When we as a people can not trust our media sources to tell us the facts, the truth, our democracy is in danger.
How can we vote intelligently when we don't get the truth to make a good decision from ? We Can't.
There is no danger worse than the control of our media by big corporate interests. There is no danger worse for US as a 'Democratic Country"
It is a perilous path to try to fix this problem without risking 'free speech'....but to pass a law that makes it illegal to tell or repeat lies, or to give slanted news, with penalities is the only way I can see to prevent the downward spiral that we seem to be headed for.
The radio and television stations are using public airwaves to promote private opinions....they should be made to call them opinions and not news then..
Injustice in America.....read Smoking Gun by Gerry Spence.
Journalist Jeff Greenfield responded to the ongoing battle from the media this week, when reporting, that the FOX NEW’S DEPARTMENT is being accused of being the research and communication’s arm of the Republican Party. He also says that “. . . Fox’s bottom-line has increased 13% since Obama came into office. So perhaps they are crying all the way to the bank”.
Obama accuses Fox News as appearing “to be more like a talk show format and not a news format”.
There is no question that the Rupert Murdoch owned conglomeration’s opinions predominately favor the far Right Republican agenda. So when the White House decides not to give more fuel to Fox’s perceived negativity and refuses to be on their programs, is this an exercise of free speech? On the other hand, is it an exercise in futility? The points of views coming from the White House will be interpreted as the voice of the Obama Administration no matter what the administration representative says when they appear on FOX. Being fair however, MSNBC has been called the most left in their presentation of Obama’s opinions. So to whom do we listen for the “true news story”? Nevertheless, who would that be?
Where do we find a news source that is truly balanced? Personally, I find I have to listen to them all and weigh what seems “logical”, but I was taught in journalism school and at the LA TIMES that politics are highly hinged in “manipulating emotions and the illusion”.
.NYT article LINK
The New York Times reported today that the White House is quietly conceding that they are losing control of the Health Care Reform debate. So......in response......? A march? Rapid Fire TV ads? Formal debates moderated by NPR, PBS, ABC, NBC? Nope....a website.........That's it....a website..
The WH released a myth busters website.......What Obama should do is concede he needs a little help from his friends.....Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Howard Dean, Mike Bloomberg, Warren Buffet and other Business Leaders and even the Kennedys to get the word out and deal with the fires.
Hello,
My name is Doris Anne Beaulieu. I have a website-Life’s Ultimate Test dot com-on which you can learn more about my mission to change the face of home schooling.
I attended a parochial school as a child in the 1950's. In this Catholic school I was sheltered from the realities of the world around me-from swearing, from public displays of affection, from slang. These are often some of the same things that modern home schooling parents aim to protect their children from. A superior court judge said " In today’s threatening world, we seek to protect children from abuse, not just physical, but also educational abuse." This protection however often leaves behind a naiveness to the surrounding world the children must eventually enter.
Children need to be exposed to real life. Parents should as a family, talk about the world openly so children may not only learn that the world holds cruelness, but so they can gain knowledge from their parents experience and guidance for adulthood.
Playing with other children, a basic aspect of childhood was something we were unable to do because of the lack of seeing children outside of their family. Home schooled kids face the same consequences. A child who hasn’t efficiently learned how to deal with childhood conflict can not deal with adult conflict.
A child could become an active member of an organization that offers compromising skills. Be it girl scouts, boy scouts or some form of sports in their community. Anything of this nature would improve the outcome.
In my school, we spent most of the day praying- in church and in class. Who is to say in home schooling the children are receiving a full education which I even lacked in a parochial school? The same judge mentioned before also said " how can we not monitor the educational welfare of all of our children?" There should be a system, of more than just suggestions, to guarantee the children are being educated. This system should also lack so much variance from state to state.
More of my personal experience can be found in my book The Torments of the Modest Secluded Farm Life and it’s screenplay "Broken Souls." I hope, through my experience, I can soon make a difference for children facing similar situations.
Thank you,
Doris Anne Beaulieu
http://www.LifesUltimateTest.com
May 7, 2009
Dear Senator Klobuchar,I heard you speak on CSPAN last night regarding the newspapers who want a variance on antitrust laws so they can collude and all charge for their content at the same time. I loved hearing the story about your father's career as a journalist. And I fear that this very romantic idea of the newspaper industry will cloud your judgment. The mainstream media at one time felt obligated to serve the public interest. Let's not forget that that's an old idea. We are way beyond journalists serving the public interest. Media serves their board of directors who want access to powerful people and profits, period. Remember Judith Miller, the New York Times and the Iraq War? How much has this cost Americans in lives, money, wasted resources, wasted time? The costs to us, U.S., have been enormous, and we're still paying for it. Everytime I read the New York Times, I remember that. It's deep within me. I want to love the New York Times, but Judith Miller is in the forefront of my mind everytime I look at it. Because it's cost our country so much, as in the lives of U.S. troops (and innocent Iraqis), less money to educate our kids, no political will to change healthcare, and kept us in an oil economy instead of moving to a 21st century green economy. These newspapers serve special interests. Take the global warming issue, I would say that mainstream media has been largely responsible for keeping the idea that global warming isn't anything to be concerned about alive. These are issues that effect the life of our species, whether we are to survive or go extinct. Very serious, yet, newspapers (and mainstream media as a whole) have not allowed us to have a serious debate that would actually inform the public in a way that allows the political will to develop to make the change we need. We should have moved to a green economy back in the 1980s. February 15, 2009 George Will's column in the Washington Post distorted facts about global warming to say it's not man-made. I mean, is it ever going to end? Not if our government gives them the tools to continue to support this garbage. Garbage into the public will get you more garbage from the public because these kinds of acts keep the public confused and that's not good for making change.Also, it appears that many of their so-called journalists reporting on the financial sector may have been planting stories for the purpose of stock manipulation. And during the Obama campaign, the so-called journalists would ask the dumbest questions because they seem to be more interested in creating conflict (where one didn't exist) than going deep into the issues and facilitating a real discussion of them between the newsmakers and the public. Huffington Post is a good example of how to do this differently. CSPAN also had very good election coverage.When reading these so-called journalists, one has to be very careful to read everything very critically. I wish that when I read an article online, that I could mouse-over the article to get a pop-up window that would also report on the journalist's past articles and their pattern of reporting so that I can clearly see if they've been reporting fairly, or if they've been reporting to support a special interest. For instance, how about CNBC and the stock market? How about Bloomberg and the subprime mortgage meltdown? All these so-called journalists were banging the drum for free markets and deregulation. Now they want to change the laws because they're losing money. Is this fair to the greenshoots like Huffington Post? Is it fair to the public?The issues and the way reports are slanted to serve special interests (and advertisers) is obvious and it's the norm these days. If the newspapers are failing, it's because they haven't managed themselves wisely. It's because they have a bad board of directors and bad leadership. It's because they bought into the idea that markets only go up and they unwisely took on more debt than they can now handle. Yes, it's about survival now, but I say that they have not served the public interest. In fact, they have played a huge role in the destruction of our economy. They are concerned only with profit and to weaken antitrust laws would hurt the public interest.You know what really gets me about all this? The argument that the newspapers are using could also be used for the Employee Free Choice Act. That a single employee doesn't have much leverage, but if all employees can organize, they then have the leverage needed to make the corporations play fair. But if you were to investigate where these newspapers (who are corporate entities) stand on unions, I'm sure they would think it's ok for corporations to organize, but it's not ok for individual people, say working at Walmart to organize. I would guess that if you were to study their reporting on Employee Free Choice Act, you would see a bias for corporations like Walmart and against unions like UAW, etc. It's disgusting. Where has the point of view of labor and unions been in the mainstream media over the last 30 years? Certainly not in the newspapers, unions and labor don't have a seat at the table as is reflected in the bulging bags of cash the CEOs have compared to the stagnated salaries, 50% loss of value of 401Ks, and loss of homes of ordinary Americans. So please, leave your romantic ideas about your father's career at the door when considering the interests of the newspapers versus the public interest. Let the market decide regarding the newspapers. Our government already allows media to organize into huge conglomerates that serve special interests against the public interest, why give them any more power? Let the market decide if they pass or fail. Let the new greenshoots like the Huffington Post have their chance to grow in the market. We can have a bright future if only our government will support and nurture the greenshoots that really do serve the public interest. The public needs a media that we can trust to serve our interest. To support entities whose bad practices have contributed largely to our current economic disaster is not change I can believe in. Please, do not give the likes of Rupert Murdoch and his Fox News Empire any more power. They are killing our country and we need to move on.It's time for change Senator. Please, let it happen.Kindest regards,Maggie Knowles
Najsycak
Oaksna
Film and video documentaries are beginning to roll out regarding the Bush years of echoing continuous threats to our livelihoods if we didn’t adhere, allow and fellow our vice assistant leader Dick Cheney and his chief adviser on torture assistant Mr. John Yoo, (John can recalled here and here to refresh your memories).
The latest and most popular is entitled “Torturing Democracy” and has been awarded the RFK Journalism Award, where the awards committee calls the film “The definitive broadcast account of a deeply troubling chapter in recent American history”.
National Security Archive Update, April 14, 2009:
Washington, DC - Today, the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights announced that “Torturing Democracy” has won a Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award for domestic television and is a finalist for the grand prize. Produced and written by eight-time Emmy winner and National Security Archive fellow Sherry Jones, the RFK Center called the documentary film on the Bush administration’s interrogation and detention policies “the definitive broadcast account of a deeply troubling chapter in recent American history.”
From the RFK Center’s Web site:
“Domestic Television Winner: “Torturing Democracy”, Sherry Jones, Washington Media Associates: Meticulous reporting unravels the inside story of how torture was adopted by the U.S. government as official policy in the aftermath of 9/11. With exclusive interviews, explosive documents and rare archival footage, the documentary has been called the definitive broadcast account of a deeply troubling chapter in recent American history.”The entire film can be viewed at the companion Web site, www.torturingdemocracy.org, along with key documents, a detailed timeline, the full annotated transcript of the show, and lengthy transcripts of major interviews carried out for the film. Hosted by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, the Web site will ultimately include a complete “Torture Archive” of primary sources.
“Domestic Television Winner: “Torturing Democracy”, Sherry Jones, Washington Media Associates: Meticulous reporting unravels the inside story of how torture was adopted by the U.S. government as official policy in the aftermath of 9/11. With exclusive interviews, explosive documents and rare archival footage, the documentary has been called the definitive broadcast account of a deeply troubling chapter in recent American history.”
The entire film can be viewed at the companion Web site, www.torturingdemocracy.org, along with key documents, a detailed timeline, the full annotated transcript of the show, and lengthy transcripts of major interviews carried out for the film. Hosted by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, the Web site will ultimately include a complete “Torture Archive” of primary sources.
Please consider giving the website a visit and reviewing this timely and informative film, it’s definitely worth a “watch”.
Prior to the just released nine memos of Bush Administration regarding torture, the following seven highly censored documents were released in the fall of 2008. All furnished documents are in pdf format:
Memo from John Yoo to Tim Flanigan - September 25 2001
Memo John Yoo to William Haynes - January 9, 2002
Letter from John Yoo to Alberto Gonzales - August 1 2002
Action Memo to Secretary Rumsfeld - November 27 2002
Memo from Alberto Gonzales to President Bush - January 25 2002
Colin Powell Memo to Alberto Gonzales - January 26 2002
Memo from Jay Bybee to Alberto Gonzales - February 7 2002
The following uploaded documents were just released by the Justice Department on the 16 of April 09:
Memorandum Regarding Applicability of 18 USC - 4001-a to Military Detention of United States Citizens 06-27-2002
Memorandum Regarding Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities within the United States 10-23-2001at-terrorist-activities-within-the-united-states-10-23-2001
Memorandum Regarding Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Provisions of the ABM Treaty 11-15-2001
Memorandum Regarding Constitutionality of Amending Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to Change the -Purpose- Standard for Searches 09-25-2001gence-surveillance-act-to-change-the-purpose-standard-for-searches-09-25-2001
Memorandum Regarding Determination of Enemy Belligerency and Military Detention 06-08-2002
Memorandum Regarding October 23 2001 OLC Opinion Addressing the Domestic Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities 10-06-2008
Memorandum Regarding Status of Certain OLC Opinions Issued in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11 2001 - 01-15-2009
Memorandum Regarding Swift Justice Authorization Act 04-08-2002
Memorandum Regarding the President’s Power as Commander in Chief to Transfer Captured Terrorists to the Control and Custody of Foreign Nations 03-13-2002
Update 16 Apr 09:
Richard Armitage On Torture: I Should Have Resigned From Bush Administration (Video) Ryan Grim | HuffPost Reporting From DC
Richard Armitage, the second in command at the State Department under President Bush, told Al Jazeera English in an interview to be aired Thursday that had he known then what he knows now about the torture of detainees, the right thing to do would have been to resign. “I hope, had I known about it at the time I was serving, I would’ve had the courage to resign,” Armitage said in an interview, according to a transcript provided to the Huffington Post.
Richard Armitage, the second in command at the State Department under President Bush, told Al Jazeera English in an interview to be aired Thursday that had he known then what he knows now about the torture of detainees, the right thing to do would have been to resign.
“I hope, had I known about it at the time I was serving, I would’ve had the courage to resign,” Armitage said in an interview, according to a transcript provided to the Huffington Post.
Armitage: ‘Maybe I should have quit’ Richard Armitage, the former US Deputy Secretary of State, tells Avi Lewis on Al Jazeera’s Fault Lines why he should have resigned from the Bush administration over its lack of respect for the Geneva conventions. From Fault Lines, a new show on Al Jazeera English hosted by Avi Lewis and Josh Rushing. The first episode examines the Obama administration’s emerging policies on detention, rendition and torture.
Armitage: ‘Maybe I should have quit’
Richard Armitage, the former US Deputy Secretary of State, tells Avi Lewis on Al Jazeera’s Fault Lines why he should have resigned from the Bush administration over its lack of respect for the Geneva conventions.
From Fault Lines, a new show on Al Jazeera English hosted by Avi Lewis and Josh Rushing.
The first episode examines the Obama administration’s emerging policies on detention, rendition and torture.
Will Obama Block Release of Key Bush-era Torture Memos?
Huffington Post | Jeremy Scahill
On several occasions, Obama has invoked the “state secrets” doctrine, including to argue that a lawsuit filed against the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping should be thrown out.
Updates 16 & 17 April:
Statement of President Barack Obama on Release of OLC Memos The White House | Office of the Press Secretary
The Department of Justice will today release certain memos issued by the Office of Legal Counsel between 2002 and 2005 as part of an ongoing court case. These memos speak to techniques that were used in the interrogation of terrorism suspects during that period, and their release is required by the rule of law.
Obama To Release CIA Interrogation Memos, Defends State Secrets TIME | Posted by michaelscherer
The big news is that at any moment now, the world should know the contents of the once-secret memos that governed President Bush’s harsh interrogation program. The smaller news is that President Obama is further embracing his invocation of “states secrets” to attempt to derail lawsuits over the potentially illegal acts of the Bush Administration. According to a just-released statement.
CIA Off The Hook For Past Waterboarding from CBSNews.com
The Obama administration on Thursday informed CIA officials who used waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics on terror suspects that they will not be prosecuted, senior administration officials told The Associated Press.
Obama: Memo release a weighty decision from Politico by Josh Gerstein,Mike Allen
Obama consulted officials from the Justice Department, the CIA, the director of National Intelligence and the DHS.
Obama consulted widely on memos from Politico by Mike Allen
Axelrod says Obama considered it “a weighty decision.”
Annals of Torture: End Of The Story? from CBSNews.com
It was a great day for Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, and Jay Bybee. Those ignominious men and dozens more learned that they would be spared from prosecution either here in the United States, where they formulated our odious torture policies.
Update 18 Apr 09:
Harsh Interrogation Tactics Revealed in Torture Memos from ABC News: Home Page
Memos detail use of insects, confinement boxes and waterboards under Bush.
Ex-CIA Chiefs Slowed Torture Memos Release from Huffington Post | PAMELA HESS | April 17, 2009 04:48 PM EST
The Obama administration’s release of classified Bush-era memos on harsh CIA interrogations was delayed for nearly a month in part because of strenuous objections from four former intelligence directors.
Expedience and the Torture Amnesty from Huffington Post | David Bromwich | Professor of Literature at Yale
President Obama’s statement on releasing the Bush-era torture memos is a curious and depressing document, but it bears the marks of having been revised with care by the president himself. He takes the occasion to assure the country that a dark age has passed. At the same time he assures the agents of that darkness that they will be exempt from prosecution. The statement betrays an odd mixture of frankness and caution; the appearance of resolution, with a good deal of actual equivocation; a wish to channel the conspicuous truth to one’s own cause without revealing a disadvantageous quantity of truth.
Bush Torture Memos: Commercial Diets Used As Justification Sam Stein | Huffingtonpost.com
In an effort to rationalize the use of dietary manipulation on detainees, Bush administration officials turned to Slim Fast and Jenny Craig. In a footnote to a May 10, 2005, memorandum from the Office of Legal Council, the Bush attorney general’s office argued that restricting the caloric intake of terrorist suspects to 1000 calories a day was medically safe because people in the United States were dieting along those lines voluntarily.
In an effort to rationalize the use of dietary manipulation on detainees, Bush administration officials turned to Slim Fast and Jenny Craig.
In a footnote to a May 10, 2005, memorandum from the Office of Legal Council, the Bush attorney general’s office argued that restricting the caloric intake of terrorist suspects to 1000 calories a day was medically safe because people in the United States were dieting along those lines voluntarily.
U.N. Official: No Pass For Torturers from CBSNews.com
President Barack Obama’s decision not to prosecute CIA operatives who used questionable interrogation practices violates international law, the U.N.’s top torture investigator said.
Additional postings regarding this topic and others may be found here:
I follow TIME online reverently for stories concerning TIME’s view on our changing society, so of course I subscribe to their RSS feed.
Last night the following headliner came in from TIME with their title being: “Denny’s: Where The Food Is Free, and Drunks Can Pee”. This is disturbing to me; here’s a restaurant chain prospering and doing a good job of it, while providing food to those who may be homeless at this time or those who could go homeless soon and they’re being criticized by a somewhat elitist magazine.
I’ve never grasp the fact that “all who are homeless, are alcoholics” or those that are only poor always participate in promotions, such as offered by Denny’s. Most of the time for me, it’s been to the contrary, where the rich I’ve had the pleasure to know, sit at home and clip coupons for the supermarkets and restaurants they chose to shop and dine at.
Here’s my point:
Super Bowl XLIII - Denny’s Commercial
I recently responded to a Washington Post article on the Pledge Project effort. What struck me is the difference in how folks measure success. The article describes the Pledge Project effort as "lame" and "sputtering" yet a budget supporting a sustainable approach to energy, education and health care passed with some pretty good numbers.
But, another point was more compelling to me. The fact that citizens are engaging in their government seems overwhelmingly positive to me, whether that is 1000 people or 1,000,000. Public opinion seems to be aligned on the fact that the power of the few governing our country is not working well.
Here we go again, Fake "war crimes" by Israel bashers exposed - damning effect still on Reports of IDF Crimes: Fiction Based on Rumors - Defense/Middle ...Claims that IDF soldiers deliberately killed civilians during Operation Cast Lead were based in hearsay, a military investigation has concluded. The two soldiers who first reported the alleged incidents several weeks ago had not seen the incidents themselves, and had no personal knowledge to support the allegations... B'Tselem, accused the IDF... ... www.israelnationalnews.co... Then again, it (false accusations by the infamous un-reliable radical political group: B'tzelem) reminds us all the UN's such loud & harsh "accusation" of Israel of "killing Kids in Gaza", then later on "woke up" told the truth, AKA retracted it , UN retracts claim over Gaza school attack [Feb 4, 2009] ... The UN has retracted a claim that an Israeli strike, which killed more than 40 people in northern Gaza last month, hit a school run by a UN ... www.rte.ie/news/2009/0204... www.abc.net.au/news/stori... news.yahoo.com.au/a/-/wor... www.worthychristianforums... yet, the damage of the false accusations on innocent Israel is still there, full force.
Here we go again, Fake "war crimes" by Israel bashers exposed - damning effect still on
Reports of IDF Crimes: Fiction Based on Rumors - Defense/Middle ...Claims that IDF soldiers deliberately killed civilians during Operation Cast Lead were based in hearsay, a military investigation has concluded. The two soldiers who first reported the alleged incidents several weeks ago had not seen the incidents themselves, and had no personal knowledge to support the allegations... B'Tselem, accused the IDF... ... www.israelnationalnews.co...
www.israelnationalnews.co...
Then again, it (false accusations by the infamous un-reliable radical political group: B'tzelem) reminds us all the UN's such loud & harsh "accusation" of Israel of "killing Kids in Gaza", then later on "woke up" told the truth, AKA retracted it ,
UN retracts claim over Gaza school attack [Feb 4, 2009] ... The UN has retracted a claim that an Israeli strike, which killed more than 40 people in northern Gaza last month, hit a school run by a UN ... www.rte.ie/news/2009/0204... www.abc.net.au/news/stori... news.yahoo.com.au/a/-/wor... www.worthychristianforums...
yet, the damage of the false accusations on innocent Israel is still there, full force.
How is it that most of the "media" are owned by a frightenly small number of corporate entities? Television stations, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, movies, publishers, cable companies, etc. Think Time-Warner, then Turner, then Fox, then … who …?
Do I remember correctly that there used to be laws to protect the public against monopolistic control of the news? Doesn't "freedom of the press" mean freedom from hidden distortion due to corporate control, as well as freedom from distortion due to government control? We all know that there is a lot of corporate control of government, per se, but must there be a lot of corporate control of public information about government?
Many newspapers and local television stations are struggling to survive at all. Given the internet and a rush of technological innovations in communications, a revolution is inevitable in how we are informed about what is happening, especially in our government. Really good journalists are wondering who or what (if anyone or anything) they will be working for 5-10 years from now. In addition to PBS and NPR and CSPAN and the BBC, what is there to ensure public access to reasonably trustworthy news and discussion and commentary?
Could we somehow use this really-big-the-economy-affects-and-is-affected-by-everything crisis to fix the FCC, lest those who think the Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reillys of this country give them all the truth and interpretation of the truth that they need to guide their votes in the next election?
I ran accross the 3/15/09 60 Minutes show online, http://beta.sling.com/video/show/130320/87/60-Minutes,-031509, and I find the show pretty interesting, though Bernanke doesn't go through the entire history of the FRS. (I won't go through all of it here, but there are plenty of links and sources about the full story, if you're willing to know. Remember, Woodrow Wilson regretted creating the FRS).
About Bernanke's policies, though, IMO, he's either fooling himself or he's a pretty shrewd actor, as he seems emotionless throughout the piece (or it could be the editing).
It could be global warming, or even the solar system heating up (Yes, apparently, it's not just the Earth that's heating up, http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html.), but this guy, who's not a college undergrad, has his own opinion about Bernanke's policies: http://capitalbeat.com/?p=2647.
Uh, why is all of this talk about the FRS and its policies becoming so popular on the MSM now, even though it's been all over the indy media for years?
Very interesting indeed...
EMK
