Media Guardian: Fighting talk
Posted Tuesday, July 1, 2003 by vgdesign

Reporters and editors met last week at a Media Guardian forum to discuss the lessons of Iraq. Roy Greenslade on why war is the toughest story in journalism

War, unlike any other news event, asks profound questions of journalists. How do we separate truth from propaganda? How do we overcome the dilemma of political and military leaders controlling access to vital information? What value do we place on what we see on the frontline as against what we are told back at headquarters?

Then come those tough questions which bedevil the relationship be-tween the media and the warriors. Is objectivity unpatriotic? Why should we be fair to both sides? Should we always suppress what we know in the interests of operational security?

It would appear from the media's experiences during the invasion of Iraq by the US and Britain that we are no nearer to finding solutions. >>More

Internet opening doors for independent filmmakers
Posted Tuesday, July 1, 2003 by vgdesign

By Shelley Emling, The Austin American-Statesman

Ten seconds is barely enough time to sneeze.

But it's a lot of time to an aspiring filmmaker. Just log onto www.tensecondfilms.com, the Web site of the Ten Second Films Competition, where more than 1,000 digital videos can be found.

Faster connections and advanced image compression technology are allowing almost anyone to become an entertainment producer and pipe TV-quality video to the world.

That's increasingly important to those who see independent programming being squeezed out by the growing consolidation of the entertainment industry. >>More

WorldLink TV aspires to be the anti-network
Posted Tuesday, July 1, 2003 by vgdesign

By Jane Ganahl, San Francisco Chronicle

WorldLink TV aspires to be the anti-network. So it's operating as a nonprofit and setting out to become the first national channel dedicated to providing Americans with global perspectives.
...
"The Active Opposition" is the second from-scratch program produced by the nonprofit WorldLink channel, which went on the air 2 1/2 years ago on DirecTV Channel 375, and Dish Network Channel 9410, after raising a modest $3 million in grants. Its lofty aim: "to introduce American viewers to voices, nationalities, and perspectives not available in the U.S. mainstream media."

But it was WorldLink's first original program -- "Mosaic," a daily half hour of selected news reports from the Middle East, uncensored and translated - - that put it on the media map. During the early days of the war in Iraq, the channel was discovered by those who were hungry for the perspective that could only be found in the war zone, and its viewership rose to an estimated 4.5 million a week.

ABC's Peter Jennings, in a recently filmed story about WorldLink, called it "television without borders." >>More

IS OUR PRESIDENT A LIAR OR SIMPLY A STUPID IDIOT?
Posted Monday, June 30, 2003 by vgdesign

Editorial, Niagara Falls Reporter

Back in 1998, when President Bill Clinton looked squarely into a television camera lens and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," he lied to the American people. For that he was impeached, and the country was subjected to two years of chaos.

And in 1973, when President Richard Nixon looked squarely into a television camera lens and said, "I am not a crook," he lied to the American people and was forced to resign.

Which brings us to January of 2003, when George W. Bush looked squarely into a television camera lens and said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." He went on to say that "our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

Neither of these assertions was true. >>More

Bloggers Gain Libel Protection
Posted Monday, June 30, 2003 by vgdesign

By Xeni Jardin, Wired

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last Tuesday that Web loggers, website operators and e-mail list editors can't be held responsible for libel for information they republish, extending crucial First Amendment protections to do-it-yourself online publishers.

Online free speech advocates praised the decision as a victory. The ruling effectively differentiates conventional news media, which can be sued relatively easily for libel, from certain forms of online communication such as moderated e-mail lists. One implication is that DIY publishers like bloggers cannot be sued as easily.

"One-way news publications have editors and fact-checkers, and they're not just selling information -- they're selling reliability," said Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "But on blogs or e-mail lists, people aren't necessarily selling anything, they're just engaging in speech. That freedom of speech wouldn't exist if you were held liable for every piece of information you cut, paste and forward." >>More

The BBC is standing up for a special British principle
Posted Monday, June 30, 2003 by vgdesign

The corporation is not run by politicians. We need to keep it that way
By Hugo Young, The Guardian

The war over Campbell's mouth is about something bigger than it seems. It is bigger even than the Iraq conflict and how we were set up to get into it, because that was decided as soon as George Bush set the juggernaut in motion that dragged Tony Blair zealously in its wake. It's about how we're ruled, and whether this hairy-heeled government is any longer willing to abide by one of the subtlest, sweetest compacts once found in any governing system anywhere: the protocol which says that while politicians preside over public bodies, they do not rule them.

Broadcasting is a prime, but not the only, example. The BBC lives off a textured public understanding of this that took decades to embed in the national culture. No one else has reproduced it. In the US, Murdoch's Fox News sent wave after wave of bombers live into Baghdad accompanied by the national anthem. Patriotism before truth was the networks' guiding star, and even the panjandrums of the print were scared to crack it. Not enough Americans wanted to know. An ABC poll last week showed 24% of them easily convinced that Saddam had used his weapons of mass destruction against their boys.

The British are still different. It's one of the merciful dysfunctions, behind the shared prating about freedom, between Anglo and US attitudes to news. >>More

Are U.S. journalists truly spineless?
Posted Monday, June 30, 2003 by vgdesign

By DAVID HUNTER, Knoxville News-Sentinel

Justin Webb, a Washington correspondent for the British Broadcasting Corporation, recently posed this question to his audience: "Are American journalists simply spineless? Do they toe the line because they love the President? Or because their employers do?"

Webb raised the question after hearing Vice President Dick Cheney deliver the following statement in reference to the war in Iraq: "You did well - you have my thanks." This praise was not directed to our troops or members of the president's Cabinet; it was lavished upon members of the American Radio and Television Correspondents Association at their annual dinner.

Most of us whose bylines appear in the American media should be embarrassed to look our readers, viewers and listeners in the eye. We are being held up for ridicule by real journalists, such as Webb, from nations that once looked upon us as the epitome of truth and integrity. The ridicule is richly deserved.

Members of the American news media should be asking the question that Webb has presented. Are American journalists spineless? >>More

History rewritten to make us feel good
Posted Monday, June 30, 2003 by vgdesign

By Howard Rosenberg, Los Angeles Times

Funny how books you've had for a while suddenly seem to jump from the shelves and speak to the present.

You've read or thumbed through them, and perhaps forgotten them. Then, years later, the titles either resonate anew or take on different meaning, commanding you to revisit their pages.

That happened recently with "Lies My Teacher Told Me," a 1995 monograph by James W. Loewen that he subtitled: "Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong."

Aha! There it was, another reminder that today's most persuasive American history teacher — one often telling especially big whoppers — is television. Yes, from its lips to your ears, home delivery of tall stories deluxe. In one headline-making case, a war story.

Think New York and Hollywood as a Coalition of the Willing to Do Anything for a Buck.

Think heroes, and the assembly belt that delivers them.

Think Jessica Lynch. >>More

BBC: No 'truce' in Iraq dossier row
Posted Monday, June 30, 2003 by vgdesign

Downing Street has denied declaring a "truce" in its row with the BBC over the government's Iraq dossier.

In a letter to the corporation, Number 10 press chief Alastair Campbell has said there is little point in the two sides having more exchanges until next week's judgement on the affair from an MPs' committee.

But on Monday, Tony Blair's spokesman said the government was not "backing down one inch" and accused the BBC of a "deafening silence" over the central point in the dispute.

The BBC has refused to apologise for its report that a senior intelligence official had said last September's Iraq dossier was "sexed up" at Downing Street's request.

Mr Blair's spokesman said: "The BBC stating 'we stand by our story' does not answer the question 'was the allegation true or false?'"

He accused the corporation of trying to move the goalposts by debating the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction. >>More

BBC has fresh details to support its dossier claim
Posted Monday, June 30, 2003 by vgdesign

By Kim Sengupta, The Independent

The BBC will present fresh details about how the Iraqi weapons dossier was allegedly "sexed up'' by Downing Street and accuse Alastair Campbell of giving "inaccurate'' evidence to the official inquiry into the affair.

Publication of the claims, in the next 48 hours, will reignite the unprecedented row just as the Blair Government appears keen to damp it down. According to senior sources, the corporation has decided at the highest level not to give in to the relentless pressure from the Government.

Journalists and officials at the BBC have spent the weekend poring over the testimony given by Mr Campbell to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

According to the sources they have discovered "inaccuracies and inconsistencies'' in what the Prime Minister's communications chief told MPs. Andrew Gilligan, the BBC reporter who has been the focus of government attacks, will produce further information on how the intelligence services were supposedly pressured by Mr Campbell about the "45-minute threats'' posed by Saddam Hussein, which appeared in the first Downing Street dossier last September. >>More

'Gag' order contradicts U.S. value Iraqis like
Posted Sunday, June 29, 2003 by vgdesign

Federal appellate judge Gilbert S. Merritt of Nashville is in Iraq as one of 13 experts selected by the U.S. Justice Department to help rebuild Iraq's judicial system.

Merritt, 67, has made trips to Russia and India to work with their judicial systems. He has been sending periodic reports to The Tennessean about his experiences in Iraq and filed this dispatch recently:

This is my last story from Baghdad. The so-called Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA, acting through its head, L. Paul Bremer, issued a ''gag'' order two days ago that says:

''Speaking To The Media. To insure the effective co-ordination of the CPA's message, any plan for a member of the CPA to talk to the media should first be coordinated with the Directorate of Strategic Communication.''

The Directorate of Strategic Communication, according to the order, was a ''recent creation designed with the intention of delivering a coherent strategic information for the CPA.''

The CPA is organized into many separate agencies covering governance, justice, transportation and communication, health, oil, police, culture, finance and several others. All persons working or helping these agencies carry out their tasks are apparently covered by the order prohibiting speaking to the press unless the speech is cleared first by the Directorate of Strategic Communication.

I have been informed that this includes any article I may write, or verbal utterance I may speak, to any members of the press, including my hometown newspaper.

In my opinion, this is a clear violation of the First Amendment to our Constitution >>More

U.S. Curtails Iraq's Newfound Media Freedoms
Posted Sunday, June 29, 2003 by vgdesign

By Fariba Nawa, Village Voice

BAGHDAD—The print press is booming here as newspapers rose from five government-run papers during Saddam Hussein's regime to around 150 now. But U.S.-led forces are dampening the mood of the free press by censoring it.

The U.S.-led administration here last week threatened to fine or close down any newspapers that incite violence or endanger the security of coalition troops or any ethnic or religious group. They will also shut down any publications supporting Saddam Hussein's Baath Party. >>More

>>The Institute for War and Peace Reporting

. . . Bring Back the Skeptical Press
Posted Sunday, June 29, 2003 by vgdesign

By Gilbert Cranberg, former editorial page editor of the Des Moines Register

The Bush administration has been taking heavy flak for its as yet unproved claims about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. In fixing blame for the way the public appears to have been sold a bill of goods, don't overlook the part played by the media. Instead of closely questioning the administration's case, the nation's newspaper editorialists basically nodded in agreement.

Take their immediate reaction to the administration's most comprehensive presentation about the Iraq threat -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's blow-by-blow report to the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5. An examination of editorial comment on Powell's speech and slide show, in a mix of some 40 papers from all parts of the country, shows that while some were less convinced than others by Powell's attempt to link Hussein to terrorism, there was unanimity as to Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction:

"a massive array of evidence," "a detailed and persuasive case," "a powerful case," "a sober, factual case," "an overwhelming case," "a compelling case," "the strong, credible and persuasive case," "a persuasive, detailed accumulation of information," "the core of his argument was unassailable," "a smoking fusillade . . . a persuasive case for anyone who is still persuadable," "an accumulation of painstakingly gathered and analyzed evidence," "only the most gullible and wishful thinking souls can now deny that Iraq is harboring and hiding weapons of mass destruction," "the skeptics asked for proof; they now have it," "a much more detailed and convincing argument than any that has previously been told," "Powell's evidence . . . was overwhelming," "an ironclad case . . . incontrovertible evidence," "succinct and damning evidence . . . the case is closed," "Colin Powell delivered the goods on Saddam Hussein," "masterful," "If there was any doubt that Hussein . . . needs to be . . . stripped of his chemical and biological capabilities, Powell put it to rest." >>More

Israel cuts off ties with BBC
Posted Sunday, June 29, 2003 by vgdesign

By Anat Balint, Haaretz

Israel declared over the weekend that it is cutting off ties with the BBC to protest a repeat broadcast on non-conventional weapons said to be in Israel.

The program was broadcast for the first time in March in Britain, and was rerun Saturday on a BBC channel that is aired all over the world.

The boycott decision was made by Israel's public relations forum, made up of representatives from the Prime Minister's Office, the Foreign Ministry and the Government Press Office.

It was decided that government offices won't assist BBC producers and reporters, that Israeli officials will not give interviews to the British network, and that the Government Press Office will make it difficult for BBC employees to get press cards and work visas in Israel.

Before the broadcast Saturday, Israeli officials tried to pressure the BBC to cancel the broadcast, saying that the program was biased and presented Israel as an evil dictatorship, ignoring the existential threat it was facing. >>More

>>BBC Program:"Israel's Secret Weapon"

The Observer:  War of the words
Posted Saturday, June 28, 2003 by vgdesign

Alastair Campbell is leading a bitter government battle against the BBC over its coverage of the war in Iraq. Kamal Ahmed reveals the pressures behind the search for Saddam's weapons

At just before 3pm last Wednesday, Alastair Campbell readied himself for his grilling by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. In his hand he held a pin - a little defence mechanism. If he was getting angry and in danger of shouting he would push the pin into his hand, to remind himself to calm down. The last thing the Government needed was Campbell losing his temper and haranguing the honourable members.

Campbell learned the trick when giving evidence in a libel action involving Labour MP George Galloway (then he used the sharp beak of a toy duck, owned by his daughter, Grace). This time, when colleagues took back the briefing notes Tony Blair's communications director had used, they were sprinkled with spots of blood. Campbell also received a paper cut as he searched through his evidence. In one sense at least, the committee has already drawn blood. >>More

BBC set to sue Minister over Iraq 'lies' claim
Posted Saturday, June 28, 2003 by vgdesign

By Kamal Ahmed and Martin Bright, The Observer

The unprecedented row between the Government and the BBC took a dramatic twist last night when Andrew Gilligan, the reporter at the centre of claims that Number 10 deliberately 'sexed up' evidence against Saddam Hussein, announced he was ready to sue a serving Minister.

Gilligan, the defence correspondent for Radio 4's Today programme, said that he would take legal action against Phil Woolas, the Deputy Leader of the House, unless he received a full apology for allegations made against him.

The threat of legal action centres on a letter sent by Woolas to Gilligan which claimed that the reporter had misled the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into the Government's handling of the run-up to war.

The letter was released to the media on Thursday before Gilligan had received it.
...
Gilligan's letter pushes the row between the BBC and the Government into uncharted territory. It is unprecedented for a member of the BBC's staff to threaten legal action against the Government. >>More

Searchable Congressional Voting Records with Progressive Indexing
Posted Saturday, June 28, 2003 by symbolman

Search Members of Congress Voting record ranked by Composite Progressive Score

Navigate your way through Congress by using our super encompassing guide to Congressional votes. Choose from four different pathways below to search out what the rascals are up to.

In the future you'll be able to send mailgrams before votes are cast and contribute time and money directly to campaigns, just by clicking an icon.>> More

Errand Boy - Bush Literally Claims God made him Attack countries
Posted Saturday, June 28, 2003 by symbolman

Global Eye -- Errand Boy - By Chris Floyd - The Moscow Times

So now we know. After all the mountains of commentary and speculation, all the earnest debates over motives and goals, all the detailed analyses of global strategy and political ideology, it all comes to down to this: George W. Bush waged war on Iraq because, in his own words, God "instructed me to strike at Saddam."

Here are Bush's words quoted by Haaretz, [TBTM Edit] reporting what the new Prime Minister of Palestine said Bush told him:"God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me, I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

You can't put it plainer than that. The whole chaotic rigmarole of Security Council votes and UN inspections and congressional approval and Colin Powell's whizbang Powerpoint displays of "proof" and Bush's own tearful prayers for "peace" -- it was all a sham, a meaningless exercise.

No votes, no inspections, no proof or lack of proof -- in fact, no earthly reason whatsoever -- could have stopped Bush's aggressive war on Iraq. It was God's unalterable will: the Lord of Hosts gave a direct order for George W. Bush to "strike at Saddam.">> More

Stunning and Frightening. Bush needs to be relieved of his Command if there is any truth to this at all. This is Beyond the pale.

Cheney And The CIA: Not Business As Usual
Posted Saturday, June 28, 2003 by symbolman

June 27, 2003 - Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst from 1964 to 1990, regularly reported to the vice president and senior policy-makers on the President's Daily Brief from 1981 to 1985.

Cheney got into the operational side of intelligence as well. Reports in late 2001 that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger stirred such intense interest that his office let it be known he wanted them checked out. So, with the CIA as facilitator, a retired U.S. ambassador was dispatched to Niger in February 2002 to investigate. He found nothing to substantiate the report and lots to call it into question. There the matter rested - until last summer, after the Bush administration made the decision for war in Iraq.

Cheney, in a speech on Aug. 26, 2002, claimed that Saddam Hussein had "resumed his effort to acquire nuclear weapons."

At the time, CIA analysts were involved in a knock-down, drag-out argument with the Pentagon on this very point. Most of the nuclear engineers at the CIA, and virtually all scientists at U.S. government laboratories and the International Atomic Energy Agency, found no reliable evidence that Iraq had restarted its nuclear weapons program.

But the vice president had spoken. Sad to say, those in charge of the draft National Intelligence Estimate took their cue and stated, falsely, that "most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

Did the president himself know that the information used to secure congressional approval for war was based on a forgery? We don't know. But which would be worse - that he knew or that he didn't?>> More

A SCATHING Report from an ex CIA Analyst! What more do we need to know - it was a setup, a LIE, and the fix was IN from the top down - BUSH is Responsible for his Statements - especially those made at a STATE OF THE UNION Address, which lead to the deaths of thousands of people, HUNDREDS of US Troops - evidently on a WHIM.