David Halberstam, reporter, passed away

[Sorry I've been out of pocket, Little Miss Mother-in-Law came to visit!]

Personally, I've never heard of David Halberstam. And according to him, that's a good thing:

By and large, the more famous you are, the less of a journalist you are.

He was apparently a well-respected journalist, and his death has reopened a debate -- as people sing his praises-- as to what exactly the role of the journalist is.

Look at this brief comparison Salon's Glenn Greenwald points out. Halberstam is describing a press briefing during the Vietnam War in which he stood up to a room full of intimidating generals.

Halberstam: And I stood up, my heart beating wildly -- and told him [we won't be intimidated]... Never let them intimidate you. Never. If someone tries, do me a favor and work just a little harder on your story. Do two or three more interviews. Make your story a little better.

Elizabeth Bumiller of the The New York Times (about press briefings in the runup to the Iraq War): ...in the East Room press conference, it's live. It's very intense. It's frightening to stand up there. I mean, think about it. You are standing up on prime time live television, asking the president of the United States a question when the country is about to go to war.

In other words, as Helen Thomas has been saying far more delicately than this, grow a pair.

Related to this is the concept of "access", which is to say, "If I write unflattering things about them, they won't talk to me anymore." Which sounds childish, but then, if a journalist doesn't have anyone to interview, he's an opinion columnist. (Ahem.) So the fear isn't just about standing up on TV, it's also about risking your career, which is pretty scary. (Again I say, grow a pair. Or quit and housesit cats, which is apparently all the excitement you can handle.)

However, I'm not sure that's the whole story. I've mentioned before that the media, particularly TV news, had the technology to create very splashy graphics, "The Situation Room", satellite feeds, etc., etc.-- and the time to get it all in place because the runup to the war gave it to them. They weren't asking the Big Questions because they were asking, "Can we make that banner a little redder, you know, like war?" They had to accept the inevitability of the war because that's what gave them the preparation time.

But something else has happened too, and when you read all this debate on journalism in this news cycle because of Halberstam's death, look for people talking about it.

Somewhere along the line, the media seemed to take the tack that they were there to record everyone's sound bites. This has been called "the Fox effect", wherein the conservatives complain that their side hasn't been heard, and everyone rushes out to get an Opinion B for each Opinion A. For every scientist interviewed about the possible effects of global warming, for example, we have to quote someone who says that science hasn't figured out global warming, and this passes for "fairness" and "balance".

And this is done with no regard for investigating the truth, which is to say that the journalist no longer feels the need to determine which Opinion, if either, holds any water. Wolf Blitzer's job seems to have become, "Get the sound bite from Opinion A Guy, then get the sound bite from Opinion B Gal, and we've done our job," rather than, "We have two opinions here, let's do some digging and see which one withstands scrutiny," with the idea of helping the public make sense of these opinions.

Apparently journalists feel that if they did that, they would be exhibiting a "bias"-- if I dig around and find that Mr. Opinion A has solid research behind him, while Ms. Opinion B happens to be a political operative sent out to spew talking points but no actual expertise or research, and so I tell my audience to listen to Mr. Opinion A (or even just imply it), then I'm "taking Mr. A's side" and therefore am clearly biased and not to be listened to.

And yet this used to be the role of the news, and we still tend to rely on our news reports as if they actually perform this service for us.

Instead, we get,

JOURNALIST: "What is the White House response to claims that the sky is blue, Mr. Talking Points?"

Mr. TP: "Well, Mr. Journalist, I'm glad you asked. The WH believes that we are right and everyone else is wrong. Even without looking at it, I can tell you the sky is green, that just makes sense. People who tell you the sky is blue are biased against the Green Sky Initiative because of politics."

JOURNALIST: "Well, there you have it, folks. The White House says the sky is green. Now let's look at pretty graphics before we listen to the next registration of talking points-- I mean, debate."

I should point out here that I'm not necessarily picking on Wolf Blitzer or any journalist in particular. This entire phenonmenon seems to reflect an actual shift in the mission of reporting, and to that end, these reporters are doing what the current millieu requires of them. Furthermore, if the new mission is merely to record talking points, then the overly splashy graphics and whatnot doesn't infringe on reporting, because once the talking points are quoted, there isn't much else to do. Asking "tough questions"-- that is, challenging the validity of assertions-- doesn't fit in this puzzle either, because all Wolf is required to do is record the Right and Left Opinions. He asks a question phrased to set up your talking point, you say it, and what else is there to ask you? You have your spin, you've said it, interview over.

Maybe this is a reflection of how sophisticated spin machines and campaigns have become. Maybe at some point the press corps just gave up trying to shake these operatives from their talking points. "No matter what I dig up," a reporter says, "they just stick to their story and spin my research away, so what's the point of asking them anything?" Which sounds lame, but really, if you were going to interview Cheney today, or the even more artful Rumsfeld a few months ago, would you expect either man to crack under your reporting and admit he's spinning? Would you expect to shake him off his talking points? And if you badgered him with questions that he spins away or refuses to answer, do you think you'll ever get to interview him again? It's like that saying about teaching a pig to sing*-- you won't get anywhere, and you'll annoy the pig, who will cancel all your interviews and take away your WH press credentials.

Whichever caused this, the chickenhawk or the egg, I can only imagine one way out. We must intentionally and in one mass movement shift the mission back to the principles we need so desperately in the Fourth Estate in order for it to inform us.

Perhaps a reporter breaks the Halberstam Law and gets famous by doing things the old school way-- for example, Anderson Cooper yelling at politicians during the aftermath of Katrina-- and in this way creates a new archetype of journalist that everyone strives to be. A better example than AC, who appears to have flashed in his pan already, might be the movie All the President's Men, which in its day inspired journalists to "bring down politicians" the way Woodward and Bernstein are portrayed as having done. In other words, we're holdin' out for a hero.

With or without him, though, what must follow is a fundamental, intentional shift in the mission. We must define what the New Journalism should be and create a Ten Commandments for it. The disintegration of the Fourth Estate into the Record Keeping Department happened not that slowly, but gradually over time. Redefining and reinvigorating the Fourth Estate cannot happen gradually and organically. It must happen intentionally and with the highest ethical standards.

This isn't the sort of thing you write your congressman about, or even the newspaper editor. My best advice is to a) spread the word amongst your people, so that they are aware of the shift that has happened, and b) write to journalism professors. Ask them to redefine journalism and set its path straight again, or suggest they assign this as papers or suggest it to their graduate students for their theses. We need academia to set out a new standard, because the commercial media is too busy making money to make principles. But if the principles are established and the public is crying out to have them implemented, they will follow us, because, after all, we have the money.


*BTW, I heard a new one recently: "like mud wrestling a pig-- you won't win, and the pig will love it." Actually, I think debating Rumsfeld probably fell more into this category, because he seemed to have a hell of a good time in his press conferences.

Oh, Molly, how we will miss you

Note: if you came here from a linked word in one of my posts, then I stole that phrase from the political writer I admire the most, Molly Ivins, my heroine.



The irrepressible, the unstoppable, the undefeatable Molly Ivins has left the Good State for the final time. Ms. Ivins died of breast cancer this week.

She once said that she wanted to be one of the great writers, like Camus and Proust, but while they had real political turmoil to rage against, "all I had was Lubbock."

Instead she went on to found the Texas Observer magazine which studied "The Laboratory of Bad Ideas," or the Texas Legislature.

She left Texas to write for the New York Times, and later became a syndicated columnist and author of such books as her famous "Bushwhacked."

She never married, having devoted herself to her career, and she told reporters, "and I'm not even a lesbian, which would have at least been interesting."

You could not stop her, you could not silence her. She spoke truth to power in the most delightful, humorous, and skewering way. Only death could get her to lay down for a while. We will sure miss you, girl. Texas is a little dimmer today.

PS I borrowed the flag image from belaboringtheobvious.blogspot.com, I don't know where he borrowed it from! I got the pic of Ms. Molly at DeanFest 2005 from Wikipedia.

'Bye, Ed

60 Minutes' Ed Bradley has died of lukemia. LMP sends her condolences to friends and family and wishes his spirit a happy journey.

Outrage

I wonder, will the death toll of soldiers in Iraq get banner headlines (as it did when it reached 1,000 and 2,000) when it surpasses the death toll of 9/11?

I was surprised I hadn't heard anything when it went past 2,752, which I thought was the 9/11 count (and I did see that number on Wikipedia, but now I can't find it). I was looking for that link and instead came up with another page which lists the death toll at 2,997. Currently, the death toll of soldiers in Iraq is 2,813 according to the War Room. Perhaps that is why it wasn't splashed all over CNN. (It certainly wasn't because they suddenly developed taste.)

Here's the thing: milestones of any sort give us a chance to stop the day-to-day and reflect. I've complained again and again that reflection has been sorely lacking in this administration (and when the other side tries, they are accused of whining). I agree with many conservative pundits who said that touting the number 2,000 was sort of silly, since the 1999th soldier was just as important as the 2000th. But if we're not going to reflect on it from soldiers 1-1999, then by all means, let's stop and think a second at 2,000.

But kiddos, you'd better stand up and scream when the toll reaches 2,997 or whatever number you find more reliable. Not because he or she was more important than the 2996th, but because that will mean

THAT GEORGE W. BUSH AND DONALD RUMSFELD HAVE KILLED MORE U.S. CITIZENS THAN THE TERRORISTS DID ON 9/11.

And if that doesn't make you quake in your boots, then for goodness' sake, don't vote next Tuesday.

UPDATE: 02/2007 Well, we're well over 3000 soldiers dead now and no one that I know of ever mentioned this idea that we've surpassed 9/11. I don't know what to make of that, I was sure the media would talk about it.

Long Time No Write

Little Miss Patriot has had to keep her Little Miss TV off to keep her 2-year-old from watching TV all day. (If I watch my shows, he wants his on too.) So, no more CNN all day. I'm still reading the Net but most of what I get hot about is already being addressed by what I'm reading.

First, let me point you to the new CNN Political Ticker. They've turned their politics page into, well, it looks like a blog but I wouldn't go that far. The posts are mostly old-journalism-style fast-fact news bulletins. But in doing it this way, they cover a lot more of the things going on in a day than one might expect from CNN, even though it's clear the suits aren't going to let those two cute girls on their internet team actually, you know, blog like normal people. It's done at the top of the day, for one thing, and appears to not get updated during the day. One item that's pretty cool though is that they give you the President's schedule as well as a rundown of today's planned events of political figures like speeches and news conferences so all of us PolJunkies can fill out our Day Planners.

Second, The War Room at Salon.com (you'll have to watch a short commercial to get there) has been on fire lately. Tim Grieve is always great, but when he's out he has Glenn Greenwald fill in for him. Mr. Greenwald is even more long-winded than I am, God love him, but spot-on, and lately he has been making the points I would make. I start to think, "I'm going to do a post on this [fill in the blank Bush Atrocity]" and then I realize I'm reading one that's better than I could say it. So go read you some War Room, they are rockin' the house.

Now that I've covered my butt with flattery (hmm, that paints a different picture than I intended...) I have to pass on a point Mr. Greenwald made because it's so true I want to shout it (which of course is why I have a blog).

OK, an NIE comes out in April. The WH classifies it. In September part of it gets leaked and it does not look good for the WH. The leaked part basically says, you know, the truth, that the Iraq war has conflagrated terrorism and Bush & Co. have screwed this up six ways to Sunday. Bush is irate, and in trying to take back control of the news cycle, he declassifies the whole report because, according to him, it wasn't as damning as all that, if you read the whole thing.

So GG's point is, is the NIE worth classifying, or not? Let's see the arguments.

YES-- If it was worth classifying in April, it's because it has things in it that, if published, would threaten national security. If that's the case, WHY ARE YOU DECLASSIFYING IT? The WH is revealing classified information that when released could do us harm, simply to get off the policital hot seat. Shame on you, Mr. Bush!

NO-- If the document was not worth classifying in April, because it does not contain sensitive information related to national security, and therefore is harmless to declassify now, then WHY DID YOU CLASSIFY IT THEN? That means that Bush & Co. took a valid document that was a report card on their administration, and like a middle-schooler, hid it from us so they wouldn't get in trouble. Shame on you, Mr. Bush!

Either way, this whole thing should blow back on them. Unless of course it doesn't, because we obviously live in The Twilight Zone.

There's something else bugging me about this NIE story, and that's something I saw on CNN Pol Ticker. They said that a conservative blogger had received leaked quotes from the NIE (this apparently was after the NYT published their leaks and before yesterday's declassifying) that contradicted the earlier leaks, that is to say, painted a rosier picture and backed up what Bush was saying in speeches ("if you saw the whole thing you'd see it's not so bad"). Well, they linked to it like good little blogger wannabes and I followed the link. I read this guy's stuff, and his interpretation, and wanted to punch him in the cybernose. It all reminds me of the line from The Princess Bride, "I don't think it means what you think it means." This guy is claiming to be ex-CIA but his take on things is wonky. Here's an example [the italics are his, to delineate his take on the quote]:

"A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse." Hmm...doesn't sound much like Al Qaida's pre-9-11 game plan.

Um, OK, and? What they're saying is, if you run over the fire ant hill with your mower, you decentralize them and spread them everywhere. And anyone knows, that is much, much worse. Not only does this cause them to multiply and go underground, like the ants, but in the world of cells that also means that any command structure that provided leadership and control is gone. Wanna blow some shit up? Go ahead! There's no one to rein you in.

Anyway, all of points are like that, and I wanted so badly to do a comment and take his whole post apart like an Edsel, but I refrained because I don't have that kind of time and because I was afraid I'd start a flame war. So would someone who is either calmer than I or doesn't care about remaining polite go over there and kick this guy's ass, please?

And then take your ire over to CNN, because I was equally pissed off that their "blog post" just said, "Hey, this right-wing guy found some stuff that backs up the President," without mentioning that this guy was full of crap. So if you didn't follow the links and read it for yourself, you would come away from that thinking that the NIE really does back up Bush like he's been saying. Shame on you, cute CNN internet girls!

That's all for today, class. I'll try to be on top of this blog more in the future. I don't know if you've missed me, but I've sure missed writing you.

LMP

Sorry so quiet

I haven't posted in a while, partly because I've had company visiting and we're getting ready to move to a new house and decorate it, and partly because nothing has pissed me off enough to drive me to the computer.

Also, the last thing I was working on was about the Seas of David, a story that seems to have died.

Is it encumbent on me to be different than the MSM and keep beating a drum long after the parade is over? We do complain that they move on off a story all too soon. All I know is that thinking about it seems like a waste of time, and with an almost-two son, time isn't something I can mess around with much.

Today there are a few items of note. Ken Lay, the luckiest SOB to walk the earth, has died of natural causes before serving a day in jail or seeing his finances decimated like those of his former employees. North Korea set off a few missiles, which seemed to prove only that they don't really have the capability to do much of anything. (Although that was a touch scary because I took a nap with the baby and when I woke up, my roommate said, "North Korea fired off 3 missiles while you were sleeping." For just a second it was like waking up and seeing the WTC on TV.) Fortunately, we didn't have to show that our ability to shoot down the missile would have certainly failed too. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict has escalated significantly, that has me more worried than anything. But I haven't had time to really research what the heck is going on so I can't really write about it. Rush Limbaugh got off for having that Viagra, which is fine, only I can't help but think of how many black men are in Florida jails today who have done far less in the way of drugs but didn't get the sweetheart deal RL got. I do feel for him having a drug problem, I don't judge him, but I do have to judge the Florida court system and/or drug laws for its blatantly unfair behavior.

Hope you had a great Independence Day. It's strange, I never really felt patriotism-- not that I wasn't patriotic, but I didn't feel it strongly-- until 9/11. Suddenly I felt a rush of love for my country. I knew it would pass and it did. But the intervening 5 years of the Bush Administration has made me feel more truly patriotic and adoring of my country in a lasting way. I well up with tears when I hear words from the Declaration or the Constitution. My heart swells when I read the speeches from Lincoln and FDR and Kennedy. I was describing this to my roommate and he said, "Because you know what you're losing." A fitting description. My country has been hijacked, its ideals trashed in the name of patriotism and fear. Remember that show Sliders? I feel like this is the alternate universe where everything goes to hell in a handbasket-- my only solace is that somewhere there is a universe where everything is wonderful and I hope they appreciate it. In the meantime, we have to live here, and it's breaking my heart. How do we restore the greatness of America? I'm at a loss, although step one seems to be removing the cabal that scurries in the hall behind the Presidential podium.

Well, that was cheery, wasn't it? Sorry. Why don't you use the comments field of this post to suggest content? I'll take requests, and research it and give you how I see it. In the meantime, have a great week and if you see any good decorating tips, send them our way.

Brother Corey and the Seas of David

[This post is meant to provide background info on another post, entitled "The Law Enforcement Paradigm".]

For this post, I just want expound on this one item, Brother Corey of the Seas of David. There is another post I'm working on about this group of seven that were arrested for domestic terrorism (or rather, the conspiracy to commit such). On Anderson Cooper 360, John Zarrella was approached outside the infamous warehouse by another member, "Brother Corey" who declared their innocence. The only reason he's important is that he was clearly bat-shit crazy. It was like talking to one of those homeless people who feel the need to explain at length why they need a dollar only you walk away not knowing what the hell they were talking about. Something about moon bats and pie? Now, one wonders, was he a crazy hanger-on, were the men in jail watching this groaning and saying, "Oh my Allah, I can't BELIEVE they are talking to him! WE don't even talk to him! This is so embarrassing..." I'm really surprised that no one has mentioned this startling interview again on any news program. Since virtually no one except however many people hang on every second on AC360 has seen it, I wanted to give you some of the transcript, only it's way too long. Here instead are some classic Brother Corey moments, edited for space:

ZARRELLA: What happened? Do you know?

BROTHER COREY: I know that it was supposed to have been a letter sent off to the Sears Tower, which I don't recommend that -- I don't believe my Brother Prince (ph) were -- had to jeopardize his temple as we worship here...We are not no terrorists (UNINTELLIGIBLE). We are prince of Allah, that we study and we believe in a word of God. This is a place where we worship and also have business as a worksite, as a construction company we trying to build up. And my prince, he told me never to come here and observe nothing that the outside that's trying to observe. We had to keep to ourself because we are general. We are generals and we take care of ourselves.

ZARRELLA: And you're not terrorists? Not related in any way to al Qaeda?

BROTHER COREY: Sir, I don't want to release none of that information, but I know we are not terrorists. And I don't have nothing else against the same situation that they had to do here, but I don't feel like that was right for the search warrant to go down. Because we are legal citizens here, which I know they trying to say my brothers, they locked up five of them. So right now I'm sitting here just observing because I have more authority to come here and distribute the things that they have...The way we worship, we come around, we got things we look out for the kids and everything here. So right now I'm just telling you that there is no way they'll -- right now that I can assume that we have this terrorist in our heart. We are not terrorists. We are members of David, Seas of David.

[JZ asks again about al Qaeda.]

BROTHER COREY: No, sir. Right now, only thing I can tell you is that we worshipers of this temple here. And we allow certain people to come and join our prayers, but we have certain authorities that we run by.... That I know my brother has not been treated right in the system. He's been locked up for-- on the sense that he was driving without a license. But this brother of mines, I love him to death. And I tell all of my brother -- I didn't (UNINTELLIGIBLE) get a chance to talk to them. We have codes. We have everything that's, you know, right now that is trying to establish. We're trying to build up a restaurant here. We really take toll in trying to do things the right way. We are not no terrorists.

ZARRELLA: Anderson wants to know what is the purpose of your organization? And the meaning of the name Seas of David?

BROTHER COREY: Actually I can tell you we are in a bible. And we studied Allah and also the worship of the regular bible. But it is not no terrorist or threat that you guys say that we are threats to this -- any other community. I grew up in this city. I'm a residential citizen. And all my brothers that I have, on my line right now, we are not no terrorist attackers. And I grew up with my brother that's been in the system now, the Haitian guy. They're saying illegal alien. He grew up here. I know or a fact that we are in general as one. We talk as among each other as young men. And we work out and help each other... Yes, we have connections to people in Chicago. We're -- so -- this is like we -- we negotiate to help the peace. We try to bring as many brothers in to help them out.

ZARRELLA: But there were connections to other members of this group in Chicago?

BROTHER COREY: Yes, we have soldiers in Chicago.

ZARRELLA: Why do you call yourselves soldiers? What's the -- you know, if it's a peaceful group, why use the term soldier.

BROTHER COREY: Because we study and we train through the bible, not only physical -- not only physical, but mentally. We study and we worship that we have the sense of direction that got other people in the right direction. We are not no terrorists. We come here every morning and we have the sense to go to work. We are not no homeless -- this is not no homeless shelter for a terrorist attack. You hear me?

Then JZ throws it back to AC and he has no choice but to throw this to his roundtable of Jeanne Meserve, Pat D'Amuro, Mike Brooks and Jim Walsh. Not one of them, and I find this shocking, mentioned that Brother Corey was clearly a nutjob. Meserve could only point out that it differed from what the FBI was saying (yeah, and?), and AC summed up their reactions best when he said, "I'm sort of still trying to figure out what came out of that interview, but it was sort of fascinating." It's times like these when you do long for FOX News, which at least would have had a big belly laugh at this guy.

But instead they try to hold their giggles until they are off-camera, and instead they try to pick apart his words as if they meant something. And it's true there were some weird tidbits in there.

Of course, I should have said this earlier, being a nutjob doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong. But it does make you wonder: is this guy really affiliated with this group, or is he a nutjob that kept hanging around and now, being the only one left standing, he's still hanging around this empty warehouse trying to pretend he's important? Or are they all like this, which calls into question whether or not they were capable of doing anything except practicing spastic karate?

Regardless, they clearly did have some kind of connection to Chicago, and he refers to them as soldiers and generals. Actually, he called himself one of the "generals" and the people in Chicago as "soldiers", which is also telling, but what it's telling is unclear-- aspirations of militaristic might or delusions of grandeur? And he was referencing the prison system several times, implying that they help people get back on their feet after getting out of prison, and perhaps recruiting members in prison itself.

He was also really skinchy about Al Qaeda, and while his answers look definitive in the transcript, he would stop suddenly, stare at JZ, then look down and to the right, and then look back up and say, "No sir." But it was really hinky.

And does that mean they are all crazy, or that he's not really involved with them?

Family members have also taken to the airwaves, though most of them are older people, like mothers-- which is only significant because I'm sure many people thought as I did, "How many mothers know what their adult kids are really up to?" So just because a mom or an aunt says they're innocent, well, I'm not sure how much weight that has at this early stage.

Reports are that these guys didn't have any weapons, or money to buy weapons, or really hardly any money at all to do much of anything. It seems to have been all talk, although they were caught when the leader, Narseale Batiste, approached or was approached by a federal agent posing as an Al Qaeda operative, and hit him up for money. According to CNN, "The indictment says Batiste gave the informant a list of equipment he needed, including "boots, uniforms, machine guns, radios and vehicles" as well as bullet-proof vests and $50,000 in cash," to "wage jihad" to "kill all the devils we can," while the defense attorney for one of the men said, "The only al Qaeda person was the undercover guy." Even Attorney General Gonzales said, "There is no immediate threat ... part of the reason for that is because they didn't have the materials they requested, they didn't receive the weapons, at least [that] we know of." However, as best as I can tell, only Batiste actually talked to the undercover operative, and it may well be that no one else knew what he was up to. He apparently took a bunch of Catholic and Christian men and got them praying to Allah a little by combining the two faiths, and a bunch of ex-cons and got them to stop drinking, practice karate, and get their acts together. It may well be that he was luring these men with the promise of resurrecting their broken lives and never telling them that he was secretly planning to wage jihad.

So yes, I have my doubts as to what is going on here, and I think it's too early to tell. I do think that it's interesting what happens to a terrorism case when the family is vocal, unlike Jose Padilla, who perhaps because of his former gang activity with the Latin Kings doesn't have anyone willing to stand up for him in public. But as to what the heck was really going on here, it's too early to tell.

Weapons of Mass Deception

That's the title of an EXCELLENT documentary that aired just the other day on the Link TV network.

http://www.wmdthefilm.com/ film's site

http://www.linktv.org/ network's site

It was about all the Hollywood tricks used to dazzle the reporters from the "run-up to the war" until now. For example, embedding the reporters with the troops, which was genius. Put them in danger and ask them to report on the people that are keeping them alive--Stockhom Syndrome, anyone? And pumping them full of fear of chemical weapons and putting them through all kinds of quick-put-your-mask-on drills, which kept them too busy to ask any real questions about the war. It won Best Doc at the 2004 Austin Film Festival, the Durban International Festival, and the Starz Denver International Film Festival.

"Most of the anti-war movement focused on the crimes of the Bush Administration ignoring the mainstream media, its far more effective accomplice," says former network producer Danny Schechter (ABC, CNN). "The government orchestrated the war while the media marketed it. You couldn't have one without the other." [from the film's site]

Schechter has just written a new book as a follow-up to the film, called "When News Lies", which is a follow-up to his 2003 "Embedded: Weapons of Mass Deception" which is "an account of the TV coverage of the US invasion". "'When News Lies' includes the feature-length DVD of the prize-winning film WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception)" so there's a way to get your hands on the documentary. You can also order it on the web site.

I had long suspected that the answer to, "Why weren't you asking the tough questions?" was, "We were busy making pretty graphics." Knowing what the news is going to be is gold in that industry. They had something like 7 months to make graphics, coordinate sat phones and set up shop in Iraq, and create all the computer graphics of planes, bombs, etc. When you ask what they were doing, they were getting ready for the mother of all telecasts, not questioning whether this was good for the country and holding people accountable. If they had been working on that, and we went to war anyway, they would have missed their chance to make the coverage as pretty and dazzling as the next network. CNN in particular had its own shadow to contend with-- the first Iraq war put them on the map, with rudimentary technology, and this time they felt they had to outdo themselves or risk looking like yesterday's news network. Now their ads boast they've won awards for their coverage.

The TV networks in America considered their non-stop coverage their finest hour, pointing to the use of embedded journalists and new technologies that permitted viewers to see a war up close for the first time. But different countries saw different wars. Why? [also from the film's site]

The film discusses "five wars": one that was actually being fought, the one we saw on US news networks, the one the Arab nations saw, the one Europe saw, and the one Iraqis were seeing. In South Africa, for example, the media focused on the US cluster bombs, how they worked, and their effect of blowing limbs off of children. Our networks showed the POV of the plane gleaming in the desert sun, while theirs showed the POV of the ground where the bombs were falling.

Another section talks about the public being misled, as is shown in this graphic. I wish the Daily Show was listed in this poll. Note that PBS (and they said this included NPR also) viewers (/listeners) were the least deceived. No wonder the administration is trying to kill public broadcasting.



I urge everyone to see the documentary and get the book. You will be shocked and disgusted, or you won't be because now this is what you expect from these government hijackers but now you'll have talking points.

Gay Marriage, for the last time (I hope)

I can't believe that I'm writing another post on this stupid topic, but I've been sounding off to my two-year-old about it and he's bored of the subject. So here I am, venting on the internet.

The Senate gay marriage amendment died today! (On the day I wrote this, which thanks to our crappy Net connection was a few days ago.) So that's good news, at least. However it also means I may be beating a dead horse here. But I have one or two more swings left in me, so here goes.

Besides, I'm not the only one. Lou Dobbs came out swinging in an editorial on cnn.com. His point, tying it in to his usual hot buttons, was that gay marriage is the least of the "attacks" on the American Family. I get the feeling that he also feels strongly that gays should get to marry, though he's never come out and said so.

The president and the Senate's Republican leadership are now claiming that an amendment to our Constitution is necessary to save the American family. No matter how you feel about the issue, and many of us feel deeply, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is utter and complete nonsense. It's an insult to the intelligence of every voter, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative.

The president and the Senate are focusing on one of the few reasons that has not been proven to cause divorce. They instead should look to financial hardships, and the lack of communication about family finances. The median family income is stagnating while gasoline costs and higher interest rates are eating up the family budget.

I'm sure somewhere in the article he mentioned that college tuition costs are up by 40%, since he usually rings that bell.

This is what I've been saying for years. If you really want to "protect marriage", then outlaw The Bachelor. Outlaw Las Vegas drunken quickie weddings. Outlaw divorce? No, then no one would ever get married and that would defeat the purpose. But outlaw gold diggers. Outlaw infidelity. Mandate monthly meetings with the two spouses and a CPA. (A report came out today that said the main cause of divorce is a lack of communication about finances.) Your marriage is more likely to break up because your husband ran off with his gold digger secretary after emptying your bank accounts and marrying her soused in Vegas than because he saw two men get married and thought that sounded like a good idea. If you're really concerned about marriage's virtue, then go after the big stuff first. Otherwise, you're just being a hypocrite, and what you really mean is that you don't want gays and lesbians to become respectable.

And I also came across Michael Scherer's "Who's afraid of the big bad gay marriage amendment?" on Salon.com today. He was reporting on the Senate floor debate, starring Sam Brownback (R, Kansas), who showed up with a lot of charts that meant nothing to back up his theories about gay marriage, which also meant nothing. The right had, as LD said, come out with a new "theory", which was that families in this country are collapsing. I'm not sure that's more true today than in the past, but in any case, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with gay marriage, as you'll see. As Scherer said, "...the principal argument mounted by social conservative leaders like Brownback has more to do with the fragile state of heterosexual marriage than homosexuality." To avoid too long of a quote, here are some of the points made in the article. (Quotes are credited, otherwise it's Michael Scherer describing a point made by the right.)

-- "Developmental problems are less common in two parent families." Brownback

-- welfare encourages out-of-wedlock births

-- If society approves of long-term homosexual monogamy, then the "institution of marriage" will be weakened. This will lead straight people to abandon monogamy and harm the welfare of the nation's children, who benefit from stable, two-parent families.

-- "Violent crime, youth crime, welfare dependency and child poverty track more closely with family breakdown than with any other social variable, including race and income level." Matt Daniels, founder of the Alliance for Marriage.

-- They talked about the damage done by deadbeat dads in the inner city, and the importance of family in minority communities.

OK, so we're all thinking the same thing, and according to the article, the press was too.

The press corps who had gathered for the event appeared universally baffled by the argument being made from behind the microphones. "How would outlawing gay marriage encourage heterosexual fathers to stick around?" asked the first wire service reporter to be called on for questions.

Well, that about sums it up, doesn't it? The point everyone seems to be missing is that these families they are describing are straight families. Which isn't to say that gay families don't have problems, although gays (especially the ones who start families) tend to be more educated and more financially secure, so they're not ending up on welfare or suffer child poverty. And these problems that American Families are dealing with, as listed above, are not the result of gay people getting married. An undereducated man with no job prospects who has a juvie record isn't smacking his starving kids and leaving them with no child support because two other men got married. Scherer put it so well:

The American people are not given to amending the Constitution to punish one group of people (committed gay and lesbian couples) for the sins of another group (uncommitted straight couples).

Scherer also gave some good information from the APA:

Furthermore, the American Psychological Association has concluded that gay and lesbian parents are as likely as straight parents to provide supportive healthy environments for their children. There is no scientific evidence that children of homosexual parents are more likely to suffer abuse, psychological hardship or homosexual tendencies. Gay couples have been found to be just as happy -- and just as unhappy -- as heterosexual couples and similarly committed to long-term relationships.

So the ERR has shown its true colors, and so has the American people. First, the ERR came off sounding like idiots. All those charts and figures, and none of them had anything to do with gay marriage, as it turns out. And in this last-ditch effort to get this amendment in before the mid-term elections throws the right out of power, the ERR discovered that with every year that passes, the People are more accepting of gay marriage. Lastly, this was the worst timing when our collective prospects are in the toilet and we have all of these serious concerns-- not just legitimate attacks on the American Family, as Lou Dobbs pointed out, but two wars and one on the way, porous borders, an immigration situation, a still-weak FEMA and a looming hurricane season, and a collapsing middle class, (and, and, and...)-- which made this issue seem even more ridiculous than it has in the past.

After 9/11, the Onion ran an article, "A shattered nation longs to worry about stupid bullshit again." I think the ERR learned that even the people who don't think gays should marry still wish we could worry about something as stupid as a gay marriage amendment.

Gay Marriage Post 3 of 3
Post 1
Post 2

Talking about the Powell Doctrine

CAFFERTY: Remember the Powell Doctrine? Put enough boots on the ground, a overwhelming force, to win the war and then have a plan for winning the peace.

Whatever happened to Colin Powell?

BLITZER: That Powell Doctrine was rejected by the Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

CAFFERTY: And he's still there?

BLITZER: Yes. Yes, he is.

CAFFERTY: And now, Iraqi civilians are being murdered by overstressed troops. It's working out real well, isn't it?

BLITZER: Jack, thanks very much.

It's only funny because it's true...

NSA Scandal UPDATE:

In a recent post, I postulated that the NSA data-mining of every phone call made in the US was b-ll-sh-t.

Tonight on Lou Dobbs Tonight on CNN, LD interviewed the former Director of the NSA and former Deputy Director of the CIA, Bobby Inman, who had helped develop the FISA laws in 1978.

LD: "Before we let you go, the issue of the NSA databank, the USA Today report--we've had disavowals of two of the telecommunications companies, Verizon and BellSouth saying that they had nothing to do with it, what's your reaction?"

Inman: "Lou, the direct answer is, I don't believe that such a database exists. I started thinking, what's the purpose of it? NSA has no access to driver's license information, financial information, the things that if you were trying to do an analytical job. They are collectors. What they need to know are telephone numbers from which calls are being made to foreign countries, where you might expect a return call. I don't believe a database exists. The country has been whipped into great excitement, and candidly, I think this is going to turn out to be for USA Today to be their version of WMD in Iraq."

LD: "And I think you've just put the burden on me to make sure that we get USA Today's response by tomorrow."

As I said, my DB2 roommate was insistent that such a database was possible and usable, no matter how much I argued it didn't exist, but I feel a little more vindicated now.

UPDATE: Not only was this not mentioned on Lou Dobbs Tonight the next day, it hasn't ever been mentioned again. So much for investigative reporting.

Bad News in Iraq

I got an email from my cousin touting some good news from Iraq, a commendation for a civilian who has helped to add infrastructure to the country. She added that "we never hear good news" like this, and so she wanted to spread it around.

We hear a lot about this, that there is a bias toward bad news. Well, this is true of journalism: "If it bleeds, it leads." On my local news I rarely hear about a theatre company finding a new space or a church group feeding the homeless. It always seems to be one story after another about murders and car accidents, even though I live in a safe community. And we hear more about police officers shooting suspects than we do about them getting kittens out of trees, even though I believe on the whole they are honorable people.

And I don't think that we as a people have a grasp at how awful it is to live in Iraq. We in our cushy American lives can't conceive of the difficulty. It's hard enough to live under the threat of kidnappings and rapes and murders, armed militias and coalition forces barging into your homes day and night, and roadside IEDs-- but try doing it with electricity cutting on and off, schools and work opening and closing, no sewer, running water, or garbage pickup. If you really want to know-- and if you have the conscience God gave you YOU SHOULD-- check out the link to the wonderful Baghdad Burning, a blog written by an average person living in Iraq. (I put the link in the sidebar on the right.)

Humor can be an excellent lens-- to get an idea of what it's like to live in Iraq, check out some April Fool's Joke ideas from Baghdad Burning's author (handle: riverbend):

1. “Guess what?! There’s going to be electricity this summer!!!” (For better effect, it is suggested a candle be broken in half and thrown high into the air with a whoop.)

2. “Guess what?! The Americans have declared they will be gone by 2010 and they won’t leave permanent bases behind!!!” (This should be said with a straight face.)

3. “Guess what?! They didn’t actually find three corpses in the strip of trees two streets away!!!”

4. “Guess what?! The Puppets finally formed a government!!!”

5. “Guess what?! They didn’t actually detain [fill in with the name of a relative, friend- everyone knows someone in prison these days]!!!”

6. "Guess what?! Chalabi solved the gasoline crisis!!!"

7. "Guess what?! No more religious militias- they've been banned from the country!!!" (This should be said in a low voice - just in case)

8. "Great news!! The US is going to make public how the billions of dollars in Iraqi oil money AND donations were 'spent'!!!"

9. "Guess what?! They're going to actually begin reconstructing the country and they estimate it will take 5 years!!!"

10. "Guess what?! They caught Zarqawi!!!" (This will only work on Iraqis who actually think he exists.)

I don't think we can talk enough about how awful the living conditions are in Iraq, because even as much as we talk about it, I don't think we as Americans can grasp it without going there.

And then on CNN's On The Story* a correspondent was answering the question about why she doesn't report more good news. She said that part of the problem, beyond the difficulty of getting around and security issues, is that the Defense Department will often specifically ask them NOT to report good news. Got a power plant up and running? If you report it, the "bad guys" (of whatever ilk) will bomb it. Got a school open? If you talk about it, they'll shoot it up and kill the children.

ABC's overnight news coverage was doing a story about a sitcom being filmed for Iraqi TV-- which was of course about a hapless George Constanza-type who can't get the girl, because that is universal-- and while they were filming the story, the head of the entertainment division for the Iraqi network had been murdered. Even attempts at happy stories turn bloody in reporting this war. (The online version of this story is here.)

I was trying to track down the CNN quotes from above and instead found an article entitled, Baghdad: Where No One Is Safe.

"Who do you trust in your neighborhood?" [correspondent Cal Perry] asked a resident of Baghdad.

"No one," he said.

"Who secures your house, your family?" [Perry] asked.

"I do. My brother lives downstairs. We have weapons. We are always in touch on the phone; we have codes," he said.

He then added, "It will get worse -- everyone knows this."

Mr. Perry went on to say, "Bodies are found every day, all over Baghdad. Dozens. Sometimes scores. Some are bound, tortured and beheaded. Others are simply shot, execution-style. The spiral continues, and no one knows what the sunrise in Baghdad will bring tomorrow, next week or next month."

So don't blame a biased media for not reporting the happy news, there truly isn't very much, and what there is they're afraid to report on for fear it could be taken away. Do some exploration beyond the daily body count and understand what is really going on there. And then you too might be shouting from the rooftops, demanding to know how our great country let this happen, and what we are going to do to fix it.

*I can't find the transcript, I can't remember the date. This is the kind of sloppy research that bloggers get nailed with all the time, and I can only say, sorry, I wasn't actively blogging when I saw this, and I watch a LOT of CNN and it's easy to get it confused. And I really wish I could find the name of the correspondent in Baghdad, she's got long blond hair and as I recall a British accent. Now that I'm posting more often and more seriously, I'll try to get better about these things.

UPDATE: CNN has started a weekend show called "Iraq: This Week in War" (or something like that, it hasn't appeared on their web site yet as far as I can see) and part of their programming is checking in on the good news, including power plants, schools, etc. It's a sad little section, it almost seems like if you tell the good news it sounds so meager it emphasizes how bad things are. But at least they are trying to "balance" their coverage.