Mandy: Great blog!
Mark: Thanks to all the contributors on this blog. When I want to get information on the events that really matter, I come here.
Penny: I'm glad I found your blog (from a comment on Think Progress), it's comprehensive and very insightful.
Eric: Nice site....I enjoyed it and will be back.
nora kelly: I enjoy your site. Keep it up! I particularly like your insights on Latin America.
Alison: Loquacious as ever with a touch of elegance -- & right on target as usual!
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
- Noam Chomsky
Many have compared the coordinated propaganda campaign now being disseminated about The Iranian Threat to that which preceded the Iraq War, but there is one notable difference. Whereas the American media in 2002 followed the lead of the U.S. government in beating the war drums against Saddam, they now seem even more eager for war against Iran than the U.S. government itself, which actually appears somewhat reluctant. Consider this highly illustrative, one-minute report yesterday from the nightly broadcast of NBC News with Brian Williams, by the network’s Chief Pentagon Correspondent Jim “Mik” Miklaszewski, which packs multiple misleading narratives into one short package:
I just saw this two-minute ABC News report from Diane Sawyer and Brian Ross that sinks to even lower depths than what I highlighted yesterday. It has to be seen to be believed. It’s a perfect museum exhibit for how empty-headed American media stars uncritically recite whatever they are told by government officials, exaggerate or fabricate bad acts by the designated Enemy du Jour while ignoring and suppressing the precipitating acts of America and its client states, and just generally do whatever they can to keep fear levels and war thirst as high as possible. This is nothing short of irresponsible propagandistic trash:
With the Internet fast becoming the most important communications channel, it is untenable for the United States not to have a regulator to ensure nondiscriminatory access, guarantee interconnectivity among rival networks and protect consumers from potential abuse.
Yet that’s exactly where the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit left us all when it said this month that the Federal Communications Commission didn’t have the authority to regulate the Internet — and specifically, could not force the cable giant Comcast to stop blocking peer-to-peer sites.
The decision, in the words of the F.C.C.’s general counsel, Austin Schlick, undermines the agency’s ability to serve as “the cop on the beat for 21st-century communications networks.” It also puts at risk big chunks of the F.C.C.’s strategy for increasing the reach of broadband Internet to all corners of the country and fostering more competition among providers.
Chairman Julius Genachowski said the commission is not planning to appeal the decision, and is studying its options. The F.C.C. could try to forge ahead with its broadband plan despite the court’s decision. Or Congress could give the F.C.C. specific authority to regulate broadband access.
But the court tightly circumscribed the F.C.C.’s actions. And with Republicans determined to oppose pretty much anything the administration wants, the odds of a rational debate on the issues are slim.
Fortunately, the commission has the tools to fix this problem. It can reverse the Bush administration’s predictably antiregulatory decision to define broadband Internet access as an information service, like Google or Amazon, over which it has little regulatory power. Instead, it can define broadband as a communications service, like a phone company, over which the commission has indisputable authority.
the nyt correctly argues that, since everything is moving into a single pipe, it requires robust regulation... there's no question that the internet is way more than just an information resource... it's my primary communication medium, a medium without which i simply couldn't live my life the way i do now and i know lots of folks who would say the very same thing...
Of the five points, the third is the most clear cut example of bias on purely objective grounds, but I think that each demonstrate clear bias towards McCain.
Gibson started by setting up John McCain’s most recent Iraq surge attack on Barack Obama, parroting McCain’s attack almost verbatim, without any critical analysis. He then allowed McCain to speak unfiltered for nearly a full minute, attacking Barack Obama the entire time. Gibson did not give the Obama campaign an opportunity to respond.
Also worth noting: In addition to not giving the Obama campaign a chance to respond, Gibson failed to report on John McCain’s stunning flip-flop (at least rhetorically) on the virtue of a 16-month timetable.
Gibson then jumped to Obama in France, saying the Sarkozy had lavished “effusive” praise upon Obama that “bordered on an endorsement.” By itself, this might have been a fair segment, but it was a highly suggestive way to phrase things, particularly in light of the previous story in which McCain had challenged Barack Obama on issues of war and peace.
Gibson then turned to George Stephanopoulos to discuss polling in the wake of Obama’s overseas trip.
He noted that Obama is leading in national polls, but then said that recent state polls show Obama is losing ground in key swing states. Stephanopoulos then took over, using as evidence three new Quinnipiac ("Q") polls (Colorado, Michigan, and Minnesota).
Stephanopoulos failed to disclose the dates that the polls were taken and curiously excluded a fourth Q poll released in the swing state of Wisconsin on the same day as the other three. (The Wisconsin poll had Obama leading by 11.)
Gibson asked Stephanopoulos to explain why the polls were tightening, but Stephanopoulos failed to note that these polls were outliers. (For example, while the Q poll in Minnesota does show a tightening race, Pollster.com shows Obama with a 12.5% average lead, even factoring in the Q poll.)
Stephanopoulos concluded his discussion of the Q polls by saying that there’s no question that Barack Obama hasn’t seen evidence of a bump in the polls after his overseas trip. The thing Stephanopoulos didn’t tell viewers was that none of the polls were conducted before his most high profile event, the speech in Germany. In fact, the polls were conducted from the 14th-22nd, so they were mostly conducted while Barack Obama was still on U.S. soil. Stephanopoulos must have been aware of that information, which leads to the conclusion that he intentionally withheld it deceive his viewing audience.
Stephanopoulos also failed to note that both the national tracking polls of both Gallup (+5) and Rasmussen (+4) showed Barack Obama gaining ground from before he left for the trip.
Gibson closed the discussion with Stephanopoulos by raising what he said the McCain campaign descrimed as a serious error: Barack Obama’s decision to not visit troops in Germany. Of course, it seems very likely that some politics was played by the DoD to screw around with Obama, and in any case, the whole issue is entirely symbolic, certainly not more important than probing McCain's flip-flop on timetables. Predictably, Stephanopoulos agreed with McCain that Obama should have gone to visit the soldiers.
Gibson finished by promoting Stephanopolous’ interview with McCain this Sunday from Phoenix, Arizona, and for no apparent reason, he said that he was confident that mccain would talk about the German troop visit issue again. Hmm. How does he know?
It should now be clear that ABC News cannot be trusted -- its journalistic integrity has been succesfully challenged far too many times. At this point, we have to acknowledge that ABC News is at least as pro-McCain as FOX News, and its impact is certainly far more insidious because most people don’t realize just how tilted their “news” really is.
and, of course, most folks, sitting in the comfort of their living rooms, won't have the slightest idea that they're being fed a pile of warm, steaming shit...
every day, he's earning more of my respect... he takes a pile-on by the media and the democratic establishment in the debate and flips it right on its head, precisely where it belongs... i'm so impressed...
if i could ONLY have some guarantee that, somewhere along the line, he hasn't already sold his soul... if i could only believe that he's the real thing... and if he IS, if i could only believe that one man could make the kind of difference we so desperately need... i can't tolerate the thought of another charade election where we get our hopes up only to have them dashed because it's impossible to buck the system...
CNN - and in this pointed case Glenn Beck - likes to paint itself as a reliable, unbiased source of news.
For an "unbiased source" then do seem to have tremendous enthusiasm for promoting wars.
Could that have anything to do with the fact that Lockheed Martin pays its bills?
Media analyst Norman Solomon sucker punches professional jackass Glenn Beck with the facts. Watch Beck squirm.
What I wouldn't pay to hear the transmission from the control room to Beck's head phones as the news director - those nameless invisible creeps who control what we see on TV news - tries impotently to blunt Solomon's point.
This is probably the last time Norman Solomon will appear live on CNN, but I say it was worth it.
Watch it, enjoy it and pass it on.
The truth made it to TV...for a few minutes as least.
if indeed full disclosure was the order of the day, one of two things would happen... either we would find out the massive extent to which corporations influence what is passed to us as "news," OR it would be so totally embarrassing to the news outlets that we might actually start getting REAL news...
FRONTLINE/World begins a new season of investigations this November with a story about the CIA's controversial rendition program. Five years ago, award-winning journalist Stephen Grey left his job at The Sunday Times in London to investigate one of the darkest sides of the Bush Administration’s war on terror. Beginning with the mysterious flight logs of secret CIA flights, Grey and others uncovered a secret CIA prison system involving countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco, and the CIA's own "black sites," where the White House authorized "enhanced interrogation techniques," which critics say amount to torture.
In "Extraordinary Rendition," Grey sets out to find the CIA'S "ghost prisoners" themselves -- some confirmed as high-value al Qaeda members, others unwittingly caught and released months or years later without charge. He also questions former CIA and FBI officials as the debate grows in Washington over the effectiveness and legality of extrajudicial detention and interrogation. "There aren’t many enthusiasts now inside the CIA who want to round up dozens of people anymore. But the threat is still there," says Grey. "The key thing is that until Congress and the American people decide on a way of dealing with prisoners in the courtroom according to the rule of law, the CIA probably hasn’t got any alternative but to either hold prisoners secretly in their own detention system, or to render them to countries that will do the CIA bidding."
abc's blotter has some fairly explosive coverage on info contained in this documentary here...
when i posted last saturday at 6:50 p.m. PDT on this abc poll of last week's republican debate, ron paul had 1866 out of 2112 votes cast, or 88%... today, four days later, at 11:00 a.m. PDT, ron paul has 16,091 out of 18,602 or 86% of all votes cast...
'scuse me, but i have a small question...
WHERE'S THE GODDAM MEDIA COVERAGE?
if that was romney, mccain, giuliani, or even tancredo, ferchrissake, it would be page one banner headlines all across the goddam country... WTF...? i don't get it... or maybe i do and just don't want to admit it...
p.s. giuliani is misspelled on the abc poll list...
Our media is good for SUGGESTIONS as to what MIGHT be news
glenn greenwald writes about a conversation he had with a senior vice president of abc news about its reporters' anonymously-sourced story on iran "more than tripl[ing] its ability to produce enriched uranium in the last three months" and therefore "Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb by 2009..."
[A]t least one key reason for that distrust is both clear and compelling. Many Americans who more or less did trust the judgment of the country's most respectable media outlets were severely betrayed, when they supported an invasion of a sovereign country based exclusively on patently false claims that were uncritically though aggressively disseminated by the American press. For that reason, distrust of the media has been substantially heightened, and that is so particularly when it comes to stories -- like the ABC News one here -- that bolster the Bush administration's warnings of a "grave threat" posed by whatever country happens to be The New Nazi Enemy of the Month.
I would speculate that most national journalists -- certainly the ones with whom I have interacted following media criticisms and/or observed responding to criticism of others -- simply do not recognize, acknowledge, or accept the level and intensity of distrust for what they report, particularly when their behavior appears similar to the government-boosting conduct that led us into Iraq. Most of them will acknowledge that there were isolated instances of gullible or even biased and corrupt reporting during the Bush presidency (call it The Judy Miller Concession), but they believe that none of that resulted in -- nor should it have resulted in -- any significant change in how their profession is perceived and in the level of mistrust which Americans have for what they report.
They still think that the phrase "ABC News" means that whatever follows will be presumed credible and reliable. But that just isn't the case any more. And that's why stories which rely exclusively on placing virtually blind faith in the judgment of such organizations are likely to be disregarded (except by those whose pre-existing political agenda is advanced by the story).
the "blind faith" credit score i currently assign to u.s. media is embarrassingly low... i look at them more as folks who have some SUGGESTIONS for what MIGHT be news, rather than as sources for what is ACTUALLY news... and i'm certainly not the only one... political and news blogs didn't just miraculously sprout like mushrooms after a hard rain... they're filling a serious need people have to attempt to figure out what's true and what isn't... there is a problem with that, though, and it's a problem i face every day... in order to satisfy myself that i'm coming within even a country mile of the so-called "truth," i have to triangulate with 6-7 sources to even begin to feel comfortable... that's a huge expenditure of time and energy, as i think we would all agree...
An alternative look at NEWS THAT MATTERS: current events, politics, opinion, perspective, discussion, analysis, issues, debate, and insight - national and global.
