No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post

Washington's view on ethics seems to be schizophrenic. Lawbreaking that is done for immediate personal gratification - primarily sexual or financial - is lavished with attention. Political opponents call for investigations and resignations, news outlets provide saturation coverage, vehement denunciations are issued and defenses raised, and generally speaking a high old time is had by all. Since Republicans like to appeal to voters as the party of values and morality there is usually a credible charge of hypocrisy coming from the left when it's a GOP perpetrator. But the capitol is entirely unequipped to grapple with illegality that happens for less obvious reasons, and elites tend to bend over backwards to rationalize it when they are forced to confront it.

No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post

There are days when I really pity my friend Matt, who has done so much unheralded work behind the scenes as well as out in front, and who sometimes gets sucked into to soon-forgotten but potentially damaging controversies when what he really deserves is a leadership role in the party hierarchy. Full Disclosure: I'm personal friends with some of the people I'm going to talk about here, and not really "unbiased." Which is sort of the point of what most everyone involved is trying to say, I hope.

Backing up, I think we can all agree it's been a long time (if ever) since journalists could accurately claim to maintain "academic" standards in reporting. I'll define "academic" as "ethical, peer-reviewed, critical, and concerned with demonstrable, repeatable truth and full discovery/disclosure," as it pertains to the art and science of reporting. Anyone who disagrees with my premise about the state of modern 'reporting,' just go over to Media Matters and type in the searchbox the name of your (least) favorite media celebrity; the last 8 years have been a treasure trove for regulators (who've gone unused, sadly), comedians, and ethics panel schedulers. Truth has been the most frequent victim, followed to the sacrificial altar of profit and propaganda by ethics, balance, and fairness. Let's don't get started on issues like racism, warmongering, sexism and pro-corporate bias...

Anyway, the whole Lind/Newberry/anyone-else involved-in-this-spat mess raises some interesting questions, separate from those of "who first said what and how" in Matt's post. I'm minded, reading the post and lots and lots of behind the scene emails, communications and previous posts on the topic, to ask: who is a "journalist" these days? How are those people "different" from "bloggers?" What are "credentials?" What is "expertise" and when, if at all, should it be employed, or mandated? I'd like to tackle a few of these because we're at a critical time in the history of the production of information, as the administration changes and revenue streams grow and shrink in various quarters.

In an idea world, there would be consequences for lying, stealing, and being willfully ignorant in the production and dissemination of information presented as "factual news." Opinion would be free, and an option open to all, but also always identified as such. "Public" resources like the airwaves (and as I think should be included, broadband) would be carefully regulated, and public resources would be applied in the production of dead-tree product, such as the nation-wide dissemination of something like The Federal Register, the better for citizens to keep track of the daily business of government. Of course we're a long way from any of that.

But the Founders believed in, and in principle I agree with, the notion of a Free Press. Today, our problem, and at the same time our greatest hope, is what exactly is "The Free Press? This isn't a new topic in the blogosphere, but in the Lind/Newberry/etc case, we've a fine opportunity to look at how that construct is defined, maintained, and understood.

In a nutshell: whom do you trust more, and why?
Unpaid Bloggers? "Online magazine" writers who get a corporate paycheck? Your Aunt Mabel after she's been into the blackberry brandy? Volarus of the Centauri system via the metal in your fillings?

One part of the ongoing Village vs the Blogosphere War that really gets me: it's the easiest thing in the world for a blogger to become "discredited, "but for a Villager, the opposite is mostly true.

I was in a tiny minority back in 2001, believing as I did then that a bombing and strafing campaign that sent Talib leaders running for the safety of the hills of Warzistan was not the right response to 9/11. And even if it was, there's this thing called "follow through." Something most Repubicans no nothing about. More proof that we really need some adults in charge soon, because the dead of 9/11 must be wondering when, if ever, they will be avenged:

MONTREAL, Jan. 17 /CNW/ - Reporters Without Borders is very worried about the pressure being placed on the authorities by conservative religious leaders in the case of Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh, a young journalist in the northern province of Balkh who has been detained since late October on charges of blasphemy and defaming Islam. The Council of Mullahs says he should be
sentenced to death.

"The calls for the death penalty for Kambakhsh highlight the growing influence of fundamentalist groups on intellectual debate," the organisation
said. "The blasphemy charges are an ill-disguised attempt to hide the desire of the local authorities to restrict press freedom."

A reporter for the newspaper Jahan-e Naw ("The New World") and ajournalism student at Balkh university, Kambakhsh, 23, was arrested on
27 October. Articles on the role of women in Muslim society were found at his
home. articles about women and Islam!!! the horror!

 Read more…

(MSNBC) Facebook chooses Huckabee, so far

Giuliani 5%

Thompson 4%

Huckabee 22%

McCain 15%

Romney 11%

Paul 43%

El Gato is right to make fun of this guy's combover as well as his pathetic 'reasoning.' Christ, just look at the title:

Unfettered 'citizen journalism' too risky

My God! Somebody think of the children!!

Supporters of "citizen journalism" argue it provides independent, accurate, reliable information that the traditional media don't provide. While it has its place, the reality is it really isn't journalism at all, and it opens up information flow to the strong probability of fraud and abuse. The news industry should find some way to monitor and regulate this new trend.

I have no idea how I ran across this today but it's kinda cute. Actually it would be very cute if it weren't so damn depressingly accurate. Dude was channelling Royko when he put this one together. From Michael Rosenberg of the Detroit Free Press, an excerpt (so as not to violate Rule 10):

3. When deciding which tragedies deserve the most prominent coverage, use this simple math: 10,000 foreigners = one cute white American chick.

4. If the President of the United States is accused of violating the law on the same day that an African country erupts into civil war and an especially gloomy economic report is released, and you must decide which one is your lead story, ask yourself this: Did the local sports team just win a big game?

5. Internet, Schminternet. It will be gone in five years. People will always love reading a newspaper -- and so will you, our intrepid reporter, once you accept our buyout offer.

6. When working at the New York Post, make sure your story includes all six W's: Who, What, When, Where, Why and With What Kind of Lubricant.

7. When appearing on television, insinuate that all newspaper reporters are biased. When writing for a newspaper, imply that all television people are boobs with no credibility. When at the bar afterward, complain that nobody trusts journalists anymore.

I would end this with "And that's the way it is, June 4 2007" but I would not want the ghost of Cronkite to come after my ass. No, he's not dead

You know that gesture wherein you put your forefinger sideways in your mouth, puff up your cheeks, push the finger out sharply to make a "pop" noise, then wave finger in the air? Signifies "big whoopin' do" in a rude and vulgar way. I was all ready to do that when I saw this headline...Times Names Public Editor, and since I couldn't click the mouse and raise that finger to the mouth at the same time I clicked first. Good move:

The New York Times today named its next public editor, Clark Hoyt, a former Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and editor who oversaw the Knight Ridder newspaper chain’s coverage that questioned the Bush administration’s case for the Iraq war.

Hmm. Not to sound like a racetrack tout trying to pick a winner in the Derby but this dude's bloodlines and recent workout times look good.

Interesting that this is the first time I've heard NYT say that "Public Editor" is a time-limited position.

The depressing future of "news."

Which brings me back to sex with horses. The story last summer about the man who died from a perforated colon while having sex with a horse in Enumclaw was by far the year's most read article.

What's more, four more of the year's 20 most clicked-upon local news stories were about the same horse-sex incident. We don't publish our Web-traffic numbers, but take it from me — the total readership on these stories was huge.

So much so, a case can be made that the articles on horse sex are the most widely read material this paper has published in its 109-year history.

 Read more…

So I have a friend who is a Real, Live MSM Journalist. He gets to be part of the White House Gaggle, and is also a long time blog reader. He and I have had many conversations about the press, the era of Bush, and blogs, and one thing we agree upon is that there should be more of a two way conversation between bloggers/citizen journalists and the paid members of the mainstream press. In that spirit, here is the first of what I hope be to be series of conversations between bloggers and journalists. Obviously, he speaks for himself and I don't agree with everything he says. Some of the questions refer to previous conversations we've had privately. Mr. Knox has agreed to come by and answer questions in the comments, give him a little time to respond as he's a busy guy. The AFP journalists will soon have their own blog, so let's all give him a chance to practice with the rabid lambs.

Olivier Knox: At the outset, I should emphasize that I only speak for myself, not for my colleagues. Please, if I don't answer something, don't assume I'm ducking the question. Just follow up. I will make a good faith effort to answer any serious question sent to Olivier [dot] KNOX [at] afp [dot] com Just put "Media Question" in the subject line.

Chicago Dyke: You say that I and other bloggers are "dead wrong" in how we critique and understand what MSM access (to politicians and newsmakers) is all about. Tell readers more about this. How does access work? Does the desire for regular or increased access ever compromise the product (that is, what is written about those to whom you've acheived access)?

Knox:"Dead wrong" was the frustration talking. I think that you guys sometimes use "access" and "chumminess" and "social contact with sources" interchangeably, indiscriminately.

Once again, the doom and gloom types look to have yet another reason to say, "I told you so," as the warmongers' whores do their part to scare America silly and the warmongers themselves enter Phase Two and make serious preparations for the "inevitable" war with Iran. Glenn asks some good questions about the whores, and their willingness to cheerlead us all into the unthinkable:

#29303b; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 13px; line-height: 27px" class="Apple-style-span">One of the critical issues which that disgraceful #008b8b; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 13px; line-height: 27px" class="Apple-style-span">Michael Gordon article#29303b; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 13px; line-height: 27px" class="Apple-style-span"> in yesterday's #29303b; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 13px; font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">New York Times #29303b; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 13px; line-height: 27px" class="Apple-style-span">raises is the extent to which so many national journalists are so eager to prove to right-wing fanatics that they are sympathetic to their agenda. Years of being attacked by the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys and Bill O'Reillys as being part of the dreaded "liberal media" has created an obsequious need among many journalists to curry favor -- through reporting which echoes right-wing narratives and/or by attacking the "liberal bias" of their fellow journalists -- all in order to avoid being criticized by the right-wing noise machine.#29303b; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 13px; font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">That#29303b; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 13px; line-height: 27px" class="Apple-style-span"> is the defining symptom of The #008b8b; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 13px; line-height: 27px" class="Apple-style-span">Mark Halperin#29303b; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 13px; line-height: 27px" class="Apple-style-span"> #008b8b; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 13px; line-height: 27px" class="Apple-style-span">Syndrome#29303b; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 13px; line-height: 27px" class="Apple-style-span">.

#29303b; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 13px; line-height: 38px" class="Apple-style-span">...

#29303b; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 13px; line-height: 27px" class="Apple-style-span">Manifestly, Moran -- just like Halperin -- is eager to show that he is pro-military and was desperate to convince Hewitt that he is not one of those dirty anti-American subversive liberals. To achieve that goal, Moran paraded in front of Hewitt and smeared his fellow journalists as being "deep[ly] anti-military" and claimed that they have a "dangerous" hostility to "American projection of power around the world." Identically, Halperin begged Hewitt not to"lump [him] in with people in [his] business who are liberally biased and don’t seem to care about it." 

#29303b; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 13px; line-height: 38px" class="Apple-style-span">...

#29303b; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 13px; line-height: 27px" class="Apple-style-span">The influence of The Mark Halperin Syndrome on our media cannot be overstated. There is a pervasive desire on the part of many national journalists to prove to the right-wing noise machine that they are not like their horrible, leftist, America-hating, anti-military journalistic colleagues which the Right has so successfully demonized.

WaPo stenographer Dan Eggen's front page "story" on Bush's illegal and unconstitutional warrantless surveillance program--Bush agrees to obey the law! Film at 11!--is the most appalling insult to what remains of the good name of American journalism since The Newspaper of Record (not!) suppressed its own scoop on the program to help Bush win the 2004 election.

And since Bush's illegal and unconstitutional warrantless surveillance program is at the dark heart of the Republican project to replace Constitutional government with authoritarian rule--both in the fact of surveilling everyone including Aunt Molly and the theory of the "inherent authority" that purports to justify it--Eggen's distortions and omissions have the effect of preventing the resolution of the Constitutional crisis provoked by Bush's tyrannical seizure of power (Federalist 47).

The key facts to remember--all of which Stenographer Eggen distorts or omits--are these: Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, in ACLU vs. NSA, ruled that Bush committed over thirty felonies in the course of his illegal and unconstitutional warrantless surveillance program. Under FISA, Bush should have gotten a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which very, very rarely turned requests. Instead, Bush, using sweeping claims for the power of the executive (that's the unconstitutional part) ignored FISA and didn't get warrants from the court (that's the illegal part). This from the party that chanted "rule of law" in unison while impeaching Clinton over a blowjob. Beyond disgusting.

OK, now let's look at the narrative that WaPo's stenographer, Dan Eggen, constructed.

Secret Court to Govern Wiretapping Plan

Wrong. The Secret Court always governed the plan. That's what Judge Taylor's ruling--and the plain language of the law--both say. "To govern" implies the opposite--and rewrites history to omit the key fact: Bush's lawbreaking.

But that's only the beginning:

Shh. Follow me to the depths, through the secret tunnels under the Mighty Corrente Building, where after a long and torturous journey you will either reach Underground Froomkin or, possibly, suffer devourage. Here's where St. Froom' tells you what he really thinks, before it gets watered down for the delicate ears of Post readers:

What is it about Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert that makes them so refreshing and attractive to a wide variety of viewers (including those so-important younger ones)? I would argue that, more than anything else, it is that they enthusiastically call bullshit.

 Read more…

This will probably be another desultory post of mine, but three stories I read today seem worth talking about. The first is from the WaPo in which War Criminal and “statesman” of the First Iraq dribbles these little pearls of wisdom. I can’t believe he’s not dead yet:

He said Kissinger, who served in the Nixon and Ford administrations, has been telling Bush and Cheney that "in Iraq, he declared very simply, 'Victory is the only meaningful exit strategy.'"

There’s been a great deal of the use of the word “fascism” this week, and for a change, it’s not coming from blogs like this one. I’ve been trying very hard to avoid the kindergarten sandbox throwing match that is KosHitler vs The Nasty Republicans, but a recent Atrios post compels me to jump in. Mind you, my hands have been dirty for quite some time, as a review of my own writing at Corrente demonstrate rather clearly. When it comes time for us to throw things, trust me when I say sand won't be my only weapon.

Looks like there may be some regrowth of balls going on in the news media. Via AP:

The Bush administration and The New York Times are again at odds over national security, this time with new reports of a broad government effort to track global financial transfers.

The newspaper, which in December broke news of an effort by the National Security Agency to monitor Americans' telephone calls and e-mails, declined a White House request not to publish a story about the government's inspection of monies flowing in and out of the country.

 Read more…

Yeah! Good news sure feels good.

California Appeals Court Rules Bloggers Are Journalists

In what the EFF called a "major victory" for bloggers and citizen journalists, The Sixth Appellate Court of the Court of Appeal of the State of California rejected Apple Computer's attempt to force disclosure of sources by two blogs (AppleInsider and PowerPage.org) by ruling that bloggers and citizen journalists are entitled to the same legal protections as journalists working for corporate media entities. Specifically, the bloggers were entitled to protection under the California reporter's shield law.

Josh Marshall and Media Matters are heroically covering the mystery of why "respected AP reporter John Solomon" is working so very, very hard to smear Harry Reid. Sen. Reid, coincidentally Democratic Senate Leader, is said to be Just As Bad as Republicans! for going to a boxing match and then voting AGAINST the (Nevada state) agency which gave him the tickets.

But what about Reporter Solomon? AP has been a substantial voice of virtue throughout the Bush Interregnum, filing Freedom of Information Act suits like hail in Kansas on any number of issues. Why would one of their most respected staffers be doing this?

Go read this piece from 2003 from the Center for Public Integrity and decide for yourself:

WASHINGTON, September 17, 2003 — A month before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and all of the increased government secrecy that has ensued, the Justice Department secretly seized the home telephone records of respected investigative reporter and deputy bureau chief of the Associated Press in Washington, John Solomon. And earlier this year, the FBI opened and confiscated his mail.

 Read more…

I understand why Billmon and Digby get the props, but what I don't understand is why more people don't read Chris more often. His writing is high quality and he's always talking about what really matters. You can practically feel the snark, which is always delivered in the very finest tradition of family-friendly insults:

 Read more…