AP Treason - Murder?
At first this would seem like a trivial news story. It took me some time to realize the significance. Then I remembered seeing real time video of America military vehicles (and American soldiers) being blown up by road side bombs. As I watched, I assumed the video had been supplied by the Islamic Terrorists to the news media for propaganda purposes (this had been done when Reagan was trying to keep Communism out of South America). But now I realize the video was being taken by an employee of the Associated Press.
The fact that Tom Curley is making such strong statements indicates to me that AP is deeply involved in this situation. AP could easily be involved with treason (giving aid and comfort to the enemy) if they knew that Bilal Hussein was getting information from the Islamic Terrorists about where and when the road side bombings were to occur so that he could be in place to video the event. I consider AP and Bilal Hussein committed murder if they failed to inform American military people of the intended attack on American soldiers.
There have been so many things in the past six years where the news media have disgraced themselves that it is incredible. http://narj-clirus.blogspot.com/ The news media all over the world needs to repent of the abuses of freedom of the press and establish a code of ethics to prevent future abuses.
There used to be a phrase, "all the news that is fit to print". News that represents treason and murder is not fit to print no matter what the competitive pressures are. The news media needs to focus on the things Americans have in common instead of the headline grabbing extreme positions that lead to more headline grabbing extreme positions by those who want to grab headlines.
A Code of Ethics for Journalists could go a long way to help journalists prevent treason, murder and domestic extremism.
---------------------------------
AP Chief Slams Case Against Photographer
Nov 24 03:29 PM US/Eastern
By LILY HINDY
Associated Press Writer
U.S. Seeks Criminal Case Against AP Photographer
NEW YORK (AP) - The U.S. military's plan to seek a criminal case against an Associated Press photographer in Iraq without disclosing the charges or evidence against him makes a mockery of American democratic principles, AP President and CEO Tom Curley said Saturday.
"This is a poor example—and not the first of its kind—of the way our government honors the democratic principles and values it says it wants to share with the Iraqi people," Curley said in a column in The Washington Post.
The U.S. military notified the AP last weekend that it intended to submit a complaint against Bilal Hussein that would bring the case into the Iraqi justice system as early as Nov. 29.
Military officials have alleged that Hussein, 36, had links to terrorist groups but are refusing to disclose what evidence or accusations would be presented.
Previously, the military suggested an array of possible lines of investigation, including claims that Hussein offered to provide false identification to a sniper seeking to evade U.S.-led forces, that he possessed bomb-making equipment, and that he took photographs that were synchronized with insurgent blasts.
Hussein, a native of Fallujah, was detained in Ramadi on April 12, 2006.
"We believe Bilal's crime was taking photographs the U.S. government did not want its citizens to see. That he was part of a team of AP photographers who had just won a Pulitzer Prize for work in Iraq may have made Bilal even more of a marked man," Curley wrote.
Hussein was part of the AP's Pulitzer Prize-winning photo team in 2005.
A U.S. military spokesman in Iraq said Saturday that Curley's column reflected a "fundamental misunderstanding of the Iraqi court system as well as the detainee process."
Maj. Bradford Leighton said that Hussein's detention without charge was legal under a United Nations mandate, and explained that the case would proceed differently than it would in the U.S. because the Iraqi system follows different procedures and rules about disclosing evidence.
"It's not like our system," said Leighton. "The evidence is presented to a judge and the judge makes the decision whether the case goes forward."
Leighton said that if the first judge decides there is a strong case, he will send it to a three-judge panel for the trial.
An AP investigation of the case compiled last spring and made public Wednesday concluded that the series of accusations against Hussein do not hold up to scrutiny.
Curley said the military has refused to answer questions from Hussein's attorney, former federal prosecutor Paul Gardephe, since announcing its intentions to seek a case against him. The military would not even share the exact date of the hearing, Curley said.
"How is Gardephe to defend Bilal? This affair makes a mockery of the democratic principles of justice and the rule of law that the United States says it is trying to help Iraq establish," Curley said.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Friday, November 2, 2007
But the Band Plays On
But the Band Plays On
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110010564
"Until Proven Innocent" is a stunning book. It recounts the Duke lacrosse case in fascinating detail and offers, along the way, a damning portrait of the institutions--legal, educational and journalistic--that do so much to shape contemporary American culture. Messrs. Taylor and Johnson make it clear that the Duke affair--the rabid prosecution, the skewed commentary, the distorted media storyline--was not some odd, outlier incident but the product of an elite culture's most treasured assumptions about American life, not least about America's supposed racial divide.
----------------------------
Could a Code of Conduct for Journalists have prevented the distorted media storyline?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110010564
"Until Proven Innocent" is a stunning book. It recounts the Duke lacrosse case in fascinating detail and offers, along the way, a damning portrait of the institutions--legal, educational and journalistic--that do so much to shape contemporary American culture. Messrs. Taylor and Johnson make it clear that the Duke affair--the rabid prosecution, the skewed commentary, the distorted media storyline--was not some odd, outlier incident but the product of an elite culture's most treasured assumptions about American life, not least about America's supposed racial divide.
----------------------------
Could a Code of Conduct for Journalists have prevented the distorted media storyline?
Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased
Even Harvard Finds The Media Biased
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:30 PM PT
Journalism: The debate is over. A consensus has been reached. On global warming? No, on how Democrats are favored on television, radio and in the newspapers.
Related Topics: Media & Culture
Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.
Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."
The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.
Breaking it down by candidates, the survey found that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the favorites. "Obama's front page coverage was 70% positive and 9% negative, and Clinton's was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative."
In stories about Republicans, on the other hand, the tone was positive in only a quarter of the stories; in four in 10 it was negative.
The study also discovered that newspaper stories "tended to be focused more on political matters and less on issues and ideas than the media overall. In all, 71% of newspaper stories concentrated on the 'game,' compared with 63% overall."
Television has a similar problem. Only 10% of TV stories were focused on issues, and here, too, Democrats get the better of it.
Reviewing 154 stories on evening network newscasts over the course of 109 weeknights, the survey found that Democrats were presented in a positive light more than twice as often as they were portrayed as negative. Positive tones for Republicans were detected in less than a fifth of stories while a negative tone was twice as common.
The gap between Democrats and Republicans narrows on cable TV, but it's there nonetheless. Stories about Democrats were positive in more than a third of the cases, while Republicans were portrayed favorably in fewer than 29%. Republican led in unfriendly stories 30.4% to 25.5%.
CNN was the most hostile toward Republicans, MSNBC, surprisingly, the most positive. MSNBC was also the most favorable toward Democrats (47.2%), Fox (36.8%) the most critical.
The anti-GOP attitude also lives on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition." There, Democrats were approvingly covered more than a third as often as Republicans. Negative coverage of Democrats was a negligible 5.9%. It seemed to be reserved for Republicans, who were subject to one-fifth of the program's disparaging reports.
Even talk radio, generally considered a bastion of conservatism, has been relatively rough on the GOP. On conservative shows, Obama got more favorable treatment (27.8%) than Rudy Giuliani (25%). Sen. John McCain got a 50% favorability rating while Mitt Romney led the three GOP candidates with 66.7%.
The PEG-Shorenstein effort is only the latest to conclude that the mainstream media tilt left. Others include Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter's groundbreaking 1986 book "The Media Elite"; "A Measure of Media Bias," a 2005 paper written by professors from UCLA and the University of Missouri; and Bernard Goldberg's two books, "Bias" and "Arrogance." All underscore the media's leftward leanings.
The media, of course, insist they are careful to keep personal opinions out of their coverage. But the facts tell another story — one that can't be edited or spiked.
---------------------------------------
Over and over again the concept of a Cultural War is proven and the part the news media plays is obvious.
There is a cultural war in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.
The news media has too much power to influence domestic issue, foreign issues and American elections. Freedom of the press is not a freedom to abuse the press.
This problem could be greatly reduced by a mandatory Journalistic Code of Conduct.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:30 PM PT
Journalism: The debate is over. A consensus has been reached. On global warming? No, on how Democrats are favored on television, radio and in the newspapers.
Related Topics: Media & Culture
Just like so many reports before it, a joint survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy — hardly a bastion of conservative orthodoxy — found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.
Democrats are not only favored in the tone of the coverage. They get more coverage period. This is particularly evident on morning news shows, which "produced almost twice as many stories (51% to 27%) focused on Democratic candidates than on Republicans."
The most flagrant bias, however, was found in newspapers. In reviewing front-page coverage in 11 newspapers, the study found the tone positive in nearly six times as many stories about Democrats as it was negative.
Breaking it down by candidates, the survey found that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the favorites. "Obama's front page coverage was 70% positive and 9% negative, and Clinton's was similarly 61% positive and 13% negative."
In stories about Republicans, on the other hand, the tone was positive in only a quarter of the stories; in four in 10 it was negative.
The study also discovered that newspaper stories "tended to be focused more on political matters and less on issues and ideas than the media overall. In all, 71% of newspaper stories concentrated on the 'game,' compared with 63% overall."
Television has a similar problem. Only 10% of TV stories were focused on issues, and here, too, Democrats get the better of it.
Reviewing 154 stories on evening network newscasts over the course of 109 weeknights, the survey found that Democrats were presented in a positive light more than twice as often as they were portrayed as negative. Positive tones for Republicans were detected in less than a fifth of stories while a negative tone was twice as common.
The gap between Democrats and Republicans narrows on cable TV, but it's there nonetheless. Stories about Democrats were positive in more than a third of the cases, while Republicans were portrayed favorably in fewer than 29%. Republican led in unfriendly stories 30.4% to 25.5%.
CNN was the most hostile toward Republicans, MSNBC, surprisingly, the most positive. MSNBC was also the most favorable toward Democrats (47.2%), Fox (36.8%) the most critical.
The anti-GOP attitude also lives on National Public Radio's "Morning Edition." There, Democrats were approvingly covered more than a third as often as Republicans. Negative coverage of Democrats was a negligible 5.9%. It seemed to be reserved for Republicans, who were subject to one-fifth of the program's disparaging reports.
Even talk radio, generally considered a bastion of conservatism, has been relatively rough on the GOP. On conservative shows, Obama got more favorable treatment (27.8%) than Rudy Giuliani (25%). Sen. John McCain got a 50% favorability rating while Mitt Romney led the three GOP candidates with 66.7%.
The PEG-Shorenstein effort is only the latest to conclude that the mainstream media tilt left. Others include Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter's groundbreaking 1986 book "The Media Elite"; "A Measure of Media Bias," a 2005 paper written by professors from UCLA and the University of Missouri; and Bernard Goldberg's two books, "Bias" and "Arrogance." All underscore the media's leftward leanings.
The media, of course, insist they are careful to keep personal opinions out of their coverage. But the facts tell another story — one that can't be edited or spiked.
---------------------------------------
Over and over again the concept of a Cultural War is proven and the part the news media plays is obvious.
There is a cultural war in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.
The news media has too much power to influence domestic issue, foreign issues and American elections. Freedom of the press is not a freedom to abuse the press.
This problem could be greatly reduced by a mandatory Journalistic Code of Conduct.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Investigative Journalism
The title may say Investigative Journalism but it would appear to be the setup of another Move-On type propaganda organization intended to attack Christians, Conservatives and Republicans in order to support the government being controlled by Atheists, Liberals and democrats.
The democratic party tries to sell the concept of being a party of the people, except the democratic party is controlled by the fat cats like George Soros, Herbert M. and Marion O. Sandler.
When compared to perfection, Republicans did not look good, but when compared to democrats, Republicans look brilliant. Without the propaganda support of the Atheistic Liberal News Media the democrats would look ridicules.
-------------------------------------------
Group Plans to Provide Investigative Journalism
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/business/media/15publica.html?ex=1193112000&en=bf79b8314af368b4&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: October 15, 2007
As struggling newspapers across the country cut back on investigative reporting, a new kind of journalism venture is hoping to fill the gap.
G. Paul Burnett/The New York Times
Paul Steiger, a longtime Journal editor, will run Pro Publica
Paul E. Steiger, who was the top editor of The Wall Street Journal for 16 years, and a pair of wealthy Californians are assembling a group of investigative journalists who will give away their work to media outlets.
The nonprofit group, called Pro Publica, will pitch each project to a newspaper or magazine (and occasionally to other media) where the group hopes the work will make the strongest impression. The plan is to do long-term projects, uncovering misdeeds in government, business and organizations.
Nothing quite like it has been attempted, and despite having a lot going for it, Pro Publica will be something of an experiment, inventing its practices by trial and error. It remains to be seen how well it can attract talent and win the cooperation of the mainstream media.
"It is the deep-dive stuff and the aggressive follow-up that is most challenged in the budget process," said Mr. Steiger, who will be Pro Publica's president and editor in chief. He gave up the title of managing editor of The Journal in May, but is staying on through the end of the year as editor at large; during his tenure, the newsroom won 16 Pulitzer Prizes.
Pro Publica is the creation of Herbert M. and Marion O. Sandler, the former chief executives of the Golden West Financial Corporation, based in California, which was one of the nation's largest mortgage lenders and savings and loans. They have committed $10 million a year to the project, while various foundations have provided smaller amounts. Mr. Sandler will serve as chairman of the group, which will begin operations early next year.
The Sandlers are also major Democratic political donors and critics of President Bush. Last year, they sold Golden West to the Wachovia Corporation for about $26 billion, a deal which valued their personal shares at about $2.4 billion.
Pro Publica plans to establish a newsroom in New York City and have 24 journalists, one of the biggest investigative staffs in any medium, along with about a dozen other employees. Mr. Steiger said he envisions a mix of accomplished reporters and editors, including some hired from major publications, and talented people with only a few years' experience, so that the group will become a training ground for investigative reporters. He would not say specifically where he is shopping for talent, but did not rule out The Journal.
Richard J. Tofel, a former assistant publisher and assistant managing editor of The Journal, has been hired as general manager. Board members will include Henry Louis Gates Jr., the Harvard scholar of African and African-American studies; Alberto Ibarguen, a former publisher of The Miami Herald, who is currently president and chief executive of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation; James A. Leach, a former congressman from Iowa who directs Harvard's Institute of Politics; and Rebecca Rimel, president and chief executive of the Pew Charitable Trusts.
The nearest parallels to Pro Publica may be the Center for Investigative Reporting in San Francisco, and the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting in Washington, groups that support in-depth work and have had considerable success getting it published or broadcast in mainstream media. But their budgets are a fraction of Pro Publica's, and they do not actually employ most of the journalists whose work they help finance.
Pro Publica will provide salaries and benefits comparable to the biggest newspapers, Mr. Steiger said. "I won't be offering somebody 50 grand or 100 grand more than they're making to jump ship, nor will I ask them to take a pay cut," he said.
Newspapers routinely publish articles from wire services, and many of them also subscribe to the major papers' news services and reprint their articles. But except for fairly routine news wire service articles, the largest newspapers have generally been reluctant to use reporting from other organizations.
But experts say that resistance is breaking down as the business is squeezed financially, and newspapers make greater use of freelance journalists.
"They're looking for alternative means of paying for ambitious journalism," said Stephen B. Shepard, dean of the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism and a former editor of BusinessWeek. "Steiger has the credibility and judgment to bring this off, and if they do good work, it will get picked up."
Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, said The Times would be open to using work from an outside source, "assuming we were confident of its quality," but that "we'll always have a preference for work we can vouch for ourselves."
Mr. Steiger said that relationships with publications could be tricky, requiring the flexibility to make each comfortable.
In most cases, he said, Pro Publica will appeal to a newspaper or magazine while a project is under way, to gauge interest and how much oversight the publication wants. In others, he said, his group might present more or less finished products to other outlets.
If Pro Publica and a publication cannot agree on how to approach a topic, or what can be written about it, he said, his group will look for another outlet, or publish its reporting on its own Web site.
Mr. Sandler said his interest in investigative journalism has been abetted by friendships with reporters in the field.
"Both my father and my older brother always focused on the underdog, justice, ethics, what's right," Mr. Sandler said. "All of my life I've been driven crazy whenever I encounter corruption, malfeasance, mendacity, but particularly where those in power take advantage of those who have few resources."
The title may say Investigative Journalism but it would appear to be the setup of another Move-On type propaganda organization intended to attack Christians, Conservatives and Republicans in order to support the government being controlled by Atheists, Liberals and democrats.
The democratic party tries to sell the concept of being a party of the people, except the democratic party is controlled by the fat cats like George Soros, Herbert M. and Marion O. Sandler.
When compared to perfection, Republicans did not look good, but when compared to democrats, Republicans look brilliant. Without the propaganda support of the Atheistic Liberal News Media the democrats would look ridicules.
-------------------------------------------
Group Plans to Provide Investigative Journalism
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/business/media/15publica.html?ex=1193112000&en=bf79b8314af368b4&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA
Published: October 15, 2007
As struggling newspapers across the country cut back on investigative reporting, a new kind of journalism venture is hoping to fill the gap.
G. Paul Burnett/The New York Times
Paul Steiger, a longtime Journal editor, will run Pro Publica
Paul E. Steiger, who was the top editor of The Wall Street Journal for 16 years, and a pair of wealthy Californians are assembling a group of investigative journalists who will give away their work to media outlets.
The nonprofit group, called Pro Publica, will pitch each project to a newspaper or magazine (and occasionally to other media) where the group hopes the work will make the strongest impression. The plan is to do long-term projects, uncovering misdeeds in government, business and organizations.
Nothing quite like it has been attempted, and despite having a lot going for it, Pro Publica will be something of an experiment, inventing its practices by trial and error. It remains to be seen how well it can attract talent and win the cooperation of the mainstream media.
"It is the deep-dive stuff and the aggressive follow-up that is most challenged in the budget process," said Mr. Steiger, who will be Pro Publica's president and editor in chief. He gave up the title of managing editor of The Journal in May, but is staying on through the end of the year as editor at large; during his tenure, the newsroom won 16 Pulitzer Prizes.
Pro Publica is the creation of Herbert M. and Marion O. Sandler, the former chief executives of the Golden West Financial Corporation, based in California, which was one of the nation's largest mortgage lenders and savings and loans. They have committed $10 million a year to the project, while various foundations have provided smaller amounts. Mr. Sandler will serve as chairman of the group, which will begin operations early next year.
The Sandlers are also major Democratic political donors and critics of President Bush. Last year, they sold Golden West to the Wachovia Corporation for about $26 billion, a deal which valued their personal shares at about $2.4 billion.
Pro Publica plans to establish a newsroom in New York City and have 24 journalists, one of the biggest investigative staffs in any medium, along with about a dozen other employees. Mr. Steiger said he envisions a mix of accomplished reporters and editors, including some hired from major publications, and talented people with only a few years' experience, so that the group will become a training ground for investigative reporters. He would not say specifically where he is shopping for talent, but did not rule out The Journal.
Richard J. Tofel, a former assistant publisher and assistant managing editor of The Journal, has been hired as general manager. Board members will include Henry Louis Gates Jr., the Harvard scholar of African and African-American studies; Alberto Ibarguen, a former publisher of The Miami Herald, who is currently president and chief executive of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation; James A. Leach, a former congressman from Iowa who directs Harvard's Institute of Politics; and Rebecca Rimel, president and chief executive of the Pew Charitable Trusts.
The nearest parallels to Pro Publica may be the Center for Investigative Reporting in San Francisco, and the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting in Washington, groups that support in-depth work and have had considerable success getting it published or broadcast in mainstream media. But their budgets are a fraction of Pro Publica's, and they do not actually employ most of the journalists whose work they help finance.
Pro Publica will provide salaries and benefits comparable to the biggest newspapers, Mr. Steiger said. "I won't be offering somebody 50 grand or 100 grand more than they're making to jump ship, nor will I ask them to take a pay cut," he said.
Newspapers routinely publish articles from wire services, and many of them also subscribe to the major papers' news services and reprint their articles. But except for fairly routine news wire service articles, the largest newspapers have generally been reluctant to use reporting from other organizations.
But experts say that resistance is breaking down as the business is squeezed financially, and newspapers make greater use of freelance journalists.
"They're looking for alternative means of paying for ambitious journalism," said Stephen B. Shepard, dean of the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism and a former editor of BusinessWeek. "Steiger has the credibility and judgment to bring this off, and if they do good work, it will get picked up."
Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, said The Times would be open to using work from an outside source, "assuming we were confident of its quality," but that "we'll always have a preference for work we can vouch for ourselves."
Mr. Steiger said that relationships with publications could be tricky, requiring the flexibility to make each comfortable.
In most cases, he said, Pro Publica will appeal to a newspaper or magazine while a project is under way, to gauge interest and how much oversight the publication wants. In others, he said, his group might present more or less finished products to other outlets.
If Pro Publica and a publication cannot agree on how to approach a topic, or what can be written about it, he said, his group will look for another outlet, or publish its reporting on its own Web site.
Mr. Sandler said his interest in investigative journalism has been abetted by friendships with reporters in the field.
"Both my father and my older brother always focused on the underdog, justice, ethics, what's right," Mr. Sandler said. "All of my life I've been driven crazy whenever I encounter corruption, malfeasance, mendacity, but particularly where those in power take advantage of those who have few resources."
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Another Act of Treason by the New York Times
Another Act of Treason by the New York Times
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297891,00.html
New York Times Admits Mistake Over MoveOn Ad
Monday, September 24, 2007
By John Gibson
The latest MoveOn shoe to drop was over at The New York Times. The public editor has said we screwed up. He is the ombudsman whose job it is to examine the actions of The New York Times itself and tell what he finds on the pages of The Times.
Today the public editor said The Times itself was wrong to give MoveOn a discounted rate to run that ad attacking General Petraeus as "General Betray Us."
MoveOn got a special rate of about $65,000 for an ad that should have cost more than double that rate. Today MoveOn actually sent The Times another check for nearly $80,000 so it can be seen as having paid the proper amount.
The editor, a man named Clark Hoyt, said the ad "ignited charges that the liberal Times aided its friends at MoveOn.org with a steep discount in the price paid to publish its message, which might amount to an illegal contribution to a political action committee."
Hoyt also said: "The ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, 'We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.'"
Related
Hope that Hoyt isn't the only one around there who thinks the ad was an attack of a personal nature. I'm afraid he might be.
The fact is, the publisher thought it was an error, at least it was a mistake promoting dialogue, and the vice president of sales thought it was only a mistake of not charging enough. Hoyt thought differently, saying: "I'd have demanded changes to eliminate 'Betray Us,' a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier."
Three cheers for Clark Hoyt. I bet he isn't terribly popular among Times staffers today.
That's My Word.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297891,00.html
New York Times Admits Mistake Over MoveOn Ad
Monday, September 24, 2007
By John Gibson
The latest MoveOn shoe to drop was over at The New York Times. The public editor has said we screwed up. He is the ombudsman whose job it is to examine the actions of The New York Times itself and tell what he finds on the pages of The Times.
Today the public editor said The Times itself was wrong to give MoveOn a discounted rate to run that ad attacking General Petraeus as "General Betray Us."
MoveOn got a special rate of about $65,000 for an ad that should have cost more than double that rate. Today MoveOn actually sent The Times another check for nearly $80,000 so it can be seen as having paid the proper amount.
The editor, a man named Clark Hoyt, said the ad "ignited charges that the liberal Times aided its friends at MoveOn.org with a steep discount in the price paid to publish its message, which might amount to an illegal contribution to a political action committee."
Hoyt also said: "The ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, 'We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.'"
Related
Hope that Hoyt isn't the only one around there who thinks the ad was an attack of a personal nature. I'm afraid he might be.
The fact is, the publisher thought it was an error, at least it was a mistake promoting dialogue, and the vice president of sales thought it was only a mistake of not charging enough. Hoyt thought differently, saying: "I'd have demanded changes to eliminate 'Betray Us,' a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier."
Three cheers for Clark Hoyt. I bet he isn't terribly popular among Times staffers today.
That's My Word.
Another News Media Failure
Another News Media Failure
America was attacked and is fighting a war in Iraq because the Clinton Administration failed to prevent an enemy from growing to where it was a threat to the whole world.
The news media failed to expose the sexual encounters and corruption of Clinton before he was elected president, thus the news media is covered in the blood of those who were the victims of the Islamic terrorists in America and other nations.
The real question is whether the news media is the propaganda wing of the democratic party or the democratic party is the political wing of the news media.
There is a cultural war in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.
------------------------------
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5992.html
Clinton campaign kills negative story
By: Ben Smith
Sep 24, 2007 03:43 PM EST
Updated: September 24, 2007 09:39 PM EST
Early this summer, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign for president learned that the men's magazine GQ was working on a story the campaign was sure to hate: an account of infighting in Hillaryland.
So Clinton's aides pulled a page from the book of Hollywood publicists and offered GQ a stark choice: Kill the piece, or lose access to planned celebrity coverboy Bill Clinton.
Despite internal protests, GQ editor Jim Nelson met the Clinton campaign's demands, which had been delivered by Bill Clinton's spokesman, Jay Carson, several sources familiar with the conversations said.
GQ writer George Saunders traveled with Clinton to Africa in July, and Clinton is slated to appear on the cover of GQ's December issue, in which it traditionally names a "Man of the Year," according magazine industry sources.
And the offending article by Atlantic Monthly staff writer Josh Green got the spike.
"I don't really get into the inner workings of the magazine, but I can tell you that yes, we did kill a Hillary piece. We kill pieces all the time for a variety of reasons," Nelson said in an e-mail to Politico.
He did not respond to follow-up questions. A Clinton campaign spokesman declined to comment.
The campaign's transaction with GQ opens a curtain on the Clinton campaign's hard-nosed media strategy, which is far closer in its unromantic view of the press to the campaigns of George W. Bush than to that of Bill Clinton's free-wheeling 1992 campaign.
There's little left to chance. Hillary Clinton may have an unparalleled campaign "war room" — but there aren't any documentary film-makers wandering around this one, and lovers of the D.A. Pennebaker film "The War Room" can rest assured they aren't getting a sequel.
The spiked GQ story also shows how the Clinton campaign has been able to use its access to the most important commodity in media — celebrity, and in fact two bona fide celebrities — to shape not just what gets written about the candidate, but also what doesn't.
There's nothing unusual about providing extra access to candidates to reporters seen as sympathetic, and cutting off those seen as hostile to a campaign.
The 2004 Bush campaign banned a New York Times reporter from Vice President Dick Cheney's jet, and Sen. Barack Obama threatened to bar Fox News reporters from campaign travel.
But a retreat of the sort GQ is alleged to have made is unusual, particularly as part of what sources described as a barely veiled transaction of editorial leverage for access.
The Clinton campaign is unique in its ability to provide cash value to the media, and particularly the celebrity-driven precincts of television and magazines. Bill Clinton is a favorite cover figure, because his face is viewed within the magazine industry as one that can move product. (Indeed, Green's own magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, ran as its October cover story "Bill Clinton's campaign to save the world.")
It's a fact that gives the Clintons' press aides a leverage more familiar to Hollywood publicists than even to her political rivals — less Mitt Romney and more Tom Cruise, whose publicists once required interviewers to sign a statement pledging not to write anything "derogatory" about the star.
The Clinton campaign has more sway with television networks than any rival. At the time Clinton launched her campaign, the networks' hunger for interviews had her all over the morning and evening news broadcasts of every network — after her aides negotiated agreements limiting producers' abilities to edit the interviews.
This past weekend, she pulled off another rare feat — sitting for interviews with all the major Sunday talk shows. In most cases, the Sunday shows will reject guests who have appeared on competing shows.
Clinton's team is also unusually aggressive in moving to smother potentially damaging storylines, as last spring when Wolfson and other aides took aim at an unflattering book by writers Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr.
GQ describes itself as "the definitive guide to fashion and grooming," but also has a history of carrying groundbreaking reporting and long-form writing.
This presidential cycle, it has commissioned pieces from well-regarded Washington magazine writers on the presidential candidates, including a piece by Ryan Lizza, now of the New Yorker, on Barack Obama.
Green was not a particular favorite of the Clinton campaign, however. He took the assignment from GQ not long after finishing an unflattering 13,000-word profile in the November 2006 Atlantic Monthly, which concluded that the junior Senator from New York is, more or less, a timid, calculating pol.
"Today Clinton offers no big ideas, no crusading causes — by her own tacit admission, no evidence of bravery in the service of a larger ideal. Instead, her Senate record is an assemblage of many, many small gains.
Her real accomplishment in the Senate has been to rehabilitate the image and political career of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Impressive though that has been in its particulars, it makes for a rather thin claim on the presidency. Senator Clinton has plenty to talk about, but she doesn't have much to say," he wrote.
The next spring, according to people with the story and sources Green spoke to, he spent digging into the tensions within Hillary Clinton's campaign — widely speculated about among reporters, but at the same time notoriously difficult to report from a political circle known for keeping internal disputes inside the family.
In particular, a source familiar with Green's story said, he had focused on internal criticism of the campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle.
Green had also asked questions about the pay package of the campaign's communications director, Howard Wolfson, who is technically a consultant and left a lucrative communications practice in New York City to take the job, and whose compensation is the subject of speculation within the campaign. (Speculation about Wolfson's compensation, sources said, was not in Green's final GQ draft.)
Green approached the Clinton campaign to discuss the details of the story, which he described to Wolfson over dinner at a downtown Washington, D.C. restaurant, a source familiar with the conversations said.
Soon after that, Carson, who is now Hillary Clinton's traveling press secretary, told GQ that the former president would not cooperate with Saunders' planned profile if Green's piece ran.
Green declined to comment on the fate of his story, referring questions to GQ and to Carson. Carson declined to comment on his discussions with GQ.
Green and GQ's features editor, Joel Lovell, argued for rebuffing the Clinton campaigns demands, sources said, but Nelson made the final call to kill the story.
Saunders, the Syracuse novelist who is writing the Clinton story for GQ, declined to discuss his story, citing GQ policy.
He told the Syracuse Post-Standard in July that he was planning to travel with the former president to tour Clinton Foundation projects in Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi and South Africa and said he'd voted for Bill Clinton twice.
"It seems like [Clinton's] gift, one of his gifts, is everybody likes him and knows him, so he can get people in a room and make things happen," Saunders told the Syracuse paper. "I just like the idea that at this elderly stage of life, you can go and get your doors blown off."
Asked by Politico if he was interested in hearing how his access to Clinton was procured, he demurred.
"I don't think I want to know," he said.
America was attacked and is fighting a war in Iraq because the Clinton Administration failed to prevent an enemy from growing to where it was a threat to the whole world.
The news media failed to expose the sexual encounters and corruption of Clinton before he was elected president, thus the news media is covered in the blood of those who were the victims of the Islamic terrorists in America and other nations.
The real question is whether the news media is the propaganda wing of the democratic party or the democratic party is the political wing of the news media.
There is a cultural war in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.
------------------------------
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5992.html
Clinton campaign kills negative story
By: Ben Smith
Sep 24, 2007 03:43 PM EST
Updated: September 24, 2007 09:39 PM EST
Early this summer, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign for president learned that the men's magazine GQ was working on a story the campaign was sure to hate: an account of infighting in Hillaryland.
So Clinton's aides pulled a page from the book of Hollywood publicists and offered GQ a stark choice: Kill the piece, or lose access to planned celebrity coverboy Bill Clinton.
Despite internal protests, GQ editor Jim Nelson met the Clinton campaign's demands, which had been delivered by Bill Clinton's spokesman, Jay Carson, several sources familiar with the conversations said.
GQ writer George Saunders traveled with Clinton to Africa in July, and Clinton is slated to appear on the cover of GQ's December issue, in which it traditionally names a "Man of the Year," according magazine industry sources.
And the offending article by Atlantic Monthly staff writer Josh Green got the spike.
"I don't really get into the inner workings of the magazine, but I can tell you that yes, we did kill a Hillary piece. We kill pieces all the time for a variety of reasons," Nelson said in an e-mail to Politico.
He did not respond to follow-up questions. A Clinton campaign spokesman declined to comment.
The campaign's transaction with GQ opens a curtain on the Clinton campaign's hard-nosed media strategy, which is far closer in its unromantic view of the press to the campaigns of George W. Bush than to that of Bill Clinton's free-wheeling 1992 campaign.
There's little left to chance. Hillary Clinton may have an unparalleled campaign "war room" — but there aren't any documentary film-makers wandering around this one, and lovers of the D.A. Pennebaker film "The War Room" can rest assured they aren't getting a sequel.
The spiked GQ story also shows how the Clinton campaign has been able to use its access to the most important commodity in media — celebrity, and in fact two bona fide celebrities — to shape not just what gets written about the candidate, but also what doesn't.
There's nothing unusual about providing extra access to candidates to reporters seen as sympathetic, and cutting off those seen as hostile to a campaign.
The 2004 Bush campaign banned a New York Times reporter from Vice President Dick Cheney's jet, and Sen. Barack Obama threatened to bar Fox News reporters from campaign travel.
But a retreat of the sort GQ is alleged to have made is unusual, particularly as part of what sources described as a barely veiled transaction of editorial leverage for access.
The Clinton campaign is unique in its ability to provide cash value to the media, and particularly the celebrity-driven precincts of television and magazines. Bill Clinton is a favorite cover figure, because his face is viewed within the magazine industry as one that can move product. (Indeed, Green's own magazine, The Atlantic Monthly, ran as its October cover story "Bill Clinton's campaign to save the world.")
It's a fact that gives the Clintons' press aides a leverage more familiar to Hollywood publicists than even to her political rivals — less Mitt Romney and more Tom Cruise, whose publicists once required interviewers to sign a statement pledging not to write anything "derogatory" about the star.
The Clinton campaign has more sway with television networks than any rival. At the time Clinton launched her campaign, the networks' hunger for interviews had her all over the morning and evening news broadcasts of every network — after her aides negotiated agreements limiting producers' abilities to edit the interviews.
This past weekend, she pulled off another rare feat — sitting for interviews with all the major Sunday talk shows. In most cases, the Sunday shows will reject guests who have appeared on competing shows.
Clinton's team is also unusually aggressive in moving to smother potentially damaging storylines, as last spring when Wolfson and other aides took aim at an unflattering book by writers Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr.
GQ describes itself as "the definitive guide to fashion and grooming," but also has a history of carrying groundbreaking reporting and long-form writing.
This presidential cycle, it has commissioned pieces from well-regarded Washington magazine writers on the presidential candidates, including a piece by Ryan Lizza, now of the New Yorker, on Barack Obama.
Green was not a particular favorite of the Clinton campaign, however. He took the assignment from GQ not long after finishing an unflattering 13,000-word profile in the November 2006 Atlantic Monthly, which concluded that the junior Senator from New York is, more or less, a timid, calculating pol.
"Today Clinton offers no big ideas, no crusading causes — by her own tacit admission, no evidence of bravery in the service of a larger ideal. Instead, her Senate record is an assemblage of many, many small gains.
Her real accomplishment in the Senate has been to rehabilitate the image and political career of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Impressive though that has been in its particulars, it makes for a rather thin claim on the presidency. Senator Clinton has plenty to talk about, but she doesn't have much to say," he wrote.
The next spring, according to people with the story and sources Green spoke to, he spent digging into the tensions within Hillary Clinton's campaign — widely speculated about among reporters, but at the same time notoriously difficult to report from a political circle known for keeping internal disputes inside the family.
In particular, a source familiar with Green's story said, he had focused on internal criticism of the campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle.
Green had also asked questions about the pay package of the campaign's communications director, Howard Wolfson, who is technically a consultant and left a lucrative communications practice in New York City to take the job, and whose compensation is the subject of speculation within the campaign. (Speculation about Wolfson's compensation, sources said, was not in Green's final GQ draft.)
Green approached the Clinton campaign to discuss the details of the story, which he described to Wolfson over dinner at a downtown Washington, D.C. restaurant, a source familiar with the conversations said.
Soon after that, Carson, who is now Hillary Clinton's traveling press secretary, told GQ that the former president would not cooperate with Saunders' planned profile if Green's piece ran.
Green declined to comment on the fate of his story, referring questions to GQ and to Carson. Carson declined to comment on his discussions with GQ.
Green and GQ's features editor, Joel Lovell, argued for rebuffing the Clinton campaigns demands, sources said, but Nelson made the final call to kill the story.
Saunders, the Syracuse novelist who is writing the Clinton story for GQ, declined to discuss his story, citing GQ policy.
He told the Syracuse Post-Standard in July that he was planning to travel with the former president to tour Clinton Foundation projects in Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi and South Africa and said he'd voted for Bill Clinton twice.
"It seems like [Clinton's] gift, one of his gifts, is everybody likes him and knows him, so he can get people in a room and make things happen," Saunders told the Syracuse paper. "I just like the idea that at this elderly stage of life, you can go and get your doors blown off."
Asked by Politico if he was interested in hearing how his access to Clinton was procured, he demurred.
"I don't think I want to know," he said.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Reckless and Malicious
Reckless and Malicious
There are just too many stories of how the news media wrecks the lives of people to allow this to continue. If a Code of Ethics were put in place, journalists would at least have to think before they jump to conclusions and print lies.
----------------------------------------
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2007/08/29/jewell_0830.html
Richard Jewell found dead in home
Olympic security guard suspected but cleared in bombing
By MIKE MORRIS, JEFFRY SCOTT
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 08/29/07
Richard Jewell, the former security guard once suspected of the Centennial Olympic Park bombing — then cleared — died at his home Wednesday morning in Woodbury.
For the past three years, Jewell, 44, worked as a deputy sheriff for the Meriwether County Sheriff's department, said Sheriff Steve Whitlock. He said Jewell had been out on medical leave.
Richard Jewell
Meriwether County coroner Johnny Worley said Jewell's wife, Dana, discovered him unconscious at about 10:30 a.m. Worley said an autopsy would be performed by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to determine how Jewell died, but there was "no suspicion of foul play.
"He had been having some pretty serious medical problems," Worley said.
He said Jewell had been diagnosed with diabetes in February and had a couple of toes amputated. "He had been going downhill ever since," Worley said.
Whitlock described Jewell as "a good officer. A go-getter."
"You know how they say people live their work. Richard ate and drank his job. He loved it," Whitlock said.
Jewell was initially lauded as a hero after a bomb went off on July 27, 1996, during an Olympic celebration in Atlanta. He called attention to the suspicious knapsack that held a bomb and helped evacuate the area.
Days later, he became the FBI's chief suspect, as The Atlanta Journal Constitution and other media outlets reported. The FBI cleared Jewell of any wrongdoing. He was never charged with a crime.
Eric Robert Rudolph pleaded guilty to the bombing in 2005 and is serving life in prison for it and other attacks.
After he was cleared, Jewell sued the AJC and other media outlets for libel, arguing that their reports defamed him. Several news organizations settled, including NBC and CNN.
The Journal-Constitution did not settle. The newspaper has contended that at the time it published its reports Jewell was a suspect, so the articles were accurate. The newspaper also has asserted that it was not reckless or malicious in its reports regarding Jewell. Much of Jewell's case was dismissed last year. One claim, based on reports about a 911 call, is pending trial.
However, Jewell's death Wednesday "is not a day to consider lawsuits, rather a day to pay respect," said John Mellott, AJC publisher.
"Richard Jewell was a hero, as we all came to learn," Mellott said. "The story of how Mr. Jewell moved from a suspect in the Centennial Park bombing to recognition as a security guard who averted a greater tragedy is one The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has reported fully even as it defended itself in a libel suit brought by him."
There are just too many stories of how the news media wrecks the lives of people to allow this to continue. If a Code of Ethics were put in place, journalists would at least have to think before they jump to conclusions and print lies.
----------------------------------------
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2007/08/29/jewell_0830.html
Richard Jewell found dead in home
Olympic security guard suspected but cleared in bombing
By MIKE MORRIS, JEFFRY SCOTT
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 08/29/07
Richard Jewell, the former security guard once suspected of the Centennial Olympic Park bombing — then cleared — died at his home Wednesday morning in Woodbury.
For the past three years, Jewell, 44, worked as a deputy sheriff for the Meriwether County Sheriff's department, said Sheriff Steve Whitlock. He said Jewell had been out on medical leave.
Richard Jewell
Meriwether County coroner Johnny Worley said Jewell's wife, Dana, discovered him unconscious at about 10:30 a.m. Worley said an autopsy would be performed by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to determine how Jewell died, but there was "no suspicion of foul play.
"He had been having some pretty serious medical problems," Worley said.
He said Jewell had been diagnosed with diabetes in February and had a couple of toes amputated. "He had been going downhill ever since," Worley said.
Whitlock described Jewell as "a good officer. A go-getter."
"You know how they say people live their work. Richard ate and drank his job. He loved it," Whitlock said.
Jewell was initially lauded as a hero after a bomb went off on July 27, 1996, during an Olympic celebration in Atlanta. He called attention to the suspicious knapsack that held a bomb and helped evacuate the area.
Days later, he became the FBI's chief suspect, as The Atlanta Journal Constitution and other media outlets reported. The FBI cleared Jewell of any wrongdoing. He was never charged with a crime.
Eric Robert Rudolph pleaded guilty to the bombing in 2005 and is serving life in prison for it and other attacks.
After he was cleared, Jewell sued the AJC and other media outlets for libel, arguing that their reports defamed him. Several news organizations settled, including NBC and CNN.
The Journal-Constitution did not settle. The newspaper has contended that at the time it published its reports Jewell was a suspect, so the articles were accurate. The newspaper also has asserted that it was not reckless or malicious in its reports regarding Jewell. Much of Jewell's case was dismissed last year. One claim, based on reports about a 911 call, is pending trial.
However, Jewell's death Wednesday "is not a day to consider lawsuits, rather a day to pay respect," said John Mellott, AJC publisher.
"Richard Jewell was a hero, as we all came to learn," Mellott said. "The story of how Mr. Jewell moved from a suspect in the Centennial Park bombing to recognition as a security guard who averted a greater tragedy is one The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has reported fully even as it defended itself in a libel suit brought by him."
Friday, August 17, 2007
Media Crackdown
Media Crackdown
At first glance this might appear to be a great tragedy because a basic Constitution Right of Freedom of the Press is being violate, but the real tragedy is that the news media deserves the crackdown.
All good things can be perverted, and the news media has perverted Freedom of the Press. It is good for the news media to expose corruption in government (or anywhere) but somewhere the news media adopted the idea that the purpose of the news media was to topple any government they do not like.
The news media has worked feverishly since 2004 to topple the Bush administration because Bush was elected as a Christian (homosexual marriage issue) and because Bush was fighting the Iraq war. Every person in the Bush Administration has been attacked by the news media.
Dan Rather used false documents to discredit President Bush and the News York Times committed treason to try to topple the Bush Administration. Other examples are discussed at http://narj-clirus.blogspot.com/
The Cultural War statement explains what is occurring.
There is a Cultural War in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.
--------------------------------------------
From the NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Thursday, Aug. 16, 2007 11:32 a.m. EDT
China Begins Media Crackdown
China has launched a broad crackdown on the nation's press, targeting what it calls false news reports and illegal publications as the Communist Party prepares for its October congress.
China is suffering from a spate of bad press reports abroad and at home over the safety of a number of Chinese products, including toys, toothpaste, tires and pet food. But the crackdown announced Wednesday ostensibly comes in response to two recent scandals, the Los Angeles Times reports.
In one case, a correspondent for Beijing Television reported that the makers of steamed pork buns were stuffing them with cardboard soaked in caustic soda. The government ruled that the story was concocted and sentenced the reporter to a year in jail.
In the second case, a journalist was beaten to death by thugs apparently while reporting about an illegal coal mine. Owners of illegal mines frequently blackmail journalists so that reports about their unlicensed operations don't get published, according to the Times.
Government officials "need to control the society to be on the safe side and avoid anything that might spoil the happy atmosphere of their meeting, Jin Zhong, chief editor of the Hong Kong-based Open magazine, told the Times.
"They don't like diverse opinions because they don't understand that debate is good for society."
According to the People's Daily, the crackdown will also take aim at illegal publications, including those that "fabricate political rumors."
The China Development Brief newsletter was shut down in July by the government, which claimed it was conducting "illegal surveys."
Chinese censors have listed 20 topics that are off limits to journalists before the October congress, including judicial corruption, individual rights campaigns, lifestyles of the rich, and extramarital affairs.
© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.
At first glance this might appear to be a great tragedy because a basic Constitution Right of Freedom of the Press is being violate, but the real tragedy is that the news media deserves the crackdown.
All good things can be perverted, and the news media has perverted Freedom of the Press. It is good for the news media to expose corruption in government (or anywhere) but somewhere the news media adopted the idea that the purpose of the news media was to topple any government they do not like.
The news media has worked feverishly since 2004 to topple the Bush administration because Bush was elected as a Christian (homosexual marriage issue) and because Bush was fighting the Iraq war. Every person in the Bush Administration has been attacked by the news media.
Dan Rather used false documents to discredit President Bush and the News York Times committed treason to try to topple the Bush Administration. Other examples are discussed at http://narj-clirus.blogspot.com/
The Cultural War statement explains what is occurring.
There is a Cultural War in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.
--------------------------------------------
From the NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Thursday, Aug. 16, 2007 11:32 a.m. EDT
China Begins Media Crackdown
China has launched a broad crackdown on the nation's press, targeting what it calls false news reports and illegal publications as the Communist Party prepares for its October congress.
China is suffering from a spate of bad press reports abroad and at home over the safety of a number of Chinese products, including toys, toothpaste, tires and pet food. But the crackdown announced Wednesday ostensibly comes in response to two recent scandals, the Los Angeles Times reports.
In one case, a correspondent for Beijing Television reported that the makers of steamed pork buns were stuffing them with cardboard soaked in caustic soda. The government ruled that the story was concocted and sentenced the reporter to a year in jail.
In the second case, a journalist was beaten to death by thugs apparently while reporting about an illegal coal mine. Owners of illegal mines frequently blackmail journalists so that reports about their unlicensed operations don't get published, according to the Times.
Government officials "need to control the society to be on the safe side and avoid anything that might spoil the happy atmosphere of their meeting, Jin Zhong, chief editor of the Hong Kong-based Open magazine, told the Times.
"They don't like diverse opinions because they don't understand that debate is good for society."
According to the People's Daily, the crackdown will also take aim at illegal publications, including those that "fabricate political rumors."
The China Development Brief newsletter was shut down in July by the government, which claimed it was conducting "illegal surveys."
Chinese censors have listed 20 topics that are off limits to journalists before the October congress, including judicial corruption, individual rights campaigns, lifestyles of the rich, and extramarital affairs.
© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Viewsweek Magazine
Viewsweek Magazine
Too many times the news media publishes views and news. Maybe they should rename it Viewsweek.
-------------------------------------
From the NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Monday, Aug. 13, 2007 11:28 a.m. EDT
Newsweek Editor: Our Warming Story Contrived
A contributing editor at Newsweek magazine, Robert J. Samuelson, has sharply criticized his own publication for what he calls a "highly contrived" cover story about the global warming threat and the "denial machine" that seeks to debunk it.
In this week's issue of Newsweek, Samuelson writes: "As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale – as Newsweek did – in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge."
He also writes: "Unfortunately, self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism. Last week's Newsweek cover story on global warming is a sobering reminder. It's an object lesson of how viewing the world as ‘good guys vs. bad guys' can lead to a vast oversimplification of a messy story."
Samuelson summarizes the Newsweek cover story this way: "A well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate chance. This ‘denial machine' has obstructed action against global warming ... The story's thrust: discredit the ‘denial machine,' and the country can start the serious business of fighting global warming."
He called the cover article "a peripheral and highly contrived story." For one thing, it implied that ExxonMobil, through a think tank, funded academics to criticize global warming science. But this charge "was long ago discredited, and Newsweek shouldn't have lent it respectability," Samuelson opined.
Marc Morano, communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, also slammed the Newsweek cover story, as NewsMax.com reported last week.
Following the publication of Samuelson's piece, he noted:
"Newsweek's management must have realized that their global warming ‘denial' cover story was so woeful that they were forced to run a complete rebuttal in the very next issue from one of their very own editors ... This kind of reversal does not happen very often in journalism."
Morano said a Senate report is scheduled to be released in the fall that will feature hundreds of scientists "who have spoken out recently against [Al] Gore, the U.N., and the media-driven climate ‘consensus.'"
© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.
Too many times the news media publishes views and news. Maybe they should rename it Viewsweek.
-------------------------------------
From the NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Monday, Aug. 13, 2007 11:28 a.m. EDT
Newsweek Editor: Our Warming Story Contrived
A contributing editor at Newsweek magazine, Robert J. Samuelson, has sharply criticized his own publication for what he calls a "highly contrived" cover story about the global warming threat and the "denial machine" that seeks to debunk it.
In this week's issue of Newsweek, Samuelson writes: "As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale – as Newsweek did – in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge."
He also writes: "Unfortunately, self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism. Last week's Newsweek cover story on global warming is a sobering reminder. It's an object lesson of how viewing the world as ‘good guys vs. bad guys' can lead to a vast oversimplification of a messy story."
Samuelson summarizes the Newsweek cover story this way: "A well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate chance. This ‘denial machine' has obstructed action against global warming ... The story's thrust: discredit the ‘denial machine,' and the country can start the serious business of fighting global warming."
He called the cover article "a peripheral and highly contrived story." For one thing, it implied that ExxonMobil, through a think tank, funded academics to criticize global warming science. But this charge "was long ago discredited, and Newsweek shouldn't have lent it respectability," Samuelson opined.
Marc Morano, communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, also slammed the Newsweek cover story, as NewsMax.com reported last week.
Following the publication of Samuelson's piece, he noted:
"Newsweek's management must have realized that their global warming ‘denial' cover story was so woeful that they were forced to run a complete rebuttal in the very next issue from one of their very own editors ... This kind of reversal does not happen very often in journalism."
Morano said a Senate report is scheduled to be released in the fall that will feature hundreds of scientists "who have spoken out recently against [Al] Gore, the U.N., and the media-driven climate ‘consensus.'"
© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.
Friday, August 10, 2007
US public sees news media as biased, inaccurate, uncaring
Another indication of the need for a code of ethic for journalists.
http://narj-clirus.blogspot.com/
------------------------------
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070809222839.jzdcwmy8&show_article=1
US public sees news media as biased, inaccurate, uncaring: poll
Aug 9 06:28 PM US/Eastern
More than half of Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don't care about the people they report on, a poll published Thursday showed.
And poll respondents who use the Internet as their main source of news -- roughly one quarter of all Americans -- were even harsher with their criticism, the poll conducted by the Pew Research Center said.
More than two-thirds of the Internet users said they felt that news organizations don't care about the people they report on; 59 percent said their reporting was inaccurate; and 64 percent they were politically biased.
More than half -- 53 percent -- of Internet users also faulted the news organizations for "failing to stand up for America".
Among those who get their news from newspapers and television, criticism of the news organizations was up to 20 percentage points lower than among Internet news audiences, who tend to be younger and better educated than the public as a whole, according to Pew.
The poll indicates an across the board fall in the public's opinion on the news media since 1985, when a similar survey was conducted by Times Mirror, Pew Research said.
"Two decades ago, public attitudes about how news organizations do their job were less negative. Most people believed that news organizations stood up for America... a majority believed that news organizations got the facts straight," Pew said in a report.
The Washington-based Pew Research Center describes itself as a nonpartisan "fact tank" that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.
http://narj-clirus.blogspot.com/
------------------------------
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070809222839.jzdcwmy8&show_article=1
US public sees news media as biased, inaccurate, uncaring: poll
Aug 9 06:28 PM US/Eastern
More than half of Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don't care about the people they report on, a poll published Thursday showed.
And poll respondents who use the Internet as their main source of news -- roughly one quarter of all Americans -- were even harsher with their criticism, the poll conducted by the Pew Research Center said.
More than two-thirds of the Internet users said they felt that news organizations don't care about the people they report on; 59 percent said their reporting was inaccurate; and 64 percent they were politically biased.
More than half -- 53 percent -- of Internet users also faulted the news organizations for "failing to stand up for America".
Among those who get their news from newspapers and television, criticism of the news organizations was up to 20 percentage points lower than among Internet news audiences, who tend to be younger and better educated than the public as a whole, according to Pew.
The poll indicates an across the board fall in the public's opinion on the news media since 1985, when a similar survey was conducted by Times Mirror, Pew Research said.
"Two decades ago, public attitudes about how news organizations do their job were less negative. Most people believed that news organizations stood up for America... a majority believed that news organizations got the facts straight," Pew said in a report.
The Washington-based Pew Research Center describes itself as a nonpartisan "fact tank" that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Randy Cohen
Randy Cohen
The problem with Randy Cohen's thinking is that the news media is a powerful position that can very definitely influence where America goes. I believe Randy Cohen knows his power, has a position and produces propaganda that supports his position.
Propaganda is not truth, because it presents only one side of a story by including certain information and excluding other information..
I believe Randy Cohen would present only negative stories about the Boys Scout because Randy Cohen supports homosexuality. I believe Randy Cohen would present only negative stories about the Catholic church because Randy Cohen supports abortion. I believe Randy Cohen would present only negative stories about Christians, Conservatives and Republicans because Randy Cohen supports homosexuality and abortion.
Since Randy Cohen is not presenting truth, but rather position and belief, he should not be employed as a news journalist, but rather as an opinion journalist. As a private citizen Randy Cohen can do anything he wants, but not as a journalist.
Maybe news anchors need to start each broadcast by stating, "I am an Atheist, who hates Republicans, now on to the news".
I believe that everyone in America has an opinion, thus the only real way to present news is to have two or more people present their opinion on every news story. The PBS NewsHour is doing this with most issues they discuss.
PS: Maybe I should have started this discussion by stating I am a Christian, Conservative, Republican.
-----------------------------
By Bill Dedman
Investigative reporter
MSNBC
Updated: 5:08 p.m. ET June 25, 2007
TV reporter who supported candidate is out, Cartoonist also let go, and newspaper drops column by Times ethicist
Reporter Calvert Collins, right, is no longer working at an Omaha TV station. MSNBC.com published on Thursday this photo from Facebook.com of her posing with Democratic congressional candidate Jim Esch. She was listed in federal records as giving $500 to Esch, and she urged her friends to vote for him.
------------------------------
The Ethicist - Randy Cohen
Randy Cohen, who writes "The Ethicist" for The New York Times, says donations to MoveOn.org should be allowed if it's OK to give to the Boy Scouts or the Roman Catholic Church. The newspaper in Spokane, Wash., decided on Thursday to drop the ethics column of Randy Cohen, who writes "The Ethicist" for The New York Times. The paper had been scheduled to begin carrying the column this weekend.
"Had he been a Spokesman-Review staff member, he would have faced suspension, at least, for his misstep," editor Steven A. Smith explained. "So, we're dropping the column. We'll look elsewhere for a publishable ethicist."
Cohen had given $585 to MoveOn.org in 2004, when it was organizing get-out-the-vote efforts to defeat Bush. Cohen at first told MSNBC.com that he thought of donating to MoveOn.org as no more out of bounds than giving to the Boy Scouts.
"We admire those colleagues who participate in their communities — help out at the local school, work with Little League, donate to charity," Cohen said in an e-mail. "But no such activity is or can be non-ideological. Few papers would object to a journalist donating to the Boy Scouts or joining the Catholic Church. But the former has an official policy of discriminating against gay children; the latter has views on reproductive rights far more restrictive than those of most Americans. Should reporters be forbidden to support those groups? I'd say not."
The problem with Randy Cohen's thinking is that the news media is a powerful position that can very definitely influence where America goes. I believe Randy Cohen knows his power, has a position and produces propaganda that supports his position.
Propaganda is not truth, because it presents only one side of a story by including certain information and excluding other information..
I believe Randy Cohen would present only negative stories about the Boys Scout because Randy Cohen supports homosexuality. I believe Randy Cohen would present only negative stories about the Catholic church because Randy Cohen supports abortion. I believe Randy Cohen would present only negative stories about Christians, Conservatives and Republicans because Randy Cohen supports homosexuality and abortion.
Since Randy Cohen is not presenting truth, but rather position and belief, he should not be employed as a news journalist, but rather as an opinion journalist. As a private citizen Randy Cohen can do anything he wants, but not as a journalist.
Maybe news anchors need to start each broadcast by stating, "I am an Atheist, who hates Republicans, now on to the news".
I believe that everyone in America has an opinion, thus the only real way to present news is to have two or more people present their opinion on every news story. The PBS NewsHour is doing this with most issues they discuss.
PS: Maybe I should have started this discussion by stating I am a Christian, Conservative, Republican.
-----------------------------
By Bill Dedman
Investigative reporter
MSNBC
Updated: 5:08 p.m. ET June 25, 2007
TV reporter who supported candidate is out, Cartoonist also let go, and newspaper drops column by Times ethicist
Reporter Calvert Collins, right, is no longer working at an Omaha TV station. MSNBC.com published on Thursday this photo from Facebook.com of her posing with Democratic congressional candidate Jim Esch. She was listed in federal records as giving $500 to Esch, and she urged her friends to vote for him.
------------------------------
The Ethicist - Randy Cohen
Randy Cohen, who writes "The Ethicist" for The New York Times, says donations to MoveOn.org should be allowed if it's OK to give to the Boy Scouts or the Roman Catholic Church. The newspaper in Spokane, Wash., decided on Thursday to drop the ethics column of Randy Cohen, who writes "The Ethicist" for The New York Times. The paper had been scheduled to begin carrying the column this weekend.
"Had he been a Spokesman-Review staff member, he would have faced suspension, at least, for his misstep," editor Steven A. Smith explained. "So, we're dropping the column. We'll look elsewhere for a publishable ethicist."
Cohen had given $585 to MoveOn.org in 2004, when it was organizing get-out-the-vote efforts to defeat Bush. Cohen at first told MSNBC.com that he thought of donating to MoveOn.org as no more out of bounds than giving to the Boy Scouts.
"We admire those colleagues who participate in their communities — help out at the local school, work with Little League, donate to charity," Cohen said in an e-mail. "But no such activity is or can be non-ideological. Few papers would object to a journalist donating to the Boy Scouts or joining the Catholic Church. But the former has an official policy of discriminating against gay children; the latter has views on reproductive rights far more restrictive than those of most Americans. Should reporters be forbidden to support those groups? I'd say not."
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Code of Ethics for Journalists
Code of Ethics for Journalists
A Code of Ethics exists for journalists, the problem is that it is totally voluntary and there are no penalties associated with the code.
A) Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics
Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.
Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should:
* Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
* Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
* Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
* Always question sources' motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
* Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
* Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
* Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
* Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
* Never plagiarize.
* Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
* Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
* Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
* Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
* Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
* Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
* Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
* Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.
Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should:
* Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
* Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
* Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
* Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.
* Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
* Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
* Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
* Balance a criminal suspect's fair trial rights with the public's right to be informed.
Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.
Journalists should:
* Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
* Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
* Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
* Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
* Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
* Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
* Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.
Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.
Journalists should:
* Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
* Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
* Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
* Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
* Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
B) Recommended Additions to Code of Ethics
1) All news stories must have a peer review and sign-off before publication. This is a normal Quality Assurance process for all business.
2) All news stories will contain comparative information if available. If the item is a common occurrence it should be stated. If the same thing has happened before the relative magnitude must be stated. A part of the comparative information should be an evaluation of previous situations. The democrats have totally failed to do almost everything, but when the Republicans do something they get criticized because they do not do it perfectly.
3) The number of people represented by a news story must be stated. 20 people can be made to look like a football stadium is full but represent only .00001 percent of the population thus distorting the presentation.
3) All news stories will have data presented in as many ways as possible in order that it be as clear as possible. Usually percentages are a better representation than numbers. To state a particular number can be misleading. 1000 deaths many seem large, but not out of 200 million people.
4) The source of all information used in a news story must be identified.
5) Credibility information must be presented for all sources of information. A terrorist account of an event is not as credible as the soldiers.
6) Only news (events) should be reported, thus speculation of future events should be eliminated.
7) Views by news anchors and reporters should be eliminated. Reports by differing opinions should be presented in a balanced manner.
8) News Media people must stay out of politics/social issues. No money, time, endorsements, etc. should be made available to political/social causes by News Media people.
9) Reporters are required to immediately report to authorities any illegal activity they discover. The first responsibility of any reporter is to assure the proper authorities are notified and that any possible help be rendered, then begin filming or reporting. The news media knew what was happening in New Orleans but failed to report to local and federal authorities. Instead the kept the cameras running to get good film footage.
C) Penalties for Violation of Code of Ethics
The main reason the news media has been able to get away with trash has been the reluctance of the judicial system to take action against the news media because of the freedom of the press Constitutional issue. A lot of the item that are involved are political in nature, so there is a question of who used who.
The Republicans have never been successful proving the news media is biased, and the democrats get the benefit so nothing ever gets done. I believe the real harm is the American people who do not get the best government possible because of the news media bias so it is the America people that should be allowed to sue and who should be allowed to sue the news media.
The news media is big business and get more money for more bazaar things. The news media is basically a pornography distributor because they play on the base nature of humans to see bloody images and hear stories of weird sexual events.
It is time consuming to prove that something is a half-truth or a fabrication. Most people do not have the time to spend on investigations, where their results will never be paid for. Fines punish the guilty and reward the person that did the investigative work.
Fines/Damages
(to be awarded by court and paid to the person that exposed the situation)
$1,000,000 for proof of Treason - New York Times Wire Tap and Money Tracking Stories
$100,000 for fabricated lie - Dan Rather story about Bush
$10,000 for failure to research sources -
$1000 for violation of Code of Ethics
The person who revealed the letter that Dan Rather used against President Bush was produced by a word processor and not a typewriter should have been paid $100,000.
With fines and rewards to people who investigate the news media, there will be an effective check and balance that is defiantly needed.
D) Need for National Association for Responsible Journalism - NARJ
A Code of Ethics should be required by congress, but neither Republicans nor democrats will tackle this issue and private citizens do not have the time or money to pursue the court battle that will be required to get a Code of Ethics in place.
A Code of Ethics needs to be established and all journalists held accountable to that Code of Ethics.
I am establishing a NARJ to pay individuals for proof of Code of Ethics violation and to pay for legal fees to get a Code of Ethics established by suing relative to a Code of Ethics that should be in place. If the lawsuit is won, the Code of Ethics now has legal standing.
If you would like to support the NARJ, please respond to this blog.
http://narj-clirus.blogspot.com/
A Code of Ethics exists for journalists, the problem is that it is totally voluntary and there are no penalties associated with the code.
A) Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics
Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.
Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should:
* Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
* Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
* Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
* Always question sources' motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
* Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
* Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
* Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
* Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
* Never plagiarize.
* Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
* Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
* Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
* Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
* Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
* Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
* Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
* Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.
Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should:
* Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
* Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
* Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
* Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.
* Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
* Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
* Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
* Balance a criminal suspect's fair trial rights with the public's right to be informed.
Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.
Journalists should:
* Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
* Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
* Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
* Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
* Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
* Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
* Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.
Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.
Journalists should:
* Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
* Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
* Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
* Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
* Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
B) Recommended Additions to Code of Ethics
1) All news stories must have a peer review and sign-off before publication. This is a normal Quality Assurance process for all business.
2) All news stories will contain comparative information if available. If the item is a common occurrence it should be stated. If the same thing has happened before the relative magnitude must be stated. A part of the comparative information should be an evaluation of previous situations. The democrats have totally failed to do almost everything, but when the Republicans do something they get criticized because they do not do it perfectly.
3) The number of people represented by a news story must be stated. 20 people can be made to look like a football stadium is full but represent only .00001 percent of the population thus distorting the presentation.
3) All news stories will have data presented in as many ways as possible in order that it be as clear as possible. Usually percentages are a better representation than numbers. To state a particular number can be misleading. 1000 deaths many seem large, but not out of 200 million people.
4) The source of all information used in a news story must be identified.
5) Credibility information must be presented for all sources of information. A terrorist account of an event is not as credible as the soldiers.
6) Only news (events) should be reported, thus speculation of future events should be eliminated.
7) Views by news anchors and reporters should be eliminated. Reports by differing opinions should be presented in a balanced manner.
8) News Media people must stay out of politics/social issues. No money, time, endorsements, etc. should be made available to political/social causes by News Media people.
9) Reporters are required to immediately report to authorities any illegal activity they discover. The first responsibility of any reporter is to assure the proper authorities are notified and that any possible help be rendered, then begin filming or reporting. The news media knew what was happening in New Orleans but failed to report to local and federal authorities. Instead the kept the cameras running to get good film footage.
C) Penalties for Violation of Code of Ethics
The main reason the news media has been able to get away with trash has been the reluctance of the judicial system to take action against the news media because of the freedom of the press Constitutional issue. A lot of the item that are involved are political in nature, so there is a question of who used who.
The Republicans have never been successful proving the news media is biased, and the democrats get the benefit so nothing ever gets done. I believe the real harm is the American people who do not get the best government possible because of the news media bias so it is the America people that should be allowed to sue and who should be allowed to sue the news media.
The news media is big business and get more money for more bazaar things. The news media is basically a pornography distributor because they play on the base nature of humans to see bloody images and hear stories of weird sexual events.
It is time consuming to prove that something is a half-truth or a fabrication. Most people do not have the time to spend on investigations, where their results will never be paid for. Fines punish the guilty and reward the person that did the investigative work.
Fines/Damages
(to be awarded by court and paid to the person that exposed the situation)
$1,000,000 for proof of Treason - New York Times Wire Tap and Money Tracking Stories
$100,000 for fabricated lie - Dan Rather story about Bush
$10,000 for failure to research sources -
$1000 for violation of Code of Ethics
The person who revealed the letter that Dan Rather used against President Bush was produced by a word processor and not a typewriter should have been paid $100,000.
With fines and rewards to people who investigate the news media, there will be an effective check and balance that is defiantly needed.
D) Need for National Association for Responsible Journalism - NARJ
A Code of Ethics should be required by congress, but neither Republicans nor democrats will tackle this issue and private citizens do not have the time or money to pursue the court battle that will be required to get a Code of Ethics in place.
A Code of Ethics needs to be established and all journalists held accountable to that Code of Ethics.
I am establishing a NARJ to pay individuals for proof of Code of Ethics violation and to pay for legal fees to get a Code of Ethics established by suing relative to a Code of Ethics that should be in place. If the lawsuit is won, the Code of Ethics now has legal standing.
If you would like to support the NARJ, please respond to this blog.
http://narj-clirus.blogspot.com/
Friday, June 22, 2007
News Media Bias
News Media Bias
Further proof of the bias of the news media, and the need for a mandatary enforced Code of Ethics for Journalists. A Code of Ethics exists, but it is voluntary.
Every major occupation has a Code of Ethics, except journalists.
http://narj-clirus.blogspot.com/
---------------------------
MSNBC.com investigative reporter Bill Dedman
Bill Dedman
Investigative reporter
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455
The following 144 journalists made campaign contributions from 2004 through the first quarter of 2007, according to Federal Election Commission records studied by MSNBC.com.
MSNBC.com checked the Federal Election Commission records from January 2004 through the first quarter of 2007 and attempted to contact each journalist. If a person donated during that period, earlier donations are also listed here.
MSNBC.com limited its search to:
— Federal candidates, PACs and parties, not state or local campaigns.
— The period January 2004 through the first quarter of this year.
— Donors in news jobs, not corporate executives or publishers, who are allowed by nearly every news organization to donate.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/
MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
But with polls showing the public losing faith in the ability of journalists to give the news straight up, some major newspapers and TV networks are clamping down. They now prohibit all political activity — aside from voting — no matter whether the journalist covers baseball or proofreads the obituaries. The Times in 2003 banned all donations, with editors scouring the FEC records regularly to watch for in-house donors. In 2005, The Chicago Tribune made its policy absolute. CBS did the same last fall. And The Atlantic Monthly, where a senior editor gave $500 to the Democratic Party in 2004, says it is considering banning all donations. After MSNBC.com contacted Salon.com about donations by a reporter and a former executive editor, this week Salon banned donations for all its staff.
What changed? First came the conservative outcry labeling the mainstream media as carrying a liberal bias. The growth of talk radio and cable slugfests gave voice to that claim. The Iraq war fueled distrust of the press from both sides. Finally, it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors.
Further proof of the bias of the news media, and the need for a mandatary enforced Code of Ethics for Journalists. A Code of Ethics exists, but it is voluntary.
Every major occupation has a Code of Ethics, except journalists.
http://narj-clirus.blogspot.com/
---------------------------
MSNBC.com investigative reporter Bill Dedman
Bill Dedman
Investigative reporter
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455
The following 144 journalists made campaign contributions from 2004 through the first quarter of 2007, according to Federal Election Commission records studied by MSNBC.com.
MSNBC.com checked the Federal Election Commission records from January 2004 through the first quarter of 2007 and attempted to contact each journalist. If a person donated during that period, earlier donations are also listed here.
MSNBC.com limited its search to:
— Federal candidates, PACs and parties, not state or local campaigns.
— The period January 2004 through the first quarter of this year.
— Donors in news jobs, not corporate executives or publishers, who are allowed by nearly every news organization to donate.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/
MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
But with polls showing the public losing faith in the ability of journalists to give the news straight up, some major newspapers and TV networks are clamping down. They now prohibit all political activity — aside from voting — no matter whether the journalist covers baseball or proofreads the obituaries. The Times in 2003 banned all donations, with editors scouring the FEC records regularly to watch for in-house donors. In 2005, The Chicago Tribune made its policy absolute. CBS did the same last fall. And The Atlantic Monthly, where a senior editor gave $500 to the Democratic Party in 2004, says it is considering banning all donations. After MSNBC.com contacted Salon.com about donations by a reporter and a former executive editor, this week Salon banned donations for all its staff.
What changed? First came the conservative outcry labeling the mainstream media as carrying a liberal bias. The growth of talk radio and cable slugfests gave voice to that claim. The Iraq war fueled distrust of the press from both sides. Finally, it became easier for the blogging public to look up the donors.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Media Bias
Media Bias
A BBC spokeswoman said: "This report is about looking forward and how we are going to face the challenges of impartiality in the modern world."
This should be a report to schools of journalism all over the world that ask how the schools are going to teach impartiality instead of bias.
I believe the PBS Newshour format is the best available for now. The PBS Newshour format is to bring in two people (not journalists) of opposing views on a news subject and let the two answer questions posed by the news reporter. This is an honest format if the opposing views are not affiliated to PBS.
Other formats have tried having opposing views presented by paid news staff, but the views always seem to be in support of the position taken by the people that pay them.
-------------------------------------------
BBC report finds bias within corporation
By Gary Cleland
Last Updated: 1:09am BST 18/06/2007
The BBC has failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff, a report commissioned by the corporation has concluded.
The report claims that coverage of single-issue political causes, such as climate change and poverty, can be biased - and is particularly critical of Live 8 coverage, which it says amounted to endorsement.
It warns that celebrities must not be pandered to and allowed to hijack the BBC schedule.
advertisement
After a year-long investigation the report, published today, maintains that the corporation's coverage of day-to-day politics is fair and impartial.
But it says coverage of Live 8, the 2005 anti-poverty concerts organised by rock star campaigners Bob Geldof and Bono and writer Richard Curtis, failed to properly debate the issues raised.
Instead, at a time when the corporation was renegotiating its charter with the government, it allowed itself to effectively become a promotional tool for Live 8, which was strongly supported by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Geldof, Bono and Curtis were attempting to pressure world leaders at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles, which was taking place at the same time, to help reduce poverty in developing countries under the banner 'Make Poverty History'.
Mr Blair said the campaign was a "mighty achievement". The huge Live 8 concerts across the world were its culmination and the BBC cleared its schedules to show them, with coverage on BBC One, Two and Three and Radio One and Two.
Around the same time it also screened a specially-written episode of Curtis's popular sitcom The Vicar of Dibley that featured a minute long Make Poverty History video and saw characters urged to support it. And it aired another Curtis drama, The Girl in the Café, in which Bill Nighy falls in love with an anti-poverty campaigner - even giving Gordon Brown an advance copy.
The BBC also ran a week long Africa special featuring a series of documentaries by Geldof and a day celebrating the National Health Service, prompting Sky News political editor Adam Boulton to tell a House of Lords select committee it was in danger of peddling government propaganda.
The report concludes BBC staff must be more willing to challenge their own beliefs.
It reads: "There is a tendency to 'group think' with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone."
A staff impartiality seminar held last year is also documented in the report, at which executives admitted they would broadcast images of the Bible being thrown away but not the Koran, in case Muslims were offended.
During the seminar a senior BBC reporter criticised the corporation for being anti-American.
The report was jointly commissioned by BBC managers and the board of governors and will be published by the BBC Trust, which has since replaced the governors.
It has been approved by a committee headed by BBC trustee and former ITN editor-in-chief Richard Tait. Other members include BBC deputy director-general Mark Byford, head of BBC News Helen Boaden and creative director Alan Yentob.
Writing in The Observer yesterday, Mr Tait said that "the BBC cannot allow its output to be taken over by campaigning groups" and added: "At the BBC impartiality is and must remain non-negotiable because it is vital to safeguard the BBC's independence."
The report offers 12 new principles for the corporation to adopt to safeguard its impartiality.
These include: "Impartiality is no excuse for insipid programming. It allows room for fair-minded, evidence-based judgements by senior journalists and documentary-makers, and for controversial, passionate and polemical arguments by contributors and writers."
A BBC spokeswoman said: "This report is about looking forward and how we are going to face the challenges of impartiality in the modern world."
A BBC spokeswoman said: "This report is about looking forward and how we are going to face the challenges of impartiality in the modern world."
This should be a report to schools of journalism all over the world that ask how the schools are going to teach impartiality instead of bias.
I believe the PBS Newshour format is the best available for now. The PBS Newshour format is to bring in two people (not journalists) of opposing views on a news subject and let the two answer questions posed by the news reporter. This is an honest format if the opposing views are not affiliated to PBS.
Other formats have tried having opposing views presented by paid news staff, but the views always seem to be in support of the position taken by the people that pay them.
-------------------------------------------
BBC report finds bias within corporation
By Gary Cleland
Last Updated: 1:09am BST 18/06/2007
The BBC has failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff, a report commissioned by the corporation has concluded.
The report claims that coverage of single-issue political causes, such as climate change and poverty, can be biased - and is particularly critical of Live 8 coverage, which it says amounted to endorsement.
It warns that celebrities must not be pandered to and allowed to hijack the BBC schedule.
advertisement
After a year-long investigation the report, published today, maintains that the corporation's coverage of day-to-day politics is fair and impartial.
But it says coverage of Live 8, the 2005 anti-poverty concerts organised by rock star campaigners Bob Geldof and Bono and writer Richard Curtis, failed to properly debate the issues raised.
Instead, at a time when the corporation was renegotiating its charter with the government, it allowed itself to effectively become a promotional tool for Live 8, which was strongly supported by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Geldof, Bono and Curtis were attempting to pressure world leaders at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles, which was taking place at the same time, to help reduce poverty in developing countries under the banner 'Make Poverty History'.
Mr Blair said the campaign was a "mighty achievement". The huge Live 8 concerts across the world were its culmination and the BBC cleared its schedules to show them, with coverage on BBC One, Two and Three and Radio One and Two.
Around the same time it also screened a specially-written episode of Curtis's popular sitcom The Vicar of Dibley that featured a minute long Make Poverty History video and saw characters urged to support it. And it aired another Curtis drama, The Girl in the Café, in which Bill Nighy falls in love with an anti-poverty campaigner - even giving Gordon Brown an advance copy.
The BBC also ran a week long Africa special featuring a series of documentaries by Geldof and a day celebrating the National Health Service, prompting Sky News political editor Adam Boulton to tell a House of Lords select committee it was in danger of peddling government propaganda.
The report concludes BBC staff must be more willing to challenge their own beliefs.
It reads: "There is a tendency to 'group think' with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone."
A staff impartiality seminar held last year is also documented in the report, at which executives admitted they would broadcast images of the Bible being thrown away but not the Koran, in case Muslims were offended.
During the seminar a senior BBC reporter criticised the corporation for being anti-American.
The report was jointly commissioned by BBC managers and the board of governors and will be published by the BBC Trust, which has since replaced the governors.
It has been approved by a committee headed by BBC trustee and former ITN editor-in-chief Richard Tait. Other members include BBC deputy director-general Mark Byford, head of BBC News Helen Boaden and creative director Alan Yentob.
Writing in The Observer yesterday, Mr Tait said that "the BBC cannot allow its output to be taken over by campaigning groups" and added: "At the BBC impartiality is and must remain non-negotiable because it is vital to safeguard the BBC's independence."
The report offers 12 new principles for the corporation to adopt to safeguard its impartiality.
These include: "Impartiality is no excuse for insipid programming. It allows room for fair-minded, evidence-based judgements by senior journalists and documentary-makers, and for controversial, passionate and polemical arguments by contributors and writers."
A BBC spokeswoman said: "This report is about looking forward and how we are going to face the challenges of impartiality in the modern world."
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
WIKIPEDIA Support
WIKIPEDIA Support
Would seem WIKIPEDIA supports the Atheistic Liberal News Media accusation that I present.
I do not accept the concept that biased reporting is protected under the freedom of the press in the Constitution. It is free speech, but nothing more.
People should be allowed to sue the news media for liable, slander, etc.
http://narj-clirus.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
Claims of a liberal bias
Liberal bias in the media is the result of liberal principles and ideas influencing the coverage or selection of news stories.
Critics of the media say this bias exists within a wide variety of media channels including network news shows of CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN and MSNBC as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially CBS News, the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, the Associated Press, and National Public Radio.[13]
ABC News political director Mark Halperin supports the concept of a liberal media bias, saying that as individuals most journalists, and news producers, hold liberal political views and that these views affect their reporting.[14] In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party.[15]
A 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College, Press Bias and Politics, investigated the issue of media bias. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers found that the mainstream press in America tends to favor liberal viewpoints.[16] They found that reporters expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often labeled as holding a minority point of view.[16] Kuypers said he found liberal bias in reporting a variety of issues including race, welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control.[16]
Would seem WIKIPEDIA supports the Atheistic Liberal News Media accusation that I present.
I do not accept the concept that biased reporting is protected under the freedom of the press in the Constitution. It is free speech, but nothing more.
People should be allowed to sue the news media for liable, slander, etc.
http://narj-clirus.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States
Claims of a liberal bias
Liberal bias in the media is the result of liberal principles and ideas influencing the coverage or selection of news stories.
Critics of the media say this bias exists within a wide variety of media channels including network news shows of CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN and MSNBC as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially CBS News, the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, the Associated Press, and National Public Radio.[13]
ABC News political director Mark Halperin supports the concept of a liberal media bias, saying that as individuals most journalists, and news producers, hold liberal political views and that these views affect their reporting.[14] In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party.[15]
A 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College, Press Bias and Politics, investigated the issue of media bias. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers found that the mainstream press in America tends to favor liberal viewpoints.[16] They found that reporters expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often labeled as holding a minority point of view.[16] Kuypers said he found liberal bias in reporting a variety of issues including race, welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control.[16]
Saturday, June 9, 2007
What ever happened to Cindy Sheehan?
What ever happened to Cindy Sheehan?
There was a time that Cindy Sheehan was a major news maker. That time was when she was criticizing Republicans. The minute she started criticizing democrats, she became a ugly stepchild. When Cindy Sheehan was no longer a useful idiot, the Atheistic Liberal News Media dumped her.
Just further proof of the Atheistic Liberal News Media involvement in the Cultural War in America.
There is a cultural war in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.
There was a time that Cindy Sheehan was a major news maker. That time was when she was criticizing Republicans. The minute she started criticizing democrats, she became a ugly stepchild. When Cindy Sheehan was no longer a useful idiot, the Atheistic Liberal News Media dumped her.
Just further proof of the Atheistic Liberal News Media involvement in the Cultural War in America.
There is a cultural war in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Cindy Sheehan
Cindy Sheehan
Well at least Cindy Sheehan finally recognized the truth that even a war can be used as a political tool.
There is a cultural war in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.
Democrats supported the Iraq War until they saw it could be used a political tool to gain control of the government. That is why there should be news media censorship during a war. Censorship allowed America to win WW II. Since then, the deaths have been unacceptable because there was not a real commitment to win, and doing whatever it takes to win.
I would like see Cindy Sheehan devote her time to making sure America never enters into another war except that there be a full Declaration of War as defined by the Constitution.
The death of any soldier that occurs without the total commitment to win by those who sent them into battle is a worthless death. Better to surrender to the enemy when attacked, then to enter into battle without a total commitment to win.
"Good Riddance Attention Whore"
by CindySheehan
Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:57:01 AM PDT
I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called "Face" of the American anti-war movement. Especially since I renounced any tie I have remaining with the Democratic Party, I have been further trashed on such "liberal blogs" as the Democratic Underground. Being called an "attention whore" and being told "good riddance" are some of the more milder rebukes.
CindySheehan's diary :: ::
I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day Morning. These are not spur of the moment reflections, but things I have been meditating on for about a year now. The conclusions that I have slowly and very reluctantly come to are very heartbreaking to me.
The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a "tool" of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our "two-party" system?
However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the "left" started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of "right or left", but "right and wrong."
I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don't find alternatives to this corrupt "two" party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland. I am demonized because I don't see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person's heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?
I have also reached the conclusion that if I am doing what I am doing because I am an "attention whore" then I really need to be committed. I have invested everything I have into trying to bring peace with justice to a country that wants neither. If an individual wants both, then normally he/she is not willing to do more than walk in a protest march or sit behind his/her computer criticizing others. I have spent every available cent I got from the money a "grateful" country gave me when they killed my son and every penny that I have received in speaking or book fees since then. I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage and have traveled for extended periods of time away from Casey's brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering innocent human beings. I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times.
The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.
I have also tried to work within a peace movement that often puts personal egos above peace and human life. This group won't work with that group; he won't attend an event if she is going to be there; and why does Cindy Sheehan get all the attention anyway? It is hard to work for peace when the very movement that is named after it has so many divisions.
Our brave young men and women in Iraq have been abandoned there indefinitely by their cowardly leaders who move them around like pawns on a chessboard of destruction and the people of Iraq have been doomed to death and fates worse than death by people worried more about elections than people. However, in five, ten, or fifteen years, our troops will come limping home in another abject defeat and ten or twenty years from then, our children's children will be seeing their loved ones die for no reason, because their grandparents also bought into this corrupt system. George Bush will never be impeached because if the Democrats dig too deeply, they may unearth a few skeletons in their own graves and the system will perpetuate itself in perpetuity.
I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost. I will try to maintain and nurture some very positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble.
Camp Casey has served its purpose. It's for sale. Anyone want to buy five beautiful acres in Crawford , Texas ? I will consider any reasonable offer. I hear George Bush will be moving out soon, too...which makes the property even more valuable.
This is my resignation letter as the "face" of the American anti-war movement. This is not my "Checkers" moment, because I will never give up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this system. This system forcefully resists being helped and eats up the people who try to help it. I am getting out before it totally consumes me or anymore people that I love and the rest of my resources.
Good-bye America ...you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can't make you be that country unless you want it.
It's up to you now.
Well at least Cindy Sheehan finally recognized the truth that even a war can be used as a political tool.
There is a cultural war in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.
Democrats supported the Iraq War until they saw it could be used a political tool to gain control of the government. That is why there should be news media censorship during a war. Censorship allowed America to win WW II. Since then, the deaths have been unacceptable because there was not a real commitment to win, and doing whatever it takes to win.
I would like see Cindy Sheehan devote her time to making sure America never enters into another war except that there be a full Declaration of War as defined by the Constitution.
The death of any soldier that occurs without the total commitment to win by those who sent them into battle is a worthless death. Better to surrender to the enemy when attacked, then to enter into battle without a total commitment to win.
"Good Riddance Attention Whore"
by CindySheehan
Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:57:01 AM PDT
I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called "Face" of the American anti-war movement. Especially since I renounced any tie I have remaining with the Democratic Party, I have been further trashed on such "liberal blogs" as the Democratic Underground. Being called an "attention whore" and being told "good riddance" are some of the more milder rebukes.
CindySheehan's diary :: ::
I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day Morning. These are not spur of the moment reflections, but things I have been meditating on for about a year now. The conclusions that I have slowly and very reluctantly come to are very heartbreaking to me.
The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a "tool" of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our "two-party" system?
However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the "left" started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of "right or left", but "right and wrong."
I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don't find alternatives to this corrupt "two" party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland. I am demonized because I don't see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person's heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?
I have also reached the conclusion that if I am doing what I am doing because I am an "attention whore" then I really need to be committed. I have invested everything I have into trying to bring peace with justice to a country that wants neither. If an individual wants both, then normally he/she is not willing to do more than walk in a protest march or sit behind his/her computer criticizing others. I have spent every available cent I got from the money a "grateful" country gave me when they killed my son and every penny that I have received in speaking or book fees since then. I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage and have traveled for extended periods of time away from Casey's brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering innocent human beings. I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times.
The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.
I have also tried to work within a peace movement that often puts personal egos above peace and human life. This group won't work with that group; he won't attend an event if she is going to be there; and why does Cindy Sheehan get all the attention anyway? It is hard to work for peace when the very movement that is named after it has so many divisions.
Our brave young men and women in Iraq have been abandoned there indefinitely by their cowardly leaders who move them around like pawns on a chessboard of destruction and the people of Iraq have been doomed to death and fates worse than death by people worried more about elections than people. However, in five, ten, or fifteen years, our troops will come limping home in another abject defeat and ten or twenty years from then, our children's children will be seeing their loved ones die for no reason, because their grandparents also bought into this corrupt system. George Bush will never be impeached because if the Democrats dig too deeply, they may unearth a few skeletons in their own graves and the system will perpetuate itself in perpetuity.
I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost. I will try to maintain and nurture some very positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble.
Camp Casey has served its purpose. It's for sale. Anyone want to buy five beautiful acres in Crawford , Texas ? I will consider any reasonable offer. I hear George Bush will be moving out soon, too...which makes the property even more valuable.
This is my resignation letter as the "face" of the American anti-war movement. This is not my "Checkers" moment, because I will never give up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this system. This system forcefully resists being helped and eats up the people who try to help it. I am getting out before it totally consumes me or anymore people that I love and the rest of my resources.
Good-bye America ...you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can't make you be that country unless you want it.
It's up to you now.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Failure - WMD Blame Game
Failure - WMD Blame Game
George Tenet is not turning out to be what the news media wants. The news media wanted George Tenet to admit that he and the Bush Administration deceived the news media and the American public with deliberate lies about what was going on in Iraq. George Tenet simply states he did the best he could do and the Bush Administration did the best they could do based on the available information.
The news media wants to blame Tenet and Bush because they hate Christians, Conservatives and Republicans and want to use the Iraq War to get democrats back in control of the government. They also want to blame Tenet and Bush to cover up the failure of the news media. The failure of the news media was not in the Bush Administration, but rather in the Clinton Administration. The concept of WMDs began in the Clinton Administration and everyone accepted that fact as long as the WMDs were being used to maintain sanctions on Iraq. The news media never questioned the accuracy of the Clinton Administration statements because the news media has a bias that favors democrats. When the concept of WMDs was used as a bases to attack Iraq, it was not questioned but rather accepted by almost everyone. It was only after WMDs were not found did the blame game begin.
This whole thing is embarrassing to the news media because it disproves the concept of the news media being an effective investigative organization and proves the news media is biased.
The news media needs to get off Bush's back, and get behind Bush in winning the War on Terrorism. Apologizing to the American people would be appropriate, but I doubt that is going to occur.
George Tenet is not turning out to be what the news media wants. The news media wanted George Tenet to admit that he and the Bush Administration deceived the news media and the American public with deliberate lies about what was going on in Iraq. George Tenet simply states he did the best he could do and the Bush Administration did the best they could do based on the available information.
The news media wants to blame Tenet and Bush because they hate Christians, Conservatives and Republicans and want to use the Iraq War to get democrats back in control of the government. They also want to blame Tenet and Bush to cover up the failure of the news media. The failure of the news media was not in the Bush Administration, but rather in the Clinton Administration. The concept of WMDs began in the Clinton Administration and everyone accepted that fact as long as the WMDs were being used to maintain sanctions on Iraq. The news media never questioned the accuracy of the Clinton Administration statements because the news media has a bias that favors democrats. When the concept of WMDs was used as a bases to attack Iraq, it was not questioned but rather accepted by almost everyone. It was only after WMDs were not found did the blame game begin.
This whole thing is embarrassing to the news media because it disproves the concept of the news media being an effective investigative organization and proves the news media is biased.
The news media needs to get off Bush's back, and get behind Bush in winning the War on Terrorism. Apologizing to the American people would be appropriate, but I doubt that is going to occur.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Jim Lehrer and the PBS News Hour
Jim Lehrer and the PBS News Hour
Last night in an interview with George Tenent I heard Jim Lehrer make the statement that Iraq was a terrible war.
What is written here is a criticism of Jim Lehrer, but in comparison to other journalists, Jim Lehrer is excellent. The ABC, NBC and CBS journalists are a part of the Atheistic Liberal News Media that are a part of the Cultural War in America.
My first question is. Does Jim Lehrer as a reporter have a right to have or express such an opinion?. Shouldn't reporters be reporters of the facts?. I believe any facts reported by a biased reporter will be only facts that support the bias thus not the whole truth.
My second question is. A terrible war relative to what? The Iraq War is going better than the Vietnam War. The Iraq War is going much better than WW II (so far we have not had to do a Dresden fire storm bombing of any Iraqi city or use any nuclear weapons).
The implication of all of Jim Lehrer's questions is that America should never have got into the Iraq War.
My first question is. Have you ever heard of the old saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Saddam and Al Quida may not have been kissing buddies, but they had a common goal and that was to destroy Israel and America. There may be a lot of differences between Arabs, but they unite when they have a common enemy. So yes, Iraq was an enemy.
My second question is. What is the center of the Middle East. Geographically, religiously and politically the center of the Middle East is Bagdad. Bagdad is where all three sects (Sunni, Shiites and Kurds) come together. You solve the problem in Iraq and you solve the problem in the Middle East. If you don't solve the Iraq problem, the next attack on America is assured.
A specific statement by Jim Lehrer was that by military action against Iraq, Al Quida had been strengthened. I do not see that. Al Quida still exists, but the terrorist attacks have been eliminated. Several terrorists attacks have been attempted, but the tight knit Al Quida network has been crippled. Also, Al Quida has become an embarrassment to the leaders of the Islamic religion. There have been several meetings where it is obvious that the extreme positions are being rejected. Further and further the Islamic extremists are being pushed into Iran, the final sanctuary. With Iran being isolated by the Islamic religion, and worldwide sanctions, it will be a slow but sure death. The only alternative to a slow death of Iran is massive military action.
Jim Lehrer brought up the subject of there not being any WMDs found in Iraq. This was a great failure of the American News Media. The concept of WMDs was created in the Clinton Administration and noone in the News Media questioned WMDs so long as they were being used to keep economic sanctions on Iraq. If the New Media would have investigated, they would have know and presented to the American people that WMDs were no longer in Iraq.
Anybody that says the problem was just Bin Laden is hiding their head in the sand. The problem has always been the Islamic Terrorists of the Middle East.
Overall, I believe the American school system has failed the news media because the news media obviously does not know what war is and how war is waged. Thus they are not qualified to report the Iraq War.
The obviously biased attitude by Jim Lehrer is proof that there should be censorship of the news media during any military conflict, because anything that does not bring the war to a swift conclusion causes increased deaths of American soldiers.
I wonder if the news media will ever have the courage to admit that President Bush was right on Iraq and the Middle East.
Last night in an interview with George Tenent I heard Jim Lehrer make the statement that Iraq was a terrible war.
What is written here is a criticism of Jim Lehrer, but in comparison to other journalists, Jim Lehrer is excellent. The ABC, NBC and CBS journalists are a part of the Atheistic Liberal News Media that are a part of the Cultural War in America.
My first question is. Does Jim Lehrer as a reporter have a right to have or express such an opinion?. Shouldn't reporters be reporters of the facts?. I believe any facts reported by a biased reporter will be only facts that support the bias thus not the whole truth.
My second question is. A terrible war relative to what? The Iraq War is going better than the Vietnam War. The Iraq War is going much better than WW II (so far we have not had to do a Dresden fire storm bombing of any Iraqi city or use any nuclear weapons).
The implication of all of Jim Lehrer's questions is that America should never have got into the Iraq War.
My first question is. Have you ever heard of the old saying, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Saddam and Al Quida may not have been kissing buddies, but they had a common goal and that was to destroy Israel and America. There may be a lot of differences between Arabs, but they unite when they have a common enemy. So yes, Iraq was an enemy.
My second question is. What is the center of the Middle East. Geographically, religiously and politically the center of the Middle East is Bagdad. Bagdad is where all three sects (Sunni, Shiites and Kurds) come together. You solve the problem in Iraq and you solve the problem in the Middle East. If you don't solve the Iraq problem, the next attack on America is assured.
A specific statement by Jim Lehrer was that by military action against Iraq, Al Quida had been strengthened. I do not see that. Al Quida still exists, but the terrorist attacks have been eliminated. Several terrorists attacks have been attempted, but the tight knit Al Quida network has been crippled. Also, Al Quida has become an embarrassment to the leaders of the Islamic religion. There have been several meetings where it is obvious that the extreme positions are being rejected. Further and further the Islamic extremists are being pushed into Iran, the final sanctuary. With Iran being isolated by the Islamic religion, and worldwide sanctions, it will be a slow but sure death. The only alternative to a slow death of Iran is massive military action.
Jim Lehrer brought up the subject of there not being any WMDs found in Iraq. This was a great failure of the American News Media. The concept of WMDs was created in the Clinton Administration and noone in the News Media questioned WMDs so long as they were being used to keep economic sanctions on Iraq. If the New Media would have investigated, they would have know and presented to the American people that WMDs were no longer in Iraq.
Anybody that says the problem was just Bin Laden is hiding their head in the sand. The problem has always been the Islamic Terrorists of the Middle East.
Overall, I believe the American school system has failed the news media because the news media obviously does not know what war is and how war is waged. Thus they are not qualified to report the Iraq War.
The obviously biased attitude by Jim Lehrer is proof that there should be censorship of the news media during any military conflict, because anything that does not bring the war to a swift conclusion causes increased deaths of American soldiers.
I wonder if the news media will ever have the courage to admit that President Bush was right on Iraq and the Middle East.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
The PBS NewsHour News Format
The PBS NewsHour News Format
The concept of anything being perfect will never occur, thus it is necessary to support that which is the best of what is available.
At this time I believe the NewsHour News Format to be the best available. That format is basically; 1) a news summary, 2) a news story debate by a pro and a con moderated by a NewsHour person, and 3) some final commentary.
The best part of this format is that there is a debate by a person on both sides of an issue so that both sides get representation instead of the journalist making a decision and presenting only one side of the story.
There are still many weaknesses with the NewsHour News Format.
1) The debate should be between two people that represent both sides of the issue. If the NewsHour stacks the debate toward one side or the other, then this is no better than the ABC, NBC and CBS one sided presentation of their opinion of the world. Too often I see the NewsHour get people from the Washington, DC area. I would suggest a much wider selection.
2) The moderator must be very careful not to bias the debate by showing favoritism to one side or the other. If favoritism is shown by the moderator it will be difficult to get people to go in the show. A lot of good people do not get involved with the news media because the news media purposely makes them look bad so the other side of the issue (the side the news media supports) wins. If a person knows there opinion will be respected, I believe there could be some very interesting dialog.
3) The final commentary should be between equally qualified people. Mark Shields is the perfect liberal democrat and I believe the NewsHour prevents good Republican people from the discussion to make sure Mark Shields and the democrats control the agenda.
There are still many people at PBS who are so biased it is silly. Guen Ifill is so liberal it is pitiful. Mark Shields is a raving liberal democrat. Bill Moyer is a confused Christian that has been led astray by the liberals.
There are no conservative commentary show on PBS. The only one that got started, "The Wall Street Review" was quickly canceled. The liberal commentary shows are, Washington Week, NOW, McLaughlin Group, To the Contrary, etc. Charlie Rose does at least present many people and different views, but Charlie is so anti Iraq War it is pitiful.
PBS does have some excellent shows. Frontline and NOVA are excellent. NATURE is a good show, but it is so antireligious (evolution) it is pitiful.
I make a final appeal relative to fairness, and that is that religious people be included in all discussions. The news media has driven religious people out of the market place of ideas, but religion is an absolute essential to a sane civil society. The Iraq War is poorly understood because the news media does not understand the religious background.
Actually, the news media has driven many people out of the market place of ideas. I have seen journalists absolutely degrade people that present views that the journalists did not agree with. Sooner or later most Christians, conservatives and Republicans just avoid the news media and do not participate in the debate.
I believe the best choice for America is Democracy, Christianity and Capitalism. An essential part of the survival of America is an unbiased honest news media. The NewsHour News Format is the best that is available for now.
The concept of anything being perfect will never occur, thus it is necessary to support that which is the best of what is available.
At this time I believe the NewsHour News Format to be the best available. That format is basically; 1) a news summary, 2) a news story debate by a pro and a con moderated by a NewsHour person, and 3) some final commentary.
The best part of this format is that there is a debate by a person on both sides of an issue so that both sides get representation instead of the journalist making a decision and presenting only one side of the story.
There are still many weaknesses with the NewsHour News Format.
1) The debate should be between two people that represent both sides of the issue. If the NewsHour stacks the debate toward one side or the other, then this is no better than the ABC, NBC and CBS one sided presentation of their opinion of the world. Too often I see the NewsHour get people from the Washington, DC area. I would suggest a much wider selection.
2) The moderator must be very careful not to bias the debate by showing favoritism to one side or the other. If favoritism is shown by the moderator it will be difficult to get people to go in the show. A lot of good people do not get involved with the news media because the news media purposely makes them look bad so the other side of the issue (the side the news media supports) wins. If a person knows there opinion will be respected, I believe there could be some very interesting dialog.
3) The final commentary should be between equally qualified people. Mark Shields is the perfect liberal democrat and I believe the NewsHour prevents good Republican people from the discussion to make sure Mark Shields and the democrats control the agenda.
There are still many people at PBS who are so biased it is silly. Guen Ifill is so liberal it is pitiful. Mark Shields is a raving liberal democrat. Bill Moyer is a confused Christian that has been led astray by the liberals.
There are no conservative commentary show on PBS. The only one that got started, "The Wall Street Review" was quickly canceled. The liberal commentary shows are, Washington Week, NOW, McLaughlin Group, To the Contrary, etc. Charlie Rose does at least present many people and different views, but Charlie is so anti Iraq War it is pitiful.
PBS does have some excellent shows. Frontline and NOVA are excellent. NATURE is a good show, but it is so antireligious (evolution) it is pitiful.
I make a final appeal relative to fairness, and that is that religious people be included in all discussions. The news media has driven religious people out of the market place of ideas, but religion is an absolute essential to a sane civil society. The Iraq War is poorly understood because the news media does not understand the religious background.
Actually, the news media has driven many people out of the market place of ideas. I have seen journalists absolutely degrade people that present views that the journalists did not agree with. Sooner or later most Christians, conservatives and Republicans just avoid the news media and do not participate in the debate.
I believe the best choice for America is Democracy, Christianity and Capitalism. An essential part of the survival of America is an unbiased honest news media. The NewsHour News Format is the best that is available for now.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Failure - Biased reporting
Failure - Biased reporting
Everything stated in the following article fits the following pattern.
There is a cultural war in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.
Until the news media becomes unbiased, they are the scum of the earth. The news media is on a mission to destroy Christians, Conservatives and Republicans.
America needs to win the Iraq War and Christians need to win the Cultural War.
----------------------------------------------
Iraqi Blowback - Explaining why Paul Wolfowitz is a travesty and Sandy Berger is a snooze.
By Victor Davis Hanson
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGVmNTI3NThhZDJmZDhjY2Q0ZWRlODU5NjY1MWFkMmU=
The resigned Scooter Libby did not leak Valerie Plame's name, a fact known to a special prosecutor charged with finding out who did and if were a crime. After hours of testimony, he was found self-contradictory under oath (though self-contradictory hardly to the extent of a Joe Wilson who said and wrote things about his yellow-cake inquiries that could not be conceivably true), and now faces a possible prison sentence.
Ditto the exemption given to the Duke accuser who repeatedly lied in her sworn testimonials, but will apparently not be charged with perjury because her stories are so implausible that officials think she must be unhinged — a new rationale that the perjurer is apparently free from indictment when the concoctions exceed possible belief.
Alberto Gonzalez perhaps (emphasize "perhaps," as yet we don't know all the facts) showed a lapse in judgment or at least of political savvy by firing politically appointed federal attorneys, something that was not unusual in past Democratic administrations.
Paul Wolfowitz, who sought to curb corruption that undermines support for World Bank aid to Africa, likewise is facing a lynch mob over perhaps a similar one-time lapse of judgment in regard to compensation of a companion — nothing, however, ranking with the various scandals surrounding Kofi Annan, whose son profited by United Nations exemptions given through his family ties. In today's moral calculus, presiding over a $50-billion-dollar Oil-for-Food scandal that led to frequent death in Iraq and profit among global elites is a misdemeanor, recommending a pay package for an employee one dates is an unforgivable felony.
One could go on with the furor over the misdirected pellets from Dick Cheney's shotgun, or the clamor for the Rumsfeld resignation. Yet contrast all this hysteria with the slight whimpers surrounding recent controversies over conflicts of interest or lapses in judgment surrounding Richard Armitage, Harry Reid, or Dianne Feinstein. The destruction of federal documents that might well alter history's consensus by former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was a snore for most journalists.
What, then, is the one common tie that explains all these furious efforts of the media and partisans to go after these present and former Bush-administration officials?
Payback for Iraq.
Everything stated in the following article fits the following pattern.
There is a cultural war in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.
Until the news media becomes unbiased, they are the scum of the earth. The news media is on a mission to destroy Christians, Conservatives and Republicans.
America needs to win the Iraq War and Christians need to win the Cultural War.
----------------------------------------------
Iraqi Blowback - Explaining why Paul Wolfowitz is a travesty and Sandy Berger is a snooze.
By Victor Davis Hanson
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGVmNTI3NThhZDJmZDhjY2Q0ZWRlODU5NjY1MWFkMmU=
The resigned Scooter Libby did not leak Valerie Plame's name, a fact known to a special prosecutor charged with finding out who did and if were a crime. After hours of testimony, he was found self-contradictory under oath (though self-contradictory hardly to the extent of a Joe Wilson who said and wrote things about his yellow-cake inquiries that could not be conceivably true), and now faces a possible prison sentence.
Ditto the exemption given to the Duke accuser who repeatedly lied in her sworn testimonials, but will apparently not be charged with perjury because her stories are so implausible that officials think she must be unhinged — a new rationale that the perjurer is apparently free from indictment when the concoctions exceed possible belief.
Alberto Gonzalez perhaps (emphasize "perhaps," as yet we don't know all the facts) showed a lapse in judgment or at least of political savvy by firing politically appointed federal attorneys, something that was not unusual in past Democratic administrations.
Paul Wolfowitz, who sought to curb corruption that undermines support for World Bank aid to Africa, likewise is facing a lynch mob over perhaps a similar one-time lapse of judgment in regard to compensation of a companion — nothing, however, ranking with the various scandals surrounding Kofi Annan, whose son profited by United Nations exemptions given through his family ties. In today's moral calculus, presiding over a $50-billion-dollar Oil-for-Food scandal that led to frequent death in Iraq and profit among global elites is a misdemeanor, recommending a pay package for an employee one dates is an unforgivable felony.
One could go on with the furor over the misdirected pellets from Dick Cheney's shotgun, or the clamor for the Rumsfeld resignation. Yet contrast all this hysteria with the slight whimpers surrounding recent controversies over conflicts of interest or lapses in judgment surrounding Richard Armitage, Harry Reid, or Dianne Feinstein. The destruction of federal documents that might well alter history's consensus by former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger was a snore for most journalists.
What, then, is the one common tie that explains all these furious efforts of the media and partisans to go after these present and former Bush-administration officials?
Payback for Iraq.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Failure - Duke Lacrosse Players
Failure - Duke Lacrosse Players
It is the news media that should be sued for the violation of the civil rights of the Duke Players.
The news media knew that this was a bogus story, but jumped on it because the story was racial (black/white), sexual, and political (northern liberals/southern conservatives).
The news media needs to report the new instead of makeing the news.
Only when the news media is held liable for gross neglect will there be real news reporting.
--------------------------------
Cleared Duke Players Could Sue
Apr 12 05:02 PM US/Eastern
By STEVE HARTSOE
Associated Press Writer
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - The disgraced district attorney in the Duke lacrosse rape case apologized to the three athletes in a carefully worded statement Thursday as their lawyers weighed whether to sue him—and some legal experts say they have a case.
While prosecutors generally have immunity for what they do inside the courtroom, experts said that protection probably doesn't cover some of Mike Nifong's more questionable actions in his handling of the case—such as calling the lacrosse players "a bunch of hooligans" in one of several interviews deemed unethical by the state bar.
"I think their chances of success suing Mr. Nifong are reasonably good, despite what we call prosecutorial immunity," said John Banzhaf, a professor at the George Washington University School of Law.
On Wednesday, North Carolina Attorney General Roy threw out the case against the three young men, pronounced them innocent and delivered a withering attack on Nifong, portraying him as a "rogue" prosecutor guilty of "overreaching." Cooper said Nifong rushed the case, failed to verify the accuser's allegations and pressed on despite the warning signs.
In his first comment on that decision, Nifong said in a statement Thursday: "To the extent that I made judgments that ultimately proved to be incorrect, I apologize to the three students that were wrongly accused."
He issued what appeared to be a plea to the students not to take any further action, saying, "It is my sincere desire that the actions of Attorney General Cooper will serve to remedy any remaining injury that has resulted from these cases."
So far, attorneys for David Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty have not said whether they plan a civil action against Nifong. But they have not ruled it out.
"We're certainly going to be advising him and the Seligmann family of all of their options. But nobody is racing to file any kind of a lawsuit at this point," said Jim Cooney, Seligmann's attorney.
Separately, the North Carolina bar charged Nifong months ago with several violations of professional conduct that could lead to his disbarment. The case is set for trial before a bar committee in June.
Among other things, the bar said Nifong made misleading and inflammatory comments about the athletes, even before they were charged. In the early days of the case, for example, Nifong said several times that members of the lacrosse team were not cooperating with investigators. Not true, according to court documents.
Experts said the ethics charges could form the basis for a lawsuit seeking damages from Nifong.
"Ordinarily, a prosecutor has absolute immunity for the actions he takes in preparation for a case, but there are some caveats to that, and one of them is he does not have absolute immunity for misleading statements he gives at press conferences," said Shannon Gilreath, an adjunct professor at the Wake Forest University School of Law.
Other actions Nifong took outside of the courtroom could open him up to a lawsuit, Banzhaf said. Nifong, among other things, directed the police lineup at which the accuser identified the three players; the lineup has been criticized as faulty. The bar has also accused Nifong of lying in court about having turned over all DNA test results to the defense.
"When he acts as an investigator and advises police, or makes representations to court which may be false, in all these situations he does not have absolute immunity," Banzhaf said.
But Norm Early, a former Denver district attorney who has worked for the National District Attorneys Association, said Nifong's actions alone are not enough to win a lawsuit. Nifong's intent is crucial.
"The protection of immunity is pretty broad unless it's ruled he had malicious intent or that it was something close to that," Early said. "It would be very difficult to prove a case against him."
Other potential targets for a lawsuit include the accuser herself. Cooper said his investigators concluded no attack took place.
"There's no question they've got a lawsuit against her if she's brought false charges against them, which may be even more easily provable than actions against Nifong," said Stan Goldman, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
In October, months before the bar filed its ethics complaint, Evans' mother warned in an interview: "Mr. Nifong, you've picked on the wrong families ... and you will pay every day for the rest of your life."
How much money they could get out of Nifong is unclear.
Nifong is a career civil servant, and his financial disclosure statement filed with the state suggests he is not especially wealthy. His only listed income is his salary of about $110,000, and aside from his home in Durham and some unspecified real estate in western North Carolina, he appears to have no significant assets outside of any mutual funds and retirement accounts.
"I think it's fair to say they're angry," Cooney, Seligmann's attorney, said of the families. "It's an anger of, 'What part of innocent don't you understand?' It's not, `We're going to go take your house and pension plan.' There's no plan to seek revenge against anybody."
That has left some to suggest the players and their families might sue Duke University, which has been heavily criticized in some quarters for suspending the players and canceling the lacrosse team's season before the young men were even tried.
But Banzhaf said such a lawsuit is not likely to succeed, since university administrators did not have access to the facts of the case and were basing their actions on what they learned from Nifong.
A Duke spokesman declined to comment on the prospect of a lawsuit.
Goldman said the real aim of a lawsuit against Duke, an elite private school with a multibillion-dollar endowment, might be to win an out- of-court settlement and recoup what are sure to be staggering legal bills.
"I can see Duke University just settling with these guys, even if there isn't a tremendous basis" for a suit, Goldman said. "Duke's got a lot of money and been around a long time."
It is the news media that should be sued for the violation of the civil rights of the Duke Players.
The news media knew that this was a bogus story, but jumped on it because the story was racial (black/white), sexual, and political (northern liberals/southern conservatives).
The news media needs to report the new instead of makeing the news.
Only when the news media is held liable for gross neglect will there be real news reporting.
--------------------------------
Cleared Duke Players Could Sue
Apr 12 05:02 PM US/Eastern
By STEVE HARTSOE
Associated Press Writer
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - The disgraced district attorney in the Duke lacrosse rape case apologized to the three athletes in a carefully worded statement Thursday as their lawyers weighed whether to sue him—and some legal experts say they have a case.
While prosecutors generally have immunity for what they do inside the courtroom, experts said that protection probably doesn't cover some of Mike Nifong's more questionable actions in his handling of the case—such as calling the lacrosse players "a bunch of hooligans" in one of several interviews deemed unethical by the state bar.
"I think their chances of success suing Mr. Nifong are reasonably good, despite what we call prosecutorial immunity," said John Banzhaf, a professor at the George Washington University School of Law.
On Wednesday, North Carolina Attorney General Roy threw out the case against the three young men, pronounced them innocent and delivered a withering attack on Nifong, portraying him as a "rogue" prosecutor guilty of "overreaching." Cooper said Nifong rushed the case, failed to verify the accuser's allegations and pressed on despite the warning signs.
In his first comment on that decision, Nifong said in a statement Thursday: "To the extent that I made judgments that ultimately proved to be incorrect, I apologize to the three students that were wrongly accused."
He issued what appeared to be a plea to the students not to take any further action, saying, "It is my sincere desire that the actions of Attorney General Cooper will serve to remedy any remaining injury that has resulted from these cases."
So far, attorneys for David Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty have not said whether they plan a civil action against Nifong. But they have not ruled it out.
"We're certainly going to be advising him and the Seligmann family of all of their options. But nobody is racing to file any kind of a lawsuit at this point," said Jim Cooney, Seligmann's attorney.
Separately, the North Carolina bar charged Nifong months ago with several violations of professional conduct that could lead to his disbarment. The case is set for trial before a bar committee in June.
Among other things, the bar said Nifong made misleading and inflammatory comments about the athletes, even before they were charged. In the early days of the case, for example, Nifong said several times that members of the lacrosse team were not cooperating with investigators. Not true, according to court documents.
Experts said the ethics charges could form the basis for a lawsuit seeking damages from Nifong.
"Ordinarily, a prosecutor has absolute immunity for the actions he takes in preparation for a case, but there are some caveats to that, and one of them is he does not have absolute immunity for misleading statements he gives at press conferences," said Shannon Gilreath, an adjunct professor at the Wake Forest University School of Law.
Other actions Nifong took outside of the courtroom could open him up to a lawsuit, Banzhaf said. Nifong, among other things, directed the police lineup at which the accuser identified the three players; the lineup has been criticized as faulty. The bar has also accused Nifong of lying in court about having turned over all DNA test results to the defense.
"When he acts as an investigator and advises police, or makes representations to court which may be false, in all these situations he does not have absolute immunity," Banzhaf said.
But Norm Early, a former Denver district attorney who has worked for the National District Attorneys Association, said Nifong's actions alone are not enough to win a lawsuit. Nifong's intent is crucial.
"The protection of immunity is pretty broad unless it's ruled he had malicious intent or that it was something close to that," Early said. "It would be very difficult to prove a case against him."
Other potential targets for a lawsuit include the accuser herself. Cooper said his investigators concluded no attack took place.
"There's no question they've got a lawsuit against her if she's brought false charges against them, which may be even more easily provable than actions against Nifong," said Stan Goldman, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
In October, months before the bar filed its ethics complaint, Evans' mother warned in an interview: "Mr. Nifong, you've picked on the wrong families ... and you will pay every day for the rest of your life."
How much money they could get out of Nifong is unclear.
Nifong is a career civil servant, and his financial disclosure statement filed with the state suggests he is not especially wealthy. His only listed income is his salary of about $110,000, and aside from his home in Durham and some unspecified real estate in western North Carolina, he appears to have no significant assets outside of any mutual funds and retirement accounts.
"I think it's fair to say they're angry," Cooney, Seligmann's attorney, said of the families. "It's an anger of, 'What part of innocent don't you understand?' It's not, `We're going to go take your house and pension plan.' There's no plan to seek revenge against anybody."
That has left some to suggest the players and their families might sue Duke University, which has been heavily criticized in some quarters for suspending the players and canceling the lacrosse team's season before the young men were even tried.
But Banzhaf said such a lawsuit is not likely to succeed, since university administrators did not have access to the facts of the case and were basing their actions on what they learned from Nifong.
A Duke spokesman declined to comment on the prospect of a lawsuit.
Goldman said the real aim of a lawsuit against Duke, an elite private school with a multibillion-dollar endowment, might be to win an out- of-court settlement and recoup what are sure to be staggering legal bills.
"I can see Duke University just settling with these guys, even if there isn't a tremendous basis" for a suit, Goldman said. "Duke's got a lot of money and been around a long time."
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Failure - Pelosi Syria Meetings
Failure - Pelosi Syria Meetings
The news media is failing to cover the activities of the democrats in the Middle East. Pelosi is off dealing with Syria and the news media is failing to provide the America people with the purpose of the dealings. The news media is also failing to get the democrats to provide a plan for dealing with the Middle East if there are forced troop reductions.
Pelosi could endanger America as Bill Clinton endangered America by entering into agreements that allowed the Islamic Terrorists to ultimately attack America and kill 3000 American.
President Bush has made his policy very clear, the democrats need to do the same.
The democrats will never make their policy clear until the news media begins to question the democrats.
If the news media would have questioned Clinton's foreign policy, 9/11 could have been prevented. The news media failed to question the Clinton Administration about the WMDs that the Clinton Administration stated were in Iraq. President Bush and most journalists assumed there were WMDs because the Clinton Administration said there were WMDs.
The news media failed America by not getting to the truth about what the democrats were doing.
--------------------------------------------
White House criticizes Pelosi's planned Syria visit
POSTED: 8:31 p.m. EDT, March 30, 2007
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House has criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plans to stop in Syria next week during a Middle East trip that began Friday.
She will be the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit Syria since relations deteriorated between Damascus and Washington.
The United States has accused Syria of aiding the Sunni insurgency in western Iraq with weapons and fighters. Syria also is accused of supporting the militant extremist groups Hezbollah, a Shiite political party and militia, and Hamas.
"We do not encourage and, in fact, we discourage members of Congress to make such visits to Syria," said White House deputy spokeswoman Dana Perino. "This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the (Prime Minister Fouad) Siniora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow through its borders to Iraq.
"I don't know what she is trying to accomplish, and I don't know if anyone in the administration has spoken to her about it," Perino said. "In general, we do discourage such trips."
The news media is failing to cover the activities of the democrats in the Middle East. Pelosi is off dealing with Syria and the news media is failing to provide the America people with the purpose of the dealings. The news media is also failing to get the democrats to provide a plan for dealing with the Middle East if there are forced troop reductions.
Pelosi could endanger America as Bill Clinton endangered America by entering into agreements that allowed the Islamic Terrorists to ultimately attack America and kill 3000 American.
President Bush has made his policy very clear, the democrats need to do the same.
The democrats will never make their policy clear until the news media begins to question the democrats.
If the news media would have questioned Clinton's foreign policy, 9/11 could have been prevented. The news media failed to question the Clinton Administration about the WMDs that the Clinton Administration stated were in Iraq. President Bush and most journalists assumed there were WMDs because the Clinton Administration said there were WMDs.
The news media failed America by not getting to the truth about what the democrats were doing.
--------------------------------------------
White House criticizes Pelosi's planned Syria visit
POSTED: 8:31 p.m. EDT, March 30, 2007
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House has criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plans to stop in Syria next week during a Middle East trip that began Friday.
She will be the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit Syria since relations deteriorated between Damascus and Washington.
The United States has accused Syria of aiding the Sunni insurgency in western Iraq with weapons and fighters. Syria also is accused of supporting the militant extremist groups Hezbollah, a Shiite political party and militia, and Hamas.
"We do not encourage and, in fact, we discourage members of Congress to make such visits to Syria," said White House deputy spokeswoman Dana Perino. "This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the (Prime Minister Fouad) Siniora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow through its borders to Iraq.
"I don't know what she is trying to accomplish, and I don't know if anyone in the administration has spoken to her about it," Perino said. "In general, we do discourage such trips."
Failure - GLSEN Social/Political Activities
Failure - GLSEN Social/Political Activities
A major story the news media is not covering is the activities of GLSEN an organization advocating teaching acceptance of homosexuality in the public school system.
http://www.glsen.org/
An organization that every Christian should be supporting is Mass Resistance.
http://www.massresistance.org/
The state of Massachusetts has been selected by homosexuals to establish a foothold for developing educational programs that endorse and advocate homosexuality. Massachusetts was selected because the judges in Massachusetts were already inclined to support homosexual activities.
GLSEN says it's purpose is to prevent verbal and physical abuse of homosexuals, and that is good, however the real purpose of GLSEN is to force the public school system to teach acceptance of homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle.
Homosexuality should never be considered an acceptable alternative so long as there is AIDS. No lifestyle should be advocated that has a very high probability of a deadly disease.
Homosexuality was tolerated so long as it stayed in the closet (not condemned, but not advocated). Sin is an ever present aspect of the world, but no one should advocate homosexuality and no one should advocate adultery.
The news media have also discontinued all coverage of AIDS deaths in Africa and America because this is negative news coverage for the democratic party which accepts and advocates homosexuality.
A major story the news media is not covering is the activities of GLSEN an organization advocating teaching acceptance of homosexuality in the public school system.
http://www.glsen.org/
An organization that every Christian should be supporting is Mass Resistance.
http://www.massresistance.org/
The state of Massachusetts has been selected by homosexuals to establish a foothold for developing educational programs that endorse and advocate homosexuality. Massachusetts was selected because the judges in Massachusetts were already inclined to support homosexual activities.
GLSEN says it's purpose is to prevent verbal and physical abuse of homosexuals, and that is good, however the real purpose of GLSEN is to force the public school system to teach acceptance of homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle.
Homosexuality should never be considered an acceptable alternative so long as there is AIDS. No lifestyle should be advocated that has a very high probability of a deadly disease.
Homosexuality was tolerated so long as it stayed in the closet (not condemned, but not advocated). Sin is an ever present aspect of the world, but no one should advocate homosexuality and no one should advocate adultery.
The news media have also discontinued all coverage of AIDS deaths in Africa and America because this is negative news coverage for the democratic party which accepts and advocates homosexuality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)