Published on Thursday, January 13, 2011 by YES! Magazine

Words Matter: How Media Can Build Civility or Destroy It

The media can, as we know, promote fear, hatred, and extremism. Can it also lead us to greater civility and more productive debate?

by Sarah van Gelder and Brooke Jarvis

“Just as media outlets have been used to create a pervasive sense of fear, they have also been used to convince people that conflict is inevitable. This leaves media consumers resigned to the notion that conflict will happen.”

Those words [1] could have been used to describe an increasingly hostile and provocative media [2] in the United States. In fact, they were written to describe the use of the media to incite Hutus to slaughter their Tutsi neighbors in Rwanda, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths [3].

After Jared Loughner opened fire at a political event for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon, Arizona, attention quickly focused (more…)

Published on Monday, January 10, 2011 by the McClatchy Newspapers

In WikiLeaks Fight, U.S. Journalists Take a Pass

by Nancy A. Youssef

WASHINGTON — Not so long ago, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange could count on American journalists to support his campaign to publish secret documents that banks and governments didn’t want the world to see.

But just three years after a major court confrontation that saw many of America’s most important journalism organizations file briefs on WikiLeaks’ behalf, much of the U.S. journalistic community has shunned Assange — even as reporters write scores, if not hundreds, of stories based on WikiLeaks’ trove of leaked State Department cables.

Some call him a traitor, responsible for what’s arguably one of the biggest U.S. national security breaches ever. Others say a man who calls for government transparency has been too opaque about how he obtained the documents.

The freedom of the press committee of the Overseas Press Club of America in New York City declared him “not one of us.” The Associated Press, which once filed legal briefs on Assange’s behalf, refuses to comment about him. And the National Press Club in Washington, the venue less than a year ago for an Assange news conference, has decided not to speak out about the possibility that he’ll be charged with a crime.

This is truly disappointing. U.S. journalism has been slipping for years, intimidated into silence. Assange has done exactly what American journalists should have been doing on a daily basis for the past dozen years. The many atrocities that our country has committed in secret has been enabled because of the compliance of a weak press.

Great journalism has been the foundation of freedom, but it has been absent ever since 9/11. It may be at an all time low.

Transparency was one of President Obama’s main campaign pitches, and yet he has been responsible for massive coverups.

For example, the current administration has determined that there will be no prosecution of the CIA for deliberately destroying evidence of torture at Guantanomo, and yet this same administration seems to be intent on building a case against Assange for publishing information that is more embarrassing than a threat to our national security.

Go Assange! Release it all! Do for America and the world what the American press won’t do!

With a few notable exceptions, it’s been left to foreign journalism organizations (more…)

Published: January 10, 2011 12:20AM

A recent University of Maryland study confirms that those who watch Fox News daily are significantly more likely than those who never watch it to believe that:

• Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses. (It has created millions of jobs.)

• Most economists estimate that the health care bill will worsen the deficit. (Most estimate it will reduce the deficit.)

• The economy is getting worse. (It is improving.)

• Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring. (Scientists are at near consensus that it is.)

• The stimulus did not include tax cuts. (Forty percent (more…)

The second part is a similar story that is about a year old when DISH network made the same kind of settlement.)

DirectTV agrees to $13.25 Million Settlement With All 50 States

DIRECTV, one of the most complained-about companies in the country, has reached a settlement with all 50 states and the District of Columbia on a variety of consumer protection issues, including its notorious cancellation penalties.
The company has agreed to pay about $14 million and abide by a collection of rules of conduct for how it will treat its customers.

Curiously, the settlement comes almost exactly five years after a 22-state settlement was reached with DIRECTV over similar accusations. Complaints against the company have mounted in recent years, with more than 41,000 complaints processed just by the Better Business Bureau over the past three years.

Once again, this is Corporate America deliberately ripping off American consumers. They have a monopoly over American television and they could care less about these law suits. They will just add it onto next year’s rates and the mamby-pamby regulators will let them get away with it.

The latest round of state actions started exactly one year ago when Washington’s Attorney General sued DIRECTV. Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna’s office said the 2,000 complaints against the company made it the single largest source of complaints.
Washington settled its case separate from the collective settlement with other states, but with largely the same terms and a $1 million payout to McKenna’s office. DIRECTV, as is customary in settlements, admitted no wrongdoing.

“Under our settlement, DIRECTV agrees to disclosures that will help consumers know exactly what they’re signing up for so that there are no painful surprises,” McKenna said in a statement.

The company took an upbeat approach to reaching the settlements.

“DIRECTV has worked hand-in-hand with the Attorneys General to formalize many of the customer improvements we have made over the past few years and are pleased to have come to this agreement,” Mike White, chairman, president and CEO of DIRECTV, said in a statement. “DIRECTV is committed to always operating with the highest standards of integrity and will move forward with continued dedication to providing the best video experience possible for our customers.”
The settlements are supposed to end the long-vilified DIRECTV policy of imposing hundreds of dollars in cancellation penalties even if the reason for the customer canceling was due to the inability to receive a DIRECTV signal.

Refunds for certain complaints will handled by the states. Generally, they would be given to those who have lodged formal complaints with an attorney general’s office. It may still be possible to file a complaint for a past issue you’ve had with DIRECTV.

According to Washington officials, here are some of the agreed-upon policies:

• Cancellation Fees: DIRECTV will not impose a cancellation fee on a consumer who ends service because of a recurring problem that can’t be fixed.

• Advertising and Sales Disclosures: The company must clearly disclose the cost of the service, the contract length, additional charges for HD or DVR equipment, cancellation penalties, whether a promotional price is conditional on a rebate, whether an offer requires a particular payment, and other pertinent details. Extremely important disclosures, such as the requirement for a rebate, the required term of the consumer’s commitment and the period the promotional price will be charged, must be disclosed in direct proximity to the price itself.

• Contract Changes: DIRECTV can’t require consumers to enter into a new or extended contract when simply replacing or repairing defective equipment. If a service upgrade or other change by a consumer requires a new or additional term of commitment, DIRECTV must first obtain the consumer’s consent to enter into a new or extended contract.

• Rebates and Promotional Offers: DIRECTV must disclose whether a rebate is required to obtain the promotional price. If the consumer’s first bill does not reflect the price agreed to at the time of sale, DIRECTV must either provide that price or cancel the contract without penalty, if requested.

Dish Network dishes up millions to settle complaints filed by 46 states

Dish Network has reached an agreement with 46 states’ attorneys general to pay nearly $6 million plus restitution to settle allegations of deceptive consumer marketing and a lack of disclosure about costs and service limitations.The states came after Dish after thousands of consumer complaints were lodged.

Consumers with complaints against Dish are eligible for restitution from the settlement if they have filed a complaint with their state’s attorney general or Dish Network between Jan. 1, 2004 and July 9, 2009. Complaints eligible for compensation from the settlement will continue to be accepted through Dec. 14 as long as it involves problems that happened over the past two years.

Dish was the subject of more than 13,000 closed complaints over the past three years just to the Better Business Bureau (pending complaints are not disclosed). Despite the volume and nature of the complaints and a pending federal action over alleged telemarketing violations, the BBB rates Dish — a dues-paying member of the business organization — a “B.”

UPDATE: Competitor DirecTV, which draws similar complaints from consumers, was assessed more than $2 million in penalties by the Federal Trade Commission earlier this year for alleged telemarketing violations. The BBB also rates DirecTV a “B,” after amassing more than 30,000 complaints, explaining the company has been responsive to formal complaints.

Among the complaints filed with the state and the BBB regarding the Dish Network: Dish and its authorized retailers would offer big packages with discounts for a two-year commitment from consumers and then boost the price and/or reduce service. Consumers who then wanted to cancel their service were told they would face hundreds of dollars in cancellation penalties. Dish also was accused of drawing payment from customers’ bank accounts and credit cards without proper warning or authorization and violating Do-Not-Call telemarketing laws. Also, customers complained they were not informed that their premium sports packages were subject to blackout and that they might not receive their local TV stations.

“DISH Network’s misleading marketing beamed bad deals to thousands of consumers, causing financial hardships for those on limited incomes,” Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna said “This agreement makes the picture much clearer as to what business practices are acceptable.”

McKenna’s office cited the example of a senior citizen who had to pay $100 in overdraft fees after Dish drained her bank account.

To settle the cases, Dish agreed to fully disclose the terms and conditions of its contracts with consumers in plain English. In resolving the complaints, Dish, which claims more than 13 million customers of its satellite TV service, admitted no wrongdoing.

“Customer satisfaction has always been a top priority for DISH Network, and we continuously implement new approaches to strengthen our customer relationships,” Tom Cullen, executive vice president of DISH Network said in a statement.

The only states not party to the settlement are: California, Illinois, North Carolina and Ohio. Those states did not accept the terms of the settlement. A copy of the settlement can be found here.

For consumers who don’t want to accept Dish’s restitution offer can appeal to a third-party claims administrator at CEO@dishnetwork.com. Questions may also be sent to that address.

Published on Friday, December 17, 2010 by The Guardian/UK

by Heather Brooke

As Julian Assange emerged from his nine-day imprisonment, there were renewed concerns about the physical and psychological health of Bradley Manning, the former US intelligence analyst suspected of leaking the diplomatic cables at the centre of the storm.

Manning, who was arrested seven months ago, is being held at a military base in Virginia and faces a court martial and up to 52 years in prison for his alleged role in copying the cables.

His friends and supporters also claim they have been the target of extra-judicial harassment, intimidation and outright bribery by US government agents.

Can anyone trust our government to tell the truth? Can anyone trust our government to treat prisoners humanely? Can anyone say assuredly that our government would not torture prisoners? Can anyone say assuredly that our government would not drug prisoners involuntarily? No! There is no (more…)

Published on Friday, December 17, 2010 by The Guardian/UK

WikiLeaks: The Emperor Wears No Clothes

Now WikiLeaks has laid bare the lies and collusion, we pledge to not just witness but actively participate in its fight for democracy

by John Pilger and Others

We are writing this statement in support of democracy.

Since Sunday, 28 November, WikiLeaks and five major newspapers from around the world (the Guardian [1], the New York Times [2], Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El Pais) have been publishing redacted versions of leaked US diplomatic cables in an ongoing story that has become known as “Cablegate”. The identity of the original leaker is – as yet – unconfirmed.

As this Wikileaks melodrama unfolds we shall see whether Barack Obama really believes in transparency. We shall see! We are adding our name to this statement. Join with us by adding a comment. There is a place to add comments at the end of the story.

This is not the first leak of confidential documentation that exposes governmental lies – and it won’t be the last. Secret information has long been used by elites to build and maintain power over huge populations of citizens, workers, armed forces and others. But when the secrets of the elite are revealed, the power they represent can be confronted and reversed.

Nor is this the first time that state (and other) forces of power have acted to prevent dissemination of information on the internet – and it won’t be the last.

Sites have been removed by their hosting companies [3], servers seized by police or other governmental authorities, take-down requests issued under the rule of law: none of these prevented information spreading.

But the issues run deeper than this. As former US president Thomas Jefferson once stated, “information is the currency of democracy”. (more…)

Published on Saturday, December 11, 2010 by CNN

WikiLeaks Activists Rally Supporters in Several Nations

by CNN Wire Staff

Pro-free-speech rallies are scheduled in several international cities Saturday to protest the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who is being held in a prison on the outskirts of London on suspicion of sex crimes unrelated to his controversial website.

Protesters hold pictures and signs in support of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange during a demonstration in front of the British Consulate in Barcelona December 11, 2010. (REUTERS/Gustau Nacarino)

The Wikileaks web page has been shut down. We do not know the background on it except that it seems to have all happened as a result of ‘unauthorized’ material being published on the site.

Nati0nal security has always been used as a reason for censorship, but based on the material that has been published it has nothing to do with national security, only national embarrassment. Several diplomats have been guilty of opening their mouths and putting their foot in it, and yes, the language used was not very diplomatic, but a threat to national security? Silliness.

If Wikileaks can be shut down, so can Watts Cookin Blog, (more…)

Gary Herbert October 2, 2010 12:07AM

When Gary Herbert assumed the governorship from Jon Huntsman Jr. in August 2009, we said that he was known to be a thoughtful, careful man who likes to listen to all sides and drill down into policy issues. We urged him to steer a moderate political course. In his year in the job, he has done that, for the most part, and he’s earned our endorsement to continue in office for another two years.

By any objective measure, Herbert is a bona fide conservative on both financial and social issues. But in Utah, where the Republican-dominated Legislature is pulling further to the right every day, dancing happily with tea party enthusiasts, Herbert has emerged as a moderating force, a voice of reason. We hope he will play that role more strongly if he is re-elected, backed by an electoral mandate of his own in the top job.

Nevertheless, a governor must work with the Legislature, and Herbert has done that, too. He formulated his first budget proposal, the one for the current fiscal year that began July 1, just as the economy was showing signs of weak recovery from the Great Recession. In the face of further erosion of revenues, he promised to dip into the Rainy Day Fund, protect education as far as possible and make judicious cuts elsewhere in state government while avoiding any recovery-killing tax hikes. In the end, he accomplished most of that, though he allowed the Legislature’s tobacco tax increase to pass into law without his signature.

In the political storm over immigration, he called for a summit to provide a civil forum, and he has urged the Legislature to retain in-state college tuition for children of undocumented immigrants who graduate from Utah high schools. He backed an immediate investigation that quickly exposed rogue state workers who anonymously published a list of 1,300 aliens allegedly in the country illegally. He wisely decided not to call a special session to make voluntary a state law that requires employers to verify the eligibility of employees to work in this country because he worried the session could take hasty, extremist decisions. He has warned about the risks of racial profiling and arrests without probable cause inherent in Arizona-style immigration enforcement legislation.

After lengthy deliberation, he correctly decided that Utah would administer the new high-risk insurance pool under the federal health reform law. He dismissed calls for the state to turn down federal stimulus money (more…)

Published in The Deseret News: Friday, March 12, 2010 5:15 p.m. MST

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah House Majority Leader Kevin Garn is not the only one taking lumps for hot-tubbing in the nude with a 15-year-old and later paying her hush money. The Deseret News is, too — for knowing about the incident eight years ago and not reporting it.

“It was a bad decision not to report it,” said Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute, a journalism training organization.

To its great credit this contrite story was published in The Deseret News. At this point The Tribune has not publicly recognized that it was aware of the story. This was about the time that Dean Singleton took over as publisher of The Tribune from the McCarthey family and so the newspaper, especially the editorial department, was in a bit of turmoil itself. Singleton became publisher on August 1st, 2002. The date of Garn’s interview with the Deseret News is not fixed, but it was around this time frame. The Tribune may or may not have received the letter Maher contends she sent.

The public relies on major newspapers to dig up stories and make reliable judgments and to protect the public interest. At what point in time should The Deseret News have responded? It’s hard to pass judgment without more information. The fact that Garn confessed to the Deseret News is troubling, but the reader is not aware of whether the Deseret News knew that hush money was being paid or had been paid. That was probably something that happened at about the same time and Garn probably didn’t tell the News about that. That it is responding now and explaining the details of its decision process at the time is noteworthy and a credit to them. It will certainly be helpful to them going forward.

“You essentially have someone who has presented one face to the public and it has been revealed that may not be true and accurate. And most likely you guys (the Deseret News) helped him present his narrative to the public. For that reason alone, you have an obligation to correct the record,” she said in a telephone interview.

That was typical of many comments on web sites and from some readers. But top Deseret News editors say they believe they made the right choice back in 2002, and they still defend it.

Former Deseret News reporter Jerry Spangler said the episode began in 2002 when he wrote a profile of Garn and his congressional race just before the Republican primary election. He said Cheryl Maher called him to say “there is a side of him you don’t know about,” and told him about the nude hot-tubbing.

Maher said Friday that she also contacted the Salt Lake Tribune in 2002 and told it the same story.

“It was the week before the election,” Spangler said. He remembers writing a draft of a story about the incident with Bob Bernick, the political editor, and inviting Garn to comment. He also remembers that Maher was hesitant to give many details and seemed “flaky.”

He and Bernick said Garn came into the Deseret News offices and met with them and several editors. “I remember him crying,” and (more…)

It’s official: Americans admire Glenn Beck more than they admire the pope.

This news, at once unsettling and unsurprising, came from the Gallup polling organization on Wednesday. Beck, the new Fox News host who has said President Obama has a “deep-seated hatred for white people” and alternately likens administration officials to Nazis and Marxists, was also more admired by Americans than Billy Graham and Bill Gates, not to mention Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. In Americans’ esteem, Beck only narrowly trailed South Africa’s Nelson Mandela, the man who defeated apartheid.

The 45-year-old recovering alcoholic and Mormon convert has become the first true demagogue of the information age. His nightly diet of falsehoods and conspiracies on Fox, and his daily outrages on the radio, have propelled his popularity past even Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. His method is simple: He goes places where others are forbidden by conscience.

Death panels? Government health insurance for dogs? FEMA concentration camps? An Obama “civilian national security force” like Hitler’s SS or Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard? An administration official advocating forced abortions and sterilization agents in drinking water? Beck trafficked in them all in 2009.

He also proposed on his radio show that people should read Hitler’s Mein Kampf to prepare for Obama’s health care plan — and that’s in addition to the 28 times (more…)

Published in City Weekly, Dec. 3, 2009

Published in Boston Phoenix

Glenn Beck: Latter-day Taint

Glenn Beck’s Mormonism may even frighten fellow believers.

By Adam Reilly

Fifteen years ago, Glenn Beck was a small-market DJ with a drinking problem, no friends and bleak professional prospects. Today, he’s a Fox News superstar averaging 2.4 million viewers (in a mediocre time slot, no less), an inexorably successful author (his new book, Arguing with Idiots, is the fourth Beck opus to top the New York Times best-seller list), and the leader of a popular movement that condemns government in general and President Barack Obama in particular.

What’s more, he’s gotten under the skin of politicians from both parties. In recent months, the White House took vigorous issue with Beck’s criticisms of senior Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina ripped Beck’s cynicism and teary tendencies in an interview with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg.

Notwithstanding Beck’s reckless asininity—e.g., his infamous claim that Obama has a “deep-seated hatred for white people”—that’s an impressive career arc. And the media, naturally, have been striving to grasp the Beck phenomenon: witness Time magazine’s credulous Sep. 28 cover story, a sharp column by The New York Times’ Frank Rich, an earlier New York Times profile and sundry other treatments ranging from the academic (Columbia Journalism Review) to the middlebrow (CBS’s Katie Couric).

Beck’s would-be interpreters occasionally note that he’s a Mormon: He joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) as an adult, in 1999, with his wife and children. But in contrast with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, whose Mormonism was discussed in great detail during his failed 2008 presidential bid, the ramifications of Beck’s faith have gone largely unexplored. That’s unfortunate, because a case can be made that Beck is to Mormonism what Father Charles Coughlin was to Catholicism in the 1930s, when the “radio priest” peddled nasty, faith-based opposition to another ambitious Democratic president.

Given the ease with which this discussion could degenerate into Mormon-bashing, this reticence may be understandable. To fully ‘get’  Beck, though, it’s necessary to understand just how many of his beliefs have specifically Mormon roots or are conveyed in uniquely Mormon ways—from his embrace of former Mormon leader Ezra Taft Benson’s insatiable anti-communism to his Mormon-bred suspicion that the government is the agent of Satan. For some of Beck’s co-religionists, these links are obvious. Back in March, for example, writing on the Mormon-history blog The Juvenile Instructor, Christopher Jones—a doctoral student in history at William & Mary— noted that Beck seemed to be plumbing the disturbing depths of Mormon millenarianism and marveled at the media’s seeming disinterest.

Once the link between Beck’s faith and politics gets made, intriguing questions emerge: Without his unsettling brand of Mormonism, would Glenn Beck still be Glenn Beck? Should members of the LDS Church be cheering or lamenting Beck’s protracted moment in the spotlight? Could Beck’s forays into stealth Mormon sermonizing make his conservative evangelical fans rethink their loyalty? And, if Beck’s religiosity finally becomes a story, what might that mean for the lingering presidential (more…)

This letter of praise to the Tribune is spot-on. We also love the Tribune editorial page. It is always full of interesting observations from all sides of the spectrum. Our Watts Cookin’ Blog is full of articles from the Salt Lake Tribune because they are timely, informative, and crucial.

Everyone in Utah should subscribe to and read the Tribune, otherwise they are simply uninformed about what is going on around them.

The Tribune ‘s Oct. 4 op-ed page was exceptional. First, Nicholas Kristof explained rationally why more troops are not the answer in Afghanistan, helping me change my position (“Sending more troops to Afghanistan a bad bet”).

Next, Ed Firmage Jr. takes on Sen. Orrin Hatch about global warming, explaining how the science the senator uses is fundamentally flawed and how Hatch is wrong (“Professor Hatch’s ‘Climate 101′ lacks science”). I hope Hatch sees this article; every Utah fifth-grader ought to read it. It’s simple and understandable.

Lastly, Karrie Galloway explains how some in the Legislature simply have no idea what Planned Parenthood does to help thousands of Utahns every year get the help and education they need (“Planned Parenthood given bad rap by legislators”). This is not some evil organization, as many of them believe; it plays a necessary and practical role in the lives of many Utah families. As a result, I’m joining PP and donating $100. I hope others do, too.

These are the types of articles that inform, educate and entertain. They are at the heart of the reason I subscribe to The Tribune . Please keep it coming.

Tom Love

Salt Lake City

By Brian Maffly

The Salt Lake Tribune

Thou shalt air only “nonsectarian” shows may be a tenet of public television, but PBS leadership on Tuesday chiselled in an exception that will allow Brigham Young University’s KBYU to keep broadcasting Mormon devotionals on Channel 11, while hanging on to PBS staples like the “NewsHour,” “Nova,” “American Experience” and “WordGirl.”

KBYU’s status as a public television station was jeopardized under a PBS membership policy overhaul, which had considered barring member stations from airing church services and other faith-oriented programming. But in a compromise gesture, the PBS board, which is comprised mostly of station managers, decided to permit the handful of member stations that air such material to continue doing so as long as they don’t add new programming deemed “sectarian.”

“It allows us to continue the programming we have. We are very pleased,” BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said. Had the PBS board struck a hard-line position, KBYU would have had to either quit airing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints General Conferences and other Mormon material or sacrifice its PBS membership. Four other public television stations, which broadcast Sunday Masses, were in a similar situation.

PBS officials stressed that the decision arose during a much-needed review of membership policies, the first since the digital revolution transformed the media landscape allowing stations to “multicast” on Web sites, podcasts and other new platforms in addition to the airwaves. But during the review, the board realized some public stations, such as KBYU and WLAE in New Orleans, historically provided sectarian programs, said board member Peter Morrill, Idaho Public Television’s general manager.

“They have provided these services for decades. That fact needed to be recognized,” Morrill said. The board’s decision to allow these members to continue such broadcasts is a testament to the organization’s diversity and commitment to local autonomy, officials said.

In the meantime, a PBS policy adopted Tuesday encourages members to “migrate” sectarian content from their main channel to other platforms. Long-standing policy also bars members from airing commercial and political content.

Published on Monday, June 1, 2009 at Salon.com

It was one thing when President Obama reversed himself last month by announcing that he would appeal the Second Circuit’s ruling that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) compelled disclosure of various photographs of detainee abuse sought by the ACLU.  Agree or disagree with Obama’s decision, at least the basic legal framework of transparency was being respected, since Obama’s actions amounted to nothing more than a request that the Supreme Court review whether the mandates of FOIA actually required disclosure in this case. But now — obviously anticipating that the Government is likely to lose in court again (.pdf) — Obama wants Congress to change FOIA by retroactively narrowing its disclosure requirements, prevent a legal ruling by the courts, and vest himself with brand new secrecy powers under the law which, just as a factual matter, not even George Bush sought for himself.

The White House is actively supporting a new bill jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman — called The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009 — that literally has no purpose other than to allow the government to suppress any “photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States.”  As long as the Defense Secretary certifies — with no review possible — that disclosure would “endanger” American citizens or our troops, then the photographs can be suppressed even if FOIA requires disclosure.  The certification lasts 3 years and can be renewed indefinitely.  The Senate passed the bill as an amendment last week.

(more…)

Published on Tuesday, June 2, 2009 at Media Matters

Last week’s press coverage of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court was gruesome in so many ways, as reporters routinely fell down and failed to reflect even the most basic tenets of journalism.

One of the most disturbing examples of how fundamentals were ignored involved Sotomayor’s now-infamous quote from eight years ago about a “Latina woman” judge reaching a “better conclusion” on the bench than her white male counterparts. Sotomayor made the comment as part of a speech she gave at University of California, Berkeley, in 2001 in which she explored what it would mean to have more women and minorities on the bench.

To see just how dreadful the coverage of that story became, let’s look at the efforts by The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, which published nearly identical news articles about the unfolding political battle surrounding Sotomayor and the “Latina woman” quote, which conservatives have latched onto. The quote became the basis for the incendiary claim made by Newt Gingrich and Glenn Beck, among others, that Sotomayor is, in fact, a racist because she thinks Hispanic judges render better decisions than whites.

(more…)

Samuelson is right, democracy demands an informed public through an aggressive, fair, and open media, but where was he when the media went into hibernation and turned the country lock, stock, and barrell over to Bush and Cheney and their neo-con extremists? We are in a mess because of the lack of a fair, objective, dependable press independent of corporate dominance.  How to improve the quality of our media is an important public discussion.

Published: Monday, June 1, 2009 12:18 a.m. MDT

WASHINGTON – The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment; but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America.

Our political system works best when a president faces checks on his power. But the main checks on Obama are modest. They come from congressional Democrats, who largely share his goals if not always his means. The leaderless and confused Republicans don’t provide effective opposition. And the press – on domestic, if not foreign, policy – has so far largely abdicated its role as skeptical observer.

Obama has inspired a collective fawning. What started in the campaign (the chief victim was Hillary Clinton, not John McCain) has continued, as a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism shows. It concludes: “President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House.”

The study examined 1,261 stories by The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC, CBS and NBC, Newsweek magazine and the “NewsHour” on PBS. Favorable stories (42 percent) were double the unfavorable (20 percent) , while the rest were “neutral” or “mixed.” Obama’s treatment contrasts sharply with coverage in the first two months of the presidencies of Bush (22 percent of stories favorable) and Clinton (27 percent). (more…)