have on the order of, "The Tough Job of Being the Public Face of the White House" (from NPR's Melissa Block)?

Let's be clear here - Scott McClellan's job was tough because he believed that defending a White House wrapped in secrecy and lies was the right thing to do. Being a White House Press secretary is just a job. Defending liars on a daily basis is hard work. There's a difference between the two. Or there should be.

Scott McClellan continued to lie for the White House staff even after he himself was lied to. Even after those lies were revealed, he continued to cover them up. Even after it was revealed that the president himself was lying about the leaks.

He wasn't a victim. He was a volunteer.

I think Amy Poehler summed up McClellan's departure best on last week's prescient Saturday Night Live episode:

"According to Washington insiders, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan could be the next official to leave the Bush administration. McClellan says he'd like to spend more time lying for his family."

Hey, I hear his mother's campaign staff may need have an opening...Godspeed, Scottie.

UPDATE: On this evening's edition of MSNBC's "The Countdown" with Keith Olbermann, Mr. Olbermann named Jerome Corsi as his choice for his nightly awarded dubious honor of "Worst Person in The World". But what about Olbermann's colleague at MSNBC, Monica Crowley?

When announcing this evening's recipient, Mr. Olbermann explained that Mr. Corsi had earned this title because of his plagiarism of fellow conservative columnist, Debbie Schlussel's, work. Mr. Olbermann's cited Ms. Schlussel's article in which she accuses Corsi of plagiarism, and updates the story herself after Corsi admits to stealing Schlussel's work to their editor, who then does almost nothing to remedy the situation.

Curiously, Olbermann made no mention whatsoever of the accusations and convincing examples of plagiarism by MSNBC commentator, Monica Crowley, about whom Ms. Schlussel also wrote in the same article.

In fact, not only did Ms. Schlussel accuse Ms. Crowley in the same article as Mr. Corsi, but she spent twice as much space in her column detailing Ms Crowley's plagiarism than she spent on Mr. Corsi's (two graphs for Corsi, four for Crowley).

In other words, it was far more than a passing reference to Ms. Crowley's dubious work habits, and next to impossible to miss.

So if it was next to impossible to miss, why did Olbermann leave his colleague Monica Crowley out of the story, and out of the competition?

Story updated at 12:49 AM, March 27, 2006, by Casey Morris

------------
In light of this article (via James Wolcott), you have to wonder why Ben Domenech was singled out for slaughter while other accused plagiarists, Monica Crowley, and Jerome Corsi, have been ignored?

When I use the term "slaughter", I don't mean the criticism and eventual exposure that Domenech received from the left side of the blogosphere. Brady hired him to incite controversy, though I imagine he got more than he bargained for in the three short days that young Domenech worked for him.

No, I'm talking about the pile-on from the right side of the blogosphere- NRO, Michelle Malkin and many others.

Wolcott points us to Debbie Schussel's article in which she asks this very question. She doesn't mind the pile-on, but she wants to know why Monica Crowley and Jerome Corsi have been allowed a free pass on what, in Corsi's case, was admitted plagiarism, and in Crowley's case, appears to be convincing evidence of plagiarism?

I don't know the answer to that question, but it made me come up with a few other questions that should be asked alongside it. For example, does the fact that both Crowley and Corsi work for organizations (MSNBC and WorldNetDaily) that are decidedly and overtly sympathetic to conservative Republican messengers make a difference? Were Crowley and Corsi's transgressions purposefully ignored by their corporate bosses to favor Republican agendas?

Here's another question: Now that Malkin, The NRO and others have taken such a strong and principled stance against plagiarism, will they apply those same standards to Crowley and Corsi? Will they call for Corwley or Corsi's firings from their respected positions?

And finally, now that discovering instances of plagiarism is the new black, how many other examples of plagiarism by Crowley and Corsi will be unearthed in the immediate days to come? Will they be fired or even castigated publicly for the plagiarism Schussel convincingly makes the case for?

Well, we'll see. But it's more than possible that the same apparatus that shut off the discussion of Crowley and Corsi before, could well be poised to stifle public discourse once more.

I could be wrong. I often am. I'm not holding my breath, though.

I just don't look that good in blue.

cross posted at Daily Kos, entitled, "More Right-Wing Plagiarism"

Just like death and taxes, very soon that time of year will be upon us: Political Commercial Season.

The rule of thumb in campaigns is that it takes seventeen times of a commercial airing in order for everyone to have seen or heard about it once. But that statistic is from before the internet, so that number has likely fallen, but can you think of a political ad that you would have found interesting enough to see even five times? Remember any from 2004? And does a memorable ad make it a good political ad?

I'm just going to throw this out there--What makes a good political ad?

And if you were writing an ad, what would it be about, what would it say, and what would make it good?

William F. Buckley, America's leading conservative and founder of the National Review Magazine (and NRO) penned a column last week, declaring the Iraq War Is Lost.

Bill Buckley has never been what anyone would characterize as a cheerleader of the Iraq War, either before or during what has now become a barely organized carnage-in-the-sand/civil war. However as a well-mannered conservative, he was willing to stand by and watch uncritically as the Bush Administration proceeded to destabilize the entire Middle East, throwing the hope of peace in that troubled region, in our time, or our children's time, out the window.

All of that has now officially changed. He has now declared the war lost. Ya think, Bill?

I'd be fascinated to know upon which particular disaster he has based his pronouncement. Is it one incompetent choice, or the sum of the incompetent parts that has caused the clouds to lift and Buckley to have a clear view of what has been obvious to over 60% of Americans for some time now (despite the media ignoring that fact). Among the bare points he makes against the administration his arguments run mostly towards the Iraqi blaming front: America gave Iraq a great chance at democracy-too bad they just weren't up to the magnificent opportunity we blessed them with. Or a hearty, "Hey, we gave it our best shot," as if the politics-first decision making over the policy-last decision making had no influence whatsoever on how the war was lost. As such, while Buckley's made a step in turning his face toward the reality in Mecca, his body politic has not yet followed.

Even this much though, is enough to blow the burnt embers of free thought on right into Buckley effigy-burning flames of indignation.

To be sure, there has been a clash of reaction among the third-rate fifth columnists of the fourth estate to Buckley's about-face in facing reality. I generally don't have either the time or the stomach to read them all.

Yet, there has been one standout among the Buckley opinionists, Jeff Goldstein.

Goldstein has only dim view of Buckley's enlightenment. He seems to think that since Buckley is a conservative purist, the fact that he has prounounced the war is lost, doesn't really count against him, you know, the way it would if he were on the political left, which has always seen the war as a losing proposition.

That is just a bizarre accounting of responsibility, no matter how you look at it.

No, Goldstein contends that is wasn't the Bush Administration mismanagement of the war that has caused this result, but rather the failure of those opposed to the war before its beginning, to then fall in line and goose-step our way to a cheery victory. If only we hadn't noticed that the war wasn't going well and said something critical about the poor decisions being made, it would all be different. Bill Buckley is not included among the non-marchers who have caused this sad result. He is excluded by virtue of the fact that even though he knew better, and believed the war was wrong, he did nothing to dissent.

I see. To stand and watch massacre and do nothing is now a virtue.

Well, there have been a number of reactions to Goldstein's idiotic contention, many snarky and witty, but amongst them there was this gem of an interesting point that is important and not snarky, from Sifu Tweety at The Poorman Institute:

Got that? He accepts complete responsibility for his continuing support of the war, because it’s totally going awesome and will work out great. Unless it doesn’t turn out great, in which case liberal critics of the war need to understand their grave responsibility for pointing out from the very beginning how not-great it would, in fact, turn out to be.

Here’s my little translator’s key to this emerging talking point: Republicans attach incredible importance to media criticism of the war, because they genuinely believe that the war is won and lost IN THE MEDIA. The American media, that is. Their partisan selves are so thoroughly embedded in the culture-jamming electioneering of the Rovist personality cult the GOP has become that they genuinely don’t recognize the difference between actually achieving peace and a non-doomed secular democracy in Iraq, and just being able to plausibly claim that peace on American TV.

Such is the state of the American media. Such is the power that the consolidation of the media into the voice of corporatism, instead of voice of the people, wields. The power to wage war, or at the very least, the power to sharply and decidedly influence the conduct and outcome of a war.

So the new reality is now the war is all the media's fault. And when it's not the media's fault, it's the Iraqis fault, for not being responsible enough to handle democracy. And when it's not the Iraqis fault, it's the political left's fault for not clapping harder for Peter Pan.

I wonder how long it will be until the pro war gang blame the left for the United States going to war in the first place.

Sadly, I doubt it will be very long. It seems that blame-shifting is the new black.

[Editor's note: The version of this article that was first published was a draft, and not the final product (such as it is) as is seen here. Blog software, user error, argghhh, blah, blah, blah. You've heard it all before. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Thanks for understanding.]

Have you ever thought, "Hey, I could do that-" while you were watching Jib-Jab, or a snippet of South Park, or any other short political comedy bit?

Have you ever thought, "You know, I could put together a short montage of scenes from the war that would be way more powerful than what we are seeing on CNN?"

If you have, then I have just the place for you to go to. It's called the Contagious Festival.

Here's the announcement from festival organizer, Jonah Peretti:

The Contagious Festival is a unique opportunity for talented designers, political activists, filmmakers, comics, and everyone else to reach millions of people with creative, viral online work. The Huffington Post is expanding our pool of contributors beyond bloggers and we are looking for contributors with creative ideas that could become the next JibJab, Numa Numa dance, Detroit Project or Black People Love Us. The contestants that create the best projects get Internet fame, prize money, and the chance to meet with friends of the Huffington Post from the worlds of entertainment and politics to discuss future projects and opportunities.

The first round of entries went live, beginning on February 1st, but don't worry. You can join in the March entries. I urge you to go visit the site and watch these entries and vote for your favorite. There is quite an array of talent on display.

To enter the Contagious Festival, click here to get started.

For more information of the Contagious Festival, click here.

This is a great way to find new and creative voices coming from all over the globe. One of them could be yours!

Hell in