News Media Archives

What London Reads

December 19, 2006 03:04 AM

I'm often told that in order to get the "real news" about America - and particularly the Bush administration - you have to go to sources like the Guardian of London, which can bravely report the truths that American news bureaus dare not utter, presumably from fear that some third-tier policy dork at the Labor Department will no longer speak to them. So here goes.

Bush accused of gagging critic of Iran policy

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Monday December 18, 2006
The Guardian

The White House yesterday faced fresh accusations of tailoring intelligence to suit its political viewpoint from a former CIA analyst barred from publishing a critical newspaper commentary on American policy towards Iran.

Flynt Leverett, a former Middle East analyst at the CIA and the National Security Council who has criticised the Bush administration for going to war with Iraq and for its handling of Iran, accuses the White House of pressing the CIA to demand sweeping cuts to an opinion piece he wrote for the New York Times on Washington's policy towards Tehran....

Mr Leverett said he was ordered to drop references to Iran's cooperation with the US on Afghanistan in the aftermath of the September 11 2001 attacks. He claims the White House has had no objections to similar assertions by less critical analysts.

Uh huh. The administration - no, I'm sorry, "Bush" - has not objected to other people saying the same thing Flynt Leverett wants to say, maybe because these other people are "less critical" of its/his policies.

So basically, Flynt Leverett believes that there's a gag order on Flynt Leverett (if that is his real name). News to me!

More news to me: The administration - or "Bush" - spends time trying to prevent negative portrayals of its/his policies from appearing on the New York Times op-ed page. I'll say it: Mr. President, this war is lost and forces must be redeployed immediately - to PBS!

GWEN IFILL: Is that at the root of the lot of this, just basic, old-fashioned lack of trust?

FLYNT LEVERETT: I think that's an inaccurate reading of the record. I think that Iranian cooperation with the United States on Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks was critical to the success of our efforts to get rid of the Taliban and stand up the Karzai government in its stead.

From an Iranian perspective, their reward for that was to be labeled part of the "axis of evil" in President Bush's January 2002 State of the Union address.

There is considerable distrust and historical baggage on both sides; that's part of what makes this a difficult issue to move forward. But to say that that baggage and that mistrust is a reason for not trying, when it is manifestly in U.S. interest to try, I think is a real strategic misjudgment.

Clear and hold, Mr. President. Clear and hold.

Link · American Politics | Iran | Iraq | Journalism | News Media | War on Terror

News Media Archives

The Big Chill

October 27, 2006 06:21 PM

NOTE: If you are reading this report, it's because you have been authorized to receive transmissions on my encrypted samizdat network.

America shares 53rd place with Botswana, Croatia and Tonga in the latest "press freedom" index, compiled by Reporters Without Borders and released this week.

The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.” The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism. [My italics]

Yup, that sounds accurate. I'm sure they're anxiously shredding files over at Salon and The Nation as they wait for the FBI's elite anti-criticism squad to raid. That'll teach them not to place scare quotes around "War on Terror"! (Nice touch: "[H]is 'war on terrorism.'" It's like "His Lionel train set hobby-kit with scale-model villages in the basement.")

According to RSF, journalists would be much better off in Finland, which ranked at the top of the survey. The downside, I guess, is that they'd be limited to reporting about wood crafts and suicides. In terms of your country's press freedom score, it helps if the country doesn't have much that is pressing for the press to report. Not to take anything away from Finland, of course - or Iceland (tied at No.1), which also appears to have discovered the correct balance between press freedom and national security.

And of course there's always France.

France (35th) slipped five places during the past year, to make a loss of 24 places in five years. The increase in searches of media offices and journalists’ homes is very worrying for media organisations and trade unions. Autumn 2005 was an especially bad time for French journalists, several of whom were physically attacked or threatened during a trade union dispute involving privatisation of the Corsican firm SNCM and during violent demonstrations in French city suburbs in November. [My italics]

Sounds ideal. What's a few government raids, when you might otherwise be suspiciously regarded in the U.S.? But remember, when you travel to Europe, bring along due respect for the The Prophet:

A French high school philosophy teacher and author who carried out a scathing attack against the Prophet Muhammad and Islam in a newspaper commentary says he has gone into hiding under police protection after receiving a series of death threats, including one disseminated on an online radical Islamist forum.

The teacher, Robert Redeker, 52, wrote in the center-right daily Le Figaro 10 days ago that Muhammad was “a merciless warlord, a looter, a mass-murderer of Jews and a polygamist,” and called the Koran “a book of incredible violence.”

The Redeker case is the latest manifestation in Europe of a mounting ideological battle that pits those who believe Islam and the Prophet Muhammad can be criticized in the name of free speech against those in the Muslim community who believe no criticism can be tolerated...

... “I can’t work, I can’t come and go and am obliged to hide,” Mr. Redeker told Europe 1 radio in a telephone interview from an undisclosed location on Friday. “So in some way, the Islamists have succeeded in punishing me on the territory of the republic as if I were guilty of a crime of opinion.”

Mr. Redeker, who has kept in contact with news agencies by cellphone and e-mail, said that his wife and their children had also been threatened with death. He told Europe 1 that his wife was in hiding with him, but he was less clear about his three children, saying that one of them had been forced to move and that another was in a boarding school.

Asked to describe the sort of threats he had received, Mr. Redeker replied, “You will never feel secure on this earth. One billion, three hundred thousand Muslims are ready to kill you.” [NYT]

Unbelievable. A high school with a philosophy teacher? Only in France....

Link · American Politics | Europe | News Media

News Media Archives

Kim and the Bogeyman

October 27, 2006 09:28 AM

From a BBC documentary on North Korea last night, I learned that North Korea is a thoroughly totalitarian state ruled over by an arbitrary and erratic regime that has starved millions of its people and enslaved the minds of the rest - but really wouldn't be much of a threat without George W. Bush. The "Axis of Evil" speech is depicted as a sudden interruption in the positive direction of relations between the two countries. The report notes that Bush also once referred to Kim Jong-Il as a "pygmy" - an occurrance which, even if true (and unhelpful), is hardly a legitimate excuse to detonate a nuclear device. Alas, this is all par for the course at the Beeb.

Link · Diplomacy | News Media | North Korea | Nukes | War on Terror

News Media Archives

The Scholar's Lament

September 14, 2006 02:36 PM

The New York Times ran a story this week about contributions from the Wal-Mart family's foundation to conservative think-tanks, some of whose scholars have written favorably about Wal-Mart. Why this ought surprise the editors of a publication that relies on advertising dollars, I do not know.

In any case, my father is a scholar at AEI, and he has written or delivered much of the material at issue. He detests rent-seeking, and has argued thusly[$] as banking interests try to block competition in their sphere from Wal-Mart. (You can find an example of the banking industry's measured response to his views here. Scroll down to "The Orwellian World of Mr. Wallison.") So last week he fielded queries from one of the Times reporters as we rode the train to my grandmother's funeral. With his permission, I have posted the full text of the email exchange below, in reverse chronological order.

From: Peter J. Wallison To: 'barbaro@nytimes.com' Sent: Thu Sep 07 11:24:09 2006 Subject: Re: New York Times Inquiry

Michael: I have tried to answer your questions below. Peter

1. No.

2. I am not involved in fundraising, and with few exceptions don't know who contributes to AEI. In general, the scholars at AEI, in my experience at least, have no role in the fundraising efforts. I have been told by Chris DeMuth, the President, that my job is to think, write and develop policy ideas; his is to raise funds to support AEI.

3. Although I was not aware of any contributions by Wal-Mart, even if I were I would not have disclosed it. AEI, I believe, also gets contributions from banks and others who oppose Wal-Mart. These contribuitions come from people who believe in AEI's efforts to influence the public policy debate in Washington. They don't agree with everything the scholar says, just as they may contribute to political officials whose views they generally support without agreeing on every issue. Will you, or the editorial pages of the Times, inconnection with this article, disclose how much advertising the Times receives from banks each year? Do you doubt that this article will increase that advertising? After all, these banks, the largest in NY, are opponents of wal-Mart's application. If you believe AEI should disclose, don't you have the same obligation? I for one will be very surprised if I see such a disclosure in your piece.

4. The funding hasn't influenced me, not only because I was not aware of it but also because the views I expressed have always been my views. I never write an op-ed for payment of any kind, and have turned down requests to do so because I don't want any implication that my views are for sale--not because I think it's wrong to be paid for expressing my views. Many of my articles are likely to be opposed or favored by AEI contributors, and it has never occurred to me or any other AEI scholar, I would guess, that this should be a consideration. Certainly, no one in the management of AEI has ever said anything to me about pulling my punches or favoring a particular company or idea, and I would be amazed if one of them ever did.

If I may make an editorial comment here, I think it is destructive to debate on important policy issues that the press, and particularly your newspaper, tries to demean substantive positions by implying that they are infleuenced by contributions. Even if they were, the positions should be debated on their substantive merits, not impugned by suggestions of bias.

Peter J. Wallison

Sent from my Blackberry

----- Original Message -----
From: barbaro@gmail.com
To: Peter J. Wallison
Sent: Thu Sep 07 09:54:04 2006
Subject: Re: New York Times Inquiry

Peter,

I am so very sorry to be pestering you on a day when you are attending a funeral. But in the interest of fairness, I do want to ask you these questions.

Our story will focus on the Walton Foundation's giving to think tanks, which has increased in recent years, and the disclosure -- or lack thereof -- of this funding stream from scholars at those think tanks who write about Wal-Mart. AEI has received significant funding from the Walton Foundation and so I am reaching out to several people there who have written about the company.

Here is what I would like to know (mind you these are thematic, sort of boilerplate questions; this story does not focus on you or AEI exclusively.)

(1) Were you aware that AEI has received funding from the Walton Foundation ($80,000 in 2003; $30,000 in 2004)
(2) If not, why?
(3) If so, why did you not disclose this fact in your op-ed pieces, interviews with reporters and testimony before the FDIC? (Or did I overlook such disclosures?)
(4) Do you feel this funding has influenced your thinking -- or that of any AEI employee?

Many thanks,

Michael Barbaro
The New York Times



On 9/7/06, Peter J. Wallison wrote:

It will be difficult for me to contact you today. I am on the way to a family funeral. If you have specific questions, I would be pleased to answer them with my blackberry between events. If you have seen my writings, you know that I believe the attack on Wal-Mart--like the idea of separating banking and commerce-- is an effort to fend off competition. In this case, it is the banking industry that is seeking protection. In other cases, such as the realtors, it's an industry trying to fend off the banks. Regards, Peter Wallison


Peter J. Wallison

Sent from my Blackberry

----- Original Message -----
From: barbaro@gmail.com < barbaro@gmail.com >
To: Peter J. Wallison
Sent: Thu Sep 07 09:17:14 2006
Subject: New York Times Inquiry

Peter,

I am working on a story with my colleague here at The Times about Wal-Mart and its relationship with think tanks. We plan on touching upon several of your writings -- and testimonies -- in the story and would like to speak with you as early as possible today. I know you are on the road but please give me a call. My work phone is 212-556-XXXX and my cell is 202-321-XXXX. [X's mine]

Many thanks,

Michael Barbaro
The New York Times
barbaro@nytimes.com

None of this discussion was included in the Times article. Dad is not even mentioned in the piece, though it's his work that's being attacked by Wal-Mart's opponents.

On the contrary, the Times quotes another scholar from AEI who says he might disclose Wal-Mart's support for the think-tank in an upcoming book about the company. This, of course, leaves the impression that there might in fact be something to disclose here - a notion my father explicitly rejects and addresses directly in his correspondence with Barbaro.

So why, if it's his work at issue, and he directly rebuts the canard raised by his critics, did the Times leave Dad out of the story? I emailed Barbaro on Thursday to find out. (I accidentally called him "David" in the message. As my late grandmother might have said - Hey, if they didn't want him called David on occasion, his parents shouldn't have named him Michael.) I received an auto-reply saying that he would be out of the office, and unreachable, through Friday.

So let me hazard a guess: I think the Times started with the idea that conservative scholars were guilty of having "failed" - the Times' word - to disclose the Walton Foundation's sneaky effort to buy them; the only question was the degree to which they would acknowledge their awareness and culpability. The editors were not interested in answers that upset this premise. My father's point - which ought to have been obvious - was that AEI probably collects funding from Wal-Mart's opponents in the banking sphere as well. This was inconvenient to the theme of the article. As was the point that news outlets don't find it necessary to disclose their relationships with advertisers who are cited in the editorials they publish.

Intellectual slovenliness of this caliber befits, well, Paul Krugman.

In fact, there's a base absurdity to the whole premise of the Times article. It is embedded in the suggestion that free-market scholars who would likely pull far greater salaries in the corporate world are instead grubbing for Wal-Mart dollars at think-tanks. One wonders which is the greater offense: The suggestion that they could be bought - or the suggestion that they would sell so cheaply.

Link · American Politics | Journalism | News Media

News Media Archives

The Clock's Ticking

September 8, 2006 01:20 PM

Bionically earnest press nanny Jack Shafer has yet to comment on the denouement of the Plame affair. Isn't this time for another scolding lecture on the responsibilities of journalists?

Link · American Politics | News Media

News Media Archives

CAIR-bears

August 29, 2006 10:33 AM

Milbank at his best, reporting Monday's CAIR-sponsored press event, where "Israel" critics Mearsheimer and Walt obligingly went that extra mile for their hosts.

When the two professors finished, they were besieged by autograph- and photo-seekers and Arab television correspondents. Walt could be heard telling one that if an American criticizes Israel, "it might have some economic consequences for your business." [My emphasis]

You might suddenly thrive! I think that's what he means....

[Hat tip: Glenn]

Link · American Politics | Islam | Israel | Jews | News Media

News Media Archives

Cat Nips

August 19, 2006 06:19 PM

Jimmy Carter is hawking a book, and that means reconnecting with his core constituency - Europe. Recently he sat for an interview with Der Spiegel - and, from the sounds of it, Der Spiegel sat on his lap, nuzzling its wet little nose against the former president's neck and purring softly, as they shared an understanding known only to effete Europeans and our creepiest ex-president. A sampling of the, uh, questions:

SPIEGEL: You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Given this circumstance, does it come as any surprise that Washington's call for democracy in the Middle East has been discredited?

SPIEGEL: What makes you personally so optimistic about the effectiveness of diplomacy? You are, so to speak, the father of Camp David negotiations.

SPIEGEL: One main points of your book is the rather strange coalition between Christian fundamentalists and the Republican Party. How can such a coalition of the pious lead to moral catastrophes like the Iraqi prison scandal in Abu Ghraib and torture in Guantanamo?

SPIEGEL: You've been called the moral conscience of your country. How do you look at it yourself? Are you an outsider in American politics these days or do you represent a political demographic that could maybe elect the next US president?

SPIEGEL: Does America need a regime change?

Just keep the hat out, Jimmy. They'll keep cranking the organ.

Link · American Politics | Europe | News Media

News Media Archives

The Lady Doth Protest

June 29, 2006 11:49 AM

Split decision (5-3) on Guantanamo from the Supremes. But you wouldn't know that from the rhetorical effusions coming from one Europe-based human rights group. (My highlights)

The ruling, a strong rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and international Geneva conventions....

The court's ruling was a resounding loss for the Bush administration. Justices also rejected the administration's claim that the case should be thrown out on grounds that a new law stripped their authority to consider it.

I know, I know - it's the job of these groups to seek to influence public perception by hyping the impact of favorable developments. Fair enough. Only, the two grafs above weren't written by a European human rights group; they come from a report on the ruling from the AP's Gina Holland.

Link · American Politics | Journalism | News Media | War on Terror · TrackBack (11)

News Media Archives

Learning to Love the Bomb

May 11, 2006 06:18 AM

While the regime in Iran openly flouts the Anti-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, to which it is a signatory, and flirts with the destruction of Israel, the Beeb wonders: "Would An Attack on Iran Be Legal?"

Probably not, I'd say. Expect us to be arrested and thrown in jail, where we'll spend our days pacing the cell murmuring about "loose nukes" and posting urgent manifestos to European media. Occasionally the lone guard posted outside will grow tired of listening, and will enter and beat us until, bloody and whimpering, we will once more forswear any further mention of weapons or ayatollahs or world destruction. Shamed, disfigured and ignored, we will gradually lose our faith in humanity or justice, until one day we meet this nun from Singapore who will devote her remaining days to winning our freedom. As trust grows between us, we will reveal to her our willingness to be redeemed, and she will teach us to "heal." Working in tandem, our international legal team will make a plausible human rights case from the fact that our prison is within "blast distance" of Tel Aviv and will likely be incinerated in a nuclear exchange. The matter will be taken up by a crusading Spanish judge who believes that "even the world's worst terrorist" (us) should be treated humanely. Eventually a European court will agree to move the prison 20 kilometers West, just outside the blast zone, where radiation from the subsequent detonation will hit the cheek like the warm breath from a toaster oven and the view of the mushroom cloud will be marvelous.

Link · Europe | Iran | Israel | Middle East | News Media · TrackBack (11)

News Media Archives

Progress?

April 27, 2006 02:58 AM

"The New York Times reported Friday that in addition to possible charges directly involving the revelation of Valerie Wilson's identity and related perjury or conspiracy charges, Fitzgerald is exploring other possible crimes. Specifically, according to the Times, the special counsel is seeking to determine whether anyone transmitted classified material or information to persons who were not cleared to receive it -- which could be a felony under the 1917 Espionage Act....[snip]

All such speculation about criminal indictments must be tempered with caution. Nobody outside Fitzgerald's office can be certain what charges he is considering or whose fate he is mulling over. Even the highest-ranking figures in the Bush White House, which would deprive others of their constitutional rights and has already done so, deserve the presumption of innocence.

But certain persons in this government committed a serious offense against the national security of the United States to serve political partisan ends -- and they don't deserve to get away with it." - Joe Conason, Salon.com 10/7/05

***

"The Justice Department has warned that its leak investigations may result in subpoenas to reporters, seeking to force them to expose their sources. Leading Republicans on Capitol Hill have urged that anyone who discloses or publishes classified information should be hauled before a grand jury.

And certain figures in the media have amplified those threats, notably including the virtue guru, superpatriot and degenerate gambler William Bennett. He thinks Ms. Priest and James Risen, the New York Times correspondent who broke the story of warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency, should be given prison sentences, not prizes.

Despite such confident denunciations from the right, however, determining which leaks are bad and which are good can be a murky process." - Joe Conason, NYO 5/1/06

Link · American Politics | Journalism | News Media · TrackBack (18)

News Media Archives

They love not to know

April 17, 2006 03:59 AM

The NYT officially enters the farce era of its narrative arc with yesterday's editorial endorsement of, well, ignorance.

Mr. Bush did not declassify the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq — in any accepted sense of that word — when he authorized I. Lewis Libby Jr., through Vice President Dick Cheney, to talk about it with reporters. He permitted a leak of cherry-picked portions of the report. The declassification came later....

Obviously, we do not object to government officials talking to reporters about important matters that their bosses do not want discussed. It would be impossible to cover any administration, especially one so secretive as this, unless that happened. (Judith Miller, who then worked for The Times, was one of the reporters Mr. Libby chose for this leak, although she never wrote about it.) But the version of the facts that Mr. Libby was authorized to divulge was so distorted that it seems more like disinformation than any sincere attempt to inform the public. [Emphases mine]

Oh dear. So the Times would prefer no information at all to "cherry-picked" information that is not declassified in an "accepted sense of that word." Even when the information would otherwise be kept secret, or could shed new light on a president's decision to go to war. The Times will just curse the darkness, thank you very much.

Let's put aside the question of accuracy. (The information, cherry-picked or otherwise, was in fact an accurate reflection of the intelligence community's consensus on Iraq at the time. The NIE just happens to have been wrong.) Does the Times really believe there are disinterested sources in the political world who, out of the goodness of their hearts (presumably), set aside time to leak complete, unbiased and otherwise secret information to reporters? Perhaps the editorialists consult an oracle. Or manatees! (link to video)

The unhappy reality is that there are sources who basically give you the full picture... and then there is the source who doesn't reveal that he was recommended for an intelligence mission by his wife, who works at the CIA in the very area he was sent to investigate. He also doesn't tell you that he serves as an unpaid adviser to one of the incumbent president's potential challengers in the next election, and uses your credulity to press his agenda. And when he is later revealed to have all the credibility of a carnival barker, your decision to believe him makes you look foolish. Yes, that's the type of source that can really burn you. At least reporters knew where Libby was coming from....

Link · American Politics | Iraq | Journalism | News Media · TrackBack (3)

News Media Archives

BDS: The Dumberator

March 4, 2006 09:19 PM

Not really interested in the Katrina hype. The AP has clarified that "topping" and "breaching" are not the same thing. Score one for the English language. Still, there's an angle yet missing from the denouement of this latest tempest: the kinetic, maniac ignorance caused by Bush Derangement Syndrome. Really, is there anyone beside Chimpy W. Bushitlerburton who could cause ordinary denizens of the Anglosphere to miss the distinction between these two words? I suspect that if the situation were reversed, and it was Bush who confused "topping" and "breaching," we'd be hearing a lot about someone being an idiot....

Link · American Politics | News Media · TrackBack (2)

News Media Archives

'Our Home Turf'

February 24, 2006 08:43 PM

One more reason it's fun being Jewish:

Israeli starts ‘anti-Semitic cartoon contest’

JERUSALEM: An Israeli cartoonist has launched an “anti-Semitic cartoon contest” to poke fun at fellow Jews in response to furore among Muslims over the publication of caricatures depicting the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).

Cartoonist Amitai Sandy said he was inspired by violent Muslim protests and the launching of a Holocaust cartoon competition by an Iranian daily that said it wanted to test the boundaries of free speech espoused by Western countries....[snip]

“We will show the world we can do the best, sharpest, most offensive Jew hating cartoons ever published,” Sandy wrote on his website.

“No Iranian will beat us on our home turf,” he added in reference to the cartoon competition being held by Iran’s best selling newspaper to lampoon the annihilation of six million Jews in the Nazi Holocaust during World War Two.

Link · Israel | Jews | Middle East | Modern Islam | News Media · Comments (0) · TrackBack (26)

News Media Archives

A special day

February 22, 2006 09:07 AM

Today I clicked the link to a column by "Joe Conason" -- the name given the IBM supercomputer that spits out predictably artless calumnies with assembly-line regularity -- without having any idea in advance of what it would argue. A fool I was! I should have gone with my first hunch, which was that "Joe Conason" sees the port deal as a sign that President Bush is sucking up to autocratic Arab regimes on behalf of his oil buddies. My misstep was in assuming that "Joe Conason" would have condemned President Bush for "Islamophobia" if he had blocked the deal -- ergo, by not standing in the way, Bush was playing admirably "against type," as they say. In such an instance, I reckoned, the computer might opt to follow a strategy of considered misdirection in order to make its next move less predictable. But in choosing this assumption, I neglected to take into account the basic flaw in "Joe Conason's" design: It will always take the shortest route to condemnation. Of course, it's possible that I am being misdirected by this lack of misdirection....

Link · American Politics | Middle East | News Media | War on Terror · Comments (0) · TrackBack (3)

News Media Archives

What precedent, exactly?

February 21, 2006 06:51 AM

The people's search engine, Google, fails to penetrate the distinguished editorial offices of Vanity Fair.

192 | DRESSED TO KILL Breaking precedent, George W. Bush has used military audiences, backdrops, and costumes to sell his war. James Wolcott probes the commander in chief's armed-forces fetish. Photo composite by Michael Elins. -- Vanity Fair [My Emphasis]

Hey, y'all. Can I ask you to keep a secret from James Wolcott?

Beneath this hat I am invisible to James Wolcott

So, lookit. A priest, a rabbi and James Wolcott walk into this bar...

Oh, her? We're just friends

If Wolcott asks, that is not a fighter jet behind me, and none of you are in the military

Your first mission is to get. me. re-elected

Anyway, I told Wolcott y'all were gondoliers

Checkit. This flight jacket deflects Wolcott's editors

Link · American Politics | News Media · Comments (0) · TrackBack (8)

News Media Archives

Your tax dollars at play

February 16, 2006 11:31 PM

Sure, the EastCoast/WestCoast rivalry in hip-hop may help explain the murders of prominent rappers such as Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls. But what explains the EastCoast/WestCoast rivalry? The voters of Georgia's 4th Congressional District sent Cynthia McKinney (D-EastCoast) to Congress to find out.

(Note: The following exchange is excerpted from a real interview. Seriously. No, I'm not kidding.)

ThugLifeArmy.com - After the records are released then what would be the next course of action by you and others?

Rep. Cynthia McKinney - Some records are already released that throw doubt on the officially unsolved murder of Tupac and the police version of the death. It seems clear that Tupac, who came from a family of very militant Black Panther activists, would himself have been followed and surveilled if not attacked by the FBI and their counter-gang programs. In the past this sort of surveillance was called COINTELPRO or Counter-Intelligence Program and aimed at peace, civil rights and militant activists who were working for social change. It not only surveilled people but it infiltrated groups with informants and provocateurs, created fights within groups, spread rumors about leaders, and created the conditions that led to political assassination, framing and imprisonment or destruction of progressive organizations. Senator Frank Church and others held hearings in the 1970s that exposed and made illegal some of the excesses of the FBI, CIA and military intelligence agencies. Soon Church and others on his committee were voted out of office with the help of intelligence agency support for other candidates. Even before 9/11 ongoing programs against Central America activists and youth culture musicians and leaders that looked exactly like COINTELPRO were exposed. After 9/11 Atty General Ashcroft and others called to renew the powers of COINTELPRO and even tried to pretend 9/11 happened because the CIA. FBI and DIA had their hands tied behind their backs the the Church committee rules. If the released records reveal that federal, state and local government agencies and police were violating Tupac's rights or setting the stage for his murder, there should be an outcry for a full investigation, criminal charges, demotions or firings of intelligence agents involved, and a change in the power of intelligence agencies to continue these practices. [Emphases mine]

Yes, indeed. How many more rappers must die before we clean up our intelligence services?

Of course, when "setting the stage" for a political assassination, it helps to have for a target a loud-mouthed, pistol waving jackass with the words THUG LIFE tattooed across his belly. Hell, I'd whack him, and without any prodding from the government.

Side note: Can you imagine being demoted for your role in the Tupac Shakur murder? Can you imagine joining the intelligence services only to find that you've been assigned to the Gangsta Rappers desk? Can you imagine that Tupac Shakur must be killed, but Chuck D still walks the streets? Has Chuck D complained?

You might ponder these questions as you fill out your application for the Citizens Advisory Committee -- but only if you're black! The rest of you just wouldn't understand....

Link · American Politics | Congress | History | News Media · Comments (0) · TrackBack (87)

News Media Archives

From Russia, With Chutzpah

February 13, 2006 04:40 AM

NIKITA KHRUSCHEV'S great-granddaughter, Nina, introduces a less familiar legacy of her famous forebear: freedomishness.

While it hadn't gone far enough in demystifying the totalitarian system, [Khruschev's "secret"] speech had launched the period known as the thaw, when millions of Soviet citizens were released from the gulag, and opened the door to a more frank exchange of ideas and to a limited flow of foreign visitors and goods. The freedoms that the former communist countries enjoy today have flowed from the cracks in the system that Khrushchev introduced with his speech of Feb. 25, 1956....

Wow, and to think it only took 50 years for all this flowing from cracks to become a trickling stream of stunted liberty! Of course, Hungary got to express its gratitude for this thaw to the column of Red Army tanks that rolled in later that year. (Oh, c'mon, Mister Stingy -- at least Khruschev started the ball rolling. People ought to be grateful for that - hlm. I agree! Now excuse me while I turn to my assailant here and thank him for no longer clanging my head with a pan.)

Link · History | News Media | Russia | Ukraine · Comments (0) · TrackBack (23)

News Media Archives

An American Rebel in London

February 11, 2006 09:52 AM

George Clooney reveals his newest screenplay to the Guardian of London:

INT: SUMPTUOUS MALIBU MANSION -- NIGHT

Cocktail party at the home of a very wealthy and powerful industrialist. The finest of everything: LOUIS XVI would not feel out-of-place here. WE CAN HEAR the buzz of noisy conversation, punctuated by sudden bursts of galing laughter. Men clad in tuxedos stand in small clusters about the room, smoking long cigars and chatting amiably. Gorgeous, kittenish women in extravagant floor-length evening gowns weave among the guests, stopping here and there for air-kisses with old acquaintances. White-gloved waiters deliver trays of hors d'oevres and flutes of champagne. OUR ATTENTION IS DRAWN to a photograph, perched prominently on a lamp table, that shows GEORGE W. BUSH shaking hands with a MAN IN A TUXEDO who is presumably this party's host. CAMERA PANS UP from the photo to reveal CLOONEY, surrounded by a knot of inquisitors.

CLOONEY (V.O.)

I was at a party the other night and it was all these hardcore Republicans and these guys are like...

FAT CAT #1

C'mon big Hollywood star, Why do you hate your country?

CLOONEY (WITH SMIRK)

I love my country.

The inquisitors erupt with laughter. WE CAN HEAR scattered mutterings such as "Oh, come on, Clooney" and "Let's be serious here."

FAT CAT #2 (BREAKING IN)

Why, at a time of war, would you criticise it then?

The smirk disappears. Suddenly, CLOONEY looks deadly serious. He wheels to address FAT CAT #2 directly, his eyes flashing rage.

CLOONEY (POINTING AT MAN)

My country right or wrong means women don't vote, black people sit in the back of buses and we're still in Vietnam. My country right or wrong means we don't have the New Deal.

FAT CAT #2, feeling uncomfortable now, looks down at the floor.

CLOONEY (CONT.)

I mean, what, are you crazy? My country, right or wrong? It's not your right, it's your duty. Where was I wrong, schmuck?

A GASP rises from the group. The lecture begins drawing the attention of other guests, who step closer or crane their necks to hear.

CLOONEY (WITH PASSION)

In 2003 I was saying, where are the ties between Iraq and al-Qaida? Where are the ties to 9/11? I knew it. Where the fuck were these Democrats who said, 'We were misled'? That's the kind of thing that drives me crazy: 'We were misled.' Fuck you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic.

Silence falls over the group, but only for a moment. As the din of conversation begins to build again in the room, WE CAN HEAR affirmative murmurs, along with phrases such as "He's right, you know," and "It makes sense when he says it," and "If only we had listened."

CUT TO:

EXT: STREETS OF MALIBU -- NIGHT

Still wearing his tux, Clooney roars off into the darkness aboard his Harley, a beautiful gal (CLEARLY REPUBLICAN - luxuriant red hair; fur stoll; diamond earrings) draped over his shoulders. Neither is wearing a helmet....

Link · American Politics | Humor | News Media | War on Terror · Comments (1) · TrackBack (48)

News Media Archives

A meme grows in cyberspace

February 7, 2006 08:42 AM

There seem to be a alot of people impressed by this post from Mark Tapscott:

A veteran Senate GOP staffer who requested anonymity offered this observation about the significance of the Durbin-Mirengoff exchange:

"The mainstream news media that covers Congress is tightly controlled by the House and Senate press galleries and they would never be so aggressive in pressing a Member of Congress. So this was big, it was unprecedented to have a blogger asking such questions. We need more bloggers up here asking questions because they aren't controlled by the galleries."

My God, what nonsense! Whoever said this to Mr. Tapscott -- and I'm assuming the quote is accurate -- is either absurdly ignorant of how the press galleries operate on Capitol Hill or plainly dishonest. At the very least he is playing Tapscott for a fool.

Let's be clear: The press galleries have no control whatsoever -- nada, zip, zilch, zero -- over the substance of reporting by the accredited news media. The galleries issue credentials; they answer the phones; they help the press interact with the politicians (i.e. maintain the press theater). That's it. All of this is overseen by an elected committee of the journalists who are served. The thought of one of these galleries revoking the credentials or otherwise punishing an intemperate questioner is beyond the reach of absurdity. It is beyond metaphysics.

I suspect that beneath this blogospheric fantasy, soon be known as the Mirengoff Miracle, is an (understandable) frustration at watching politicians getting soft-balled at press conferences. But just because these events are televised does not make them "newsy." Reporters use them to gather "message" points, background and quotes. The news channels use them as space-fillers. Unless the press conference itself is the news (i.e. Murtha and Iraq), no one goes to one of these events expecting to break news or learn anything novel. In the Capitol by far the most important reporting is done out of sight of the cameras, in discrete, one-on-one encounters with Senators and Representatives, primarily during votes. Reporters stake out the House and Senate chambers and button-hole lawmakers as they come and go. Even the TV reporters do this. A reporter can sit in front of a lawmaker's office all day if he wishes to. On Capitol Hill it is almost impossible for a politician to evade journalists if the journalists are determined to find him. If you don't believe me, ask Gary Condit.

There's a very simple explanation for why the system works this way. It is because nothing worth asking a politician is worth asking in front of the assembled press corps. (Unless the purpose of the question is to trip up the target before the assembled press corps -- or to seem clever. That's the presidential press conference model.) Reporters want scoops, and they won't get scoops if they can't prevent competitors from learning the same information. Being sensible about how you gather your information is often the difference between A1 and B13. Only a bleeding idiot would tip off his competitors at a public event.

The truth is that for a reporter in the Capitol, the only real inhibitors are reluctant editors and one's personal desire to maintain credibility (i.e. by not printing falsehoods under your byline, or by not letting your questions outpace your facts). In the time I reported on Capitol Hill, I had occasion to pursue one lawmaker about his gambling addiction; another about his "relationship" with the daughter of a colleague; and several about whether they took bribes from Saddam Hussein. (Hey, it was worth a shot!) And I assure you, none of these matters was addressed before the assembled press corps and its television audience.

Link · News Media · Comments (1) · TrackBack (10)

News Media Archives

Your World From the BBC

February 1, 2006 05:03 AM

I turned to the Beeb for some news a couple of days ago, after my Internet service was once again disabled by the monkeys who run the cable business here in Ukraine. Only this morning, thanks to this piece by Michelle Malkin, did I realize what I had learned during that hour. The article makes reference to the invasion and takeover of the European Union's offices in Gaza the other day by masked gunmen. They were calling for death to "Denmark" over the publication of some cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper. Malkin's reference sent my mind back to the report, and I could once again recall the Kalashnikov-toting gunmen, their faces wrapped in Kaffiyehs, holding forth before (presumably) a bank of television cameras. There's one guy reading some fatwa or another, and then a bunch of others around him, shuffling about, looking distracted, as if they have other "terrorist" jobs (i.e. "perimeter security") that need doing -- like they had actually made a plan beyond busting into the compound and calling the local media. And as I recollected all this, it occurred to me that this ridiculous scene looked like the most natural thing in the world. Who doesn't seize a consulate after some periodical in a small, out-of-the-way country publishes something that offends? If anyone ever besmirched the honor of Angelina Jolie, I don't know what I might do!

The takeover was, of course, only one piece of that morning's news product. What else was there?... oh, yes! I also learned that "it may already be too late" to save the Greenland icecap from slipping into the sea. Evidently "we" (Who? Britain? China?) have to get "our" emissions down below some level or another or... well, I didn't actually hear the rest because I was working on plans for my ark. But my ears pricked up again at the sound of Jaap "de Hoop" Scheffer, NATO's general secretary, who was being engaged in debate by a suddenly quite animated presenter. (I know him only as "the bald guy.") The bald guy was badgering "de Hoop" about some forthcoming NATO deployment in Afghanistan, and was pressing his guest quite urgently to admit (basically) that NATO was "cleaning up after the Americans," who had supposedly botched something serious having to do with security. And "de Hoop" was clever enough to point out that NATO includes the United States, which I suppose is one way to describe America's contribution of about 90 percent of NATO's fighting capability. And then I got lost in deep metaphysical contemplation... Is NATO covering for America or is it the other way around? At what point is American military action allowed to be called NATO military action? France is in NATO? If we attack France, will France join the invasion force?

So let's review: Gunmen storm building in Gaza over a cartoon in Denmark; Greenland to become grassy marshland, apocalypse imminent; NATO (or America) may be covering America's (or NATO's) ass.

Link · News Media · Comments (0) · TrackBack (8)

News Media Archives

The 'P' is for Pedant

January 29, 2006 05:43 PM

Charles P. Pierce reviews the new Carville/Begala effort in The American Prospect, and somehow manages to out-gasbag his subjects. His point seems to be that many Democrats are Catholic and too cozy with Republicans who are "bad people" and that includes Tucker Carlson but especially Bob Novak and Pericles lived in the Ozarks not Greece and Pythagoras was maybe not Catholic but abused crystal meth with Don Imus and Eric Alterman will somehow be able to explain these things to people who are too thick to understand what Charles is trying to say. (Where do I get on line?) And then there's homework:

However, you will be interested to know [from Carville/Begala], for example, that, "Many liberals share the conceit that they are intellectually superior." Really? Who? Name one.

Ooh, this is going to be tough. But I like a challenge! I guess I'll start with the folks commuting in from Bethesda with "Vote Republican: It's Easier Than Thinking" affixed to the rear bumper of their Volvo S-Series. Then I'll begin making my way west to Aspen.... Is there a prize?

Link · American Politics | News Media · Comments (0) · TrackBack (1)

News Media Archives

"Free" Failing

January 5, 2006 03:38 AM

For pure foolishness, I thought there was no way Kennedy School Russaphile Graham Allison could top his recent contribution to the Boston Globe, which I commented upon here. Allison asked "Who could have imagined" that Russia would today be doing any number of things that people might easily imagine, while never asking the most salient question of the moment: Who could have imagined that Russia would be slipping back into an aggressive authoritarianism that suppresses dissent and menaces its neighbors? Well, Allison concludes with a sigh, "there are always enough negatives to support the pessimists." Permit me to revisit that Globe piece for a minute, because it will help you understand that we were not dealing with standard-issue academic malarkey here. This was high test stuff:

In my view, Russia is still the land of the Matrushkas and Potemkin's village -- much more subtle and complex than we realize. One peels off one shell only to find another -- each layer embodying elements of truth, competing with contradictory realities both within and beyond.

You will not read a more fatuous bit of analysis this year.

So what's happened since? Well, the land of the Matrushkas, led by Patrushka Putin, tried to blackmail Ukraine into paying 400% higher rates for its gas by shutting off the spigot mid-winter. That's all.

Now, many a scholar, even at the Kennedy School, would be chastened by this kind of development. After all, most scholars wait years for their repudiation, and Allison received his almost overnight! But Allison simply shifted tack. Writing in the LAT this morning, Allison shows that he is in fact concerned about creeping authoritarianism in... Italy.

You know Italy. Overbearing mother figures. Constant threat to Albania. Participant in "cold war" over lift ticket revenues with Switzerland and Austria. World capital of scooter crashes.

Allison gets worked up over suggestions -- in this case by Sens. McCain and Lieberman -- that Russia, because of its "assault on democracy and freedom," does not belong in the Group of Eight, a consortium of the world's largest economies which now includes, well, Russia, which is not one of the world's largest economies. Meanwhile, nary a word is said about the gulags of Italy, where prisoners are stuffed with manicotti, prohibited from using explanatory hand gestures and forced to watch De Sica films without the sound on.

Okay, well not exactly. The actual problem with Italy is its president, Silvio Berlusconi. You see, he's the nation's "wealthiest individual" and is putatively quite corrupt -- even by Italian standards, I suppose.

Moreover, Berlusconi effectively controls 90% of national television broadcasting. He owns three networks and has indirect control over public broadcasting through his ability to influence the choice of the management at these stations. In its 2003 freedom of the press survey, Freedom House downgraded Italy's ranking from "free" to "partly free," where it remains today. [Emphasis mine]

Wait a second. Now, I don't know much about Italian politics, but I know how to read a basic chart! Read for yourself. Unless I'm mistaken, the 2006 survey awards Italy the top score (1 in scale of 1-7) in both its categories -- political rights and civil liberties -- and the flat designation "Free." I'll take Allison at his word on what the 2003 report says. But wouldn't that mean that press freedom has actually improved under Berlusconi?

Oh, and Russia? Well, FH gives them a low-end 6 for political rights and a 5 for civil liberties. "Not Free." But, hey, it's better than Cuba and Libya!

Link · News Media | Russia · Comments (0) · TrackBack (27)

News Media Archives

Reporters Without Funny Bones

December 16, 2005 08:31 AM

The only group more stupidly humorless than the Kazakh government, which has blocked use of the ".kz" Internet domain by comedian Sascha Baron Cohen (a.k.a. Ali G a.k.a. ignorant "Kazakh" journalist Borat), is Reporters Without Borders, which has condemned the Kazakhs for doing so. As if Kazakhstan could have done Cohen a bigger favor. Here's an excerpt from the AP story:

"We do not rule out that Mr. Cohen is serving someone's political order designed to present Kazakhstan and its people in a derogatory way," Ministry spokesman Yerzhan Ashykbayev said.

In a statement posted on the now-blocked Borat Web site, Cohen, who is Jewish, said: "I like to state, I have no connection with Mr. Cohen and fully support my government's position to sue this Jew."

"Since the 2003 ... reforms Kazakhstan is as civilized as any other country in the world," [Cohen] said in his video address using the blue Kazakh national flag as a backdrop. "Women can now travel on inside of bus, homosexuals no longer have to wear blue hat and age of consent has been raised to eight years old."

Link · News Media · Comments (0) · TrackBack (2)

News Media Archives

Bottom Story of the Day...

December 15, 2005 04:23 AM

...But top story on my Yahoo homepage:

Mortar Lands Near Green Zone As Polls Open By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

Iraqis lined up amid tight security Thursday to vote in a historic parliamentary election the U.S. hopes will lay the groundwork for American troops to withdraw, with a mortar landing near the heavily fortified Green Zone just minutes after polls opened.

No injuries were reported in that blast, but a bomb killed a hospital guard and wounded two other people near a polling station in the northern city of Mosul. The violence underscored security concerns despite a promise by Sunni insurgent groups not to attack the polls....[snip]

Emphasis added. Got that? A mortar round landed near the Green Zone. Did anyone die? No. Was anyone hurt? No. Did it set off any of those annoying car alarms? Did any dogs begin barking excitedly?

One might get the impression that this AP reporter and his editors spend their day scouring Iraq for reports of explosions -- while in other news, millions of Iraqis went to the polls to elect the first representative government in the Arab World.

Link · Iraq | News Media · Comments (0) · TrackBack (6)

News Media Archives

The Ivy Insurgency

December 10, 2005 07:20 AM

Ralph Peters' column describing the "moral collapse" of American journalism since Watergate [requires registration] is obnoxious, mean-spirited and underhanded, and... I don't disagree with a single word of it.

Link · News Media · Comments (0) · TrackBack (205)

News Media Archives

Ethan's Bag of Predictions - Part I

December 1, 2005 02:03 AM

I predict... that not long from now, Iraqi journalists will start being killed by jihadists on the grounds that they must be in the pay of the United States, because their articles are favorable -- or simply not unfavorable -- toward the American military presence in that country. I further predict that when that time comes, the New York Times will editorialize that Iraq is falling further into chaos and plunging toward civil war. I predict, still further, that the paper's smug editorialists will note that our public diplomacy in the Middle East -- perhaps most notably our military's (formerly) secret attempts to counter the bold propagandists of the Arab and Muslim worlds -- has been a tragic boondoggle, because not only are the taxpayer-financed efforts not fooling anyone, but now Iraqi journalists are being killed because of this failure. I predict, even further, that no connection will be cited between these occurrances and the fact that American news media expose the country's clandestine operations to world scrutiny, and thus feed the dark suspicions of those most susceptible to the propaganda that the military has been trying to undercut.

Finally, I predict that after all the propaganda ops are exposed; after all the disguised charter operations, CIA fronts and secret jails are revealed; after every last photo snapped by some drooling half-wit at Abu Ghraib has been aired -- after all of it, the Times editorialists will demand, with exquisite sincerity, that Bush administration figures be punished for revealing Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA to journalists. After all, the disclosure may have harmed national security....

Link · Iraq | News Media | War on Terror · Comments (32) · TrackBack (99)

News Media Archives

Investigative Reporters Defined Out of Existence

November 13, 2005 07:45 AM

Jack Shafer in Slate:

Last night on Larry King Live, [Judy] Miller once again blamed "faulty intelligence" for her "handful" of flawed stories, neglecting to explain that real investigative reporters aren't passive conduits for intelligence but skeptical analysts of it. [Emphasis added]

This is patent nonsense. If this were in fact the case, we'd lose every investigative reporter who took Joe Wilson's word about what he "found" (but, alas, didn't find) in Africa. Skeptical analysts? Journalists such as The Nation's David Corn, in spite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, still covers the Wilson/Plame affair as if its protagonist has not been roundly discredited, and as if his wife was still some kind of top-secret foreign operative, rather than a CIA bureaucrat who did in fact recommend her husband for the Niger assignment. (Corn now wants to know whether VP Cheney "outed" her. Oy vey!) Given Corn's penchant for nitpickery in all other matters (witness this bit of pedantry), he's awfully generous with a source who has taken him for a fool.

Like it or not, the disclosure of raw intelligence is often both the sum and substance of investigative reporting in Washington. I don't recall there being much "skeptical analysis" after "United States intelligence officials" (hmmmm) revealed that Ahmad Chalabi had betrayed important intelligence to Iran. In spite of this apparent misdeed, Chalabi went to Washington last week to meet privately with top Bush administration officials, who evidently let the whole Iran thing slide. (Hey, what's one intelligence leak to a theocratic state with nuclear ambitions between friends?) If you're a betting man, would you wager that those initial Chalabi reports were accurate? I'll take that bet.

Yet there's a glaring logical absurdity to Shafer's argument, as well. Here's Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA man who was the Clinton administration's Iraq expert on the National Security Council:

US analysts were not alone in these views [that Iraq had WMD capabilities]. In the late spring of 2002 I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly 20 former inspectors from the UN Special Commission (Unscom), established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did.

Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with US views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years. Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the US; Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February: "There is a problem - the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq." No one doubted that Iraq had WMD. [Emphasis added]

So let's see. One investigative reporter at the New York Times is supposed to know more about Saddam's WMD capabilities than Pollack and Unscom, to say nothing of Jacques Chirac? Those suspicions were built on decades of accumulated context, including actual use of poison gas and rampant, repeated deceitfulness on WMD matters. On what basis, then, would Miller dispute the veracity of the reports? Better yet, suppose Miller had instead cast doubt on reports that Saddam's Iraq was pocked with mass graves and jails filled with children? CNN kept a reporter in Baghdad for years without even a whisper of atrocity. Last time I checked, Jane Arraf was still working.

My guess is that Miller believed she had cultivated sources who could -- and, to her mind, did -- get her inside the story that everyone in the world knew to be true: that Saddam had continued on with his WMD programs in spite of international sanctions. Anyhow, I suspect her real crime is being hated. She works at a job where jealousies are rich and egos are big, and where Miller has always, in one way or another, been despised by her colleagues. She made a perfect scapegoat for those who wish to believe that, but for this lone reporter, Saddam could still be on his throne, and we could still be wringing our hands in dismay over what to do about it. Now she's out of a job, and perhaps Shafer and her other pursuers are on their way to Reportopia. But the only people who are being truly dishonest in this matter are those who now suggest that evidence of Saddam's malfeasance -- with or without Judy Miller -- was not overwhelming.

Link · American Politics | News Media