05
Feb
More On The Threat To PBS
GET THEM LIBERALS
THE MOYERS-PBS ISSUE
MORE OF YOUR LETTERS
"Politics is not the art of the possible," the great Massachusetts based economist John Kenneth Galbraith once said. "It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable." The Bush Administration is choosing another course. Like father, like son, the old Bush One "blame the liberals" canard is being taken out of the dirty tricks closet, dusted off and redeployed. Who will be this year’s Willie Horton, and why is it that Massachusetts seems to be in the cross hairs of the far right once again, even if they don’t have Dukakis to kick around one more time? With the State’s highest court endorsing gay marriages the Commonwealth is seems to be the target du jour. And John Kerry will now be accused of carrying the banner of the old "L"-word. He’s the wrong gender to be tagged with the new "L" usage. Ask Ellen.
Reports today’s New York Times: "Republicans are calling Senator John Kerry a Massachusetts liberal, a charge that proved devastating to Michael S. Dukakis in 1988." He seems to be taking cover in his new guise as the distinguished war tested Vietnam vet. That may not last because the Rove rangers have rediscovered that as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War Kerry’s strong condemnation of the atrocity that was that conflict. They will use it against him to be sure. Errol Morris’s new documentary The Fog of War may be prophetic as that fog lifts. Soon, we will be refighting the Tet offensive.
SEE EYE AY: INNOCENT AS CHARGED?
For years, the eggheads at The CIA were seen as the liberals of the intelligence world because they tend to be more sophisticated than their counterparts across the river. So it is somewhat surpassing that the always hawkish David Kay started blaming The Company for the intelligence failures that are said to have led to the bungled war on Baghdad. CIA bashing by the right was always a great sport because the Agency rarely could defend itself because it couldn’t compromise its secrets. So-called "Family Jewels." But now CIA Director George Tenet —who just yesterday was reported by the Washington Post as getting along swimmingly with GWB— is taking off the gloves. He hurriedly scheduled a speech later today at Georgetown University to blast back at his critics. His talk is being described as a "a strong public defense" of the prewar judgments about Iraq’s illicit weapons stockpiles
Former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal is saying bollocks to the charge that the CIA did it — or failed to do it — however you want to put it and instead blames the Neo-Cons in the Pentagon. In a column today on Salon.com He writes, in part:
"The truth is that much of the intelligence community did not fail, but presented correct assessments and warnings that were overridden and suppressed. On virtually every single important claim the Bush administration made in its case for war, there was serious dissension. Discordant views — not from individual analysts but from several intelligence agencies as a whole — were kept from the public as momentum was built for a congressional vote on the war resolution.
"Precisely because of qualms the administration encountered within, it created a rogue intelligence operation — the Office of Special Plans, located within the bowels of the Pentagon. The OSP was under the control of neoconservatives; it roamed outside the regular interagency intelligence process, stamped its approval on stories retailed by Iraqi exiles that the other agencies dismissed as lacking credibility, and directly piped them into the president through the vice president’s office. It was fail-safe in producing disinformation and feeding the impulses of a self-isolated president, but it was not what anyone involved in the craft of intelligence calls intelligence.
"There was no general intelligence failure; on the contrary, there was a successful effort by the Bush administration to intimidate, subordinate and punish intelligence to fit its political objectives.
Salon: "Weapons of mass dissembling," by Sidney Blumenthal. February 5, 2004. (subscription)
THE POWELL FAMILY
The best line of the today is once again the one uttered by the Daily Show’s John Stewart who links the one investigation that the political aristocracy among us is debating, and the other that speaks more to the Boobocracy. He criticizes "a government so reluctant to investigate intelligence lapses is so eager to investigate a breast lapse?" Maureen Dowd goes after the Family Powell today on this one:
"At the Federal Communications Commission, Michael Powell is trying to save America’s virtue, while over at the State Department, his father, Colin, is trying to save his own virtue.
"They are both obsessing about something that should have been there, but suddenly wasn’t.
"The son demanded an explanation for Janet Jackson’s missing material, while the father wrestled with an explanation for Saddam Hussein’s missing matériel.
"The son opened an inquiry into something everyone had already seen, as the father defended his speech making the case for war based on something nobody has seen.
"(Who could have guessed that Saddam’s W.M.D. would be less scary than Ms. Jackson’s pierced metal sunburst, a Weapon of Mammary Destruction aimed at the CBS chairman, Les Moonves? …)"
New York Times, "Purity of the Powells," by Maureen Dowd. February 5, 2004.
WHO WILL FALL ON THE VIACOM SWORD?
CBS, America’s best watched costume reveal network may have to pay a fine but MTV may pay the price for the nipple moment. The Wall Street Journal is calling on MTV’s program czarina Judy McGrath to be fired even before any evidence is produced that she or MTV did anything more untoward than usual. The Beltway culture is targeting youth culture. Donna Britt wrote yesterday in the Washington Post:
"I’m a boob — and a rube and hopeless naif, if you will — because pop culture’s journey to that surreal Superbowl moment has been so unwavering that only a simpleton wouldn’t have seen it coming. Who but an innocent wouldn’t have been shocked by any study performed before a humongas audience. Especially one performed by a diva with a soon to be released album?"
Washington Post: "Janet’s ‘Reveal’ Lays Bare An Insidious Trend," by Donna Britt. February 4, 2004.
Janet Jackson has apologized again — this time on video. What does LaToya do now to outdo her brother and sister? Over in England, former Sex Pistol Johnny Rottan has one-upped Ms J with a mouth reveal. He was on a Survivor like TV show called I’m a Celebrity and walked off the set uttering profanities. Reports The Guardian:
"Some viewers have found his behavior strange - he has been seen talking to lizards, and has criticized his fellow contestants at length, both to their faces and to viewers."
The Guardian, "John Lydon walks off Celebrity set." February 5, 2004.
The words that he used are in common usage in England. "F#ckin Cuts," is the expression, I believe.
NO PANIC YET ON MOYERS SHOW
Media activist Jeff Chester and I spoke last night after I reported on his warning that NOW with Bill Moyers is under attack at PBS. That’s what he told me, but what he meant was Billy Moyers type investigative journalism is what is in the crosshairs of conservatives who have been gunning for outspoken public television programs for years. NOW with Bill Moyers and PBS have been hearing from our readers and their friends and want to say there is no imminent or overt threat at the moment. So chill those emails. That does not mean that voices attacking Moyers in high places are not being heard. They are.
Common Cause has been expressing concerns for months. Here’s what worries them:
"The Bush Administration has rewarded two major Republican donors with seats on the nine member board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Cheryl Halpern and Gay Hart Gaines and their respective families have contributed more than $816,000 to Republican causes over the past 14 years.
"But even more troubling," said Common Cause President Chellie Pingree, "are the agendas they bring with them to the CPB board." Both Halpern, who was confirmed by the Senate on Dec. 9, and Hart Gaines, whose nomination is pending, have stated views or espoused causes that call into question their qualifications to serve on a board whose mission is to promote and fund public television and radio programming.
During her confirmation hearing in November, Halpern indicated that she would welcome giving CPB board members the authority to intervene in program content when they felt a program was biased. Gaines was an ardent supporter of Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), who as House Speaker in 1994 proposed cutting all federal assistance to public TV …
"Halpern stirred controversy in the public TV community for comments at her confirmation hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee on Nov. 4. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) criticized Bill Moyers, the host of public television’s NOW as "the most partisan and nonobjective person I know in media of any kind," Halpern agreed.
"She left the impression, according to the trade publication Current, that the CPB needs greater authority to intervene when public television programs show bias. "There has to be recognition that an objective, balanced code of journalistic ethics has got to prevail across the board, and there needs to be accountability," Halpern told the Committee. Current noted that Halpern seemed to suggest that biased reporting ought to be punished."
See Common Cause and Current on bias and on Moyers.
BE ON ALERT
Activists are telling me: "There is no direct threat of taking Moyers off. The real attack is on public television. While Moyers’ show will remain for as long as he wants to be on, we have to be proactive in calling on Congress and PBS to back the kind of journalism done by NOW — serious, hard-hitting investigative reporting. What’s at stake is the future of serious reporting and news, already endangered on public TV.
In a few weeks PBS will undergo its first Congressional reauthorization since 1992. Conservative critics of PBS (and NPR) programming will be loud and shrill. They may try to propose legislation which would allow CPB to have greater control over individual programs — which could lead to program censorship.
What to do? One activist writes:
"It’s important that your readers tell their members of Congress –esp those serving on the Commerce Committees– that they support a PBS committed to serious journalism and other public affairs programming. Your readers should sign up for alerts at Common Cause, which is taking the leadership on this issue (I’m behind the scenes)."
WHO IS FUNDING AL SHARPTON?
It’s the Republicans, reports Wayne Barrett in a must read investigative report this week in the Village Voice: The GOP dirty trickster Roger Stone who "shut down the Miami-Dade County recount and helped make George W. Bush president in 2000, is financing, staffing, and orchestrating the presidential campaign of Reverend Al Sharpton.
"Though Stone and Sharpton have tried to reduce their alliance to a curiosity, suggesting that all they do is talk occasionally, a Voice investigation has documented an extraordinary array of connections. Stone played a pivotal role in putting together Sharpton’s pending application for federal matching funds, getting dollars in critical states from family members and political allies at odds with everything Sharpton represents. He’s also helped stack the campaign with a half dozen incongruous top aides who’ve worked for him in prior campaigns. He’s even boasted about engineering six figure loans to Sharpton’s National Action Network (NAN) and allowing Sharpton to use his credit card to cover thousands in NAN costs – neither of which he could legally do for the campaign. In a wide ranging Voice interview Sunday, Stone confirmed his matching fund and staffing roles, but refused to comment on the NAN subsidies."
To hear from Stone directly and see what he pulled off in Flori-duh, see my film Counting on Democracy. It’s all there. (Globalvision.org has the details.)
NEW ELECTION MEDIA STUDY
The Project for Excellence in Journalism is releasing a new study about the presidential election that we believe makes news. The study analyzes what voters get online from 10 major political/election news web sites. Four years ago we did the first ever content analysis study of online election coverage. Now, four years later, the web has become a much more important news source for Americans, according to recent surveys. We have conducted this second study to answer the question, "How has the coverage online changed?"
Among the findings:
- Political news web sites have improved in some ways and backtracked surpassingly in others.
- There is actually less original reporting than we found in 2000, less interactivity, fewer links to external sites and less chance to hear the candidates directly.
- On the other hand, one can finally find out where the candidates stand on issues and many of the sites are much more usable and manipulable than they were four years ago.
YOUR LETTERS
Sandy Thomas writes from Wisconsin:
"After hearing and reading all the news following last night’s elections, I have yet to find in mainstream or my favorite (like mediachannel) alternative media report the facts about the election.
"The fact is Howard Dean is holding second place after last nights election. This election is about delegates not who wins as the top vote getter of each state. Keep your readers informed about the facts so that the alternative media doesn’t make the same mistake as mainstream media — which is to forget the facts."
What is obscene? Paul Kneevers wants to know:
"It is not obscene for Janet Jackson to show her nipple, which was clearly covered by a piercing plate that covered the nipple entirely. The fear of the nipple goes right along with the other dangerous and ignorant fundamentalist beliefs that Christianity and the Taliban both share.
"It is obscene for our press to fanatically present the views of our extremist "Christian" right wing with all of the media regarding this event, even as they all fail to picture the dead American Soldiers who are returning home daily in caskets, due to the actions of an unelected President.
"Ms. Jackson is the Joan of Arc compared to the religious zealots who support murder but flinch at a staged promotional stunt that shows nothing that hasn’t been run by Victoria’s Secret during prime time.
"It is also obscene that our President and Attorney General are committing terrorist acts daily, and that we are supporting terrorism by allowing them to remain in office.
"It is obscene that no one is reporting Wesley Clark’s actions as a lobbyist for pentagon intelligence mining by Axciom.
"It is obscene for us to be debating the electability of new candidates when we have suffered a coup d’etat without fighting back. How come we aren’t Impeaching Bush?"
DOMINATION
Ed Devitt is back from Mesquite, Texas
"I just had an incredible thought … (it’s about time). Perhaps in a parallel universe a famous show business person was arrested for indecent behavior with children. Suppose that this person has relatives in the same business. Suppose that someone approached one of these relatives and whispered, "If you want your brother to stay out of jail you’ve got to make a ’scene’ on television. We’re trying to dominate all modes of media/thinking. Help us or your brother goes to jail (life expectancy a few hours) and your career will be ruined. " That’s in a parallel universe because that thought is so absurd that it couldn’t actually occur. Of course, this is only my opinion and I’ve been wrong before and expect to be wrong again.
A WARNING:
Ben Dickenson writes:
"I should let you know that I’ve now received three e-mail messages supposedly from mediachannel.com, which contain the My Doom virus. I’ve deleted them (obviously) but wondered if this was connected to your recent mail box problems. In any case I guess you should know that’s happened to me as it may have also happened to others.
"If it’s any interest it’s worth knowing that for the first time in a long, long time the cells at the Houses of Parliament were used today, to lock up protesters at Tony Blair and Lord Hutton’s "whitewash". Paint was also thrown at Downing Street, from tins labeled "Whitewash". Parliament had to be suspended and, as has been increasingly the case, the "great British public" that Blair and his fellow hawks think they can dupe, are refusing to let the real issues behind the Iraq war disappear underneath an attack on freedom of the press."
RICIN VS ANTHRAX
Writes Dale Hoefer
"It is not really accurate to say that Ricin is more deadly than Anthrax. Both are lethal, but Anthrax is really more dangerous since it need only be touched or sniffed to get in the body and start doing damage. Ricin must be ingested, but then can not really be treated and there is no antidote. It is much easier to obtain, since it is just ground up Castor bean seeds. Anthrax is like a shot gun at long range, while Ricin is more like a rifle. Ricin is an assassins tool, not a terrorist weapon like Anthrax can be. Much easier to control. What about that Anthrax? Cold case file?"
That’s about all I have time for today. Keep your letters coming. I will get to more of them tomorrow. Write: dissector@mediachannel.org.
