Time has been salivating for months over the possibility of "getting" President Bush with juicy photos of the President with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Time writers Adam Zagorin AND Matthew Cooper set the stage:

Just how close was the relationship between the White House and disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff?

Now, finally, the first such photo has come to light.

Posted by: Bluto at 11:30 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 2 kb.

Gabriel Schoenfeld, writing in Commentary, examines the question that should have been the hot topic in the mainstream media for the past month: did the New York Times violate the Espionage Act in printing James Risen's story about surveillance of international calls and emails from al Qaeda suspects to people inside the United States? more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:01 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 3 kb.

1 If you want to read the Gray Lady's article for free, you can click right here. For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that anything in this article damages national security. The existence and use of this capability was widely known prior to 9/11; the only thing in this article that is really new is the fact that warrants aren't being issued prior to surveillance. Unless terrorists have somehow comprormised the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, (or Gawd forbid, the National Security Agency) it's very hard to see anything in here that actually compromises national security. Someone should explain this argument -- in some detail -- if it's going to hold up to scrutiny.

Posted by: IO ERROR at February 03, 2006 12:52 AM (FVbj6)

2 Bluto He's got a point. NYT is many things but stupid isn't one of them. They had their lawyers all over this for a year prior so they could find the gray areas and cover their asses. They probably expected (and wanted) a legal confrontation on this from the start. This type of case by nature is very difficult to pursue. They would then use the proceedings as a rally point for their overall agenda - and as a massive high profile PR generator. I believe this is what they want - and I don't want to give it to them! There are other options - continue the program - don't back down - hammer on the key facts ... 1) FISA overwhelming adhered to - these are necessary exceptions. 2) target specific - AQ and possible associates within US all reference War On Terror 3) not issue of Law - issue of ongoing pursuit of War to disrupt/prevent enemy actions within US 4) begun in ernest immediately following 9/11 and very important ... 5) No further attacks - and program key element to that SUCCESS! At this point, we can afford some degree of release of info on successful ops which are currently classified - I'm hoping Congressional Hearings will "see to that". Just a taste is all that is required. This is not a battle for the courts (advantage them)- it is a battle for public opinion! (advantage us) NYT and the Lib/Left have an agenda - so do I! While politizing National Security is generally not an overall good thing - its happening anyway - so - play the game. We got a strong hand here, and they're the ones who have to push, pull, twist, and exaggerate this to sell their fears to the American public. We already know what they are gonna sell - Their fears and visions of AMERIKA THE POLICE STATE - but they have been playing that song for 40 years and it doesn't work outside a leftist dance club. (some might hate my following terminology, but so what! - I'm being blunt - deal with it) We will sell them a Raghead! - with a desire to kill, the capability, and a PROVEN track record. Let the public decide - its all politics in the end - and all numbers. What's that Karl? Did I forget something? ...

Posted by: hondo at February 03, 2006 02:05 AM (3aakz)

3 I think it's the intent that matters, and the intent was to damage the war effort. If the NYT is so worried about civil rights, where were they after Vicky Weaver was murdered by an FBI sniper, or Janet Reno's BATF Nazi's were using a freaking Abrams tank on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, where dozens of innocent people, including women and children, were burned to death, then both cases blatantly covered up? Slimy liberal traitors and the bastards in government that are in collusion with them should all be shot.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 03, 2006 02:11 AM (0yYS2)

4 Hondo is right. The NYT's wants nothing better than to get in a court fight with the Administration looking like the victim of the police state. We are winning in the court of public opinion and we need to stay there. This thing would drag out in a court of law for years, with the Times getting the free publicity for their side. This could turn the tide against us.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 03, 2006 05:18 AM (rUyw4)

5 I think it should take years in court, and hopefully draw lots of attention, so as to spotlight the leftards' treasonous ways. Remember that the light of day is the best weapon against this scum.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 03, 2006 08:55 AM (0yYS2)

6 Maxie How can you shine the light of day on something that's been out in the open glowin' like the sun for nearly 40 years? Technically, it ain't treason unless your working for the other side - and they are not - they are working for themselves - their agenda - its a whole nuther ballgame. Maxie - you seem obsessed telling all that the sky is blue and the world is round.

Posted by: hondo at February 03, 2006 10:42 AM (3aakz)

7 If I am, it's because everyone seems to have forgotten.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 03, 2006 11:11 AM (0yYS2)

8 In fact, I believe that the NYT will not be called on this because of the obvious 'graymail' issue. I thought I stated that pretty clearly. IO ERROR, you are in error. Surveillance was widely suspected prior to the NYT story. The NYT put terrorists on notice that their chances of being monitored were much greater than they had thought.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at February 03, 2006 12:26 PM (RHG+K)

9 Bluto, whatever do you mean? Your blog's already a star. Just for the record, I'm not at all convinced that this program is in any way illegal. A few aspects of it, and things that have come out since, give me reason for concern, but I suspect the program will be vindicated in the end. That doesn't mean the NYT compromised national security by reporting on the legal questions surrounding the program -- which was, after all, the thrust of their reporting. Merely knowing it exists hardly jeopardizes anything, except perhaps a few highly placed people's political careers. Of course the terrorists had reason to believe that they would be under surveillance. Remember Clinton launching a cruise missile at Osama bin Laden in 1998? He stopped using his satellite phone because of that. In any case, what seems to have happened is that since then, they got sloppy. Michael Hayden in his Jan. 23 press conference said that "they don't always act like they know they're being monitored." So essentially at this point we're catching terrorists because they've gotten slow and stupid. I fear for what might happen if the terrorists become smart and fast again.

Posted by: IO ERROR at February 03, 2006 02:48 PM (vhWf1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Last year, the New York Times put its eight Op-Ed columnists behind a subscription wall called TimesSelect which required readers to pay to access the thoughts of Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Frank Rich and the others. Now, the NYT has also decided that only TimesSelect subscribers should be allowed to e-mail its Op-Ed columnists.

It's been contended that the NYT is trying to force people into subscribing. Times spokesman Toby Usnik disputes the contention. I can't imagine that this news upsets very many people.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 06:54 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

How often has the blogosphere been criticized by the mainstream media for not adequately researching stories, for being less than thorough, and for not checking facts? Way too often, I'd say. Well, check out this story.

From BreitBart.com:

A quote in a fake news release that was intended as an April Fool's joke ended up in a front-page story in the Los Angeles Times. The story in Tuesday's editions of the Times noted how successful the reintroduction of wolves had been 10 years ago, but said the predators remained controversial.

"In Wyoming, for example, Gov. Dave Freudenthal last April decreed that the Endangered Species Act is no longer in force and that the state 'now considers the wolf as a federal dog,' unworthy of protection," the story read.

The Times printed a correction Wednesday, acknowledging that the news release was a hoax.

"The reporter saw it on the Internet and had talked with the governor in the past, so she was familiar enough with the way he talks and writes that she thought it sounded authentic, and she didn't check, which she should have," Times Deputy Metro Editor David Lauter told the Casper Star Tribune.

Companion thoughts at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 05:24 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

The Daily Star (Lebanon) discusses a study of US newspapers by Dr. Ghazi Falah of the University of Akron, who focuses on the way Arabs and Muslims are portrayed by the American news media. Dr. Falah makes some astute observations, but draws some questionable conclusions.

With the vast majority of stories and photographs appearing in Western media from the Arab world pertaining to, or insinuating an environment of violence and conflict, readers are left with these impressions of the region.

"It is striking how much the editorial policies of the foreign [American] newspapers consulted for this study overlap with U.S. government positions and its geo-political interests in the Middle East."

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 11:58 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

The staff at the BBC has been issued new management guidance regarding the use of the terms 'terrorist' and 'terrorism.' The BBC's governors believe that the Internet has eliminated differences between domestic and overseas audiences and, therefore, it's essential that the terms be used carefully.

From MediaGuardian.co.uk:

The new guidance has been sent out internally and tells journalists: "The guidelines do not ban the use of the word. However, we do ask that careful thought is given to its use by a BBC voice. There are ways of conveying the full horror and human consequences of acts of terror without using the word 'terrorist' to describe the perpetrators."

"Careful use of the word 'terrorist' is essential if the BBC is to maintain its reputation for standards of accuracy and especially impartiality ... that does not mean we should emasculate our reporting or otherwise avoid conveying the reality and horror of what has occurred; but we should consider the impact our use of language may have on our reputation for objective journalism amongst our many audiences ... we must be careful not to give the impression that we have come to some kind of implicit - and unwarranted - value judgement."

The edict reminds BBC staff of the existing BBC editorial policy, which states: "The word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them."

"We should not adopt other people's language as our own. It is also usually inappropriate to use words like 'liberate', 'court martial' or 'execute' in the absence of a clear judicial process. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as 'bomber', 'attacking', 'gunman', 'kidnapper' 'insurgent' and 'militant'."

The new guidance suggested using words such as "bomb attack" instead, or "bomber" or "assassin". [sic all]

Of course, this announced new guidance begs the question of what exactly is different from the way the BBC currently reports the news?

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 11:57 AM | Comments (47) | Add Comment
Post contains 478 words, total size 3 kb.

I believe it's Hustler magazine that does the "Girl Next Door" thing, right? I think we've found a new candidate:

MONCEAU-SUR-SAMBRE, Belgium (AP) — She was the typical girl-next-door — pretty daughter of a hospital secretary who grew up on a quiet street in this rust-belt town and finished high school before becoming a bakers' assistant.

I hear her eyes are blue.

One blue this way, one blue that way.

Some other girls next door she'll be swapping recipes with:

Erzsebet Bathory

Belle Gunness

Dorothea Puente

Just to name a few.

As far as I'm concerned, that USA Today article I linked up there takes the media coddling of terrorists to a new low. Just when you think they can't get any lower...

Background on this "girl next door" here. (Link whoring on your own blog, Rusty...sheesh, I thought I was shameless.)

CP@VAM

Posted by: Vinnie at 09:52 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 149 words, total size 1 kb.

A source inside FEMA told me recently that, as of a couple of days ago, the agency had granted 1,758 funeral benefits to families whose pre-disaster address was in Jefferson Parrish. These are confirmed deaths with confirmed identification, but the implication may not be what it seems. So far this number is not in the public domain, and I can't verify it by any independent sources, but I believe it. The thing is, any large population of people will have a certain number of deaths over any 2 week period, so it's not a given that all, or even most, of these deaths occured during the hurricane or flood. In fact, since identification is a fairly rigorous process it's probably accurate to infer that most of these deaths occured under non-disaster conditions, either after the event or before it, and people are simply applying for the funeral benefit because they're without funds. The critical issue isn't the number, but whether these deaths were a direct consequence of the storm, whether the storm was a secondary factor, or whether they would have occured storm or not. And that's simply unknown to us at this time.

But be advised that if numbers like these are leaked to MSM it's very likely that certain people will interpret them to mean that the death toll from Katrina is much higher than the current number of confirmed deaths (579 in the state of Louisiana according to FOX just a few moments ago).

Posted by: Demosophist at 11:45 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 259 words, total size 2 kb.

This post, by Jeff Jarvis, describes the parameters of the "Information Reformation" that's taking place:

The war is over and the army that wasn't even fighting - the army of all of us, the ones who weren't in charge, the ones without the arms - won. The big guys who owned the big guns still don't know it. But they lost.

In our media 2.0, web 2.0, post-media, post-scarcity, small-is-the-new-big, open-source, gift-economy world of the empowered and connected individual, the value is no longer in maintaining an exclusive hold on things. The value is no longer in owning content or distribution.

The value is in relationships. The value is in trust.

And this post, by Donald Sensing, lays out the case for a wartime Civilian Intelligence System, although he doesn't actually use that term:

Yet a scandal can race around the world while good news and success stories are still tying their shoes. The Bush administration has allowed the information status quo of the war to be maintained too long in the public eye. The information agenda has been set by the mainstream media (MSM), attenuated to a significant but not large degree by bloggers. I think the administration should begin immediately a vigorous domestic-information program to do these things:

-remind the American people "why we fight."

-inform the public of successes achieved.

-educate the public of the national objectives being sought, and how.

I have no grand plan on exactly how such a program should be carried out, but its success would depend on sidestepping the mainstream media. None of this information has been unavailable in the public arena. The MSM could have been reporting such stories objectively all along but have deliberately avoided doing so.

What I've had trouble understanding is why, if Jeff is right, we need to await a government lead-out in order to establish this new Civilian Intelligence System? (h/t: Winds of Change)

Read the rest!

Posted by: Demosophist at 01:23 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 3 kb.

I don't know about you, but when I read the news, I tend to skim the headlines first and then stop and read anything that has caught my interest. I suspect most of you are probably about the same. Yet I have found that sometimes, the headlines don't accurately reflect what's really going on. Take this morning, for example.

From CNN:
Brain-dead woman dies after childbirth
Fox News:
Brain-Dead Va. Woman Dies After Giving Birth
CBS News:
Brain-Dead Woman Gives Birth, Dies

I've heard of this story, but haven't really followed it much. From skimming the headlines, it sounds like the mother held on just long enough to have the baby and then gave up. Sad in a way, but maybe better off in the long run. Then I get to the Washington Post.

Brain-Dead Mother Is Taken Off Life Support

Now I don't know about you, but to me, that conveys a COMPLETLY different story. I'm not trying to start another debate over the rights and/or wrongs of removing someone from life support. That is an arduous debate that certainly will not be solved on a blog. But what I do want to point out is what I want from my news, which is the truth. Plain, simple, unvarnished truth. After all, if euthanasia is such a good thing, why aren't you coming out and saying that that's what this was? I don't think I'm asking too much of a news outlet to simply show enough respect for me, its readers and even the woman who died to just tell the truth of the matter instead of leading us to think something completely different.

Posted by: Drew at 06:11 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.