One investigative reporter’s intriguing trials and tribulations

Sharyl Attkisson is an award winning television journalist who until recently worked for CBS News. She received two Emmy nominations in 2010 and another in 2011 for investigating members of Congress and the government’s wasting of tax dollars. Her reporting of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) “Operation Fast and Furious” debacle won CBS News the Investigative Reporting Award from Accuracy in Media in 2012, and also won CBS Evening News the Radio and Television News Directors Association's National Edward R. Murrow Award for Excellence in Video Investigative Reporting.

You may remember “Operation Fast and Furious,” although it received much less coverage than it deserved. That was the name attached to the ill advised, poorly conceived, and error-ridden misadventure devised by ATF, an effort to shut down the flow of U.S. guns to Mexican drug cartels. The idea was to allow guns to be put in the hands of Mexican drug traffickers for the purpose of tracking them to cartel members and arresting them.

Not only did ATF botch tracking the weapons, but people who were armed with two of those “Gun Walking” weapons and were illegal aliens that the ATF had not arrested, killed Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on the U.S. side of the Mexican border. While it is certainly possible to dream up a more preposterous plan than this one, “Fast and Furious” richly deserves the Dubious Achievement Award.

While working for CBS News in 2013, according to huffingtonpost.com, Ms. Attkisson told a Philadelphia radio station that "[t]here has been an issue in my house and there has been an issue with my computers that's gone on for quite a long time that we're looking into.” The issues, she said, had been occurring for about two years. An investigation by CBS News confirmed that, indeed, an external third party had accessed her computer numerous times.

Further problems were outlined by Erik Wemple on washingtonpost.com: “By November 2012, writes Attkisson, disruptions on her home phone line were so frequent as to render it unusable: ‘I call home from my mobile phone and it rings on my end, but not at the house. Or it rings at home once but when my husband or daughter answers, they just hear a dial tone. At the same time, on my end, it keeps ringing and then connects somewhere, just not at my house. Sometimes, when my call connects to that mystery-place-that’s-not-my-house, I hear an electronic sounding buzz,’ reads one passage in [her new book]. She also alleges that her television set ‘spontaneously jitters, mutes, and freeze-frames.’ The home alarm, too, ‘sounds at a different time every night’ and when she checks with the alarm system, it indicates that there’s ‘trouble with the phone line.’”

Who had the motive and the means to do such things?

Could it have been a competitor network? Perhaps. But would a competitor have strong enough motivation to take on such a project? How about a foreign entity, like China? China has the wherewithal, but would it be interested in the subjects Ms. Attkinsson was investigating? Probably not.

How about the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOJ or other government department? Well, given that she was looking into misbehavior of members of Congress and the “Fast and Furious” mess, yes, both motive and wherewithal exist in administrative agencies. However, the Justice Department denied any involvement, so we can just follow the lead of the mainstream news media and put that suspicion to rest, can’t we?

Ms. Attkinsson did yeoman’s work investigating and reporting on the “Fast and Furious” government screw-up, but CBS’ interest ran out before the story was over, as did the government’s interest in explaining to the American people how such a thing happened.

You would probably use more than all your fingers and toes counting the prominent media outlets that share a grand lack of curiosity for epic blunders, bungles, fiascos and miscalculations by our government over the last few years, like the Benghazi security failure, the Solyndra financing boondoggle, the IRS targeting non-profit applicants, the NSA mass spying project, the failure to secure the southern border, and the Justice Department spying on reporters’ private communications.

Finally, however, after more than five years a few media outlets have started to notice and point out the administration’s many shortcomings, and to ask questions about these things.

Ms. Attkinsson left CBS News this year due to what she said is the network's liberal bias and lack of dedication to investigative reporting. She has written a book, Stonewalled: One Reporter's Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's Washington, published by Harpers, and focusing on difficulties she has experienced in reporting on the Obama administration.

Sharyl Attkinsson epitomizes what the Fourth Estate is supposed to be: the people’s guardian against government misbehavior. A responsible and determined news media provides the public the information it needs to properly evaluate what its government and elected officials are doing, and as such is an indispensable tool for a free society. This function has been largely missing since January of 2009. Maybe if a Republican is elected president in 2016, the function will be revived.

Lack of media integrity represents yet another serious crisis

Commentary by James H. Shott

A major factor in this year’s presidential campaign is something that should not be a factor at all: the media. 

What the nation needs, what the media are expected to provide, and what some Americans think they are getting, is objective, balanced and fair coverage of the events of the day. 

That, of course, is what the Society of Professional Journalists intends its profession to provide, and so stated in its Preamble: “Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.” 

America suffers mightily because the media have largely abandoned their ethical and moral obligations in favor of pursuing political goals; no longer information purveyors, they are partisan players, who instead of providing accurate, objective news now push deliberately distorted partisan messages. 

This has earned the media a few derisive names: the lame stream media, the drive-by media, the lapdog media or press, the Ministry of Propaganda, the Talking Point Monkeys, presstitutes … the list goes on. 

The bias exhibited by the major media exists not only in how they present information, but also in what information they present, what they don’t present, and the amount of emphasis certain items receive. The issue is further clouded by the fact that many media outlets provide both news and opinion. 

There is nothing wrong with that, so long as news and opinion are carefully handled and kept separate, and opinion is clearly labeled as such. Far too often, they get mixed together. 

It doesn’t get much worse than when the media take sides, as they have done in the presidential campaign. One recent example resulted from a meeting Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney held with a few supporters in a private home in Florida. Speaking to a group of like-minded supporters, Mr. Romney made comments that on the surface conveyed a message that seemed to show his apparent lack of concern for approximately half the country. 

Such an interpretation doesn’t pass the smell test, of course, as indicated by the high level of charitable giving the Romneys donate each year – nearly 30 percent of net income in 2011 – but it makes a good story and helps the media boost their candidate, Barack Obama. 

Some facts need to be considered: First, it was a private, off-the-record meeting; no press invited, and he spoke to people who understood that his comments were not intended to be taken absolutely literally. Furthermore, a whole lot of the people in that 47 percent that Mr. Romney mentioned not only know what he meant, but agree with him. 

Second, a spy secretly – perhaps illegally – recorded his comments, and then an openly left-wing publication edited the comments and published them without explaining the circumstances of the meeting or confessing that it had doctored the contents. The recording became a handy Romney-bashing tool for other media outlets, which either didn’t research the source or notice the clandestine nature of the recording, or just didn’t care about the lack of honesty and forthrightness. There can be no reasonable doubt that this cheap-shot episode was designed solely to hurt Mr. Romney to the benefit of Mr. Obama. Such “reporting” is dishonest and beneath responsible journalists, who are now in short supply. 

However, stripped of the spy’s and the media’s disreputable conduct, and the media’s opportunistic parsing and misstating of his beliefs, what Mr. Romney said was true, and important: Half of the country pays taxes to the government and half receives money from the government. In fact, 70 percent of federal spending goes to 47 government dependence programs, according to the Heritage Foundation, and that is a serious problem. 

The national media largely reported the Romney non-story rather than objectively cover the nation’s fiscal crisis and the disastrous presidency of Barack Obama, whose administration danced, dodged and twisted into knots to avoid admitting that the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Libya was a terrorist attack. 

The public has taken notice. Distrust of the mass market mainstream media – newspapers, TV and radio – hit a new high this year, with 60 percent in a Gallup survey saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news “fully, accurately, and fairly,” while only 8 percent have a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of confidence. 

Last year, Gallup found that almost half of Americans (47 percent) believed the mainstream media had a liberal bias, but in the 1970s trust in the media was as high as 72 percent. 

Alas, the good old days of the media, like the good old days of many other things, are long gone, and the American media seems not to care about its reputation. 

Cross-posted from Observations

Liberal U.S. media working to subvert Mitt Romney’s candidacy

 

Commentary by James H. Shott

The experiences of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney last week illustrate how the media fail to provide adequate, objective and balanced coverage of serious campaign issues.

Campaigning in Colorado last week, Mr. Romney gave an interview to a local TV reporter, no doubt wanting to talk about his ideas for combating the horrible economic conditions, the need for jobs, and other weighty problems that threaten the nation.

The reporter began by asking about Mr. Romney’s inability to connect with Colorado Republicans, and following his 24-second answer then moved to same-sex marriage. Mr. Romney gave what he said was the same answer to this question as he has given from the beginning. The reporter then asked follow-up questions on that same subject. After two minutes of questions and answers on same-sex marriage, the reporter then asked if illegal aliens should receive in-state tuition. And then after that she asked Mr. Romney about medical marijuana.

So, given the opportunity to interview the likely Republican nominee for the office of President of the United States, a local reporter spends three minutes of the four and one-half minute interview asking about social issues.

Mr. Romney had about all he could stand, so he protested, since medical marijuana, same-sex marriage and tuition for illegals are neither the most important issues facing the nation, nor something about which a President of the United States should be concerned, since they are state issues.

And, indeed, there are obviously more important issues needing attention, such as the $16 trillion national debt that runs to $50,000 for every one of the more than 300 million Americans. How about the highest corporate tax rate in the world that makes U.S. corporations less competitive in the world market? How about the 16 percent of American workers – about 13 million, all together – that can’t find a job at all, or are underemployed? What about a nuclear Iran, and the mess in Afghanistan? How about the fact that the Democrats in charge of the U.S. Senate have shirked their obligation to pass a budget for three straight years?

None of that seemed important to the reporter, but she finally did get around to asking questions about energy.

While the Colorado reporter was focusing on less relevant topics, the intrepid investigators at The Washington Post were busy looking into Mr. Romney’s high school days, searching for archaic dirt. And, they found some.

Some of the former governor’s high school classmates from 1965 said that he had indulged in boyish behavior, and one incident allegedly involved forcibly cutting the long blonde hair of a boy a year younger than Mr. Romney, who the classmates said may have been gay. If true, this was clearly wrong and indefensible. But it was nearly 50 years ago in high school, and appears to be an isolated incident. Yet, The Post thought it was important enough for 5,000 words starting on page 1 above the fold. And since then these allegations have “evolved” into proof that Mitt Romney was a homophobic bully. He also is accused of pulling classmate Susie Jones’ hair in the third grade.

The Post’s crack investigators successfully found this 47 year-old story about Mr. Romney (13 times longer ago than the last budget passed by our Democrat-controlled Senate), but gave little attention to Barack Obama’s history with former members of the Weather Underground and his admitted “enthusiastic” drug use, and were unable to find any information about his mysterious college days, including his grades, his formal papers, his days at the Harvard Law Review, his friends, etc.

Some people’s past apparently deserves closer scrutiny than others. You can understand why The Post might regard Mr. Romney’s past as more important: he’s running for President.

It is relevant to note that the family of John Lauber, the victim of Mr. Romney’s alleged brutish haircut, is appalled that their relative would be used for political purposes. His older sister, Christine, was unaware that Mitt Romney, or anyone else, “bullied” her brother, who passed away from liver cancer in 2004, but she was clearly not pleased by the story. “Even if it did happen, John probably wouldn’t have said anything,” she said. “If he were still alive today, he would be furious.”

“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda,” she said. “There will be no more comments from the family.”

The treatment of Mitt Romney in 2012 and the treatment of Barack Obama in 2008 couldn’t be more different. In the Romney story, an unproved allegation of bullying gets front page treatment from The Washington Post, but admitted drug use, et al, by Barack Obama goes virtually unreported.

By emphasizing peripheral issues like same-sex marriage, illegal alien tuition, medical marijuana, and high school behavior, the liberal media distracts attention from President Obama’s dismal record on the critical economic problems. And in the attempt to discredit Mr. Romney, The Washington Post story denigrates John Lauber’s memory and upsets his family, presumably because of its obligation to inform the public. Well, about some things, anyway.

Cross-posted from Observations

Media dishonesty and complicity are in the news once again

Commentary by James H. Shott


Not too long ago the light of truth shined on climate scientists who cheated in trying to persuade the world that its end is near when a series of emails were made public revealing their fraud and deceit.

Now, a series of online discussions between journalists, academics and others of a similar mind have been discovered in which the dialogue centered on how to manipulate the voting public, and other matters equally out of bounds. The journalists represent several media outlets, including The Washington Post, Time Magazine, the Guardian (Britain), National Public Radio, The Nation, The New Republic, Bloomberg News, Salon, and Harper’s. The emails were posted at an online meeting place, a list-serve called “JournoList.”

Some people defend the activities of JournoListers as nothing unusual. Mike Hoyt, editor of the Columbia Journalism Review, asserts that the communications are normal interaction between associates. To him there is nothing unusual or improper about journalists discussing how to distract the American public from the negatives of one candidate in a presidential election. Boys will be boys, you know.

But journalism professor Jim Campbell of the State University of New York at Buffalo finds the JournoList troubling. “At one level it could be thought of as just colleagues throwing ideas out to one another, but from another standpoint it almost looks like collusion … where virtual talking points are shared and solidified in a group.” “That can’t be healthy for the country – or for the media, for that matter,” he added.

Bingo.

One useful tactic of the JournoListers was to distract attention from negative Obama news with some sensational charge against a prominent conservative. Someone named Spencer Ackerman, at the time on the staff of the Washington Independent, suggested to participants that to distract attention from Barack Obama’s racist and anti-America minister Jeremiah Wright, pick a conservative like “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares – and call them racists.”

Manipulating information for political and ideological gain wasn’t the only topic these folks discussed in this virtual smoke-filled back-room. They also thought freedom of the press should be done away with, because it allows Fox News to exist. Daniel Davies, a columnist at the Guardian, commented that “I am genuinely scared” of Fox because it “cannot be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation.” Imagine that: a news outlet that can’t be “controlled.” He continues: “In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.”

We need a “legal framework” to control Fox News, while the media outlets where the JournoListers work continue to operate unfettered? That sounds both fair and constitutional, doesn’t it?

Jumping on the anti-Fox News bandwagon was Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, who suggested a more strong-arm solution to the Fox News dilemma: “[I]s there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?” This man is a law professor?

Journalists are supposed to be in competition with one another, not in collusion, formulating “talking points” with each other. It is, obviously, a glaring conflict of interest when journalists pick a side and conspire to support one candidate or one side of an issue over the others. Such conflicts are scrupulously avoided by ethical professionals.

And what a horrid concoction of arrogance and insecurity these media people have. They are so arrogant as to think their ideas are more important than those of their fellow Americans, and yet are so insecure about their ideas that they believe they have to fool the American people into supporting them.

This perverse exercise has revealed such curious creatures as journalists who want freedom of the press for some but not others, and who conspire to manage information, and a law professor who believes Fox News has an FCC “permit” that can be revoked at will.

Good grief!

We are witnessing another once-honorable profession abandoning its integrity and hawking a personal agenda as it takes its place in the Hall of Shame alongside climate science.

At its best, news journalism is a noble and vital profession that adequately informs the public by objectively supplying accurate information so people can be well informed in order to make good decisions. It makes a point of covering controversial issues fully, because controversial issues are the ones most in need of public discussion. It does not favor one side over another, and leaves the picking of winners and losers to the American people, where it belongs.

At its worst, it is a corrupt and dishonorable perversion that controls information on events and issues to fit an ideological agenda. It ignores stories that will damage its chosen beneficiaries and over-emphasizes its point of view on important issues and its chosen candidates. It focuses extra attention toward its opponent’s negatives and ignores the positives. All to the detriment of the country and the citizens it is ethically bound to serve. Such integrity-challenged “journalists” throw ethics on the trash heap, and reduce themselves to partisan players in the political game.

Today, it seems there is much more “journalism at its worst” than ever before.

Cross-posted from Observations

Wrecking The Economy: Your Government and the Media at Work

It’s all gloom and doom, if you believe President Obama. He’s so busy talking down the economy that if you aren’t careful, you’ll fall for his line. The worse he can make you believe things are, the easier time he’ll have explaining why he hasn’t been able to fix it.

The mainstream media is just as bad, for entirely different reasons: They need readers, viewers, and listeners. So every headline is portrayed in the direst language. And, they are all guilty of it, to some extent, even the best, most objective and balanced news outlets.

I’m not arguing that things are sunny and bright, but a little perspective is a useful thing.

For example, we hear the media trumpeting the latest job-loss figures each month, and the overall unemployment rate. In January The New York Times reported that “the unemployment rate, meanwhile, jumped to a 16-year-high of 7.2 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday. The growing army of the unemployed, at 11.1 million, is nearly 50 percent bigger than at the start of the recession a year ago.”

Okay. But a year ago unemployment was at its lowest point in years, below 5 percent, and 5 percent is considered full employment.

Is there good news in this situation? Unemployment in January was 7.2 percent. But you know, if 7.2 of every 100 people don’t have a job, that means that 92.3 do have a job, and that is worth noting.

We shrink in horror when we hear that so many people can’t pay their home loans. The Associated Press reported Thursday that “a stunning 48 percent of the nation's homeowners who have a subprime, adjustable-rate mortgage are behind on their payments or in foreclosure … A record 5.4 million American homeowners with a mortgage of any kind … were at least one month late or in foreclosure at the end of last year, the Mortgage Bankers Association reported.”

When you look a little deeper into this, you find that the 48 percent with a subprime loan were risky borrowers to begin with. Should we be surprised that many of them are behind in their payments? Especially after the Clinton administration bullied banks to make more of those bad loans in the early 90s, and the Congress bullied the regulators who tried to blow the whistle on this idiotic situation back in 2004?

Then there is the “5.4 million people.” Notice some of them are only one month late, and only some of them are actually in default. This story would benefit from more information, and so would its readers.

Is there good news in this? Well, 5.4 million is less than 12 percent of total mortgage loans, which means that 88 percent are doing just fine keeping their payments up.

Mr. Obama has said "The cost of health care now causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds.”

Is there good news in this situation?

Yes: It isn’t true.

At that rate there would be 1,051,200 bankruptcies caused by healthcare costs in a year. The number of bankruptcies in November of last year was 931,873, and was estimated to be about 1,000,000 by the end of the year, and that is short of Mr. Obama’s scenario. So even if every one of those bankruptcies was caused by high medical bills, the President was wrong. And when you consider that there are a few other reasons for people declaring bankruptcy, such as loss of employment and poor resource management, his figure was grossly wrong.

Healthcare costs are definitely too high, but they don’t cause as many bankruptcies as Mr. Obama said they do. They are a reason for action, but not a reason to nationalize the healthcare system.

Whether Mr. Obama’s people did a poor job of research or are just lousy mathematicians; whether Mr. Obama stretched the truth to make political hay or whether he just out and out lied to the American people, is difficult to say. But regardless, his statistics are wrong.

The combination of an opportunistic media and a president that either doesn’t understand what is going on around him, or doesn’t really care, so long as he achieves his narrow political goals, has created a perfect storm.

His continued negativism and inability to find a proper solution to this problem threaten the nation’s financial security.

Cross-posted from Observations

Robin Wright on the Physics of Irreversible Momentum Journalism

Robin Wright, of the Washington Post, has confirmed in writing that a new journalism standard is now in place at the Washington Post.

Irreversible Momentum Journalism defined: A story may not be covered until it’s already too late to alter the outcome. A story may not be covered if reporting the story might accelerate the direction of current momentum towards an irreversible outcome. (Note: IMJ only applies to deniability when dealing with nosy conservatives who ask too many questions.)

For those who like to throw thoughts right back here’s a great quote:

“Momentous change is not always visible at the moment it happens -- in fact it doesn't always happen in a discrete moment. And a change can take on a nearly irreversible momentum long before it becomes the dominant phenomenon.”

The following cross-posted with permission from Wake up America.

[Update below with Robin Wright's [Wapo] response to my email from her contact form which is linked below]

The new rules of Journalism, admitted by Robin Wright from Wapo and Barbara Starr from CNN to Howard Kurtz. (Video below)

I am SO glad we now know those new rules and how Wapo and CNN determine what is and what is not appropriate to tell American viewers. (Although we already knew that CNN much prefers to report things that they have, admittedly, obtained from terrorist)

Huge hat tip to NewsBusters.

Increasing casualties: news. Declining casualties: not news.



From NewsBusters:

To Kurtz's obvious frustration, his guests - Robin Wright of the Washington Post and Barbara Starr of CNN - both supported the press burying this extremely positive announcement.

[...]

Alas, not seeing the stupidity in this position, Starr, with a straight-face nonetheless, agreed with Wright:

But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.

Hmmm. So, I guess a "very positive step on that potential road to progress" isn't newsworthy, huh Barbara? Even Kurtz recognized the hypocrisy here, which led to the following:

KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.

STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?

We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.

Hmmm. So, a shocking increase in deaths would have "certainly" been newsworthy. However, for a decrease to be reported, skeptical journalists have to be more convinced that it's a lasting improvement.

Go read the rest of the transcript over at NewsBusters.

Amazing.

This leads us to the next, logical question which is: What is the reason that the good news from Iraq isn't being told to the American people, and is, in fact, deliberately being hidden from the American people?

The Jawa Report shows one possible reason:

So only report the enemy's news, and not ours. It's not like we need to have a more complete and balanced picture of what's going on in Iraq, is it MSM? Gotta get those anti-war Democrats into the White House, after all!

Kudos to Kurtz for asking the questions and showing the reports of the progress in Iraq.

Back to NewsBusters:

And when folks like this make dissemination decisions to not share information on something as important as American casualties of war due to their own personal skepticism, they have indeed abdicated their solemn responsibility to the public whose interest they regularly claim to serve.

Anyone still idiotic enough to try to deny liberal media bias now, from Wapo and CNN?

It seems Robin Wright from Washington Post and Barbara Starr from CNN, both need a refresher course on Journalistic Ethics:

Preamble

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

Seek Truth and Report It

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
— Never plagiarize.
— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

Minimize Harm

Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
— Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
— Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

Act Independently

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:

—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.


Be Accountable

Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of
writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of
the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months
of study and debate among the Society's members.

Sigma Delta Chi's first Code of Ethics was borrowed from the
American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926. In 1973, Sigma Delta Chi
wrote its own code, which was revised in 1984, 1987 and 1996.

If you would like to email Robin Wright from Washington Post a copy of these Journalistic Ethics, here is her email contact form.

Feel free to send CNN an email so also with a copy of the Code of Ethics they are obviously ignoring using this contact form page.

Perhaps mention to them that we would like all the news, not just the news they wish to cherry pick and that we do not appreciate them deliberately hiding the good news from Iraq.

Thanks!!!

[Update] I used those contact forms above and emailed CNN and Robin Wright from Wapo, letting them know that we, as Americans, would like to hear ALL the news coming from Iraq, not just the bad and not just the trends and CNN has not responded yet, but Ms. Wright did.

Robin Wright's response:

Ms. Duclos -
Thanks for your comments. The point I was trying to make on CNN is that two months do not make a permanent trend. As Gen. Odierno said last week, when he came to the Post, the numbers have been good the last couple of months but the US military has not yet reached the point of "irreversible momentum." When they do, it will certainly mean a different kind of reporting about the war in general. Unfortunately, all it will take is one or two really bad incidents and the numbers will start going up again. The numbers aren't the whole story either. The progress in Anbar has been widely covered in the US media -- and that in many ways tells us far more about both the war and the future than the death tolls.
I also think we're all a little nervous about declaring victories before we're fully confident that they represent a long-term and enduring trend and are not just a favorable blip on the screen.
With regards,
Robin Wright


Diplomatic Correspondent
The Washington Post
Telephone: 202 334-7443
Email: wrightr@washpost.com
Fax: 202 496-3883

Now, I never mentioned "victory" in my original email to her, via her contact form", yet her claim that before she can report "differently" [good news from Iraq] depends on them reaching of "irreversible momentum" show her incredible bias as well as her complete ignorance of the Codes of Ethics journalists are supposed to use as their guidelines.

This is what is called reporting now folks.... is it any wonder that the new media is often getting the "scoops" on the dinosaur media?

My response to her email:

No one asked you to report a "trend" Ms. Wright, just a complete picture of the news. Good news IS news to Americans and as a journalist, your job is to bring us ALL the news and you have failed to do that because you are waiting for a irreversible "trend"?

That is disgusting and I will be posting this on MY blog, 6 others I contribute too as well as that "excuse" you just emailed me.

Americans expect better from our reporters and you have failed us miserably on this issue.

Have a nice day,

Susan Duclos

What are you folks waiting for... weigh in using her contact form and let her know whether waiting for the "irreversible momentum" is a good excuse for hiding the good news coming from Iraq, from you!

[Update] Is it any wonder we are distrustful of the media today? Gallup.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Republicans in America today remain deeply distrustful of the national news media -- in sharp contrast to Democrats, who have a great deal more trust in the media's accuracy. Overall, less than half of Americans, regardless of partisanship, have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the mass media. Nearly half of Americans -- including over three-quarters of Republicans -- perceive the media as too liberal while fewer than one in five say the media are too conservative. Americans are less likely to perceive bias in their local news media than in the national news media.

.

Midland Reporter-Telegram: Hatchet Job on Giuliani and the GOP?

Is Giuliani in bed with the open borders NAFTA highway crowd??? You will have to decide.

Here’s an excerpt from the Midland Reporter-Telegram article.

Giuliani's ties to Houston law firm gives him Texas boost

Republican Rudy Giuliani -- thrice-married, liberal on social issues and a consummate New Yorker -- seems an unlikely White House contender to be embraced by a Texas' GOP establishment rooted in the energy industry and dominated by religious conservatives.

But the former New York mayor has built a formidable political base in Texas with the help of well-connected Republican money men. He owes his advantage in part to his role as a name partner with a powerhouse, Houston-based law firm known for its impressive roster of energy-giant clients, Bracewell & Giuliani.

His partnership in the law firm has also brought Giuliani unwelcome criticism in connection with some of the firm's more controverisal clients, including a Spanish contractor involved in planning part of a Texas superhighway toll road known as the Trans-Texas Corridor. . .

I would like to thank Proprietor Nation for bringing this to our attention with the article, Hatchet Job Masquerading as Political Analysis. Although PN has done an excellent job of demonstrating political bias especially in the Midland Reporter-Telegram’s characterization of the GOP, I do take issue with PN’s characterization of those thousands of Texans - mostly bi-partisan - who are fighting the Trans Texas Corridor and it’s Spanish partner, Cintra. PN hinted that Texas farmers and other landowners are being taken in by Conspiracy theorists.

“Texas farmers and other landowners are worried their property rights will be trampled to make way for the highway. Conspiracy theorists see Giuliani, because of his highway connections, as allied with a cabal of international monied interests plotting to supplant the United States with a North American Union that includes Mexico and Canada . . ."

Far from conspiracy theory!!!

The Trans Texas Corridor (part of the open border NAFTA highway) is a multi-billion dollar reality. I should know because I spoke at the TXDOT hearings on the TTC last year!

Millions of Texas land acres and thousands of Texans will be fighting a losing battle over eminent domain. And just in case you aren’t too interested, the NAFTA highway goes all the way from Mexico to Canada – so your state may be affected as well.

Here’s an excerpt from the enlightening web page devoted to bringing Texans the truth about the Trans Texas Corridor – CorridorWatch.org.

Last weekend (August 2007) Governor Perry vetoed 49 more bills.

Property protections were dashed with the veto of an eminent domain bill TxDOT didn't like. Another bill that would have required TxDOT to consider using existing highway routes for future TTC routes was struck down. A bill that called on the Attorney General to study the impact of international agreements on Texas was ridiculed by the Commission and also vetoed by the Governor.

A few more vetoes smack of retaliation dealt to those who opposed the Governor's view of the TTC, HPV, TYC or education during the session. . .

Anyone who cares to look at the maps of the upcoming NAFTA highway will note that this eminent domain issue doesn’t stop at the Texas border!

Aside from my criticisms of the PN article, it is a great read and a good primer on how to spot bias. Here’s an excerpt from the PN article: . .

Right from the get go, the article is suspect. Imagine, the shoe on another foot. One could see this sort of lead in, Democrat Hillary Clinton, scandal ridden, highly polarizing and with negatives already at or near 50%, has bucked convention and continues to lead nationwide. Let's try another... despite his Mormon background, flip flopping on key issues, and reputation for being to slick for his own good, Mitt Romney maintains a lead in Iowa.

While it is pefectly fine to lead in in such a way, if there is going to be straight analysis, we will expect to understand how he has bucked the conventional wisdom that a social liberal could lead in a social conservative party. Instead, what we get is a nebulous reason that is really just an excuse to attack Rudy in a backhanded and terribly unfair sort of a way.

But the former New York mayor has built a formidable political base in Texaswith the help of well-connected Republican money men. He owes his advantage inpart to his role as a name partner with a powerhouse, Houston-based law firmknown for its impressive roster of energy-giant clients, Bracewell &Giuliani. . .

It can’t be stated enough – all politics is local! We can complain all day long about the MSM, the NY Times, The Boston Globe, etc., but if we ignore the bias in our own local newspapers, we’ve missed the point entirely!


Related tags: politics, terrorist, congress, america, mainstream media, the left, journalists, left wing extremists, media disclosure, democrats, media news, blogging, newspapers, blogs, writing, current affairs, property rights, property-rights, law, mexico, canada, immigration, politics, cafta, america, bush, economy, government, usa


Giuliani
journalism
eminent domain
NAFTA
Trans Texas Corridor

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Big Dog's Weblog, The Populist, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat,third world county, DragonLady's World, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Republican National Convention Blog, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Public Corruption, What to Do?

By Jim Simpson

New revelations about Republican ties to convicted influence-peddler Jack Abramoff have brought to the fore once again the unfortunate specter of public corruption as two congressmen, John T. Doolittle (R-CA) and Rick Renzi (R-AZ) were forced off their respective committees when it came to light they were under FBI investigation. It is a sad and by now all too familiar story. It is also infuriating because as a former White House budget analyst, I know full well that the kind of influence peddling highlighted in the Abramoff scandals is only noteworthy because Mr. Abramoff and his conservative clients got caught.

Congressional Democrats have built this kind of influence-peddling system into a well-oiled machine. It is what keeps them going. With Republicans it is a criminal action. With Democrats it is business-as-usual. Even when caught red-handed, like Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), with $90,000 cash in his freezer, or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, with his blatantly corrupt land deal, they routinely slime their way out of it. While these stories did make their way into the media, “investigative” journalists seem to lose their ardor quickly when the target is one of their beloved fellow democrats, and the stories tend to die of neglect, or as with Harry Reid, get spun in the lawmaker’s favor.

In this situation, “investigative” journalism and “aggressive” law enforcement contributes to public corruption rather than preventing it. For if one party can manage to get away with it all the time, as the Democrats do, then going after the other party can only be seen as an exercise in power politics. That is, the law becomes merely a weapon used to eliminate political opponents rather than a standard by which all public officials must live. The Democrats' media and law enforcement friends in effect have become just another extension of the party. That is endemic public corruption defined.

I know what you’re thinking. “We all know about leftist media bias; that’s a given; but federal law enforcement? Come on!” you say.

Think again. As a budgeter for law enforcement agencies in both the elder Bush and Clinton administrations, I saw daily how law enforcement agencies became slavish lap dogs for favored Congressional and Senatorial appropriators. They work hard to please and impress, and love it when one of their operations gets highlighted in the press. For example, as I argued in a 1995 Washington Times article, I believe the Branch Davidian fiasco at Waco, TX was originally caused by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms’ desire to impress Congress with a big bust and thereby get the budgetary attention they felt they deserved.

In that case they got more than they bargained for. But Congress spendeth and Congress taketh away. Agencies thus develop over time a symbiotic relationship with Congressmen and Senators, helping to deliver votes by hiring agents in needy districts, throwing contracts to favored states and districts, etc. This is the real pork spending and there are few components of the federal budget that are not part of it. “Okay,” you respond. “That sounds plausible. But why should federal law enforcement agencies favor Democrats? Weren’t Republicans in charge of both houses for much of the past twelve years?”

Not really. Two reasons: 1. the sad fact is that all federal agencies are disproportionately peopled by democrats, the vast majority being liberal democrats. I would guess the ratio at the very least is 80% - 20% democrat/republican. If you remove DoD, it is probably closer to 95% democrat.

This is not entirely surprising. Democrats philosophically have much greater faith in government as a vehicle for social progress than republicans. Democrats are also much more ideologically driven, and recognize that packing agencies with their own kind is a strategy in its own right. That is a reason many democrat political appointees try to hang on to executive jobs when administrations change hands. Democrats are also much more likely to use ideological tests when hiring civil servants for key positions, despite the fact that it violates federal law.

Republicans, on the other hand, have a much greater faith in American free enterprise than our democratic counterparts. Despite Howard Dean’s blatantly dishonest slur, most republicans earn their money in private business and are not predisposed in any way toward government service, except perhaps in the military. For the most part such machinations as described above wouldn’t even occur to them, and Republicans are really only just beginning to catch on to the Democrats’ game.

Second, like their agency counterparts, Democrat politicians not only believe in government as a vehicle for change, they believe it is the only vehicle for change. It is all, repeat, ALL about control. They arrogate to themselves the right to use whatever methods necessary to deliver them the power necessary. They place democrat operatives in key agency positions and fight to keep them there.

They create bureaucracies immune from budget cuts, supervision, or even significant policy changes and fight savagely to keep it that way. They send out aggressive prosecutors on witch hunts with the express goal of smearing Republican opponents, especially effective ones, like Tom Delay, for example. They sick sympathetic prosecutors on Republican presidential appointees over frivolous or invented charges, knowing that even when the charges are ultimately dropped, their adversaries have been forced to exhaust time and money resources defending themselves in court.

During the Clinton administration, Hillary even used trumped up charges against completely innocent White House travel office employees, simply so she could stock the office with friends of hers. The Travel Office for God's sake! Lifelong employees of modest incomes were forced to defend themselves against a cabal of professional hatchetmen. Where was Hillary's compassion for the little guy there?

Democrats truly believe they can do anything. They do not believe the word “corruption” can even apply to them, since, according to Marx’s famous dictum, they only recognize that morality which furthers their cause. Thus, despite their blatant cronyism, nepotism and corruption, that I would argue goes right over the border into sedition, both Bill Clinton and more recently Nancy Pelosi, boldly pronounced that they would lead “the most ethical” administration and Congress respectively, in history. I’m sure they still believe it.

Agencies work against Republicans, in sometimes subtle, other times not-so-subtle ways, because having their own party back in power usually appeals to both ideological and self-serving calculations. Even those agency leaders not ideologically predisposed to leftist policies know that Democrats are the party to please because of their organizational skills, penetration in depth of all levels of government and ruthless approach to politics. Bureaucrats know that once firmly back in the saddle, Democrats will open the money spigot in ways that would impress even the most profligate Republican spendthrift. Indeed, with their new PAYGO rules in place, and now muzzling the Congressional Research Service’s reporting on earmarks, the Democrat Congress is set up to do just that.

And while there may be corruption in both Parties today, wait and see how bad things get if the Democrats have their way and Republicans once again become an impotent minority. If you recall, it was largely Democrat corruption that finally lost them Congress the last time. Lest we forget: those corrupt Democrats who missed the axe last time are the ones in charge now.

As I said last November 8th, the 2006 elections were a disaster of epic proportions. While some Republican congressmen allowed themselves to be seduced by the system, the entire national Democrat party is corrupt beyond salvaging. With a Republican majority, we as taxpayers got a temporary reprieve from the destructive, self-serving policies always pursued and once again being prepared for us by the new majority. If the current leadership has not made this fact completely transparent to you, then either you are on drugs, or you come from another planet.

Republicans must grab the initiative and retake Congress. President Bush must come out of his rabbit hole and confront these criminals head on. We are literally tottering at the abyss.

The Democrat majority is today pulling out all the stops to destroy this administration, even if it means endangering our troops and losing a war. Meanwhile they are preparing a destructive socialist agenda to impose on us, while flagrantly engaging in the unethical behavior they so hypocritically accuse Republicans of. They are aided and abetted by a sympathetic bureaucracy, while their media cronies run interference and cover their tails.

Through it all their belligerence makes unmistakably clear that there is no room for debate, compromise or moderation. Either you are with them, or you are an outcast - an alien in your own country. With their arrogant, slanderous slurs and kleptocratic plans they inflame the very divisions their destructive policies initially created and push our entire society closer and closer to anarchy.

In an earlier draft of this article, published prematurely by mistake at New Media Journal, I wistfully suggested that the President exercise his power to declare martial law and arrest the lot of them. But that it were so. While the President does have the constitutional authority to declare martial law during times of war and insurrection, he does not appear to have the legal authority to summarily arrest members of Congress.

Too bad…

But that puts us in a real quandary. For once in his life, Al Gore was correct when he said “there is no controlling legal authority…” Who polices Congress when it runs amuck as it surely has today? Who arrests traitors using the halls of Congress to shield and facilitate their nefarious activities? Who defends us from a nationwide subversive conspiracy, coordinated by powerful politicians and Wall Street billionaires? Are we approaching that point when we will have to take matters into our own hands? To paraphrase Jefferson, will the tree of liberty have to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots? Will the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment finally come to the fore? As early Supreme Court justice Joseph Story succinctly put it (emphasis mine):

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them..

I hope it doesn’t come to that. But corruption is a deadly disease, and when the body politic is shot through with it, a nation, even a great one like ours, cannot long survive. We will be pushed, pulled and torn apart until one of two things happens. Either a tyrant, homegrown or foreign, will seize the opportunity and take the reins of government, or the people, recognizing at last the danger, will rise up and conclusively demonstrate that an armed republic cannot be so abused.

Jim Simpson is a businessman, free-lance writer and former White House staff economist and budget analyst who among other duties, oversaw budgets of Treasury Department law enforcement agencies.

Permalink:http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2007/04/public-corruption-what-to-do.html

Trackback:
http://haloscan.com/tb/txwise/1730080445982950213

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, The Random Yak, Allie Is Wired, stikNstein... has no mercy, Shadowscope, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Wake Up America, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Technorati tags: politics, political corruption, influence peddling, Jack Abramoff, John T. Doolittle, Rick Renzi, Republicans, Democrats, Harry Reid, journalism, law enforcement, socialist, left, leftist, leftist media bias, bureaucracies congress