New York Times accused of Catholic bashing, double standard on religion

FOX NEWS [News Corporation/Murdoch] - March 15, 2012
The New York Times is being accused of having a double standard when it comes to questioning religion, after it ran an ad calling on Catholics to leave their church, but nixed an ad making the same plea to Muslims.
The newspaper published an ad from Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation on March 9 which asked Catholics, “why send your children to parochial schools to be indoctrinated into the next generation of obedient donors and voters?” The ad went on to call loyalty to the faith misplaced “after two decades of sex scandals involving preying priests, church complicity, collusion and cover-up going all the way to the top.”

But in a story first reported by The Daily Caller, when Pamela Geller, a blogger and executive director of Stop Islamization of America, offered the same $39,000 for the Old Gray Lady to run an ad making a similar appeal to Muslims, the newspaper passed.
"This shows the hypocrisy of The New York Times, the "gold standard" in journalism, and its willingness to kowtow to violent Islamic supremacist intimidation," Geller told FoxNews.com.

Geller said her anti-Shariah ad was designed to mimic the anti-Catholic one. In calling on Muslims to quit their religion, the ad asked “Why put up with an institution that dehumanizes women and non-Muslims …
Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy referred requests for comment to the letter the paper sent Geller when it declined to publish the ad.
"We have not made a decision not to publish the ad you refer to," stated the letter. "We made a decision to postpone publishing it in light of recent events in Afghanistan, ... It is our belief that fallout from running this ad now could put US troops and civilians in the region in danger and we would like to avoid that."

Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, called the first ad “vile.” But he said running it was a “judgment call.” However, the decision not to run Geller’s ad shows an agenda, he told FoxNews.com.
“It shows the disparate treatment and the duplicity of The New York Times,” Donohue said. “You can trash some religions, like Roman Catholicism, with impunity, but you cannot trash Islam?”

Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/15/new-york-times-accused-catholic-bashing-double-standard-on-religion/
 

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Critics Slam U.S. Government, Media for 'Weak' Response to Anti-Christian Attacks

FOX NEWS [News Corporation/Murdoch] - February 15, 2011
At least 65 Christians have been killed in attacks across the Muslim world in recent months, sparking sharp criticism from human rights groups that charge the U.S. government and media aren’t doing nearly enough to speak out against the violence.

A shooting in Egypt last month that killed a Christian man and injured five Christian women was just the latest in the series of attacks, several of which occurred around the holiday season: A New Year’s bombing at a Coptic Christian church in Alexandria, Egypt, killed 23 people and injured more than 100; Christmas Eve blasts in Nigeria killed at least 32 -- just part of a night of terror across the country that saw three other churches attacked and six worshipers killed; six perished in a Christmas Day Catholic Church bombing on the island of Jolo, in the Philippines; and a string of New Year’s Eve bombings in Iraq left two dead and at least 13 wounded.

The spate of attacks has some saying that not enough is being done. "The lack of a policy response beyond sending condolences each time a church or Christians are targeted in some horrific act of violence like in Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria etc. is absolutely bewildering," Nina Shea, director of the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom, told FoxNews.com. "This should be seen as not only a humanitarian issue, but a security issue."

Even the condolence statements have come up short, said Shea. When the Obama administration first noted an Oct. 31 church bombing in Iraq, for example, it sent “a general condolence to Iraqis that didn’t even mention the word Christian or churches -- even though it was a packed Sunday worship service for Christians that was blown up.”

That bombing, claimed by an Al Qaeda-linked organization, left 58 people dead and at least 78 wounded. It was the worst attack ever against Iraq's Christian minority.

Critics have also charged the U.S. media hasn’t done enough to publicize the plight of persecuted Christians.

CBS and ABC aired nothing on the Nigerian attacks, PBS had one "NewsHour” report, while NBC gave the story three briefs mentions on the morning of Dec. 27, according to L. Brent Bozell III, president of the Media Research Center.

"CBS Evening News" anchor Katie Couric instead found the protests against a new Islamic Center set to be built near Ground Zero to be more newsworthy, labeling the "seething hatred" against Muslims in America as one of the "most disturbing stories to surface this year" on her New Year's Eve Internet show.

That night, 11 bombs exploded near Christian homes in Baghdad, killing two people and wounding at least 13. And just minutes into the new year, the bombers in Alexandria struck. “ABC aired nothing. CBS and NBC each aired one brief anchor read," according to Bozell. ...

Edited :: See Original Report Here
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/15/critics-slam-government-media-weak-response-anti-christian-attacks/

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

POPULAR TECHNOLOGY.net - July 25, 2010 The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 800 papers. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.


Criticisms: All criticisms of this list have been refuted or a change made to correct the issue. Please see the notes following the list for defenses of common criticisms. I make every attempt to defend the list where possible, in many cases my comments correcting the misinformation stated about the list are deleted and I am blocked from replying. Please email me if you have any questions or need me to address something, populartechnology (at) gmail (dot) com.


Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. The reason for this is a small minority of authors on the list would not wish to be labeled skeptical yet their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) support skeptic's arguments against AGW alarm.


Formatting: All papers are cited as: "Paper Name, Journal Name, Volume, Issue or Number, Pages, Date and Authors". All "addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers" are preceded by a " - " and italicized. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological.

"I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line."


- John H., comment at RealClimate.org

See this link for for listings and links to peer-reviewed papers
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Defending Israel Under Siege: Special Edition eResponse World Report | Simon Wiesenthal Center

Zechariah 12:2-3 "Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah. "It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it. This is a special collection of reports provided by the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Please click the link below: SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER - June 3, 2010 Defending Israel Under Siege: Special Edition eResponse World Report Simon Wiesenthal Center FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Why Barack Obama Manufactured This Crisis With Israel

RED STATE [Eagle Publishing] - Posted by Jeff Dunetz - March 24, 2010 Last night Barack Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. It was very obvious that there was no easing of tensions between the two allies. Neither leader said as much, but the news blackout about the meeting is unusual. Such high-level meetings are generally followed by pubic handshakes, and often by joint statements. Obama met with Netanyahu for about an hour and a half, took a break as the session moved to the Roosevelt Room and continued with White House aides. After the break, Netanyahu and the US president returned to the Oval Office for another 35 minutes. Then Netanuahu was lead out the same way he was lead in, very quietly. The frosty Obama/Netanyahu personal relations is a result of a crisis which was manufactured by Barack Obama as a way to isolate the Jewish State and serve it up on a silver platter to his allies in the Muslim world. Yes I know the President keeps talking about the “shared interests” and “friendship” but this President is an expert in saying one thing and doing another. The official story, the one you hear in the press, is the U.S. wants a freeze on new housing units in East Jerusalem and the West Bank as a way to bring Palestinians back to the bargaining table for renewed peace talks. The truth is that these housing developments started decades before Bibi took over as PM in 2009 and negotiations were taking place all during that period. Obama is pressuring Israel despite the fact that last year Mahmoud Abbas declared in the Washington Post that he would never recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and that he would not lift a finger to peacemaking. Abbas basically said that Bibi would capitulate or he would wait until a Bibi/Obama split brings down the Netanyahu government. Obama is putting the entire burden on Israel and the “settlements”. No reciprocal demand is made of the Palestinians. In his demands Obama has refused to recognize existing agreements between the two countries saying that Israel would be permitted to expand existing communities. In fact the Obama administration refused to admit they ever existed. That lie was refuted by was disputed by former Asst. Secretary of State Elliot Abrams who negotiated that agreement with Israel: On settlements we also agreed on principles that would permit some continuing growth. Mr. Sharon stated these clearly in a major policy speech in December 2003: “Israel will meet all its obligations with regard to construction in the settlements. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line, no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements.” Ariel Sharon did not invent those four principles. They emerged from discussions with American officials and were discussed by Messrs. Sharon and Bush at their Aqaba meeting in June 2003. ” Stories in the press also made it clear that there were indeed “agreed principles.” On Aug. 21, 2004 the New York Times reported that “the Bush administration . . . now supports construction of new apartments in areas already built up in some settlements, as long as the expansion does not extend outward.” None of this should be surprising, during the campaign, many of us were jumping up and down screaming about Barack Obama’s anti-Israel history. Unfortunately Jewish thought leaders such as Ed Koch, Marty Peretz, and Alan Dershowitz all told us that our claims were nonsense. Now that he as been elected the evidence is all there, Barack Obama is doing his best to delegitimize Israel. Look at what has happened during his first 15 months as President: His first week in office when he sat down with Al-Arabiya Arab TV, Ignored Palestinian Terror and indicated that the Israeli government had no desire for peace. His Naming of Samantha Power to a key NSA position. Ms Power has suggested that America invade Israel to enforce a peace plan. America folding it hands and not answering Anti-Israel motions at the Durban II planning meetings. Hilary Clinton’s February demand to open boarder crossings to terrorists. $1.6 to Gaza, for reconstruction, money that will fall in the hands of Hamas. The SHMOTUS Joe Biden has said that Israel should “get used to” a nuclear Iran. Ignoring previous agreements with Israel, to call for the end of natural growth of settlements. Using a Speech to the Muslim world in Cairo as an excuse to throw Israel under the Bus. Using a trip to Buchenwald to side with Arab Propaganda that Israel’s primary legitimacy comes from the Holocaust. His UN Team apologized for not attending Anti-Israel Durban II Conference. Sent Key adviser to the anti-Israel, Anti-Semitic ISNA Conference. Has worked tolegitimize anti-Israel organization J-street to push his pro-terrorism agenda. Has gotten Democrats such as Steve Israel, to abandon Israel and help push his J-Street agenda. The President has made only tepid objections to the Goldstone report. Nominated to head the TSA a man who claims that al Qaeda only fights the US because we are friends of Israel. Unleashed Media Matters to attack Israel and Praise the Goldstone report. Selected a woman with an anti-Israel background to be his Anti-Semitism Czar. The Appointment of Anti-Israel Chuck Hagel to his administration. And of course there is the appeasement of Iran, and the current manufactured crisis. Edited :: See Original Report Here http://www.redstate.com/jeffdunetz/2010/03/24/why-barack-obama-manufactured-this-crisis-with-israel/ FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Media Bias Special Report: Making Sense of the Jerusalem Crisis

A look at the key context and realities behind a US-Israeli dispute over Jerusalem. HONEST REPORTING - Media Critqiues Communique - March 18, 2010 The past week has witnessed a flurry of media reports as Jerusalem finds itself in the eye of a diplomatic and political storm. A poorly timed announcement on the part of the Israeli Interior Ministry during US Vice President Joe Biden's visit has escalated into a diplomatic spat between the Israeli and US governments. Taking advantage of the already existing tensions in Jerusalem, the Palestinians have actively encouraged rioting to keep the flames burning. Events that would normally be ignored by the world media, such as the rededication of the Old City's Hurva Synagogue, have become flashpoints while other stories such as the dedication of a West Bank town square in memory of a Palestinian terrorist have been barely covered. Not to mention the debate that is now taking place in the US and international media, asking questions of the special relationship between Israel and the US - with some enemies of Israel actively calling into question the very relationship itself. With so many interwoven threads forming this major story, many media outlets have, either deliberately or simply due to ignorance, left out key context, thus contributing to the confusion and misinformation. Here, HonestReporting attempts to clear up some of that confusion, recentering where the media should have been focused. ... Edited :: See Original Report Here http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Special_Report_Making_Sense_of__the_Jerusalem_Crisis.asp Also: Jerusalem on the Media Frontline HONEST REPORTING - Media Critqiues Communique - March 9, 2010 The Economist misrepresents a municipal plan to improve the lives of Jerusalem's Arab residents. Perhaps no other issue generates such emotion and conflict as the status of Jerusalem. We do not intend to prejudge the outcome of any discussions that may or may not eventually take place between the various interested parties that have a stake in the holy city. However, many media outlets have done precisely that - drawing upon a one-sided and selective narrative that seeks to delegitimize Jewish rights in Jerusalem. Only recently, HonestReporting critiqued a biased BBC Panorama documentary focusing on tensions in the area of eastern Jerusalem adjacent to the Old City. Indeed, with a settlement freeze on the West Bank excluding the eastern part of Jerualem, the media's new frontline has moved to Israel's capital city. The media have, in many cases, played into the hands of those on the Palestinian side who need little excuse to stoke existing tensions or create new ones. A prime example is The Economist, which simply parrots the Palestinian narrative and downplays the Jewish character of Jerusalem. ... Edited :: See Original Report Here http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Jerusalem_on_the_Media_Frontline.asp

What New Settlement? Some media mistakenly imply that Israel is building new settlements. HONEST REPORTING - Media Critqiues Communique - March 9, 2010 Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak announced the exemption from the West Bank settlement freeze of 112 housing units in Beitar Illit for safety and infrastructure reasons. One can agree or disagree with this decision. What is patently clear, however, is that these housing units are located within the third-largest Jewish city in the West Bank, with a population of 36,000. These 112 housing units do not represent the construction of a new settlement. So why then did the BBC produce the following caption on its headline news story? US Vice-President Joe Biden leads the latest Mid-East peace drive, after Israel enrages Palestinians by approving new settlements. Unedited :: Link to Original Posting http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/What_New_Settlement.asp

Double Standards? Nato's Afghan Errors Why are Afghan civilian casualties "accidents" but Palestinian civilian casualties are "war crimes"? HONEST REPORTING - Media Critqiues Communique - February 28, 2010 Nato and Afghan government forces have recently launched the largest military operation against the Taliban since the beginning of the conflict in Afghanistan in 2001. Like the IDF during Operation Cast Lead, US and British troops face an enemy that cares little for the well being of its people. Like the IDF, US and British forces operate under a military doctrine that aims to prevent civilian casualties. Like the IDF, US and British forces have found that in a conflict situation, mistakes inevitably occur and civilians are the tragic victims. ... Double Standards? We sympathize with the forces currently taking on the Taliban and recognize the difficult dilemmas and decisions that have to made in the course of a military operation. However, we have to ask why, when the IDF also makes every effort to avoid civilian casualties, is Israel accused of "war crimes" and pilloried in the media when Palestinian civilians are accidentally killed, while the very same media shows a remarkable understanding when similar mistakes occur in Afghanistan. Can we expect international condemnation in the media or from so-called human rights NGOs when civilian deaths occur in Afghanistan and calls for an immediate end to the military operation? Will there be a Goldstone-style commission of inquiry with the potential for legal action against the US, UK or individual commanders and soldiers? Unlikely. ... Edited :: See Original Report Here http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Double_Standards_Natos_Afghan_Errors.asp

Jewish Groups Geared to Fight 'Apartheid Week' ARUTZ SHEVA (Israeli National News) - By Maayana Miskin - February 26, 2010 Jewish and human rights groups are gearing up to counter "Israel Apartheid Week" events next week. "Apartheid Week" is an annual event organized on college campuses in the United States, Canada and elsewhere by extreme anti-Israel groups. The week-long event includes lectures and exhibits aimed at convincing students that Israel is a racist, colonial state. Participants are asked to sign a document opposing Zionism while supporting the creation of a state for Palestinian Authority Arabs. One of the groups fighting Apartheid Week is Bnei Brith Canada, which called this week to ban "Apartheid Week" events completely. The group praised MPP Peter Shurman for proposing a resolution to condemn Israel Apartheid Week. The resolution was passed by the Ontario legislature. ... The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) has also put materials online to assist those interested in countering anti-Israel rhetoric. The site, http://www.israeliapartheidweek.com/, includes information on the radical nature of Apartheid Week, the double standard implicit in criticizing Jewish self-determination and not that of other national groups, and genuine oppression elsewhere in the Middle East. Edited :: See Original Report Here http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/136219 Israel Apartheid Week Comes to Town The insidious analogy returns to college campuses as part of the campaign to delegitimize Israel. HONEST REPORTING - Media Critqiues Communique - March 4, 2010 The false analogy between apartheid South Africa and Israel - particularly since the UN's racist 2001 Durban Conference - has played a key role in the campaign to delegitimize Israel and threaten its existence. The strategy of boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) is based on convincing the public that Israel is no more legitimate than the apartheid regime in South Africa, and can be removed with enough public pressure. Now, this insidious delegitimization campaign has returned to university campuses around the world, including the US, UK and Canada, as part of Israel Apartheid Week. ... Edited :: See Original Report Here http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Israel_Apartheid_Week_Comes_to_Town.asp

The True Colors of Israel Apartheid Week CIF WATCH - March 11, 2010 Video of the anti-Israel IAW protesters in New York City March 9, 2010 http://cifwatch.com/2010/03/11/the-true-colors-of-israel-apartheid-week/

BBC Cited for 2 Blatant Anti-Israel Reports ARUTZ SHEVA (Israeli National News) - By Hillel Fendel - January 27, 2010 Internationally renowned pianist Evgeny Kissin, CAMERA, and various media analysts have joined the fray of complaints against BBC for its "bias against Israel." The two issues reported on unfairly by BBC relate to Israel's alleged organ-harvesting of Palestinian Authority residents and its treatment of Arabs in Jerusalem. Last month, in what was essentially a rehash of a 15-year-old story, British media reported on an admission by an Israeli pathologist that there had been incidents of "harvesting" of organs from Israeli soldiers and Arabs. The BBC's headline screamed that Israel was harvesting Palestinian organs, without mentioning that Arabs were not the focus of the misguided policy, illegal in Israel. BBC's response ... was even more misleading than the original article, London's Jewish Chronicle reports. ... "This report was not created by the BBC, but was a translation of a news story which appeared on Israeli television... I am also assured by the World Service that the Israeli government has not denied the story since it broke." The reason Israel did not deny the story is because it was true; until it was stopped, there had, in fact, been illegal organ harvesting, irrespective of ethnic origins. But, as an Israeli Embassy spokesman said, the problem with the BBC report was that it was a "despicable attempt" to claim that Israelis have been involved "in the specific harvesting of Palestinian organs." Israel protested the BBC's emphasis on "simply one component" and called it "an attempt to manipulate the hearts of the readership." Mideast media analyst Tom Gross noted that some countries, such as China, "do remove live organs for transplant. There is scarcely a word about this in the British media. The Iranian-backed Lebanese terror militia Hezbollah has been accused of harvesting the organs of Lebanese Christians, with hardly any investigation of this charge by the so-called human rights groups of America and Europe." Gross also noted that BBC, unlike other media, "used a sensationalist and shocking photo, which was not even from Israel, to give the false impression that the Israeli government had been involved in wrongdoing." ... Edited :: See Original Report Here http://www.israelnationalnews.com/SendMail.aspx?print=print&type=0&item=135725 FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Major revelation: U.S. media deceitfully disseminates government propaganda

Prince of the power of the air[waves] SALON.com [Salon Media Group] - By Glenn Greenwald - April 20, 2008 This morning's "blockbuster" New York Times article by David Barstow, documenting the Pentagon and U.S. media's joint use of pre-programmed "military analysts" who posed as objective experts while touting the Government line and having extensive business interests in promoting those views, is very well-documented and well-reported. And credit to the NYT for having sued to compel disclosure of the documents on which the article is based. There are significant elements of the story that exemplify excellent investigative journalism. At the same time, though, in light of questions on this very topic raised even by the NYT back in 2003, it is difficult to take the article's underlying points seriously as though they are some kind of new revelation. And ultimately, to the extent there are new revelations here, they are a far greater indictment of our leading news organizations than the government officials on whom it focuses. In 2002 and 2003, when Americans were relentlessly subjected to their commentary, news organizations were hardly unaware that these retired generals were mindlessly reciting the administration line on the war and related matters. To the contrary, that's precisely why our news organizations -- which themselves were devoted to selling the war both before and after the invasion by relentlessly featuring pro-war sources and all but excluding anti-war ones -- turned to them in the first place. To its credit, the article acknowledges that "at least nine" of the Pentagon's trained military analysts wrote Op-Eds for the NYT itself, but many of those same sources were also repeatedly quoted -- and still are routinely quoted -- in all sorts of NYT news articles on Iraq and other "War on Terrorism" issues, something the article fails to note. What the article also does not disclose, but should have, is that the NYT itself already published, back on March 25, 2003, right after the invasion of Iraq, an article by John Cushman raising the thorny questions posed by the media's extensive reliance on retired generals as "military analysts": Old soldiers, it turns out, don't just fade away not when a war is being carried live on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and the broadcast networks. Instead, a whole constellation of retired one-, two-, three- and four-star generals -- including many who led the recent wars in Afghanistan, Kosovo and the Persian Gulf -- can be seen night and day across the television firmament, navigation aids for viewers lost in a narrative that can be foggier than war itself. . . . But the generals' performances raise some questions, including how much they really know and whether they are disclosing more than they should. Some receive occasional briefings from the Pentagon, but like most reporters, they stay current by checking with their friends in the military and studying all the public information they can gather. On the other hand, their evident sympathies with the current commanders, not to mention their respect for the military and immersion in its doctrines,sometimes seem to immunize them to the self-imposed skepticism of the news organizations that now employ them. Rarely, unless pressed, do the generals bluntly criticize the conduct of the war, a detailed review of their recent remarks discloses. Instead, they tend gravely to point out the timeless risks of combat. That 2003 article, at the very beginning, highlighted the obvious conflicts raised by this morning's article, as it quoted Gen. Greg Newbold on ABC News as praising the invasion as follows: "If things haven't gone exactly according to script, they've gone according to plan," even though Newbold himself "until late last year [] was helping to draw up those plans as the director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff." In fact, that 2003 article noted that while Wesley Clark had said on CNN that he wished there were more troops used for the invasion, retired Generals were reliably praising the war and the administration's strategies. That article even quoted one of the retired Generals cited in this morning's article as one of those on the Pentagon's list of puppets -- Wayne Downing -- to illustrate the type of pro-government commentary typically spouted by these "military analysts": More typical was a description by Gen. Wayne A. Downing, a former Army leader of the Special Operations Command and a gulf war commander in 1991, of Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the Iraq war's overall regional commander. "Tommy started off as an enlisted helicopter door gunner in Vietnam," General Downing said, rattling off the story of his old comrade's career as if by rote. "He's not going to go down there and mess with his people. Not only is Tommy comfortable and well liked by his superiors, which a lot of people are, but Tommy hasn't made his money by looking up. He's made his money by looking down." That 2003 article didn't seem to give any of these news outlets -- including the NYT itself -- the slightest pause about continuing to use these sources as "objective" analysts. It's true that the 2003 article did not raise the added conflict that many military analysts were simultaneously working for corporations in the defense industry which stood to profit from the war policies they were praising, but is that really news to anyone? It's long been clear and obvious that these retired generals were used by the U.S. media to provide an authoritative and artificially objective stamp of approval to the Bush administration's positions. In his book Lapdogs, Eric Boehlert cited numerous examples of that, including: And for viewers that night who didn't get a strong enough sense of just how obediently in-step the press corps was with the White House, there was the televised post-press conference analysis. On MSNBC, for instance, "Hardball's" Chris Matthews hosted a full hour of discussion. In order to get a wide array of opinion, he invited a pro-war Republican senator (Saxby Chambliss, from Georgia), a pro-war former Secretary of State (Lawrence Eagleburger), a pro-war retired Army general (Montgomery Meigs), pro-war retired Air Force general (Buster Glosson), a pro-war Republican pollster (Frank Luntz), as well as, for the sake of balance, somebody who, twenty-five years earlier, once worked in Jimmy Carter's White House (Pat Caddell). Meigs was one of the retired Generals on whom the NYT article this morning focused (and as a frequent and highly respected guest on MSNBC, here's the type of propagandizing commentary he routinely spewed, consistent with what the Sainted David Petraeus was doing at the same time). Doing whatever they could to promote the Government line on the "War on Terrorism" was a central function of our propagandizing press corps; the use of allegedly objective retired generals was a critical instrument in their arsenal; and the NYT article this morning, while commendably disclosing new evidence to prove that, does not reveal anything not previously known. The most incredible aspect of the NYT story is that most of the news organizations which deceived their readers and viewers by using these "objective" analysts -- CBS, NBC, Fox -- simply refused to comment on what they knew about any of this or what their procedures are for safeguarding against it. Just ponder what that says about these organizations -- there is a major expose in the NYT documenting that these news outlets misleadingly shoveled government propaganda down the throats of their viewers on matters of war and terrorism and they don't feel the least bit obliged to answer for what they did or knew about any of it. (And it doesn't appear that Barstow even asked the NYT itself to comment about what they knew or what their procedures were when using these sources). CNN did answer by claiming they were unaware of these relationships and rely on their sources to disclose them. The single most significant factor in American political culture is the incestuous, extensive overlap between our media institutions and government officials. The former is a dependent appendage of the latter far more than they are anything else. This article discloses some new details and proof of how that toxic process functions, but the fact that our major news organizations -- with some exceptions -- largely serve as government propaganda outlets is not news. It's the central fact of American political life, and the NYT itself -- along with every other news organization -- more than five years ago was obviously aware of this specific problem but not particularly concerned about it. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/20/nyt/index.html FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Angry journalists vent their frustrations to the world

Mayhem in the Media: Is Judgment falling the anti-Christian, anti-Israeli Press? AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE - April 1, 2008 They're angry at their demanding editors. They're angry about the mushrooming workload in shrinking newsrooms. They're even angry about other angry journalists. But these angry journalists are happy they can now vent their frustrations to the rest of the world, courtesy of angryjournalist.com, a sort of online complaint board allowing ink-stained wretches to gripe anonymously. Ironically, their anger is partly fueled by the Internet, which has forced newspapers and television networks to reinvent themselves with painful consequences for their staffs. There's the veterans complaining about newsrooms stretched thin by executives requiring reporters to produce stories for old and new media. "I'm angry because my company, just like the rest of the industry, wants me to do more with less. They've said, 'To hell with quality. Let's just fill the website with as much (expletive) as possible,'" gripes Angry Journalist #241. There's also the young guns frustrated by the culture clash. "I hate the fact that print and online can't work together! Come on, online is the future, so please have some respect for the webeditors!" says Angry Journalist #700. The website contains gripes ranging from existential musings about one's career to expletive-laced diatribes that trigger heated exchanges. Angry Journalist #2559 seems to think that his or her newspaper serves for other purposes than informing readers: "Whatever I write ulimately (sic) either ends up as cage lining or as blankets for bums." As one would expect at any other job, bosses get the brunt of the gripes. "Our executive editor, the man who's supposed to be leading our newsroom, wanders around the building like he forgot where he left his coffee cup," writes Angry Journalist #2570. The website was created by a former journalist who cut short his young career in the news business to work in political communications in Illinois. But he insists his decision to change paths was not driven by anger. Kiyoshi Martinez, 23, who worked as Web editor for Chicago area community newspapers, said he was "disappointed" in his young journalism career about the direction of the industry. In early February, the same month he quit journalism, Martinez launched his website after reading a study on burnout among newspaper journalists, which sparked his interest in knowing what was on reporters' minds. Since then, his website has inspired an imitator, happyjournalist.com, which has much catching up to do with only about 100 "pieces of happiness" compared to the more than 2,600 gripes so far on angryjournalist.com. "It's kind of depressing to see an industry treat its workers so badly," Martinez told AFP. While venting about one's job is nothing new, Scott Reinardy, the journalism professor at Ball State University whose burnout study inspired Martinez, says angryjournalist.com provides a place for discussion about the direction of the news business in the age of the Internet. "Angryjournalist is a tremendous site to allow journalists to vent," Reinardy said in a telephone interview. "We're in a state of real transition and it's just going to take some time, it's going to take some pain before we can do it I'm afraid," he said. "The uncertainty is scary to people." Steve Outing, a columnist for the trade publication Editor and Publisher, said news executives should pay attention to angryjournalist.com. "Things get said on this website that otherwise would not get said -- other than perhaps at the neighborhood bar to co-workers or at home with a spouse," he wrote in his column last month. "I can't help but think that this is a good thing for the news industry." Meanwhile, Martinez, who now works as a communications specialist for the Illinois Senate Republican Caucus, is happy to have left journalism, earning more money and more vacation in a better working environment. "I'm having a blast," he said. Angry Journalist #856 is also happier now: "I'm not angry anymore. I quit my job." http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080402022944.y4nk74gl&show_article=1 FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Media in love with Obama?

Recent polls, McCain agree: Press is twitterpated WORLDNETDAILY - July 22, 2008 A new poll demonstrates Americans believe by a more than three-to-one ratio that the news media is trying to help Sen. Barack Obama win the presidential election this fall, a perception that John McCain has now taken advantage of in a humorous new feature on his website. McCain's front page invites visitors to vote for their favorite of two YouTube videos that feature clips of reporters gushing in affection over the presumptive Democrat candidate and confessing a media bias. Meanwhile, a Rasmussen Reports telephone survey taken even before Americans raised their eyebrows over the New York Times' acceptance of an Obama op-ed piece and rejection of McCain's, found that 49 percent of voters believe most reporters are trying to help Obama with their coverage. Similarly, only 14 percent believe the media is helping Sen. John McCain, and a mere one in four voters (24 percent) believes most reporters offer unbiased news coverage. McCain's website is now poking fun at the media for creating this perception with its new "Media Love" campaign. "It's pretty obvious that the media has a bizarre fascination with Barack Obama," the site reads. "Some may even say it's a love affair. We want you to be the judge. Click here to watch the new video and vote today!" You can view the video that was leading the voting when WND went to press below: [See link below for video] A second, related report released by Rasmussen shows Americans see bias not only in coverage of the candidates, but in major issues as well. A full 50 percent of Americans polled believe the media is making economic conditions seem worse than they really are, and 41 percent believe reporters are trying to make news of the Iraq war seem unfairly negative. Only 25 percent think most reporters present fair coverage of the economy, with the same percentage believing the American people are getting an unbiased picture of Iraq. The poll that asked about candidate coverage found self-described Democrats to be far more trusting of the media than their Republican counterparts. A plurality of Democrats (37 percent) see news coverage as unbiased in the presidential campaign, while 27 percent perceive a slant toward Obama and 21 percent a slant toward McCain. Among Republicans, 78 percent believe reporters are giving Obama a boost, and a mere 10 percent judge the coverage unbiased. Independents, it seems, tend to agree more with the Republicans. Half of the unaffiliated respondents (50 percent) believe reporters are helping Obama, 21 percent perceive unbiased coverage, and a mere 12 percent see a pro-McCain slant. Coupled with the perception of bias is an underlying mistrust of the media, with less than one in three (30 percent) doubting most reporters would hide information hurtful to their preferred candidate, while 25 percent were unsure and 45 percent stating they believed reporters would cover up news that didn't fit their bias. The mistrust of the media, also heavier among Republicans than Democrats, seems to correlate with the way Americans perceive economic issues. Republicans, for example, who are more likely to see media as bashing the economy, are also more likely to view the economy positively. Democrats – who trust the media more and see less of an unfair negative slant – view the economy more negatively. Of those polled, 59 percent of Republicans affirmed the United States has the world's best economy, while a mere 18 percent of Democrats would make the same judgment. The poll also showed Republicans are far more likely to trust a stockbroker than a reporter for their economic news. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=70272 FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of religious, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.