I'm walking to the front door when the phone goes off. It's Kat. She's advising me that Blogger's going down in less than a half hour. Do I think I can get a post up in that amount time?
Linkfest!
Ava and Jess said there are a number of e-mails about Robert Scheer. So we'll note this by Katrina vanden Heuvel (Marci e-mailed to note it), "Cruising With Scheer" (Editor's Cut, The Nation) and this excerpt is from a speech Scheer gave:
"From the company's point of view, it was a dumb move...If only they were interested in sales and profits--be better newspapers. This was a stupid management decision, A bad marketing decision...Let's go bland and safe. "
"The publisher is a wise guy accountant, a bean counter from Chicago. These guys come in from Chicago. They don't know the community, and buying the LA Times may be illegal. The Chicago Tribune already owns a TV station in same market and they're going to need a waiver request which comes up next year. The publisher/bean counter's Pasadena golf buddies probably warned him about me--that flaming leftie. Now, (Times founder) Otis Chandler was no liberal but he understood his community. The paper is in decline. They have 300,000 fewer readers now than when I went to work there nearly thirty years ago....The Times needed me more than I need it...I always have two or three balls in the air at same time...That's why I teach full-time at USC's Journalism school, do my radio show, write books. It's the only way to live. I've been preparing for this moment for 30 years. I wrote this column for 13 years and never missed a deadline.
Probably the main reason they got rid of me was O'Reilly and Limbaugh made a living out of attacking me, pounding, pounding away and doing mass mailing campaigns against me and using me as a punching bag. But I'm still standing; the paper may collapse....Would never go back to LA Times, and I start at the San Francisco Chronicle next week. They called Wednesday to offer me a column. And my syndicate stood behind me, and the syndicate's editor, a conservative, was quoted in Editor & Publisher saying he was 100 percent behind me. And it's the same syndicate which runs O'Reilly's column.
These bean counters from Chicago are so cowardly that the day after the paper won five Pulitzers they flew into LA and met with chief editors at Burbank airport hotel to let them know of cuts. This corporation doesn't understand that the paper belongs to readers and they forget that it's not just shareholders and wider profit margins that count." Bob then broke some news: "And this week, they're going to lay off over 70 editorial people."
[. . .]
Click here and here to email the editor (Andres Martinez) and publisher (Jeff Johnson) respectively of the LA Times.
And don't worry about Scheer. Two weeks from now, he launches his new website, TruthDig.com.
And, as we noted earlier today: "If anyone wants to express themselves, the phone number for the LA Times is (213) 237-5000. Letters to the editor can be sent via letters@latimes.com."
Now let's note Elaine's "The real miracle, still, is to walk on earth" (Like Maria Said Paz):
I hadn't heard of this, maybe you have?
"Going Inside the Debate" (Danny Schechter, News Dissector):
You have all read this story by now I would guess: "GOP memo touts new terror attack as way to reverse party's decline."
It broke in Capitol Hill Blue and probably shocked very few us us which is in itself a comment on the low regard many hold this administration. Wrote Publisher Doug Thomspson:
"A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."
"The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could "validate" the President's war on terror and allow Bush to "unite the country" in a "time of national shock and sorrow."
Funny thing about this story is that this scenario is layed out in Larry Beinhardt's must read novel The Librarian, a political thriller about a plot to steal an election. Beinhart wrote an earlier novel that inspired the movie "Wag the Dog." I quote from the book in my report from Amsterdam. Scroll down.
Can you imagine what would happen if a Democratic memo was discovered with that kind of message? The headlines of every paper would scream, it would lead on the evening news, Ted Koppel would devote a full Nightline to it. There would be a lot of clucking about how shameless this is and a lot of talk about whether the Democrats were doing more talking, more than hoping.
The Republicans compose this memo and I knew nothing of it until C.I. passed it along in the e-mail. I watch the news, I read a daily paper, I listen to the news on the radio.
So where's the outrage over this?
The Republican Party can just do whatever it wants to, apparently. The White House seems to think that they can as well.
White House Tries To Alter Transcript of Press Briefings (Democracy Now!):
The White House has been accused of trying to rewrite history after requesting Congressional Quarterly and the Federal News Service to alter the transcript to a October 31 press briefing. Both news agencies reported White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan responded to a question about the CIA leak case by saying "that's accurate." But the White House insists he said, "I don't think that's accurate." So far both Congressional Quarterly and the Federal News Services have refused to change their transcripts but the White House website now claims McClellan said "I don't think that's accurate."
And that's going to be it. Blogger's often down for several hours when it goes down and I'm cutting it close trying to get this in before it goes down. (Thank you, Kat, for the heads up, or I would've logged on in about an hour and there'd be nothing up here at all.)
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
democracy now
danny schechter
robert scheer
like maria said paz
katrina vanden heuvel
kats korner
the third estate sunday review
Monday, November 14, 2005
Democracy Now: Aman Mehrzai, Robert Scheer, Jimmy Massey and Corp. Media Flunky; Ron (Why Are We Back In Iraq), Christine (Pop Politics) ...
Report: CIA Interrogators Covered Up Death of Detainee
Time Magazine is reporting CIA interrogators apparently tried to cover up the death of an Iraqi "ghost detainee" who died while being interrogated at Abu Ghraib prison. Autopsy reports show the detainee Manadel al-Jamadi died of blunt force injuries and asphyxiation. He is believes to have suffocated after an empty sandbag was placed over his head while his arms were secured up and behind his back, in a crucifixion-like pose. To cover up the killing, blood was mopped up with a chlorine solution before the interrogation scene could be examined by an investigator. A bloodstained hood that had covered his head also disappeared. Although the CIA has ruled the killing a homicide, the CIA interrogator involved in his death remains free and continues to work for the agency. Jamadi was being held in a secret part of the Abu Ghraib prison that was off limits to international observers including the Red Cross. Concern has been growing in recent weeks over what takes place in these secret CIA prisons. The Washington Post recently revealed the CIA is operating a network of secret prisons around the world including two in Eastern Europe.
Democrats Move to Restore Habeas Corpus To Detainees
On Capitol Hill, the Senate is coming under increased criticism for hastily voting last week to overturn a Supreme Court ruling on the rights of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. By a 49 to 42 vote, the Senate agreed to strip detainees of their right to challenge their detention in federal courts, eliminating their writ of habeas corpus. The measure only passed because it received support from five Democrats: Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Ron Wyden of Oregon. Now Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico is planning to put forward an amendment as earlier as today to reverse the Senate's vote. Meanwhile former military officials are also criticizing the decision to strip detainees of their right to habeas corpus. John Hutson, a retired rear admiral, is collecting signatures from about 60 former officers who oppose the proposal. The National Institute of Military Justice has also announced its opposition to the measures. Attorneys and legal historians have noted that the right to habeas corpus dates back 800 years. Attorneys Jeremy Hirsh and Timothy Fisher write "Since the time of the Magna Carta, the rule of law has meant that a person may not be imprisoned without a lawful reason, and now is no time for us to deviate from that rule of law."
Canadian Court to Review Jeremy Hinzman
In Canada, the country's federal court announced Friday it would review the case of American war resister Jeremy Hinzman. Hinzman is a U.S. soldier who fled to Canada to seek asylum instead of going to fight in Iraq. Earlier this year his asylum request was denied.
White House Tries To Alter Transcript of Press Briefings
The White House has been accused of trying to rewrite history after requesting Congressional Quarterly and the Federal News Service to alter the transcript to a October 31 press briefing. Both news agencies reported White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan responded to a question about the CIA leak case by saying "that's accurate." But the White House insists he said, "I don't think that's accurate." So far both Congressional Quarterly and the Federal News Services have refused to change their transcripts but the White House website now claims McClellan said "I don't think that's accurate."
The above four items are from today's Democracy Now! Headlines and were selected by Marcus, Kendrick, Tori and Bonnie. On the last item, Bonnie's pick re: Scotty McClellan, please note that if you listen or watch in English you'll hear the part of the press conference where Scotty speaks and he does say, "That's accurate." Democracy Now! ("always worth watching," as Marcia says):
Headlines for November 14, 2005
- Democrats Move to Restore Habeas Corpus To Detainees
- Iraqi Woman Confesses on Jordanian TV to Bombing
- Bush: "Irresponsible" to Rewrite History About Iraq War
- Bush's Approval Rating Sinks to 36 Percent
- White House Tries To Alter Transcript of Press Briefings
- Report: CIA Interrogators Covered Up Death of Detainee
- Italy Seeks Extradition of 22 CIA Operatives
- Middle East Envoy Warns Gaza Turning Into "Giant Prison"
- Thousands of Students Say No To Recruiters in Boston
Los Titulares de Hoy: Democracy Now!'s daily news summary translated into Spanish
Students Arrested at Powell Speech Protest Accuse Police of Racial Profiling
Police arrested eight people Friday night at the San Francisco Bay Area's De Anza College while protesting against a visit by Colin Powell. Six of the eight arrested were Muslims. Students are accusing police of using racial profiling and excessive force while arresting activists during the demonstrations.
LA Times Fires Longtime Progressive Columnist Robert Scheer
The Los Angeles Times newspaper last week announced that it was firing longtime columnist Robert Scheer. Scheer has been at the Times for 30 years and was one of the most progressive voices at the paper. In recent years, his columns took on the Bush Administration and its justifications for the invasion of Iraq.
Did Former Marine Jimmy Massey Lie About U.S. Military Atrocities in Iraq? A Debate Between Massey and Embedded Reporter Ron Harris
Did former U.S, marine Jimmy Massey lie or exaggerate about killing civilians in Iraq to the media? Ron Harris, a reporter embedded with Massey's battalion says Massey's claims are not credible. We host a debate with Massey and Harris.
Ron Harris is a tool. And that's the mildest term I could use at this site. I've been on the phone with Dona and we're both very vocal on this debate. Harris monopolizes the interview,
refuses to answer questions and constantly refers to Massey as "Jimmy." There's a crack made about "or 6 year-old boys" made by Harris that's a smear.
There are so many problems with Harris. Besides "Let me finish" (Harris who can't shut the ___ up. He can't shut up. And no one gives a damn about hearing his spin of why he's attacking Massey. No one needed to hear it once, let alone over and over.)
He's an embed in bed with the military. He says "we" at one point referring to the military (as we noted here last week he does that in print as well). Brown's got the war lust and now he's out to attack Massey. Or, as he says, "Jimmy."
How important is Harris that he's allowed to call him "Jimmy"? It's condescending. It's like when the Bully Boy called Cindy Sheehan "Mom." It's out of line. Groan as you listen to him holler "Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy" when Goodman's even asked Massey to speak.
Dona said listening to him ask in his "cracking voice that verged on the falsetto, 'Can I finish?' over and over" was enough to make her throw something at the TV. I was luckier. I only had to listen to Harris, I didn't have to also see him. Or I guess we should call him "Ronnie." Ronnie is what we will call the embed who got in bed with the military and gladly slept in the wet spot.
Ronnie tries to confuse Massey, tossing out terms like "deep cover" that are journalistic. It starts out civil, the discussion until Ronnie goes on the attack early on. Harris monopolizes the discussion as though he can win by sheer wordage.
The points are:
1) Things not observed have been repeated.
Massey acknowledges that (and has before) on his part. Ronnie can't do the same and blows off all attempts to pin him down on that point (I believe Ronnie channels Cher from Clueless for this topic: "Whatever").
2) Massey's book has only been published in France, in French.
Ronnie went on CNN last week to attack the book. Ronnie doesn't read French. Which goes to point one. (Ronnie claims to have spoken to the book's co-author. Since her husband has already written a letter to the Sacremento Bee chastizing the paper for their eagerness to distance themselves from Massey, it's doubtful that her comments to Ronnie, "whatever" they are, back up Ronnie's views and spin.)
3) Public record.
Ronnie dismisses criticism of his own reporting (he was a war cheerleader quick to note "chemical weapons" found in Iraq -- they weren't). That reporting bears Ronnie's name so one would assume Ronnie is responsible for it. (But Ronnie seems the type who rarely takes accountability.) By contrast, Ronnie refers to a paper's report of a statement by Massey. It's the only thing he can find to back him up and he never gives the name of reporter or the title of the piece. So no one can verify Ronnie's claims this morning. If such a report does exist, the fact remains that Massey didn't write it and if all other reports don't include Massey making such a claim in his many speaking engagements it is highly possible the press reporter got the quote wrong. (Shocking! Isn't it.)
On verify, Ronnie seems to think he knows what Massey knows and doesn't know. Seer Ronnie states that Massey can't prove his comments and that Massey knows that. Massey responds he has recordings for his book. Ronnie just sighs a lot and says "Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy" (honestly, it's like he's trying to promote Madonna's True Blue album).
Ronnie shifts the topic anytime it's uncomfortable for him and is prone to issuing self-serving statements (he really is shouting out to Madonna, this is just like Madonna's performance in Evita).
Jim's on the phone now (yelling, Dona's passed it over to him). Which is good both because he has a point he wants made and because hearing someone even more angry than Dona or I actually has a calming effect.
Jim: "Sgt. Massey. That's what Ron Embed On His Knees should call Jimmmy Massey. It's what he would call anyone else who served. As a member of the press who has decided to attack someone, he has no right to be so familiar with Massey."
I'll pull an Amy Goodman and say, "And that will be our final word." Seriously, that was the point Jim wanted to make.
Lynda e-mails to ask why I haven't noted Robert Scheer's firing by the LA Times? Because the community hasn't noted it. I know Scheer and don't want to be accused of using this space to promote writers I know. So, since no one brought it up, I haven't brought it up here.
Since Lynda's now brought it up, what Scheer says on today's Democracy Now! is what's being said (loudly). It's also being said that the paper's leadership is willing to crawl (through glass?) on it's knees to prove their bonafides (right wing bonafides) to a group still smarting over the pre-election Gropinator coverage.
In terms of Scheer's remarks on Democracy Now!, I'll add one point. The LA Times isn't a national paper (as they damn well know -- they attempted to kill distribution to D.C. but that didn't go over well). So I'm confused as to why California based Scheer will be replaced with, among others, DC based Jonah Goldberg (or will he be sleeping on Judith Regan's couch?).
Was not one of the problems (one of the many problems) with Michael Kinsley's reign the fact that Kinsley wasn't based in California? Now Goldberg, who already has a syndicated column, will be getting space in the LA Times. Why? He's on CNN already. How much of Goldberg do Californians need?
Myself? I don't think they need any. I rank this as the worst thing the LA Times has done since an editor passed on a smear about Jean Seberg and vouched for the source to get it into print. Then he attempted to claim a faulty memory when, years later, it was discovered that Seberg had been targeted by the FBI and that the smear that popped up in the LA Times was in fact one devised by FBI agents. (Sure was lucky for the editor involved that he had a Reagan-like memory, no?)
If anyone wants to express themselves, the phone number for the LA Times is (213) 237-5000. Letters to the editor can be sent via letters@latimes.com
Moving on. (Or, as my friend says, walk on, walkon.org.)
"What did Laura Flanders mention Sunday night?" a number of e-mails ask. I believe she also mentioned upcoming appearances Saturday night, but she did mention them on Sunday. One is Wednesday, Nov. 16 (this Weds.) at 7:00 PM, UCLA, Hammer Museum. "What's Wrong with Television News" is the title of the forum. Along with Flanders, others participating include Gore Vidal, Tom Fenton, Bryn Freedman, Paul Jay, Mark Lloyd, Kim Spencer, Suneeta Vyas. Link TV, Free Press and Independent World Television are co-presenting the forum. (Sorry, the address of the location is 10899 Wilshire Blvd., LA.)
Independent World Television has interviews with Naomi Klein, Gore Vidal and Mark Lloyd that you can watch online.
Flanders has at least one other public appearance this week. I have no idea on it. If someone does e-mail and we'll note it.
Gary was the first to e-mail on this but Billie did as well, Ron's "What is Poland and Romania" (Why Are We Back In Iraq?):
Sally e-mails to note Diana Johnstone's "The Origins of the Guardian's Attack on Chomsky" (CounterPunch):
Martha e-mails to note Carol' "Just Say No" (A New Leif, Ms):
And Jamie e-mails to note Christine's "Add to Maureen Dowd's Reading List" (Pop Politics):
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
amy goodman
democracy now
jimmy massey
why are we back in iraq
the third estate sunday review
pop politics
Christine Cupaiuolo
the laura flanders show
laura flanders
carol leif
diana johnstone
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Time Magazine is reporting CIA interrogators apparently tried to cover up the death of an Iraqi "ghost detainee" who died while being interrogated at Abu Ghraib prison. Autopsy reports show the detainee Manadel al-Jamadi died of blunt force injuries and asphyxiation. He is believes to have suffocated after an empty sandbag was placed over his head while his arms were secured up and behind his back, in a crucifixion-like pose. To cover up the killing, blood was mopped up with a chlorine solution before the interrogation scene could be examined by an investigator. A bloodstained hood that had covered his head also disappeared. Although the CIA has ruled the killing a homicide, the CIA interrogator involved in his death remains free and continues to work for the agency. Jamadi was being held in a secret part of the Abu Ghraib prison that was off limits to international observers including the Red Cross. Concern has been growing in recent weeks over what takes place in these secret CIA prisons. The Washington Post recently revealed the CIA is operating a network of secret prisons around the world including two in Eastern Europe.
Democrats Move to Restore Habeas Corpus To Detainees
On Capitol Hill, the Senate is coming under increased criticism for hastily voting last week to overturn a Supreme Court ruling on the rights of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. By a 49 to 42 vote, the Senate agreed to strip detainees of their right to challenge their detention in federal courts, eliminating their writ of habeas corpus. The measure only passed because it received support from five Democrats: Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Ron Wyden of Oregon. Now Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico is planning to put forward an amendment as earlier as today to reverse the Senate's vote. Meanwhile former military officials are also criticizing the decision to strip detainees of their right to habeas corpus. John Hutson, a retired rear admiral, is collecting signatures from about 60 former officers who oppose the proposal. The National Institute of Military Justice has also announced its opposition to the measures. Attorneys and legal historians have noted that the right to habeas corpus dates back 800 years. Attorneys Jeremy Hirsh and Timothy Fisher write "Since the time of the Magna Carta, the rule of law has meant that a person may not be imprisoned without a lawful reason, and now is no time for us to deviate from that rule of law."
Canadian Court to Review Jeremy Hinzman
In Canada, the country's federal court announced Friday it would review the case of American war resister Jeremy Hinzman. Hinzman is a U.S. soldier who fled to Canada to seek asylum instead of going to fight in Iraq. Earlier this year his asylum request was denied.
White House Tries To Alter Transcript of Press Briefings
The White House has been accused of trying to rewrite history after requesting Congressional Quarterly and the Federal News Service to alter the transcript to a October 31 press briefing. Both news agencies reported White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan responded to a question about the CIA leak case by saying "that's accurate." But the White House insists he said, "I don't think that's accurate." So far both Congressional Quarterly and the Federal News Services have refused to change their transcripts but the White House website now claims McClellan said "I don't think that's accurate."
The above four items are from today's Democracy Now! Headlines and were selected by Marcus, Kendrick, Tori and Bonnie. On the last item, Bonnie's pick re: Scotty McClellan, please note that if you listen or watch in English you'll hear the part of the press conference where Scotty speaks and he does say, "That's accurate." Democracy Now! ("always worth watching," as Marcia says):
Headlines for November 14, 2005
- Democrats Move to Restore Habeas Corpus To Detainees
- Iraqi Woman Confesses on Jordanian TV to Bombing
- Bush: "Irresponsible" to Rewrite History About Iraq War
- Bush's Approval Rating Sinks to 36 Percent
- White House Tries To Alter Transcript of Press Briefings
- Report: CIA Interrogators Covered Up Death of Detainee
- Italy Seeks Extradition of 22 CIA Operatives
- Middle East Envoy Warns Gaza Turning Into "Giant Prison"
- Thousands of Students Say No To Recruiters in Boston
Los Titulares de Hoy: Democracy Now!'s daily news summary translated into Spanish
Students Arrested at Powell Speech Protest Accuse Police of Racial Profiling
Police arrested eight people Friday night at the San Francisco Bay Area's De Anza College while protesting against a visit by Colin Powell. Six of the eight arrested were Muslims. Students are accusing police of using racial profiling and excessive force while arresting activists during the demonstrations.
LA Times Fires Longtime Progressive Columnist Robert Scheer
The Los Angeles Times newspaper last week announced that it was firing longtime columnist Robert Scheer. Scheer has been at the Times for 30 years and was one of the most progressive voices at the paper. In recent years, his columns took on the Bush Administration and its justifications for the invasion of Iraq.
Did Former Marine Jimmy Massey Lie About U.S. Military Atrocities in Iraq? A Debate Between Massey and Embedded Reporter Ron Harris
Did former U.S, marine Jimmy Massey lie or exaggerate about killing civilians in Iraq to the media? Ron Harris, a reporter embedded with Massey's battalion says Massey's claims are not credible. We host a debate with Massey and Harris.
Ron Harris is a tool. And that's the mildest term I could use at this site. I've been on the phone with Dona and we're both very vocal on this debate. Harris monopolizes the interview,
refuses to answer questions and constantly refers to Massey as "Jimmy." There's a crack made about "or 6 year-old boys" made by Harris that's a smear.
There are so many problems with Harris. Besides "Let me finish" (Harris who can't shut the ___ up. He can't shut up. And no one gives a damn about hearing his spin of why he's attacking Massey. No one needed to hear it once, let alone over and over.)
He's an embed in bed with the military. He says "we" at one point referring to the military (as we noted here last week he does that in print as well). Brown's got the war lust and now he's out to attack Massey. Or, as he says, "Jimmy."
How important is Harris that he's allowed to call him "Jimmy"? It's condescending. It's like when the Bully Boy called Cindy Sheehan "Mom." It's out of line. Groan as you listen to him holler "Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy" when Goodman's even asked Massey to speak.
Dona said listening to him ask in his "cracking voice that verged on the falsetto, 'Can I finish?' over and over" was enough to make her throw something at the TV. I was luckier. I only had to listen to Harris, I didn't have to also see him. Or I guess we should call him "Ronnie." Ronnie is what we will call the embed who got in bed with the military and gladly slept in the wet spot.
Ronnie tries to confuse Massey, tossing out terms like "deep cover" that are journalistic. It starts out civil, the discussion until Ronnie goes on the attack early on. Harris monopolizes the discussion as though he can win by sheer wordage.
The points are:
1) Things not observed have been repeated.
Massey acknowledges that (and has before) on his part. Ronnie can't do the same and blows off all attempts to pin him down on that point (I believe Ronnie channels Cher from Clueless for this topic: "Whatever").
2) Massey's book has only been published in France, in French.
Ronnie went on CNN last week to attack the book. Ronnie doesn't read French. Which goes to point one. (Ronnie claims to have spoken to the book's co-author. Since her husband has already written a letter to the Sacremento Bee chastizing the paper for their eagerness to distance themselves from Massey, it's doubtful that her comments to Ronnie, "whatever" they are, back up Ronnie's views and spin.)
3) Public record.
Ronnie dismisses criticism of his own reporting (he was a war cheerleader quick to note "chemical weapons" found in Iraq -- they weren't). That reporting bears Ronnie's name so one would assume Ronnie is responsible for it. (But Ronnie seems the type who rarely takes accountability.) By contrast, Ronnie refers to a paper's report of a statement by Massey. It's the only thing he can find to back him up and he never gives the name of reporter or the title of the piece. So no one can verify Ronnie's claims this morning. If such a report does exist, the fact remains that Massey didn't write it and if all other reports don't include Massey making such a claim in his many speaking engagements it is highly possible the press reporter got the quote wrong. (Shocking! Isn't it.)
On verify, Ronnie seems to think he knows what Massey knows and doesn't know. Seer Ronnie states that Massey can't prove his comments and that Massey knows that. Massey responds he has recordings for his book. Ronnie just sighs a lot and says "Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy" (honestly, it's like he's trying to promote Madonna's True Blue album).
Ronnie shifts the topic anytime it's uncomfortable for him and is prone to issuing self-serving statements (he really is shouting out to Madonna, this is just like Madonna's performance in Evita).
Jim's on the phone now (yelling, Dona's passed it over to him). Which is good both because he has a point he wants made and because hearing someone even more angry than Dona or I actually has a calming effect.
Jim: "Sgt. Massey. That's what Ron Embed On His Knees should call Jimmmy Massey. It's what he would call anyone else who served. As a member of the press who has decided to attack someone, he has no right to be so familiar with Massey."
I'll pull an Amy Goodman and say, "And that will be our final word." Seriously, that was the point Jim wanted to make.
Lynda e-mails to ask why I haven't noted Robert Scheer's firing by the LA Times? Because the community hasn't noted it. I know Scheer and don't want to be accused of using this space to promote writers I know. So, since no one brought it up, I haven't brought it up here.
Since Lynda's now brought it up, what Scheer says on today's Democracy Now! is what's being said (loudly). It's also being said that the paper's leadership is willing to crawl (through glass?) on it's knees to prove their bonafides (right wing bonafides) to a group still smarting over the pre-election Gropinator coverage.
In terms of Scheer's remarks on Democracy Now!, I'll add one point. The LA Times isn't a national paper (as they damn well know -- they attempted to kill distribution to D.C. but that didn't go over well). So I'm confused as to why California based Scheer will be replaced with, among others, DC based Jonah Goldberg (or will he be sleeping on Judith Regan's couch?).
Was not one of the problems (one of the many problems) with Michael Kinsley's reign the fact that Kinsley wasn't based in California? Now Goldberg, who already has a syndicated column, will be getting space in the LA Times. Why? He's on CNN already. How much of Goldberg do Californians need?
Myself? I don't think they need any. I rank this as the worst thing the LA Times has done since an editor passed on a smear about Jean Seberg and vouched for the source to get it into print. Then he attempted to claim a faulty memory when, years later, it was discovered that Seberg had been targeted by the FBI and that the smear that popped up in the LA Times was in fact one devised by FBI agents. (Sure was lucky for the editor involved that he had a Reagan-like memory, no?)
If anyone wants to express themselves, the phone number for the LA Times is (213) 237-5000. Letters to the editor can be sent via letters@latimes.com
Moving on. (Or, as my friend says, walk on, walkon.org.)
"What did Laura Flanders mention Sunday night?" a number of e-mails ask. I believe she also mentioned upcoming appearances Saturday night, but she did mention them on Sunday. One is Wednesday, Nov. 16 (this Weds.) at 7:00 PM, UCLA, Hammer Museum. "What's Wrong with Television News" is the title of the forum. Along with Flanders, others participating include Gore Vidal, Tom Fenton, Bryn Freedman, Paul Jay, Mark Lloyd, Kim Spencer, Suneeta Vyas. Link TV, Free Press and Independent World Television are co-presenting the forum. (Sorry, the address of the location is 10899 Wilshire Blvd., LA.)
Independent World Television has interviews with Naomi Klein, Gore Vidal and Mark Lloyd that you can watch online.
Flanders has at least one other public appearance this week. I have no idea on it. If someone does e-mail and we'll note it.
Gary was the first to e-mail on this but Billie did as well, Ron's "What is Poland and Romania" (Why Are We Back In Iraq?):
The question being:
What are the names of the two Eastern European countries that Washington Post Media Notes columnist, Howard Kurtz, mysteriously leaves out of his column that is partly devoted to the controversy surrounding why "some liberals are angry that The Post agreed to a request by senior U.S. officials not to name the countries involved" in the secret prison story.
The bonus question might be:
How did the Washington Post find itself in Jeopardy?
Strange.
Very strange.
Because even though Dana Priest didn't name Poland or Romania in the November 2nd article, Associated Press articles accessible at the Washington Post Website (one link, two links, three links) do sport the names.
Kurtz spoke to Priest:
"We are being accused of being in the pocket of the administration," Priest says. "One student called me up from a Virginia university to tell me they were burning the paper at a protest, because we're complicit in torture."
Kurtz spoke to some critics from the left:
Peter Kornbluh, senior analyst at the nonprofit National Security Archive, calls Priest a "brilliant reporter" and says she and The Post deserve credit for "groundbreaking work," and "her sources deserve credit for being courageous, too." But he sharply criticizes the paper's decision not to name the Eastern European countries, two of which were later identified by the Financial Times and other news outlets, citing information from the group Human Rights Watch.
"We are talking about the secret detention and abuse of prisoners," Kornbluh says. "There is an aspect of enabling this to go forward by yielding to the arguments these senior officials made. This is the most significant decision to withhold information since the Bay of Pigs, when President Kennedy twisted the arm of the publisher of the New York Times to take out key details" about the 1961 invasion of Cuba.
Writes Gal Beckerman of Columbia Journalism Review: "The Post is trying to have it both ways: getting credit for breaking the story, without breaking the specific details that might have caused it grief from the CIA."
Howard Kurtz is right about something. There is a Plame parallel.
Ron's running down a number of issues. I'll point out one more. Ron notes that the Post's article (by Priest) didn't name the countries involved but AP articles carried in the paper did. It's worth remembering that the Washington Post ran Robert Novak's column outing Valerie Plame. The Post hemmed and hawwed on that, after the fact. But the consensus was that they probably shouldn't have run Novak's column.
By the way, Jobie e-mailed to note a transcript from Howie Kurtz's Reliable Sources. I'm not highlighting it. There are so many "facts" that are wrong. Mary Mapes' book (known as "the book" by CBS) comes out tomorrow. We'll note that. We don't have time to waste with people (including journalists) who don't have the basic facts after all this time. (The documents have never been proven to be false. A loud blogger does not an informed guest make.)
Sally e-mails to note Diana Johnstone's "The Origins of the Guardian's Attack on Chomsky" (CounterPunch):
Last Halloween, The Guardian ran an attack on Noam Chomsky that amazed many readers who had considered The Guardian to be one of Britain's more serious newspapers. The attack took the form of what Alexander Cockburn described in his article on this CounterPunch website as a "showcase interview"--"a showcase for the interviewer's inquisitorial chutzpa". In this art form, the interviewee is simply the prey for the interviewer who plies him with trap questions and then rewrites the whole thing to make him look like an idiot compared to her clever self.
The interviewer was a young Oxford graduate named Emma Brockes who is making a name for herself in the genre. Ms Brockes obviously had scant familiarity with Chomsky's work. For all one can tell, her sole background preparation for this assignment was an article written by her colleague Ed Vulliamy and published by the Balkan Crisis Report of International War and Peace Reporting (IWPR, an outfit heavily subsidized by NATO governments) on August 27, 2004. Vulliamy's article, "We Must Fight for Memory of Bosnia's Camps", calling for monuments to perpetuate the memory of the 1992 Bosnian Serb detention camps which he visited as a reporter (but not, of course, the Muslim and Croat camps which he did not visit), includes an attack on me which is echoed very precisely by Ms Brockes, even to misspelling my name in the same way.
The entire background for her attack on Chomsky seems to be drawn from two paragraphs of Vulliamy's article:
Revisionism over the carnage in Bosnia is rampant and persistent. It has been ever since Thomas Deichmann and his group in London, under the auspices of a circle called "Living Marxism", claimed the camps found by ITN and myself were fabrications. They adopted the Serbian term "collection centres", claiming their inmates were there of their own volition. Deichmann's charges were ruled by a jury as being in breach of civil law in the London High Court when they were legally challenged by ITN. Successive verdicts in The Hague have rendered them ridiculous as well as poisonous. One could be forgiven for thinking that once the Bosnian Serb co-president Biljana Plavsic had pleaded guilty to the entire hurricane of violence unleashed on her authority, the revisionists would go to ground.
After all, who would know best: they or the woman (and her peers and subordinates) on whose orders the pogrom was carried out? But no. In Sweden, here they come again, through the pages of a magazine called Ordfront, or Word Front. Last year, it carried an interview with the author Diane Johnstone, about her book Fool's Crusade, which expresses doubts over the number of victims of the Srebrenica massacre; the authencity of the Racak massacre in Kosovo; the use of systematic rape in the war in Bosnia; and the true figure of Bosnian war dead (the official estimate is more than 200,000 - Johnstone claims 50,000). And just as before, members of the chattering classes, unbelievably, have hailed this poison as "outstanding work", in a letter signed by, among others, Noam Chomsky, Arundhati Roy, Tariq Ali, John Pilger, <et.al>.
In her write-up of the interview, Ms Brockes interprets Chomsky's defense of publication of my book as a "defense of those who say the Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated" and drags in the ITN-Living Marxism (LM) controversy, confusing the facts just as in Vulliamy's article. She lauds "my colleague, Ed Vulliamy", as one of the "serious, trustworthy people" who disagree with Chomsky. So it is not far-fetched to see Vulliamy's influence in the Brockes hatchet job.
Martha e-mails to note Carol' "Just Say No" (A New Leif, Ms):
Prop 73 was a constitutional amendment requiring parental notification for any minor seeking an abortion. The proposition had the innocuous name "Child Protection Initiative". It was, however, dangerous. After all, how much safer and healthier would minors be who still sought to end their pregnancy without parental notification? That is a situation that never ends well. It didn't before Roe v. Wade, and it hasn't in states that have passed parental notification laws. There was more to this proposition than just parental notification. The language of the proposition defined abortion as, "caus[ing] the death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born." Dangerous and deceptive.
For some reason, though, parental notification is one of the easiest places to peck away at abortion rights. I think it is because parents want to believe that their child would tell them anything, so notification is just a reassuring technicallity. After all, as the proponents always say, a minor needs parental consent to get their ears pierced. Good argument. On the surface. Un-pierced ears are not unwanted pregnancies. There is no shame attached to pierced ears. If you don't get your parents consent to get your ears pierced and you find someone who will illegally pierce your ears, you probably won't get anything worse than uneven holes or an infection. To talk people out of being in favor of parental notification laws is doable, but it is a complex, nuanced, and subtle endeavor. Complex, nuanced and subtle - not really words associated with political campaigns. It is an uphill battle to defeat these propositions.
We are in a on-going war to protect the rights of all women to have access to safe and legal abortions. But, for today, winning one battle feels pretty damn good.
And Jamie e-mails to note Christine's "Add to Maureen Dowd's Reading List" (Pop Politics):
My biggest problem with the infamous excerpt of Maureen Dowd's new book is articles like this must-read critique criticizing the faulty studies Dowd relies upon to make her case that feminism has been, well, a drag, won't cause as big a wave as the original essay.
Dowd's reliance on bad research and anecdotal advice from a select group of women puts on her par with the president she skewers each week. Both she and Bush need to get out more and make new friends.
Failing that, they could try picking up a magazine or book once in a while on the subjects in which they supposedly specialize. Katha Pollitt in The Nation has a few suggestions, and she expresses the disappointment of many women who look to Dowd to provide a strong female, sometimes feminist, voice in the mainstream press:
Maureen Dowd doesn't read my column. I know this because in her new book, Are Men Necessary?, she uncritically cites virtually every fear-mongering, backlash-promoting study, survey, article and book I've debunked in this space. She falls for that 1986 Harvard-Yale study comparing women's chances of marrying after 40 to the likelihood of being killed by a terrorist, and for the half-baked theories of Sylvia Ann Hewlett (ambitious women stay single or childless), Lisa Belkin (mothers give up their careers), Louise Story (even undergraduates understand this now) and other purveyors of the view that achievement and romance/family are incompatible for women. To be fair, Dowd apparently doesn't read Susan Faludi or Susan Douglas either, or The American Prospect, Slate, Salon or even The New Republic, home of her friend Leon Wieseltier, much thanked for editorial help in her introduction -- all of which have published persuasive critiques of these and other contributions to backlash lit. Still, it hurts. I read her, after all. We all do.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
amy goodman
democracy now
jimmy massey
why are we back in iraq
the third estate sunday review
pop politics
Christine Cupaiuolo
the laura flanders show
laura flanders
carol leif
diana johnstone
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Other Items
The possibility that Judge Alito could vote to narrow abortion rights has dominated discussion among both supporters and opponents of his nomination. But Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice and one of the leaders of the coalition, said a poll commissioned by her organization showed the potential to attack Judge Alito on aspects of his record that had received less attention.
In addition to the alliance, a liberal legal group that focuses on judicial nominations, the coalition includes the abortion rights groups Naral Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood, as well as People for the American Way, the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Sierra Club.
Last week, the alliance released results of a poll that highlighted elements of the judge's record unrelated to abortion that the liberal groups say could have greater resonance with moderate voters.
Among the issues raised by the poll was Judge Alito's support as a lawyer in the Reagan administration for an employer's right to fire someone who had AIDS. Another issue was a judicial opinion he wrote supporting a police strip-search of a suspected drug dealer's female companion and her 10-year-old daughter. Others included his votes as a judge against employment discrimination suits and an opinion overturning part of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The above is from David D. Kirkpatrick's "Liberal Coalition Is Making Plans to Take Fight Beyond Abortion" in this morning's New York Times. Billie e-mailed to note it.
Donnie e-mails to note Dahr Jamail's "Fallujah Revisted" (Iraq Dispatches):
Nearly a year after they occurred, a few of the war crimes committed in Fallujah by members of the US military have gained the attention of some major media outlets (excluding, of course, any of the corporate media outlets in the US).
Back on November 26, 2004, in a story I wrote for the Inter Press Service titled 'Unusual Weapons' Used in Fallujah, refugees from that city described, in detail, various odd weapons used in Fallujah. In addition, they provided detailed descriptions such as "pieces of these bombs exploded into large fires that burnt the skin even when water was thrown on the burns."
This was also mentioned in a web log I'd penned nine days before, on November 17, 2004, named Slash and Burn where one of the descriptions of these same weapons by the same refugee from Fallujah said, "These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half an hour. They used these near the train tracks. You could hear these dropped from a large airplane and the bombs were the size of a tank. When anyone touched those fires, their body burned for hours."
On December 9th of 2004 I posted a gallery of photos, many of which are included in the new RAI television documentary about incendiary weapons having been used in Fallujah.
Like the torture "scandal" of Abu Ghraib that for people in the west didn't become "real" until late April of 2004, Iraqis and journalists in Iraq who engaged in actual reporting knew that US and British forces were torturing Iraqis from nearly the beginning of the occupation, and continue to do so to this day.
All of this makes me wonder how much longer it will take for other atrocities to come to light. Even just discussing Fallujah, there are many we can choose from. While I'm not the only journalist to have reported on these, let me draw your attention to just a few things that I've recorded which took place in Fallujah during the November, 2004 massacre.
In my story "Fallujah Refugees Tell of Life and Death in the Kill Zone" published on December 3, 2004 there are many instances of war crimes which will, hopefully, be granted the attention they deserve.
Burhan Fasa'a, an Iraqi journalist who worked for the Lebanese satellite TV station, LBC and who was in Fallujah for nine days during the most intense combat, said Americans grew easily frustrated with Iraqis who could not speak English.
By the way, the examples above (and others in the rest of the article)? Never reported by Dexter Filkins, the "award winning" Times reporter stationed in the Green Zone. And he was in Falluja. He's an incurious sort of reporter.
Trina e-mails to note Mark Rudd's "Something Happening Here ..." (Common Dreams):
I joined the anti-Vietnam War movement as an 18-year-old college student, a freshman at Columbia University. It was the fall of 1965, just months after the U.S. began sending ground combat troops to Southeast Asia.
The older members of the Columbia chapter of Students for a Democratic Society explained to me that unlike World War II, Vietnam was an imperial war, a war of occupation whose purpose was the repression of a national liberation movement. We were a small group then, but over the next three years SDS became a critical part of a larger antiwar coalition. Our anger mounted, our protests grew and our ranks burgeoned. Unfortunately, we went many bridges too far and got ensnared in the hallucination of revolution. By 1969, it became more important in SDS to fight each other over who had the "correct revolutionary line" than to fight against the war itself. Early the next year, while the war was still raging, my own faction, the Weathermen, made the stupid and ultimately disastrous decision to disband SDS and opt instead for "armed struggle," our middle-class version of urban guerrilla warfare. Predictably, we became isolated and irrelevant over the ensuing years, even as the larger antiwar movement went on to achieve its goal: U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam.
I often wonder what would have resulted over the long haul if SDS -- which represented the radical, anti-imperialist wing of the antiwar movement -- had not chosen to self-destruct in violence and fantasy but instead had kept plugging away, encouraging more and more people to understand and oppose the building of an American empire.
This question seems particularly relevant today, 40 years later, as a reawakening antiwar movement prepares to confront many of the same issues. Who benefits and who loses from an American empire? What are the moral and economic and spiritual costs to Americans? Is a system of international law possible as an alternative to endless use of American military power? Viewed against the bleak future that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are offering Americans and the rest of the world, these questions begin to seem more practical than idealistic.
What's hard to understand -- given the revelations about the rush to war, the use of torture and the loss of more than 2,000 soldiers -- is why the antiwar movement isn't further along than it is. Given that President Bush is now talking about Iraq as only one skirmish in an unlimited struggle against a global Islamic enemy, a struggle comparable to the titanic, 40-year Cold War against communism, shouldn't a massive critique of the global war on terrorism already be underway?
Friday, Lynda e-mailed to note something and I wanted to hold it for Monday. It's Joyce Marcel's "Ode To Amy Goodman" (Common Dreams):
O Amy Goodman, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
First, you are the anti-Judith Miller, the discredited New York Times reporter who beat the drums for Bush and Cheney's illegal war, who embedded her journalistic integrity for a chance to play with the big boys. Were they really that big, Judy? Really?
You, Amy Goodman, sneer at the very word "embedded." You treasure journalistic independence. For twenty years, first as news director of WBAI in New York, one of Pacifica Radio's flagship stations, and since 1994 the lovely and formidable one-non-blonde eye at the center of the growing whirlwind of horrible truths that is "Democracy Now!," you have reported news free of corporate underwriting.
"The media should be like a huge kitchen table that stretches across this country, where we discuss life and death, war and peace - and anything less is a disservice to this country," you said at Keene (N.H.) State College this past weekend, to an enthusiastic crowd of over 600 people. "My mission is to make dissent commonplace in this country."
Day after day, "Democracy Now!" reports the news to a growing audience on some 400 non-commercial radio stations, public access stations, on the Dish satellite network and DirecTV (on Link). The show also podcasts on the Web (democracynow.org) so "people around the world can have access to the news from the grassroots level."
Sounds like a wonderful show, no? Which is how we remind everyone to check out Democracy Now! today (read, listen, watch). I never mind adding, "Don't forget to check out Democracy Now! today." But Lynda's highlight allowed us to note a little more.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
amy goodman
democracy now
david d. kirkpatrick
mark rudd
joyce marcel
dahr jamail
In addition to the alliance, a liberal legal group that focuses on judicial nominations, the coalition includes the abortion rights groups Naral Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood, as well as People for the American Way, the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Sierra Club.
Last week, the alliance released results of a poll that highlighted elements of the judge's record unrelated to abortion that the liberal groups say could have greater resonance with moderate voters.
Among the issues raised by the poll was Judge Alito's support as a lawyer in the Reagan administration for an employer's right to fire someone who had AIDS. Another issue was a judicial opinion he wrote supporting a police strip-search of a suspected drug dealer's female companion and her 10-year-old daughter. Others included his votes as a judge against employment discrimination suits and an opinion overturning part of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The above is from David D. Kirkpatrick's "Liberal Coalition Is Making Plans to Take Fight Beyond Abortion" in this morning's New York Times. Billie e-mailed to note it.
Donnie e-mails to note Dahr Jamail's "Fallujah Revisted" (Iraq Dispatches):
Nearly a year after they occurred, a few of the war crimes committed in Fallujah by members of the US military have gained the attention of some major media outlets (excluding, of course, any of the corporate media outlets in the US).
Back on November 26, 2004, in a story I wrote for the Inter Press Service titled 'Unusual Weapons' Used in Fallujah, refugees from that city described, in detail, various odd weapons used in Fallujah. In addition, they provided detailed descriptions such as "pieces of these bombs exploded into large fires that burnt the skin even when water was thrown on the burns."
This was also mentioned in a web log I'd penned nine days before, on November 17, 2004, named Slash and Burn where one of the descriptions of these same weapons by the same refugee from Fallujah said, "These exploded on the ground with large fires that burnt for half an hour. They used these near the train tracks. You could hear these dropped from a large airplane and the bombs were the size of a tank. When anyone touched those fires, their body burned for hours."
On December 9th of 2004 I posted a gallery of photos, many of which are included in the new RAI television documentary about incendiary weapons having been used in Fallujah.
Like the torture "scandal" of Abu Ghraib that for people in the west didn't become "real" until late April of 2004, Iraqis and journalists in Iraq who engaged in actual reporting knew that US and British forces were torturing Iraqis from nearly the beginning of the occupation, and continue to do so to this day.
All of this makes me wonder how much longer it will take for other atrocities to come to light. Even just discussing Fallujah, there are many we can choose from. While I'm not the only journalist to have reported on these, let me draw your attention to just a few things that I've recorded which took place in Fallujah during the November, 2004 massacre.
In my story "Fallujah Refugees Tell of Life and Death in the Kill Zone" published on December 3, 2004 there are many instances of war crimes which will, hopefully, be granted the attention they deserve.
Burhan Fasa'a, an Iraqi journalist who worked for the Lebanese satellite TV station, LBC and who was in Fallujah for nine days during the most intense combat, said Americans grew easily frustrated with Iraqis who could not speak English.
By the way, the examples above (and others in the rest of the article)? Never reported by Dexter Filkins, the "award winning" Times reporter stationed in the Green Zone. And he was in Falluja. He's an incurious sort of reporter.
Trina e-mails to note Mark Rudd's "Something Happening Here ..." (Common Dreams):
I joined the anti-Vietnam War movement as an 18-year-old college student, a freshman at Columbia University. It was the fall of 1965, just months after the U.S. began sending ground combat troops to Southeast Asia.
The older members of the Columbia chapter of Students for a Democratic Society explained to me that unlike World War II, Vietnam was an imperial war, a war of occupation whose purpose was the repression of a national liberation movement. We were a small group then, but over the next three years SDS became a critical part of a larger antiwar coalition. Our anger mounted, our protests grew and our ranks burgeoned. Unfortunately, we went many bridges too far and got ensnared in the hallucination of revolution. By 1969, it became more important in SDS to fight each other over who had the "correct revolutionary line" than to fight against the war itself. Early the next year, while the war was still raging, my own faction, the Weathermen, made the stupid and ultimately disastrous decision to disband SDS and opt instead for "armed struggle," our middle-class version of urban guerrilla warfare. Predictably, we became isolated and irrelevant over the ensuing years, even as the larger antiwar movement went on to achieve its goal: U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam.
I often wonder what would have resulted over the long haul if SDS -- which represented the radical, anti-imperialist wing of the antiwar movement -- had not chosen to self-destruct in violence and fantasy but instead had kept plugging away, encouraging more and more people to understand and oppose the building of an American empire.
This question seems particularly relevant today, 40 years later, as a reawakening antiwar movement prepares to confront many of the same issues. Who benefits and who loses from an American empire? What are the moral and economic and spiritual costs to Americans? Is a system of international law possible as an alternative to endless use of American military power? Viewed against the bleak future that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are offering Americans and the rest of the world, these questions begin to seem more practical than idealistic.
What's hard to understand -- given the revelations about the rush to war, the use of torture and the loss of more than 2,000 soldiers -- is why the antiwar movement isn't further along than it is. Given that President Bush is now talking about Iraq as only one skirmish in an unlimited struggle against a global Islamic enemy, a struggle comparable to the titanic, 40-year Cold War against communism, shouldn't a massive critique of the global war on terrorism already be underway?
Friday, Lynda e-mailed to note something and I wanted to hold it for Monday. It's Joyce Marcel's "Ode To Amy Goodman" (Common Dreams):
O Amy Goodman, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
First, you are the anti-Judith Miller, the discredited New York Times reporter who beat the drums for Bush and Cheney's illegal war, who embedded her journalistic integrity for a chance to play with the big boys. Were they really that big, Judy? Really?
You, Amy Goodman, sneer at the very word "embedded." You treasure journalistic independence. For twenty years, first as news director of WBAI in New York, one of Pacifica Radio's flagship stations, and since 1994 the lovely and formidable one-non-blonde eye at the center of the growing whirlwind of horrible truths that is "Democracy Now!," you have reported news free of corporate underwriting.
"The media should be like a huge kitchen table that stretches across this country, where we discuss life and death, war and peace - and anything less is a disservice to this country," you said at Keene (N.H.) State College this past weekend, to an enthusiastic crowd of over 600 people. "My mission is to make dissent commonplace in this country."
Day after day, "Democracy Now!" reports the news to a growing audience on some 400 non-commercial radio stations, public access stations, on the Dish satellite network and DirecTV (on Link). The show also podcasts on the Web (democracynow.org) so "people around the world can have access to the news from the grassroots level."
Sounds like a wonderful show, no? Which is how we remind everyone to check out Democracy Now! today (read, listen, watch). I never mind adding, "Don't forget to check out Democracy Now! today." But Lynda's highlight allowed us to note a little more.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
amy goodman
democracy now
david d. kirkpatrick
mark rudd
joyce marcel
dahr jamail
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)