US media

[steverino]

Try the video from Democracy Now or read the transcripts for decent investigative news. And Bill Moyer's Journal, Now with David Brancaccio, Independent Lens, and Frontline are all excellent programs on our Public Broadcasting Service.

I like certain Frontline and other PBS shows, but are we saying here that Bill Moyers (and PBS) has no political bias?

 

[Oliver]

That woulde depend quite a bit on what television you were watching. But it's not hard to find network news TV showing bad news about Iraq.

I've never taken any poll as indicative of reality, only of people's perceptions. And the people who frequent this board are a self-selected group - there's quite a variety of people here, but we're not exactly a representative sampling.

Plus, of course, none of your poll options lined up with my opinion.

I use to watch CNN, C-Span, O'Reilly, Bill Maher, Olberman, General News, Political Debates, CBS News Dot com. And I never saw ugly pictures from Iraq, actually showing "the other side" or portraying their Impressions about the US war.

What exactly is your opinion if not 50/50?

And while I took some time to think about it - I guess there is a solution for biased coverage - an enhancement in the first Amendment which includes the media and reporters to avoid suppression of Freedom of Speech like in case of the Plame scandal.

 

[WildCat]

I use to watch CNN, C-Span, O'Reilly, Bill Maher, Olberman, General News, Political Debates, CBS News Dot com. And I never saw ugly pictures from Iraq, actually showing "the other side" or portraying their Impressions about the US war.

Whose side is Olbermann on in this article Oliver? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18316770/

And while I took some time to think about it - I guess there is a solution for biased coverage - an enhancement in the first Amendment which includes the media and reporters to avoid suppression of Freedom of Speech like in case of the Plame scandal.

I can't make heads or tails out of this.

 

[Ziggurat]

I use to watch CNN, C-Span, O'Reilly, Bill Maher, Olberman, General News, Political Debates, CBS News Dot com. And I never saw ugly pictures from Iraq,

You mean you haven't seen lots of bloody pictures of body parts? Because US news doesn't show that stuff much in ANY context (including, BTW, victims of Saddam), regardless of the side. Now maybe Americans are more squeemish about blood than they should be, but that's not really an issue of bias.

What exactly is your opinion if not 50/50?

I already said: the press, on average, leans Democrat.

One of your poll options was about whether the press is patriotic or not: they certainly want to be viewed as patriotic, but when the population is heavily divided on the issue of the war, being anti-war isn't synonymous with being unpatriotic, which is what I presume you were trying to get at.

And while I took some time to think about it - I guess there is a solution for biased coverage - an enhancement in the first Amendment which includes the media and reporters to avoid suppression of Freedom of Speech like in case of the Plame scandal.

This makes no sense. The Plame "scandal" was never a free speech issue. The US has pretty much the most expansive free speech protections in the world, and certainly more extensive than those in Germany.

 

[Oliver]

You mean you haven't seen lots of bloody pictures of body parts? Because US news doesn't show that stuff much in ANY context (including, BTW, victims of Saddam), regardless of the side. Now maybe Americans are more squeemish about blood than they should be, but that's not really an issue of bias.

I wasn't talking about blood - I meant that I never saw a general effort to let the Iraqi people spread their opinions or blame Bush and the military. I also miss any report about the refugee problem, but I simply could have missed this issue.

I already said: the press, on average, leans Democrat.

I can't really argue about that. The whole Dem/Reps mentality is pretty strange because this seems to be a result of the 2-party system that wouldn't exist if there 4 major parties in the US in which these kinds of arguments wouldn't work anymore.

One of your poll options was about whether the press is patriotic or not: they certainly want to be viewed as patriotic, but when the population is heavily divided on the issue of the war, being anti-war isn't synonymous with being unpatriotic, which is what I presume you were trying to get at.

That's why I formulated it this way. Patriotism isn't neutral at all by it's very own nature. Beside the fact that everyone in the US is patriotic: The KKK, the Dems, the Reps, the Truthmovement, the Greens, the black Lobbies and so on. So if everyone is patriotic, doesn't this tell that patriotism is pretty much an illusion?

This makes no sense. The Plame "scandal" was never a free speech issue. The US has pretty much the most expansive free speech protections in the world, and certainly more extensive than those in Germany.

It makes sense. The government tried to press the Media to disclose the source of the lacked information. So I guess there is no real juridical protection that provides immunity in terms of free speech.

Also the strategy of gag orders and declaration of national security interests to hide inconvenient issues isn't really pro-free speech, don't you think?

 

[Oliver]

Whose side is Olbermann on in this article Oliver? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18316770/

I can't make heads or tails out of this.

Olbermann and MSNBC generally rant much more about the Republicans than about Democrats. So MSNBC also isn't really neutral.

 

[Ziggurat]

I wasn't talking about blood - I meant that I never saw a general effort to let the Iraqi people spread their opinions or blame Bush and the military.

Did you see a general effort to let the Iraqi people thank Bush and the military for overthrowing Saddam? Nope, that didn't happen either.

Journalists are sometimes lazy, they don't like to venture out of the green zone because they're targets for terrorists, and most of them don't speak the local language. These are impediments to doing what you suggest, but they cut both ways, which you seem to have overlooked.

That's why I formulated it this way. Patriotism isn't neutral at all by it's very own nature. Beside the fact that everyone in the US is patriotic: The KKK, the Dems, the Reps, the Truthmovement, the Greens, the black Lobbies and so on. So if everyone is patriotic, doesn't this tell that patriotism is pretty much an illusion?

Well, not everyone is patriotic, first off. And second, no, it doesn't tell us that it's an illusion, but that people have different definitions of it. That's not the same thing, believe it or not.

It makes sense. The government tried to press the Media to disclose the source of the lacked information. So I guess there is no real juridical protection that provides immunity in terms of free speech.

You've got the legal questions completely screwed up, because (as I suspected) you don't understand the first ammendment.

First off, if someone leaks classified information, THEY don't have any first ammendment protections. This is the case in every country: you can't have classified information without it.

Now after they leaked it to the press, the press is free to blab about it all they want to. They DO have free speech protection. That's why Novak isn't in trouble.

What the government tried to do is to force journalists to testify about what they knew. But this isn't a free speech issue. It's an issue of if you know evidence about a possible crime committed by someone else, can you be forced to testify about what you know? And the answer is, yes, you can. Free speech has nothing to do with that. Free speech is about whether you can be STOPPED from saying something, not about whether you can AVOID testifying. That's why the right to not testify in your own trial is it's own ammendment (the fifth), because it isn't covered by the first. Journalists who cried that their first ammendment rights were being trampled were selling a fiction to try to claim exclusive privileges beyond what the constitution provides.

Also the strategy of gag orders

What gag orders are you talking about?

and declaration of national security interests to hide inconvenient issues isn't really pro-free speech, don't you think?

Free speech isn't the issue there: government transparency is. And that's not actually the same thing. Nor do your earlier proposals regarding media regulation (or even self-regulation) do anything to address this issue.

 

[Oliver]

Did you see a general effort to let the Iraqi people thank Bush and the military for overthrowing Saddam? Nope, that didn't happen either.

Journalists are sometimes lazy, they don't like to venture out of the green zone because they're targets for terrorists, and most of them don't speak the local language. These are impediments to doing what you suggest, but they cut both ways, which you seem to have overlooked.

Well, not everyone is patriotic, first off. And second, no, it doesn't tell us that it's an illusion, but that people have different definitions of it. That's not the same thing, believe it or not.

You've got the legal questions completely screwed up, because (as I suspected) you don't understand the first ammendment.

First off, if someone leaks classified information, THEY don't have any first ammendment protections. This is the case in every country: you can't have classified information without it.

Now after they leaked it to the press, the press is free to blab about it all they want to. They DO have free speech protection. That's why Novak isn't in trouble.

What the government tried to do is to force journalists to testify about what they knew. But this isn't a free speech issue. It's an issue of if you know evidence about a possible crime committed by someone else, can you be forced to testify about what you know? And the answer is, yes, you can. Free speech has nothing to do with that. Free speech is about whether you can be STOPPED from saying something, not about whether you can AVOID testifying. That's why the right to not testify in your own trial is it's own ammendment (the fifth), because it isn't covered by the first. Journalists who cried that their first ammendment rights were being trampled were selling a fiction to try to claim exclusive privileges beyond what the constitution provides.

What gag orders are you talking about?

Free speech isn't the issue there: government transparency is. And that's not actually the same thing. Nor do your earlier proposals regarding media regulation (or even self-regulation) do anything to address this issue.

Quite frankly I have to admit that I'm a little bit confused because as I suspected, I don't fully understand the issue and even if my impression is still pretty skeptical, I have to rethink my understanding to get a more objective picture.

In case of disclosure of Sources, Journalists have the unwritten law to keep them secret because otherwise there wouldn't be anymore Whistleblowers. But Whistleblowers are important from my democratical understanding to adress issues that never would make it to the light of the day. So I see this as some kind of control-mechanism to avoid misuse of power.

So even if I understand the criminal argument, I honestly believe that's the FBI's problem because it's more important for any citizens to know what's going on than the criminal aspect of information - or in other words, as citizen I have the right to be fully informed about my Governments Politics and practices.

The gag-order was addressing cases like the Sibel Edmonds case, in which she got a gag order for addressing a scandal within the FBI. Do you know this case?

 

[ConspiRaider]

Raw Story should hang out here at JREF. Hell, maybe they do!

In another thread the discussion led to how "musicians" today have to be female and drop-dead gorgeous to get play. Next day Raw Story had a piece on that.

Here we be in this thread talking about the shallowness of U.S. mainstream media and how pathetically insignificant it really and truly is.

And what do I find on Raw Story today?
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Samantha_Bee_defines_N.I.L.F._as_News_0517.html

 

[Ziggurat]

In case of disclosure of Sources, Journalists have the unwritten law to keep them secret because otherwise there wouldn't be anymore Whistleblowers.

And courts generally give them some defference, so that police can only subpoena them for such information if there's no other method they can use to get it. But turning this defference into an absolute protection is quite dangerous. For example, it basically removes the possibility of ever prosecuting anyone for libel or slander ("I didn't say it, I'm just reporting what my source said, and no I won't reveal my source). Extending such protections to everyone could produce similar legal nightmares. And it cannot be restricted to journalists alone without making the journalists privileged compared to the rest of us. But I want no part of that: I don't want journalists to have any more rights than I do, because that just means I have fewer rights than them, and I don't want to give anyone the power to decide (essentially arbitrarily) who gets these extra rights and who doesn't.

But Whistleblowers are important from my democratical understanding to adress issues that never would make it to the light of the day. So I see this as some kind of control-mechanism to avoid misuse of power.

Well, most whistle-blowing isn't actually a crime, just the sort of thing that might get you fired for. And if it's not a crime, journalists can't be compelled to testify about it.

So even if I understand the criminal argument, I honestly believe that's the FBI's problem because it's more important for any citizens to know what's going on than the criminal aspect of information - or in other words, as citizen I have the right to be fully informed about my Governments Politics and practices.

This argument, if taken seriously, basically means you can't have state enforced secrets of any kind. So Operation Overlord, for example, would have been impossible. And that's simply not going to fly.

The gag-order was addressing cases like the Sibel Edmonds case, in which she got a gag order for addressing a scandal within the FBI. Do you know this case?

No, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that case.

 

[Oliver]

And courts generally give them some defference, so that police can only subpoena them for such information if there's no other method they can use to get it. But turning this defference into an absolute protection is quite dangerous. For example, it basically removes the possibility of ever prosecuting anyone for libel or slander ("I didn't say it, I'm just reporting what my source said, and no I won't reveal my source). Extending such protections to everyone could produce similar legal nightmares. And it cannot be restricted to journalists alone without making the journalists privileged compared to the rest of us. But I want no part of that: I don't want journalists to have any more rights than I do, because that just means I have fewer rights than them, and I don't want to give anyone the power to decide (essentially arbitrarily) who gets these extra rights and who doesn't.

I know what you mean in terms of misuse: If journalists are addressing issues that are completely fabricated, of course the executive branch should be able to intervene to avoid libel and slander IF they're able to disproof such claims. But if informations are true, the Media shouldn't be punished for addressing issues.

The controversy is about the legal issue - but you have to consider that the executive-, legislative- and judicative branches are also parts of the Government. Now if they are able to protect themselves via law, where is the right for freedom of speech? Basically this would mean that freedom of speech and information is undermined by law. See Gonzales case...

Well, most whistle-blowing isn't actually a crime, just the sort of thing that might get you fired for. And if it's not a crime, journalists can't be compelled to testify about it.

I guess they can if the Government declares the Information as National Security. In this case the Whistleblowers and Media doesn't have juridical protection anymore, do they?

This argument, if taken seriously, basically means you can't have state enforced secrets of any kind. So Operation Overlord, for example, would have been impossible. And that's simply not going to fly.

That's not really the point. I think intelligence is important to understand the world and make wise decisions about foreign policies. And they should be secret to protect the countries interests. But I don't support the cover up in the aftermath to protect policies and decisions which would proof incompetence, for example.

The freedom of information act was meant to provide such informations - but the praxis shows that it doesn't work out very well, does it?

No, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that case.

This is a pretty interesting case and I wonder that you're not familiar with it. Basically Sibel Edmonds worked for the FBI and was asked from other colleagues in the FBI to work with them. At this point she realized that she was talking to spies that infiltrated the FBI. After complaining this issues on several levels within the FBI, she was fired. So she went to adress these issues to officials in congress. After the case was getting bigger and bigger, the whole incident was declared as an issue of national security to cover the scandal. The interesting thing is that Muller and Ashcroft were involved in cover the issue:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="sibel+edmonds"+Muller+ashcroft&btnG=Search

 

[Ziggurat]

I guess they can if the Government declares the Information as National Security. In this case the Whistleblowers and Media doesn't have juridical protection anymore, do they?

It doesn't generally work that way. Once information has been made public, there's no way for the government to keep the public from talking about it. The FBI woman you refer to is in a funny situation with the "retroactive" classification, but any information she revealed to a journalist before it was classified could still be safely repeated by that journalist (but not by her) even after it's classified. Furthermore, most government workers don't have classified clearance, meaning you can't classify any information that they're going to be exposed to as part of their job.

That's not really the point. I think intelligence is important to understand the world and make wise decisions about foreign policies. And they should be secret to protect the countries interests. But I don't support the cover up in the aftermath to protect policies and decisions which would proof incompetence, for example.

Well, neither do I. But without actually knowing what that information is in detail, we cannot conclude that any given case (such as the one you mention) is really a coverup, or whether there's really information there which shouldn't be made public. Whistleblower protection is a delicate issue, but it's also a different issue than freedom of speech.

 

[Oliver]

It doesn't generally work that way. Once information has been made public, there's no way for the government to keep the public from talking about it. The FBI woman you refer to is in a funny situation with the "retroactive" classification, but any information she revealed to a journalist before it was classified could still be safely repeated by that journalist (but not by her) even after it's classified. Furthermore, most government workers don't have classified clearance, meaning you can't classify any information that they're going to be exposed to as part of their job.

Well, neither do I. But without actually knowing what that information is in detail, we cannot conclude that any given case (such as the one you mention) is really a coverup, or whether there's really information there which shouldn't be made public. Whistleblower protection is a delicate issue, but it's also a different issue than freedom of speech.

So once any information has leaked - how is there a way to cover a story if any further information will be classified?


Well, I guess that's the controversy in here - I simply have a different democratic understanding about this issue - and don't fully know or understand US-Laws.

In case of the Sibel Edmonds case it's an piquantly Issue. On one hand she reported it internally - protecting the inner affairs - but she also was fired without violating any law or disclosing any secret information after no one listened to her within the Agency. (Which is a security disaster on it's own).

Maybe we hear more about it in the future - in the meantime there is a pretty good documentary about her case: "Kill the Messenger".

 

[WildCat]

Maybe we hear more about it in the future

Oliver, to be clear: If Sibel Edmonds had information of illegal acts, there could be no gag order legally binding on her not to talk about it.

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, to be clear: If Sibel Edmonds had information of illegal acts, there could be no gag order legally binding on her not to talk about it.

And why couldn't she even report her case in court then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds#Kill_The_Messenger_Documentary

But on April 21, 2005, in the hours before the hearing of her appeal, three judges issued a ruling that barred all reporters and the public from the courtroom. During the proceedings, Edmonds was not allowed into the courtroom for the hearing. On May 6, 2005, when her case was dismissed, no reason was provided, and no opinion cited.

 

[WildCat]

And why couldn't she even report her case in court then?

Apparently the judges decided that the facts of the case were classified and should remain so.

If Edmonds knows of illegal activity she can talk about it - she obviously knows how to get publicity judging by the 4,974,387 interviews she's given the past few years.

 

[Oliver]

Apparently the judges decided that the facts of the case were classified and should remain so.

If Edmonds knows of illegal activity she can talk about it - she obviously knows how to get publicity judging by the 4,974,387 interviews she's given the past few years.

Well, in these 4,974,387 interviews she didn't mention anything about the things she actually translated and why the spies were interested in these informations. And she couldn't talk about illegal activities - unless you think that infiltration of an executive branch isn't illegal or an issue at all. But anyway: It's not my executive Branch - so you can think about it the way you prefer.

 

[Ziggurat]

So once any information has leaked - how is there a way to cover a story if any further information will be classified?

Find a leaker, or do some detective work to try to figure out the information on your own. That's always been the way stories about classified topics get covered.

Well, I guess that's the controversy in here - I simply have a different democratic understanding about this issue - and don't fully know or understand US-Laws.

Are you even sure you understand German laws on the issue? Because somehow I doubt that your government will just let state secrets slip out without doing anything to plug the holes. Given any set of rules for protecting secrets, it's always possible to abuse them. And if that's what's going on here, it doesn't necessarily invalidate the rules themselves.

 

[Oliver]

Find a leaker, or do some detective work to try to figure out the information on your own. That's always been the way stories about classified topics get covered.

Are you even sure you understand German laws on the issue? Because somehow I doubt that your government will just let state secrets slip out without doing anything to plug the holes. Given any set of rules for protecting secrets, it's always possible to abuse them. And if that's what's going on here, it doesn't necessarily invalidate the rules themselves.

Seriously? No, I don't know the exact procedures in these cases because we didn't have these type of scandals yet. That's why I prefer to watch your political scene - Germany's politics is pretty boring: No CIA, no Black Budget, no scandals, no party bashing, no presidential debates.

By the way: Is the Libby/Plame case closed yet? I didn't hear something new about it.

 

[Pope130]

Seriously? No, I don't know the exact procedures in these cases because we didn't have these type of scandals yet. That's why I prefer to watch your political scene - Germany's politics is pretty boring: No CIA, no Black Budget, no scandals, no party bashing, no presidential debates.

By the way: Is the Libby/Plame case closed yet? I didn't hear something new about it.

Oliver,
Perhaps you should ask someone in your neighborhood who Rheinhard Gehlen was. CIA, Black Budget, Scandals, Oh My! (Also sex, treason, Swiss bank accounts and Minox cameras.)

Robert Klaus