|
Media Reform Moyers
Bill Moyers' speech to the National Conference for Media Reform on May 15, 2005 Selections: Pat Aufderheide got it right, I think, in the recent issue of In These Times when she wrote: "This is a moment when public media outlets can make a powerful case for themselves. Public radio, public TV, cable access, public DBS channels, media arts centers, youth media projects, nonprofit Internet news services ... low-power radio and webcasting are all part of a nearly invisible feature of today's media map: the public media sector. They exist not to make a profit, not to push an ideology, not to serve customers, but to create a public - a group of people who can talk productively with those who don't share their views, and defend the interests of the people who have to live with the consequences of corporate and governmental power." As some of you know, CPB was established almost 40 years ago to set broad policy for public broadcasting and to be a firewall between political influence and program content. What some on this board are now doing today - led by its chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson - is too important, too disturbing and yes, even too dangerous for a gathering like this not to address.
We're seeing unfold a contemporary example of the age-old ambition of power and ideology to squelch and punish journalists who tell the stories that make princes and priests uncomfortable. We're big kids; we can handle controversy and diversity, whether it's political or religious points of view or two loving lesbian moms and their kids, visited by a cartoon rabbit. We are not too fragile or insecure to see America and the world entire for all their magnificent and sometimes violent confusion. "There used to be a thing or a commodity we put great store by," John Steinbeck wrote. "It was called the people." Full speech HERE
The Infallible Administration
By Kate Mewhiney When asked during a press conference in April of 2004 what the biggest mistake of his first term had been, President Bush was unable to think of any, telling the reporter, "I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it... you just put me under the spot here..." This refusal to accept responsibility has been a hallmark of the Bush Administration. The President has denied culpability for wrongdoings and damaging policies domestically and abroad. This Administration has also become expert at turning any criticism around on those who dare to challenge its policies. Now, when faced with allegations that could damage America's image-which was hardly flawless to begin with-the Administration is doing just that. The backlash against Newsweek has opened the gates for a browbeating of reporters and the media. The use of anonymous sources has come under fire, and pundits on the right have questioned whether the piece referring to prisoner abuse and mistreatment of the Koran at the Guantanamo Bay prison should have been printed in the first place. It is not wrong to have a public discussion about the media. But this discussion is being used as a diversionary tactic to distract from the issues being raised in the content of the Newsweek piece. Newsweek's allegation that American interrogators flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet is not the first accusation of this nature to arise. Former prisoners have told of this kind of abuse in recent years, and both The New York Times and the International Red Cross have documented similar stories. It is a legitimate concern and should be discussed. Instead, the Bush administration has shifted the focus away from itself, choosing to make a scapegoat out of Newsweek rather than accept any shred of responsibility. Michael Isikoff's reliance on one unnamed source has been a primary target, prompting Newsweek Editor-in-Chief Richard Smith to release a letter in which he details new and stricter policies for the use of anonymous sources at the magazine. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Newsweek "Hid behind anonymous sources, which by their own admission could not withstand scrutiny. Unfortunately, they cannot retract the damage they have done to this nation or those that were viciously attacked by those false allegations." That Rumsfeld, whose case for going to war in Iraq was based on the advice of a now discredited anonymous source known as "Curveball" thinks he can make such an absurdly hypocritical accusation is insulting to the intelligence of the American people. In focusing the discussion on Newsweek's culpability, the administration has successfully avoided having to deal the real issue, and so avoided taking responsibility for its policies. Is Newsweek entirely innocent here? Probably not. Isikoff should have found another source to substantiate the claims made, if for no other reason than to avoid this very situation. But Press Secretary Scott McClellan has no right to say that it is up to Newsweek to "repair the damage" done to America's image. It is not the job of one magazine to fix the problems created by a president who will not accept responsibility for his mistakes.
Newsweek's Other Mistakes
Reporting on sensitive issues using thin sources and research work is irresponsible. In a dangerous world, this haphazard reporting can costs lives. In an article from Tom Paine we see how the irresponsible reporting of Newsweek (and many other news outlets we might add) has produced global ire and the loss of approximately 100,000 lives. "The inaccurate Newsweek report appeared in the magazine's March 17, 2003 issue, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. It read in part:
Saddam could decide to take Baghdad with him. One Arab intelligence officer interviewed by Newsweek spoke of 'the green mushroom' over Baghdad;the modern-day caliph bidding a grotesque bio-chem farewell to the land of the living alongside thousands of his subjects as well as his enemies. Saddam wants to be remembered. He has the means and the demonic imagination. It is up to U.S. armed forces to stop him before he can achieve notoriety for all time.
Unlike a more recent Newsweek item, involving accusations that Guantanamo interrogators flushed a copy of the Quran down a toilet, Newsweek has yet to retract the bogus report about the "green mushroom" threat. The magazine's Quran charge has been linked to rioting in Afghanistan and elsewhere that has left at least 16 dead; alarmist coverage like Newsweek's about Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction paved the way for an invasion that has caused, according to the respected British medical journal The Lancet , an estimated 100,000 excess deaths." Read more HERE
Silencing Big Bird
The war for control of our national airwaves continues. Conservatives are attempting to bring Fox News style "balanced" programming to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR). Apparently Big Bird is too liberal for them and they are now reviewing programming to determine whether content and reporting are biased. PBS and NPR have been a constant voice of truth and we should work to protect their integrity from wingers who prefer to pay for favorable coverage to cover up their disastrous policies. Join our partners at Common Cause and sign a petition to urge the Corporation For Public Broadcasting (CPB) to stop playing politics.
Get While the Getting is Bad
Paul Krugman of the New York Times opines on Iraq, WMD, and the need to move on from this Vietnam-esque situation in the linked article, Staying What Course?
CAMPAIGN FOR A FAIR MINIMUM WAGE
PRESS RELEASE May 18th, 2005 The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2005, introduced today in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, would give low-income working Americans their first wage increase in 8 years. During that time, the members of the Congress have voted to give themselves salary increases of almost $30,000; but they refuse to give the working poor an increase a in the federal minimum wage. While the average hourly earnings of America's manufacturing work force have increased from $12.50 in 1997 to $15.80 in 2005, minimum wage workers - doing responsible and important jobs like day care, nursing home care, teaching assistants - have been stuck at $5.15/hour. Additionally, the value of the minimum wage is at its second lowest level in the last 45 years. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2005 would increase the federal minimum wage to $7.25/hour by 2007...clearly, by any standard, a modest increase over a reasonable period of time. Such an increase would help approximately 7 million working Americans feed their families, pay their rent, or continue their schooling. And, in spite of all the rhetoric from business interests who reflexively oppose increasing the minimum wage, never in the history of minimum wage increases - a period of 67 years - has anyone or any statistic been able to show economic damage from modest, periodic increases in the minimum wage. The Campaign for a Fair Minimum Wage, a project of Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), is a coalition of church, labor, and social welfare organizations whose public policy agendas include support for an overdue increase in the federal minimum wage. With more than 200 organizations in its ranks, the Campaign supports the efforts of Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Congressman George Miller (D-CA), chief sponsors of the minimum wage legislation, to bring a tangible benefit to the families of lower wage working Americans. Without the passage of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2005, minimum wage workers will fall further and further down the income scale; with each passing year, the purchasing power of the $5.15/hour minimum wage declines. Failure to pass this legislation in this Congress would condemn a large segment of the working population to a continuing decline in their living standard. "The Congress must ask itself: how long can we as a society support the reality of people who work hard every day earning a wage that keeps them in poverty?" decried Jane O'Grady, Executive Director
Government By And For The Powerful
From Kate Mewhiney Last week, a federal appeals court ruled that Vice President Cheney is not be required to disclose the details of the meetings held to form the administration's energy policies. The case, brought to court by the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch, reached the Supreme Court last spring but was sent back to the lower courts. The suit was filed because the two groups believe that officials in the energy industry were involved in the meetings and influenced decisions made by Cheney's panel, the National Energy Policy Development Group. The Sierra Club, a liberal environmental organization, and Judicial Watch, a conservative legal organization, argued that because of their involvement, under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the names of the energy officials should be released to the public. The Court disagreed, ruling 8-0 in Cheney's favor. It was a decisive victory for the Bush administration, enforcing its argument that they are not obligated to release the names of individuals with whom they consulted or divulge the details of policy meetings. This decision came on the same day that the REAL ID Act was passed in the Senate, and now needs only the president's signature to become law. The act, which was attached to an $82 billion military spending bill, calls for uniformities in state-issued driver's licenses. The REAL ID Act is being touted as another weapon in the War on Terrorism. Supposedly, it will make it more difficult for terrorists (and immigrants) from "abusing the asylum laws of the United States." The act has many flaws, among them the invasion of privacy that will result from the new IDs. In order for officials to check the validity of the new IDs, the information contained within them will have to be entered into a national database. This database will allow sensitive personal details to be called up easily by employees in several fields, like airports and the DMV. The security risks there are enormous, not to mention the high probability of computer hackers breaking into such a comprehensive database. This bill won't make us safer. It will only make our personal information more widely accessible. The fact that these two events took place on the same day is at best ironic, and at worst a very scary look at where things are headed. The REAL ID Act forces the American people to give sacrifice privacy. But the American President and his Administration are permitted, with the full support of the Courts, to determine our national policies behind closed doors.
Don't Shoot Down Civilian Planes
Don't Shoot Down Civilian Planes On May 11 over Washington, the Air Force nearly shot down a Cessna carrying a 69-year-old truck driver from Pennsylvania and his friend, a vacuum cleaner salesman. They were on their way to an air show and had no idea where they were. An intercept helicopter had to resort to holding up a sign showing the correct radio frequency to use, and even then the pilots stubbornly asserted their God-given right to fly wherever they chose. With Donald Rumsfeld standing by to give the order to kill the Cessna's occupants and perhaps dozens on the ground, a warning shot by late-arriving F-16s finally turned the plane back. If the rules of engagement are not changed, a tragedy is just a matter of time. On many occasions since 9/11, civilian planes including commercial flights have come within minutes of being shot down; none of those turned out to be a threat. When the Soviet Union downed KAL flight 007 over sensitive military airspace, the Reagan administration reacted with outrage. As The New York Times editorialized in 1983, "no circumstance whatever justifies attacking an innocent plane . . . to proclaim a 'right' to shoot down suspicious planes does not make it right to do so." Now we claim that right for ourselves. After all, what could a Cessna flying at 2500 feet do to the White House, moon it? Surely our vaunted military can at least wait until such a craft, whose top speed is 160 miles per hour, actually starts a suicide dive before firing on it. Since the possible target buildings had already been evacuated, the government luminaries standing around outside were more vulnerable to falling debris than an attack on an empty building. Any possible biological or radiological contamination aboard could be spread by shooting the plane down, or indeed by a flight that did not get that close to its intended target. And President Bush, hard at work as always, was riding his bicycle in a suburban wildlife refuge at the time, perhaps on the lookout for likely drilling sites. Some no-fly zones are prudent. Incompetent pilots who violate them should be held responsible, but not consigned to a fiery death along with innocent passengers and bystanders. As a D.C.-area resident and a frequent though reluctant air traveler, I don't need any more reasons to be afraid of flying. Please, let's save our fire for people who want to kill us, not those who can't read a map. John Brodkin is an ADA member and former Executive Director of the Greater Washington chapter. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of ADA.
Articles of Interest
THE HUMBLE HAMMER:Troubled U.S. House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-TX) declared himself a sinner and called for greater humility in public servants while giving an "emotional homily" as part of National Day of Prayer activities, the Washington Post reports. BUSH FINALLY FINISHES CLEARING BRUSH IN CRAWFORD, BEGINS CLEARING NATIONAL FORESTS:President Bush rolled back restrictions on building forest roads. The New York Times reports that over 56 million acres of national forest land could be open for roads, mining, logging, or other development. WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS?:The Evolution vs. Creationism debate heats up. The LA Times reports . Which argument will survive?
PBS to Get the "Fair and Balanced" Treatment
From Kate Mewhiney The Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is claiming that PBS has a "liberal bias" and is insisting that the station change some of its content. It was recently revealed that CPB chairman Kenneth Tomlinson contracted an outside consultant to track the political leanings of the guests appearing on the program "Now with Bill Moyers," without telling the other members of the board. Tomlinson says he just wants balance on the network and does not want to impose any political view on PBS. However, at a gathering with The Association of Public Television Stations in Baltimore last November, Tomlinson told the audience they should make sure their programming better reflected the Republican Mandate. Tomlinson later said he was joking, but given his recent actions, the remarks are too close to the truth to be taken lightly. Tomlinson has been instrumental in the production and distribution of a new PBS show, "The Journal Editorial Report," with host Paul Gigot, the editor of the conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. Tomlinson says the show is to balance out "Now with David Brancaccio." Brancaccio took over the show when Moyers stepped down last year. In the past PBS has been given the freedom to regulate itself, but now the corporation is holding PBS more strictly to its charter, which has a mandate that requires "objectivity and balance" in its programming. Recently, the corporation, and the Bush administration, have taken a much more hands-on approach. Earlier this year, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings challenged PBS for airing an episode of "Postcards from Buster" in which the cartoon rabbit visited a child being raised by lesbian parents. Keeping PBS to its standards of objectivity and balance is one thing, but taking editorial control of a public television station is another thing entirely. With the precedent Tomlinson set with his covert content review of Moyers, he and the board could easily begin demanding that every show fit their standards of objectivity. This would be a dangerous infringement on the station's First Amendment rights. And Tomlinson has a pretty skewed idea of what balanced is. Though the findings of his contractor's report-findings that Tomlinson alone reviewed-found a liberal slant to the guests on "Now," Moyers did have conservatives appear on the show, like former head of the Christian Coalition Ralph Reed, and Richard Viguerie, a conservative political strategist. Tomlinson's project will not even pretend to be objective. "The Journal Editorial Report" features the ultra-conservative editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. Tomlinson's response to a show that he sees as too liberal, despite its inclusion of conservative viewpoints, is to create a show that is made up of only conservative voices. It seems like Tomlinson needs to read the PBS mandate on "objective and balanced" programming a little more carefully.
|
|
