From Baltimore IMC, Susan e-mails to note William Hughes' "Jobless America: Outsourcing Prosperity!" Here's an excerpt:

How can there be a so-called "economic recovery" without the creation of new jobs? Well, thanks to author, activist and social critic, Stanley Aronowitz, we now know the scheming Plutocrats have been able to "delink" the two. Speaking in Baltimore, MD, at Red Emma's Coffeehouse, he detailed some of the means used to deprived workers in this country of their jobs. Outsourcing, of course, is only one of those Labor-bashing tactics.
Baltimore, MD - Stanley Aronowitz's timing was impeccable! The activist, author and educator arrived in town, on Friday, May 13, 2005, to talk about a continuing economic crisis. He labeled it as "The Paradox of the Jobless Recovery," which is also part of the title of his latest book. (1) On the same day that he arrived, General Motors' sprawling Broening Highway plant, which had been in operation for over 70 years, closed its doors forever. It is located on the east side of the city. Over 1,100 of its workers were permanently put out of their jobs through no fault of their own. The GM plant's demise, as a manufacturing colossus, follows hard on the heels of the collapse of the once-mighty Bethlehem Steel, and its Sparrows Point plant, and the earlier loss, also on the east side, of the Western Electric facility.
"There are about 121 millions jobs in this country for wages and salaries," Aronowitz began, "in both the public and private sector. A small percentage of the jobs in the private sector, however - very small - are tied to the domestic economy. The rest in the private sector are connected to the global economy. As a result of that connection, we have lost about 10 million jobs, industrial jobs, the very best paying jobs, in recent years. Today, we have an estimated 11.5 million factory jobs left. In the steel industry, back in the late 50s, there were 600,000 steel workers. Today, we only have 175,000 jobs left. We have lost almost 2/3 of the good paying steel-working jobs that we once had in this country," he lamented.
Aronowitz emphasized that this is all part of "the bleeding that is going on in the U.S."
Referring to the GM plant closure in Baltimore and a recent plant closing in New Jersey, he added, "Plants shut down and plants stay open, and the working class, understandably, gets jittery about what is going on. What is going to happen next? Of course, outsourcing is one of the main things that is going on." Over the decades, under Democrats and Republicans, Aronowitz found, as he details in his latest tome, that economic growth had become "delinked" from job creation and that the rich have received "financial windfalls" at the expense of most other Americans as a result of that unfair, deindustrialization process.

Colorado IMC is back up and I know we're all happy about that. Glen Newell has
"Hacker, Schmacker- A COIMC volunteer responds" which is a response to the way the hack has been played out in Boulder Weekly. We're going to note it in full:

Let me begin by saying it's clear to me that Joel Warner is good at his job: He got all the right facts in the right order, he talked to everyone he ought to, and he told a really good story. I was enthralled.
Trouble is, it's just a story.
True- facts are facts, and most of them are there. But facts can be presented in such a way that it becomes clear that rather than tell the story as it is, Joel Warner , the NEWS EDITOR for the Boulder Weekly ('Boulder's true alternative voice'), is about selling newspapers. That's a fact, too. It's his JOB.
First, as a volunteer for the Colorado Independent Media Center , I am disappointed: I am saddened by the characterization of the criminal 'Clorox' as some kind of misunderstood hero. He committed a crime, not only against the law, but against the very principles we hold most sacred as an organization: everyone gets a voice, noone gets shut out, we're a community of volunteers dedicated to serving social good. What he did was the philisophical and moral equivalent of driving by a community center and throwing a brick through the window.
It took very little actual skill, and his tantrum ruined a good thing for a bunch of other people, and only for a short time ( so not only was it childish and selfish, it was wasteful and inefficient). I can't speak for other IMC's, but I can tell you /I'm fairly certain /that no volunteer content manager would 'dump' an article simply because it was pro-bush, if at all. It's simply not true that he was ostracized for his political beliefs.
I will even make an offer publicly that if he is serious about writing, he should post to our open wire. If he's as smart as he thinks he is, and has something to say, I bet there are people who want to hear it. On the other hand, as I understand it, there is some history here, antagonism that goes back further in history than he will admit, and noone is required to facilitate bullying, especially volunteers.
Next, as an Information Technology professional, I am appalled at the comparison of these kinds of miscreants as heros: Clorox the punk has nothing at all in common with Oxblood Ruffin or Kevin Mitnick: both of these men, as well as the MIT engineers who coined the moniker many would like to lend this childish thug, would view him as nothing more complimentary than a precocious infant.
As for 'letting us find him on purpose', that's hogwash. The people that found him are smart, experienced professionals. If he really wanted to do something that he could be recognized for, why has he used TWO diffferent aliases ( that we know of) in his vandalism? What he has proved is nothing more than it is possible to do what he did, but noone ever denied it was possible. It's just that most grown-up people would deny that it was necessary.
One of the subjects Warner interviews tries to liken himself to the 'A Team' ( that's a TV SHOW, by the way...) but this group of common thugs ( okay, goons is an appropriate title) has niether the skill, nor the committment, nor the pr staff for the comparison . And furthermore, the several mis-used references both to 'hacker' culture and technology, bring into doubt the quality of the research conducted, even if he did talk to all the right parties.
"It would be kind of neat to have my face in the paper." (Clorox)
What a telling quote that is. And you, Mr Warner, played right into his adolescent fantasy. I say shame on you.
Glen Newell
Volunteer, Colorado Independent Media Center
Information Technology Consultant

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

For those wondering how last weekend's independent media conference went, from Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center, we'll note John Peebles' "Seymour Hersh, Other Prominent Media Personalities Offer Perspectives on Media Control at University of Illinois Conference:"

Democracy Now's Amy Goodman was one of several distinguished guests, including Seymour Hersh, Rep. Bernie Sanders, Phil Donahue, Naomi Klein and other prominent media professionals....
Hersh claimed the Iraq War was increasingly being conducted "off the books" by mercenaries, retired military personnel, and private contractors beyond the scope of accountability.... "Body bags aren’t going to stop him," Hersh said, referring to Bush....
According to...Congressman (Sanders), this media distortion is no accident; as fewer and fewer corporations control more and more media outlets, viewpoints are increasingly channeled and contrived to benefit narrow commercial interests at the expense of the public good....Klein defined the obsessive prominence of the Michael Jackson and Terri Schiavo cases in the media as "spasms of collective mourning."
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign was the site of a conference entitled “Can Freedom of the Press Survive Media Consolidation?” on May 10th and 11th, 2005.
The Conference focused on the impact of media conglomeration and corporate control on the dissemination of news in the United States.
Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman was one of several distinguished guests, including Seymour Hersh, Rep. Bernie Sanders, Phil Donahue, Naomi Klein and other prominent media professionals.
The Illinois Initiative for Media Policy Research sponsored the conference in conjunction with various University of Illinois academic departments and the Center for Advanced Study/MillerComm series. University of Illinois Professor Robert McChesney, Executive Director of I.I.M.P.R., was instrumental in organizing the conference.
According to McChesney, the press' failure to provide unbiased information in the lead-up to the Iraqi War repeated similar tendencies from previous American wars. Early in the history of the American Republic, founders saw the dangerous consequences of unchecked military power, and sought to balance the threat with public accountability for decision-makers, in a strong press protected by the 1st Amendment.
McChesney also criticized large media corporations for claiming to act in the public’s name while using their powerful lobbying influence to limit media ownership and control.
Kicking off the conference was Seymour Hersh, famous for reporting the My Lai massacre from the Vietnam War, and more recently recognized for breaking the inmate abuse story at Abu Ghraib.
Hersh claimed the Iraq War was increasingly being conducted "off the books" by mercenaries, retired military personnel, and private contractors beyond the scope of accountability.
The Pulitzer-prize winning journalist revisited the Abu Ghraib story, noting how prosecution focused on the prosecuted guards as "bad seeds," while ignoring the possibility of any illicit behavior from higher-ups in the chain of command. Hersh alluded to photographs of inmates engaged in homosexual acts as an intentional violation of Arab cultural precepts, as a "way to the soul of the Arab man."
Hersh highlighted the inaction of the Bush Administration in a timeline which began with photographs of abuse at the prison taken in September, 2003, and culminated in a disk sent up the chain-of-command in January, 2004, which Defense Secretary Rumsfeld called "a catastrophic blow to winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis," should it be made public. Steering responsibility for Abu Ghraib toward Rumsfeld, Hersh claimed the Defense Secretary had been "de-programmed"--judging from a lack of any coherent response to the briefings he'd been through which must have addressed the events at Abu Ghraib.
The Arab world now sees the US as a "sexually perverse society" because of the photos, Hersh said.
The investigative journalist alluded to disturbing recent events in Iraq--including the reconstitution of Saddam's secret police formerly known as the Mukhabarat. As for the January elections in Iraq, Hersh said voting was conducted exclusively along religious and tribal lines, and threatened to cut Iraq into pieces, under militia rule. The US is apparently looking the other way as Kurds assert military control over strategic oil fields in Northern Iraq.
Information has been increasingly hard to come by through traditional sources, Hersh said. Information on targets hit and the quantities of bombs dropped in Iraq has become unavailable since the bombing campaign accelerated in the Fall of 2004, unlike Vietnam, where Hersh said data had been readily available.
Hersh referred to attempts by the US military to limit information on Iraqi casualties in Fallujah, preceding the US attack on the city in November, 2004, as referenced in the English paper The Guardian (1).
According to the accounts of Dr. Ali Fadhil, doctors in Fallujah had been tied up and their cell phones taken, as to prevent casualty data from escaping the US zone of control around the city.
Hersh alluded to many of the current problems in Iraq as the direct result of military action by the US which targeted key Iraqi ministries early in the Occupation. The "machinery of occupation" has undoubtedly contributed to the "insurgency", a term Hersh said had been spun to give the mistaken impression of a US victory, followed by some form of rebellion against a legitimate government--terminology which avoids any notion of resistance to illegitimate foreign occupation.
On the domestic front, Hersh said Bush is convinced that democracy can be brought to Iraq, despite clear indications from his advisers that his goals for the nation are not being achieved. "Body bags aren’t going to stop him," Hersh said, referring to Bush.

Also from the Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center, we'll note Philip Stinard's "Puerto Rican legislature paralyzed by losing gubernatorial candidate’s quest for power:"

Pedro Rosselló, defeated New Progressive Party (NPP) candidate for Puerto Rican Governor in the November 2004 elections, has brought Puerto Rican Senate business nearly to a standstill in his unrelenting quest for the presidency of that legislative body. The Puerto Rican people rejected Rosselló as governor in the 2004 election, Rosselló was not elected to the Puerto Rican Senate and Rosselló does not have the support of his fellow Senators to be Senate President. However, in Puerto Rican politics, these are just minor inconveniences.
Pedro Rosselló, defeated New Progressive Party (NPP) candidate for Puerto Rican Governor in the November 2004 elections, has brought Puerto Rican Senate business nearly to a standstill in his unrelenting quest for the presidency of that legislative body. After losing a hotly contested election to Popular Democratic Party (PDP) candidate Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, the former Governor (1993-2001) and NPP President vowed to rule Puerto Rico from the Senate, and he was not content with being "just another Senator," he had to be Senate President. He only had two obstacles in his way: he was not a Senator, and the Senate had already elected a President, NPP Senator Kenneth McClintock.
No stranger to corruption during his previous stint as governor (cabinet members and political associates diverted public funds for AIDS treatment to NPP politicians, used public monies for partisan political activities, sold off public assets to cronies, etc.), Rosselló exercised all of the political pressure at his disposal, cajoling, threatening, and bribing the newly elected Senators from his party in the hopes that one would resign so that he could be appointed in their stead. The pressure paid off, and a Senator from Rosselló’s home district of Arecibo (alleged home district, since Rosselló had recently moved to Puerto Rico from Virginia to run for governor "at the request of the people of Puerto Rico") resigned hours after being sworn in. After Rosselló occupied the empty seat, he expected his party's Senators to lie down at his feet and declare him Senate President, but he had forgotten that he had personally approved McClintock’s presidency at a November 4 party caucus, following the election, but before a winner was declared in the gubernatorial race, and McClintock was not going to give up his position of privilege willingly.
Rosselló used his position as NPP President to convene an assembly of NPP delegates on May 15, and he set the following rules: the delegates were to select the Senate President from between Rosselló and McClintock, and any Senator who did not vote for the President chosen by the assembly would be disciplined, up to and including expulsion from the NPP. The results were a foregone conclusion. McClintock supporters boycotted the assembly, and fewer than 50% of the eligible delegates voted. Among the delegates who did vote, 96% supported Rosselló, and Rosselló declared a mandate for assuming the Senate Presidency. "The people have spoken, and I must obey."

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

At IPS (Inter Press Service) Dahr Jamail has an article entitled "Iraq: U.S. Claims Over Seige Challenged." Here's an excerpt:

As with the siege of Fallujah six months back, U.S. claims over the siege of the Iraqi town Al Qa'im are being challenged now by independent sources.
The U.S. military claims a "successful" end to the weeklong operation earlier this month around Al-Qa'im, a town about 320km west of Baghdad close to the Syrian border. The operation was launched against what the U.S. military saw as the presence of Al-Qaeda fighters in the town. Iraqi civilians and doctors in the area say no foreign fighters were present in the town.
Al Qa'im and surrounding areas have suffered great destruction, and many in the town population of 110,000 were killed, they say.
Abu Ahmed, a resident of Al-Qa'im, told IPS on telephone that "all the fighters here are Iraqis from this area."
He said continuing violations by U.S. soldiers had provoked people into confronting the occupying forces. He said troops had been raiding homes, sending women into the streets without their hijabs and entering areas where women sleep.
"The fighters are just local people who refuse to be treated like dogs," he said. "Nobody wants the Americans here."
Abd al-Khaliq al-Rawi, head of communications for the local government in Al-Qa'im said on Al-Jazeera television that the fighters were all local Iraqis. "We have not seen any outsiders. The fighters are from the area. They are resisting the occupation."

From the Independent Media Center, we'll note this "Police detained an independent journalist and charged him with assaulting a police officer!" Here's an excerpt:

On Mon 16th May in Warsaw, during politicians' talks during the third summit of the Council of Europe, demonstrations organised by grassroots citizens' movements from around Poland. The demonstrators protested against the hypocrisy of Council of Europe politicians and the inclusion of states in which human rights are violated (e.g. Russia and Turkey) and whose leaders are responsible for the war in Iraq.
After the demonstration, a conflictual incident with the police occurred. The full events were reported live by Independent Media - INDYMEDIA POLAND. When protesters started leaving to go home, police started checking people's identities and detained a selected number of people (see the film at indymedia poland).
11 people were detained, including 3 members of Amnesty International, a woman journalist working together with Indymedia as well as an Indymedia reporter, who was filming the police behaviour during the demonstration with a film camera. The Indymedia reporter - Grzegorz Prujszczyk - was wearing a reflective orange vest with the word PRESS and was reporting and documenting the demonstration; he was in no way involved in the conflictual incident which had occurred earlier with the police. The police have filed against him summary charges of assaulting a police officer; the first court hearing occurred Wed 18th May (today). Neither family nor journalists were given access to him. The court decided to commit Grzegorz to (partial) police custody until the next hearing. He is threatened with a penalty with a maximum sentence of 8 years' imprisonment. Lesser charges were placed against 10 other people, for example, insulting police officers, and they were freed after about 20 hours of detention.

From UK Indymedia, Terrence e-mails "One year of DIY culture:"

The UK has had it's share of squatted political spaces over the decades but the last few years has seen something of a resurgence in activity, inspired by the strong social centres movement found in Spain and Italy etc. Social Centres have been springing up all over the country but their existance is often precarious, dependent either on maintaining rent or retaining a squatted property.
[. . .]

ramPARTY details and lineup
Other coming events:
22nd May - Movimientos Day School
27th May - Post-criticalmass G8 Bike Ride Benefit (flyer)
28th May - GUADALAJARE Benefit

From Ireland's Indymedia I.E., Bernado e-mails "Interview: Postal Workers Under Fire
by Kevin Doyle:"

Over the last year or so, the working conditions of staff in An Post have been the subject of cutbacks and attacks by its management and ultimately the government. This includes shutting the SDS Courier service, withholding pay-rises, and understaffing many sorting offices. The strategy is to undermine workers' morale and thereby to facilitate either privatisation or simply to weaken An Post in order to benefit private competitors. Kevin Doyle interviews a postal worker in Cork to find out the mood on the shop floor.
- What is the situation in An Post now?
Right now they are the focus of privatisation efforts in the public sector. They are not needed like ESB workers who can stop power, nor are they seen as essential like health workers. They are perceived as an easier target and are weaker.
- Was the recent shutting down of SDS a part of this strategy?
Yes, it had to do with the opening of the markets wider for the private mail companies that are already working in Ireland and making profit - like DHL, Federal Express etc. These companies only deal with parcels and packets and it's a profitable business. SDS provided the same service at low cost, which is what you expect of a public service, but now with SDS out of the way, it will be even better for the private operators. People need to realise how dangerous privatisation will be. Right now wherever you live in Ireland you get the service that anyone else gets... it's even. But privatisation will change that. The money is to be made in the high population density areas where post can be moved in bulk easily. So a lot of people and a lot of communities will lose out if privatisation happens. The service will become uneven and unequal.
- How is the privatisation issue being pushed?
An Post management is trying to convince the workforce that privatisation is the only way forward for the company. It is a EU directive, they claim, that cannot be ignored. It's a method of bullying. As part of this we see all the new investment in technology. But the new technology has not increased productivity. Similarly, they want to leave a lot of workers go, on the grounds that it would make An Post more efficient. Management claim they have no money to pay workers and yet the give themselves huge bonuses and salaries.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]
 

Democracy Now! (Marcia: "always worth watching")

Headlines for May 19, 2005
- U.S. Rethinks Plans to Cut Back Troop Level
- Army Officers Staged Mock Executions in Iraq
- Senate Opens Judicial Nominee Debate
- AIDS Becomes Leading Cause of Death in South Africa
- FBI May Gain More Power To Subpoena Records
- FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force Criticized
- Environmental & Animal Rights Activists Seen As Threat
- 16 Arrested At Halliburton Protest in Houston

A Life of Reinvention: Manning Marable Chronicles the Life of Malcolm X
Malcolm X was born 80 years ago today. To commemorate the occasion we hear a speech by Columbia University professor Manning Marable chronicling his life. Marable is currently working on a major new biography of Malcolm X which is tentatively titled "Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention."

Malcolm X: Make it Plain
On the 80th anniversary of Malcolm X's birthday we play excerpts of the documentary, "Malcolm X: Make it Plain" produced and directed by Orlando Bagwell. It includes rare archival footage of Malcolm X as well as interviews with such figures as John Henrik Clarke, Maya Angelou, Ossie Davis and much more.

From Headlines, we'll note this item:

FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force Criticized For Questioning Activists
The FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force is coming under new scrutiny for a series of interviews it conducted ahead of last year's political conventions. Dozens of activists and antiwar protesters were questioned by local and federal authorities. At the time FBI officials and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft said that the interviews were based on indications that protesters may be planning violent disruptions. Authorities said one specific threat involved plans to blow up a media van in Boston. But now the FBI has begun releasing documents connected to the conventions and they tell a different story. According to the Washington Post, the new memos provide no indication of specific threat information. Instead, one heavily censored memo from the FBI's Denver field office, characterized the effort as "pretext interviews to gain general information concerning possible criminal activity at the upcoming political conventions and presidential election." Mark Silverstein, of the ACLU of Colorado, said "It's absolutely clear now that the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force -- the one right here in Denver -- is collecting information about peaceful political activity that has nothing to do with terrorism."

From Ruth Conniff's Monday blog at The Progressive, KeShawn e-mails to note "Hillary, Newt, and the real leftwing candidate:"

But this alliance is not really so surprising. Craven self-promotion often trumps ideology in Washington. The buzz Newt and Hillary are generating is something akin to the inside-the-Beltway excitement about the unveiling of a Vice Presidential candidate. Joe Lieberman! Imagine! How daring! How outside-the-box!
As Hillary rolls on toward her inevitable run in 2008, Democrats, progressives, and pundits are talking more and more about whether the old lightning rod for rightwing resentment could turn out to be a viable, moderate candidate after all. Everyone loves the contrarian, "surprising" analysis on Hillary, and the Newt Gingrich news feeds into it: Maybe she's a moderate after all. Maybe she's for a stronger military and a weaker plan for health care.
Actually, Hillary's hawkishness and incrementalism have been on view for a long time.
The enormous hatred she aroused in the Clinton years had little to do with her actual policy positions. As much of the Hillary-bashing focused more on her hairstyle and facial expressions and presumed ball-busting personality as on her (wrongly) perceived leftwing politics. That's why a little shift to the right won't make much difference in how people perceive her. Just the fact of her running will motivate tons of angry Christian soldiers to go to the polls.
Remember, the Republicans took down John Kerry on his Vietnam War record--and for running away from his progressive positions, including his principled opposition to Vietnam. Do you really think Hillary can pull off the moderate makeover that Kerry did not?

Melody e-mails to note Tom Hayden's "No Mystery to Iraq Insurgency, No Mystery to Peace." Here's the opening:

It's scary when the Emperor is blind, especially when it's the Empire's scribes like the New York Times Sunday Review, pondering "the mystery of the insurgency" in Iraq (May 15, 2005). Admitting their complete lack of understanding of the “insurgency”, all the experts interviewed by the Times nevertheless conclude that the military occupation must continue. In this "analysis", the military invasion and occupation become the response to the "insurgency" when the truth is the reverse: the occupation is the cause. The common thread of the diverse strands of insurgency is nationalism. Unable to grasp this essential, the Times is unable to consider that ending the occupation could reduce the violence. Instead, in this weird imperial logic, maintaining the occupation, even it was a mistake, is essential to restoring order. It’s possible, of course, that this mysterious "insurgency" will wither and collapse. But that would be to indulge in faith-based thinking. If the Times would interview anyone with experience in revolutions, armed struggle, or successful peace processes, a different perspective might emerge.

That's just the opening. It's worth reading in full.


The Black Commentator has a their new edition up. (Note, there will not be a May 26th issue:
"Black Commentator will not publish on May 26, 2005. BC will be attending the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists Convention in Phoenix, Arizona.") From it, Russ notes Hollis Henry's "Song of a Never-Was South: Will Disney re-release a twisted film." Here's the opening:

"Davy, Davy Crockett, trackin' the redskins down!" the song goes. If you want to hear the rest, buy Walt Disney's "Davy Crockett – The Complete Televised Series," DVD. The lines, and other choice lyrics like “them redskin varmints,” are from the theme music of the 1950’s show. The DVD was released in 2001. For over two decades now, Disney has been much more careful with another of their “classics” – “Song of the South.” But next year, after resting in the company vault since the 1980’s, this controversial film may be available again.
Since its original, highly successful release in 1946, “Song of the South” has had and continues to have detractors. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. is reported to have called the film an “insult to American minorities.” The NAACP was highly critical of it. Movie critic Roger Ebert, while not advocating total censorship, said in his Chicago Times-Tribune column, that it should be withheld from general audiences because of the effect it could have on children. Of its own volition, Disney sealed away the movie since its last theatrical re-release in 1986 because of the racial stigma attached to it. Jim Hill, a writer specializing in Disney news, reported on his website in late March that the company plans on releasing a "Song of the South" DVD in 2006 for its 60th anniversary.
But the question isn’t whether the film should be banned. The important phenomenon is the legion of incensed and activist fans (white and black) of the movie, fighting hard to have Disney release “Song of the South.” They argue that it’s only a children’s movie. They say any offensive elements the film might have can be looked past. They say Walt Disney’s intentions were good. And most importantly, they question whether the film is offensive at all.

And note that in the upcoming In These Times, Aaron Sarver has an interview with Howard Zinn.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
____________________
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]
 

Ruth: The Diane Rehm Show broadcast a very important story yesterday.

10:00 Corporation for Public Broadcasting
The CPB is reportedly reviewing public radio and television programs for political bias and has said that funding for national news programs may be reduced. CPB board chair Kenneth Tomlinson joins Diane to discuss what's ahead for public television and radio.
Guests
Kenneth Tomlinson, chair, Corporation for Public Broadcasting

Listen carefully as Mr. Tomlinson dismissed questions Rehm's asks. Listen as he tries to interrupt as she reads an e-mail from a listener. Listen as he dismisses the listener's opinion while he speaks at the same time about how important it is to listen to listeners. It's obvious that he only wants to listen to one listener. He characterizes the "fight" between himself and Bill Moyers as FOOD not "lewd."
Blame it on an old woman's hearing, but "food fight," not "lewd fight."

Mr. Tomlinson dances around repeatedly and embarrasses himself. If you're concerned about the future of NPR and Mr. Tomlinson's attempts to destroy NPR, I would urge members to listen to this broadcast.

I've tried to find an amusing way to discuss this and even spoke with my granddaughter but it just upsets me too much. Praise goes to Diane for her defense of listeners and of NPR and PBS and for her to the point questions.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]





 

The title of this entry was thought up by Kara who e-mailed today to ask how many of the over 1500 e-mails read Tuesday were specifically on Daniel Okrent. Over two-thirds. Probably over three-fourths. I also want to note at the top that half-way into the many hours of pulling from these e-mails (there was no copy and pasting, I was working with the printed e-mails -- any typos should be assumed to be mine and not the person sharing their opinion), Dallas and Shirley checked in to see if they could help in any way. They tracked down links and verified quotes. (When citations could not be found because not enough information was given in the e-mail, those comments were not included.) So a big thank you from me to Shirley and Dallas.

Visitor JS e-mailed today that he saw the entry and read the automated reply so he was giving permission to be quoted from his Tuesday e-mail. So we'll start with him (serve the guests first, Lori advised "it's good manners").

JS feels that Daniel Okrent has done a "fantastic job as the ombudsman of NYT. He's kept the reporters on their toes and he's let them know he's the readers' defender. He's stayed on the side of the readers from the first day."

Ben: Danny Okrah-head has no right to the title of "public editor" and certainly not to "readers' represenative." He chose to gang up on "George" to curry favor not with readers but the whiney Ad Nags [Times' reporter Adam Nagourney]. People who shine him on reveal their own stupidity. Gloria Cooper [CJR] earned her dart for waxing about how great Okrah-head art. He aren't.

Fifteen visitors who sing Daniel Okrent's praises sent the exact same identical e-mail, word for word. Which leads me to believe they were (take your pick) cribbing from an article, part of an organized effort or all the same person. Regardless none of the fifteen (or "fifteen") asked to be quoted. They did speak strongly in favor of Okrent and note what a difficult job he faced.

Kara: Okrot never did his job. His job was to write about what readers were concerned with. They were concerned with the campaign coverage. Where is that article to this day? The one he promised would be forthcoming when Ad Nags took out the hit on "George?" Never came down the pick, sort of like WMD. He's completely useless and has been from day one. "What I want to write about" sums up his time at The Times.

Felicia: I think the nicest way to put it was that the job required skills (including good old fashioned common sense) that Mr. Okrent never possessed. He was a miserable failure. As a subscriber of the paper, I had a number of issues I wanted addressed when the position was announced. By his second column, I knew they'd never be addressed. Column after column, I read him put down readers and dismiss concerns. I also saw him play chatty Cathy about himself. I don't think he ever understood that the space wasn't about him. When the Times picks the next public editor I hope that they will choose someone with less self-love.

Ken: The outing of "George" told you exactly which camp Okrent was in and there was no coming back from that fall. He's disgusting and the paper should have fired him.

Erika: I don't believe the psychological damage done to "George" can be overlooked. He was an individual engaged in a private correspondence and Daniel Okrent used the name, prestige and power of the paper to humiliate him. That sent a message, intended or not, to all readers. He cannot truthly claim to be a free speech "absolutist" anymore. What he did was unseeminly. He disgraced himself, his position and the image of the paper.

Donnie: He was an old gas bag farting on the page repeatedly and trying to pass it off as "information."

Tammy: I can't get over what was done to "George" and the shiners are obviously of the belief that it's a small matter and of no importance but it is true that he was the representative of the readers. When he carried Adam Nagourney's water, he stopped being the representative of the readers.

Steven: He should hang his head in shame for the rest of his life. His "apology" consisted of using a term, not for outing the reader. He behaved in a vile and unbecoming manner. Anyone trying to rewrite history is as guilty as he is.

Rob: Can we also note that the paper is not a liberal paper. The editorials lean left. The paper itself curries to Republicans in their reporting. We saw that with the 8 year war on Bill Clinton and we've seen it with regards to the Bully Boy. But there was scaredy cat Okrent trying to curry favor with the right by showing how "mainstream and balanced" he was by calling the paper "liberal." The New York Times is not a liberal paper and only an asshole would make such a stupid call.

Lance in New Jersey: When witty bitty Danny declared war on the Tonys, he demonstrated the only culture he knew of was the athletes foot that had spread to his brain. Truly the lightest of the light weights to ever be given a column.

Zach: He came off like William Safire Junior. A cranky old fool prone to make huge errors, settle personal scores and embarrass the paper throughout his tenure.

Karen: Judging by his writing, his brain long ago fell out of his head. It is my hope that his appendage falls off, the one he aims at readers and the printed page. That is my hope. I understand that Okrot doesn't grasp the difference between a hope and a threat so I can make up some flash cards for him like I do for my five-year-old though, honestly, they might be too advanced for Okrot.

Garner: Dan-O. It was as though he was Adam Nagourney's sidekick and the two roamed the halls of the paper in really bad Hawaiian print shirts with Nagourney bellowing "Book 'em, Dano!"

Theresa: Thank you for underlining and underscoring that Okrent is not the ombudsman. The position does not exist. Those who rush to shine him on prove they not only lack the ability to properly evaluate, they also have a problem with the English language. But the praise for him is total fiction so why shouldn't the title they give him be as well?

Seth: Was there a promise he kept in his tenure? He said he was there for the readers and he broke that to play body guard and wet nurse for [Adam] Nagourney. He said he was a free speech absolutist but he outed "George" because he didn't approve of his e-mail. He said he wouldn't write about anything that happened before he became public editor. Then he goes on to trash past coverage of the Tonys. He said he would address the campaign coverage but after making us wait months, he offers up a superficial critque that sounded like he tossed it off while getting a pedicure. He never explored the serious factual errors in the arts coverage or in the book reviews. He wrote, from day one, about exactly what he wanted to, readers be damned.

Pru: If he lived here [England] he'd be working for one of Rupert's [Murdoch] tabloids. Reading him online I had to worry about the press across the Atlantic. The job required someone with mental strength and analytical concepts. He wrote as though the next page carried a photo of some overly stacked woman starkers. I have often been amazed at what The New York Times misses and does not carry but I've been led to believe that it was the best your country had to offer. The fact that it would pick the mental midget Okrent for that position goes along way to explaining all that is wrong with the American press. Were I inclined to conspiracies, I'd argue that he was chosen precisely because the tasks were so far beyond what he was capable of.

Brad: He was a smart ass without the smarts. As you would say "translation," he was just an ass.

???: How many interviews did the paper need to do with Daniel and, if they were needed, why did they always pop up in the public editor's space. Is it normal policy for a public editor to repeatedly interview himself?

Marcia: Vanity, thy name is Daniel Okrent.

Krista: He was just so mean and nasty. I never felt like I could write him because he was just so mean and nasty.

Ramone: He always talked down to readers like we were children. It's bad enough that he dismissed serious issues and did so many other things. But in each column, he talked down to us. It was the most useless space the paper gave away in 2004. (I stopped reading him in December.) This was supposed to be something given to the readers so why did he always come off so above everyone?

Lucy: Like Michael Signorile, I never accepted his "reasoning" why Susan Sontag's sexuality and apparent long term relationship with a woman could not be noted in the obit on Sontag. Okrent's "answer" didn't get to anything resmembling his thoughts on what the policy should be which is rather strange since no one asked him about the Tonys but he wrote an entire column on that. Readers did ask about the Sontag obit. He attempted to deal with this issue slightly and via e-mails. Not only was the Timid eager to "in" Sontag, Okrent thought a very serious topic was something to be addressed in e-mails which, compared to addressing it immediately in his column, was akin to whispers.

Maggie: I loved hearing about Jack Shafer all the time in his columns. He was such a whore.
It was like he thought if he tossed out Shafer's name often enough he'd be exempt from serious criticism by Shafer and he'd also piggy back on Shafer's name.

Nora: It needs to be noted that he wrote without any grace or style. He's supposed to be a professional writer, correct? He came off like a dancer with two left feet.

Rod: If nothing else, he made Elisabeth Bumiller look like a first rate reporter by comparison.

Terry: I would love to read Rebecca's sexual analysis of him.

Terry, I passed your request on to Rebecca today. She says she'll try to have it up at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude by tomorrow night.

Lucas: Can I quote from [Bob] Somerby? At The Daily Howler, he wrote this on April 21, 2004:

FROM THE DESK OF THE GOOD SHIPWRECK OKRENT: Yesterday, we emitted mordant chuckles about public editor Daniel Okrent (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/20/04). As you’ll recall, HOWLER readers had written Okrent, asking why his New York Times keeps printing Elisabeth Bumiller's fawning "White House Letters." Okrent's "answer" completely failed to address these readers' complaints.
Our post inspired other readers to share past exchanges with Okrent. Yesterday afternoon, in fact, one more reader wrote to Okrent, raising the matter of Bumiller's fawning. He made his point abundantly clear:
Dear Mr. Okrent,
Ms. Bumiller recently published another "White House Letter."
These "articles" are thinly veiled propaganda for the Bush campaign. Virtually every one of them is a fawning piece of bunk.
Why on earth is the Times publishing what amount to advertisements for the Bush campaign?
If you insist on continuing this one-sided advertising for Bush’s team, will you at least have the sense of fairness to publish similar pieces about John Kerry?
Please, do the right thing.
Sincerely--
The writer--a doctor--kept his post short and sweet. His complaint could not have been more clear. He complained about "propaganda for the Bush campaign," "advertisements for the Bush campaign," and "one-sided advertising for Bush's team." Just in case Okrent missed his point, he also slammed Bumiller's "fawning."
The doctor will have to try it again. Here's what he got for his trouble. Sound trumpets from hills before reading:
Dear Dr. S--,
Several readers have voiced their concerns about the White House Letter.
I include Mr. Okrent’s response below:
"As for the White House Letter, it's part of a longstanding Times practice of trying to provide a glimpse into the personal side of newsmakers' lives. I do think the paper could do a better job of labeling these pieces and making clear that they are not about, nor meant to be about, life-and-death issues."
Sincerely, Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times
Hopeless! Bovino sent the good doctor the same non-response he had sent to our other readers! He completely ignored what the doctor had said. Meanwhile, several frustrated readers sent us their past exchanges with Okrent. The details are too much to go into now. But like the good doctor, these readers got scripted, word-for-word replies that completely avoided their questions.
Life is good if you're a Times scribe. Life is good if Daniel Okrent is the gumshoe you have on your tail.

Lucas (con't): That was typical Okrent. He never wanted to address anything he didn't "want to write about."

Sarah: May 29th I will be singing "Ding-Dong, the wicked witch is dead . . ."

That's the day Okrent's supposed to have completed his "gig" (that's what he's treated it like) as public editor.

Oliver: He should go back quickly to Cape Cod and to writing those books that no one ever reads.

Max: He struck me as disinterested and unegaged throughout.

Tad: I want to note what Atrios said about Daniel Okrent's outing of George:

Kudos to the Nyt's Okrent for violating the privacy of a reader. That really seems like an appropriate role for the ombudsman of a newspaper -- posting up the names of people who have sent private emails to journalists. Nice job, Okrent! Looking out for your readers! 10 points team leader! We'll have to consider the new standard for privacy that you've set.
[. . .]
Nonetheless, they've decided it's appropriate to intimidate readers who react critically, something I've never done to people who otherwise don't have a public profile.The reporter who has received angry email is Adam Nagourney. The reporter who feels that he, with a circulation of about a million, cannot handle criticism without attempts to damage his critic is Adam Nagourney. The fact that the NYT's public editor, the person who is supposed to represent the *readers*, has chosen to publish the name and a clipped quote from a reader who never intended his name or comments to be published, and made that desire clear multiple times, is disgusting. It doesn't matter what the person wrote to the reporter.
[. . .]

Please note, Tad sent Atrios post in full. Due to fair use guidelines, I doubt we can quote it in full. Also note, I've edited out a link. That's not a slam at Atrios. You can go to Atrios' entry at Eschaton and find the link. But our policy here has been not to name "George." It's a silly policy in many ways, I know. Okrent named him. His name it out there on the web. But he was a private citizen until Okrent outed him and I am uncomfortable with giving his name in this space. If you go to link and you're curious, you can find it by clicking on Atrios' link. I hope if you go to the link, you're going there to read the complete entry which is very strong and worth reading. (I'm aware that most members know "George"'s name and have for some time. I just don't feel comfortable naming him since he was stripped of his privacy by Okrent.)

Ryan: I'm glad you noted Sam Seder's strong voice on the outing of George. I know that The Majority Report is one of the shows that speaks to you on Air America so you're probably aware of Seder's post on what happened when he began speaking out against Okrent outing George. But could you share it with the community? Here it is:

Here's my email: [. . .], I live in New York. My name is Sam Seder. Nagourney, that piece of cowardly s**t, has my cell phone number. Okrent, feel free to use it and publish it --
you cowardly piece of s**t. It was given to him the day he called a major voice on this network to cry about me.
Then he had a media reporter call my bosses and threaten this network and threaten me. I know who it was that called here. Have I outed that piece of garbage? I might. That reporter knows why his call was inappropriate and probably a violation of the ever- shrinking sense of ethics at his paper.
The coward Nagourney was given my number he has been repeatedly invited on our show to explain how he can write outright lies! Lies about how many us soldiers are dying in Iraq. You want people who have had to be subjected to your paper's drumbeat for a useless war to pity one of your reporters. Take a walk down to a VA hspital and cry into your morning copy.
The days of intellectually embarrassing you into doing your jobs is over- you ended them.

I remember this being discussed on the show, Ryan, but I don't think I've seen this post before, so thank you for sharing it. I've edited out Seder's e-mail address. I've also taken out the link to Okrent's outing (for the same reasons stated above about the Atrios excerpt). In addition, we try to be "work place friendly" to avoid a member getting written up over language. Seder "unedited" (including link to the outing, e-mail and words as written) can be found by clicking on the link. We've posted it in full because I'm seeing it as an announcement and because I think Seder deserves tremendous credit for addressing this issue.

I also think that the, to put it nicely, "pressure" put on Seder was disgusting and I want to be sure that everyone's aware of the pressure. In spite of the pressure, Seder didn't back down and hasn't backed down. (And we've noted, for instance, his refusal to accept non-answers on this issue when Randy Cohen, the Times' "ethicist," appeared on the program.) It would have been very easy for Seder to have "made nice" or to "shine on" Okrent (as so many people are doing these days). He didn't and he deserves credit for that.

Keesha: He had power that he never utilized. He was happy to slam readers and when it's time for the "shine on" they focus on WMD and act like he was public editor for one day. He could have had true influence and could have been responsive to the readers. He wasn't and he didn't. He was useless and I have no respect for any who try to shine him on as his departure grows closer.

Megan: I will never understand why he refused to seriously address the problems with campaign coverage including but not limited to the fact that Jodi Wilogren and a Washington Post reporter both covering the Kerry campaign somehow managed to observe Dick Cheney making remarks at another event and noted them in passages so strikingly similar that it borders on extreme coincidence if not plagarism.

Ty: Had the campaign coverage ever been seriously addressed, we might have gained some idea of why wind-surfing and other similar "issues" mattered so much more than one would imagine they should. That the paper's in house critic took a pass on this topic suggests how inadequately he performed in his role.

Third Party: I had only two questions and for him to answer them, he would have needed to explore the political coverage. Ralph Nader, during the campaign, wrote a piece for NYT. It ran not in the campaign area of the main section where most people would look for it or on the op-ed pages where most would expect it but inside the business section. Why was it run there? In retrospect, was it a wise move to run it there? Those were never answered and they couldn't be because he was too concerned with trashing a reader and whining about the level of conversation and debate. If he truly felt the discourse was lacking, his refusal to offer an informed analysis on the coverage certainly didn't help.

Pablo: That the issue of Juan Forero's writing was never dealt with in any form remains a sign of how little Okrent cared about his job.

Carole: I don't recall Okrent's scope being defined as the front page but that's what he focused on with the exception of his decision to go into battle with the Tony awards. I think his use of the term "racket" in that column was a sign of his hostility to the arts pages and why he never saw fit to comment on individual articles that needed a second look.

Usha: When a writer tells you that it's like a high school prom in India, she's suggesting that high school proms or dances are the norm in India when it is just as likely that boys and girls will go to different schools. I became a citizen of the United States eight years ago. I was born and raised in India. It is my understanding that the writer who regularly imposes an American pop-cultural lens on India is from India as well. Apparently she grew up in more westernized version of the country than I did. My comments on that received no response.

Portland: Let's be clear that at some papers the type of position Okrent holds makes a difference because the people take it seriously. Between shout outs to his buddies and back from vacation tales, Okrent never took the job seriously and seemed to believe that the readers' largest concerns were "What is Danny really like?"

Miguel: The coverage of Mexican President Vincent Fox has been as erratic in tone as the Bully Boy's shifting attitude towards Mexico. Questions regarding that were never answered.

Eric: I want to note Mother Jones on Okrent and his refusal to address the results of a lengthy report done by If America Knew:

A fair assumption, but not at all correct. Daniel Okrent of the New York Times recently wrote an editorial in response to accusations of bias on this issue. His basic argument was that the paper's doing its best, but its an emotionally charged issue, hard to be objective, and journalism is imperfect. The issue is emotionally charged and it's impossible to be objective. Nice dodge. But Okrent's response is more disturbing than the findings of the If Americans Knew report. Okrent compares the report with a boycott of The Times by the group Orthodox Caucus, referring to both as "less temperate groups on each side," as if these two things were equivalent.
Okrent notes, "After reading thousands of criticisms (as well as insults, accusations and threats) of The Times's Middle East coverage, I'm still waiting for one reader to say the paper has ever been unfair in a way that was damaging to both sides." Well, here it is: the Times' coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been damaging to both sides. Misrepresenting the death toll of the conflict could very well be leading to continued American support of certain Israeli tactics in the conflict that further prolong a push for a more effective and balanced approach to a peace process. Which means more Israelis and more Palestinians dead.

Eric (con't): That goes to the heart of the matter. Okrent pooh-pahs everything and refuses to address any issue. He meanders around in that boring manner and you wonder why you're wasting time read the nonsense.

To give credit where it's due, the excerpt's from the MoJo Blog (Mother Jones blog) and it was written by Onnesha Roychoudhuri.

Troy: I'd like to offer you a list of all that was wrong with Okrent's tenure but I'd need several days to compose such a list. If I was asked what Okrent did correctly, I could reply quickly that he always ... well. Sometimes, he ... Okay, there was this one time when ... I guess the answer would have to be "nothing." He did nothing correctly.

Keith: He went back and forth from column to the point that it almost seemed as though [Arthur] Bovino alternated the writing of the columns with Okrent. There was no consistency in coverage or critique.

KeShawn: He never once address the issue of race seriously. When you consider the various races and ethnicities in NYC, it's amazing to realize that the topic of how race influences coverage was not a multi-part series. At the end especially, when the paper offered a minimum of five articles a week on the Michael Jackson trial, you'd think race would be an issue worth covering. But he also took a pass on noting that the paper overwhelming blamed Janet Jackson for the exposed breast while letting Justin Timberlake off. Race and gender surely entered into the pass given to Timberlake. You'd think a public editor would want to address that. Readers wanted it addressed. He struck me as an old, white, centerist who thought the sixties ended all racial struggles and felt his readers did as well.

As we've noted at the request of a member, noted many times, Alessandra Stanley did not give Timberlake a pass. She stood largely alone at the Times on that issue. The worst piece may have been written by a reporter who took it upon herself to ponder the state of Jackson's career and the motives that led to the Superbowl without ever questioning whether male "starlets" might have a bit of desperation themselves. Her initials are "L.O." And her article was the worst example of bad reporting in the arts section. Members have commented on it repeatedly. And have noted that they complained to the corrections dept., to the publisher, to Bill Keller and to Daniel Okrent. The only thing that came from that was a correction on how many number ones Jackson got from the album janet. Many members have forwarded their copies of the e-mails they sent to the public editor when that story ran. The story was never addressed by Okrent.

Charlie: I would think that since the desire to run corrections comes during Okrent's tenure he might have written something on readers' opinions on whether or not corrections were done adequately. Many corrections I sent in were ignored. These were factual matters such as records and dates something occurred. The Times ignored those and Okrent also ignored the issue when I raised it with his office.

Lana: Here is the operating method Okrent has worked through from day one. Reader: "Bully Boy says the sky is green." Okrent responds, "The sky is blue. Scientists can tell you that. Your own eyes can tell you that. But we should also remember that green is made with blue and yellow. Therefore we should not utilize terms like 'wrong' because they are imprecise." He's supposed to make a call but he refuses time and again to do that. Wishy-washy would be a step up for him. I'm glad he's headed out the door.

Bruce: I do not believe I learned one thing from Okrent's columns and I read everyone. It was as though where a penetrating gaze was needed, Okrent resorted to guazey filters.

Jordan: I'll rest my case by noting what Mickey Kaus wrote on Okrent at Slate:

Er, what was Okrent's job again? Defender of the Times against the Public? Something like that. ... What's the use of an ombudsman who doesn't think his paper ever screws up, who is shy about naming names when it comes to finding fault, and who seems to hate those who complain to him? ... P.S.: Okrent does criticize the Times for overuse of anonymous quotes. Now there's a bold stand! Decrying anonymous sources in news stories is the Neutral Story Line of press criticism. It offends nobody and seems substantive. But another definition of "anonymous quote" is "the only interesting part of the typical NYT political piece." Even Okrent seems to think they're OK if the piece is tagged "Political Memo.") ...

Phil: Okrent has made a mockery of readers, reporters and most of all himself. The people shining him on must rest assured that, like Okrent, they too can avoid the public. I get the feeling if they ventured out from their self-enclosed environments, people would point and laugh.

Eddie: If there was a role for Okrent it was to take on the institutional problems so often used as excuses for problems in the paper's coverage. While the job required speaking truth to power, Okrent lobbed warm-fuzzies.

Martha: Gary Webb's death was the perfect opportunity for Okrent to evaluate the paper's treatment of Webb. I'm guessing it wasn't "what I want to write about." Okrent flaunted his fear and indifference in column after column.

Bernardo: I think it bears noting that "journalist" Okrent favors p.r. over facts. For any who've forgotten they can refer to the FAIR action alert.

Liang: Okrent chose to pick a fight with FAIR over the [Bully Boy's] hump. The paper killed the story about Bully Boy being wired and Okrent wants to justify it and argue, "You haven't seen what I've seen." How did he see it? I thought there was a wall? If he's able to see it, aren't the readers supposed to be able to see it? We were told there was a firm wall between Okrent and the paper from day one. Apparently it's a very small wall, about knee high, which Okrent can and does skip over at will.

Ed: When a public editor thinks he's the publicist for the paper, you're never going to get anything from him worth reading.

Natalie: Considering the Times reliance on "official sources," I find it ironic that the biggest issue as Daniel Okrent prepares to leave the paper is about why "news" is only "news" if you have a strong opposition voice, yet he's never devoted significant attention to that. It's as though he's been the weatherman for eighteen months and hurricans just started hitting in the last two. He pats himself on the back and others shine him on but the reality is that the topic on everyone's mind is one he should have seriously addressed early on but never took the time to do so. Many of the stories the Times doesn't cover do not lack importance, they lack an "offical source" from this country to weigh in on the topic. Should that really be the criteria for news worthy?

Billie: Jessica Wilson had a letter to Okrent that she posted at her site For the Record. I hope you'll note the last paragraph of it [:]

The Times is free-falling into irrelevance as far as educated-people-who-care are concerned. And Mr. Okrent, you presently face a similar danger. As you repeatedly provide unconvincing justifications for the inappropriate actions of the Times, you paint yourself not as the reader's representative, but rather as the official Times apologist. I want to believe that both you and the Times have higher aspirations. But your readers are waiting for you both to try---just try!---to fulfill them.

Dallas: Let's remember that in an entertainment article on Janet Jackson, quotes, from a web site, were altered by the author of the piece and Okrent was e-mailed about it and received a lengthy letter. He never addressed it. Recently, to Salon, he played Chinatown's my-sister-my-daughter scene solo as he went back and forth over [Jayson] Blair and [Judith] Miller before feeling that Blair was worse because he lied intentionally. And he leaves the impression that nothing of the sort happened under his watch. He isn't be forthcoming or truthful.

Lily: He praised the hideous videogame article by the hideous Dexter Filkins. That gives you an idea of both where he's coming from and how limited his knowledge base is. Everyone in Fallujah was designated as a target. Filken's couldn't drop the pom-poms long enough to ponder that and apparently the thought never entered Okrent's brain. People died. People who were trying to leave the city, including young boys, were turned back and not allowed to leave. This is truly the most embarrassing moment of the Times coverage of the occupation since it began. People speak of Judy Miller when they should be noting Dexter Filkins as well. One sided reporting that cheers on murder isn't journalism by any sane person's definition. Finally venturing out of the Green Zone Hotel circuit, Filkins was so dependent upon the military to protect him that objectivity flew out the window as he wrote of fearlessly peering over the shoulders of the big G.I.s. No doubt he rushed back to his hotel room, ordered liberally from room service and then hopped in a bubble bath thinking what a lucky boy he was.

Joni: Two words, Dexter Filkins. Okrent has acted not as a public editor or a journalist but as Filkins' p.r. man for his Iraq non-reporting. Filkins fancies himself a modern day Kim Aldrich.
She made a good childhood hero and I always enjoyed the books but I never mistook them for reality. Filkins has severe problems with reality and Okrent never addressed it. I wait for more revelations about Love in the Green Zone to emerge.

Wally: [Okrent was] a prolonged disappointment.

Francisco: Okrent generously gives praise to hacks but he never noted the fact that for two weeks, while the big names were on vacation, real journalism made it into the paper. He never noted Amy Waldman or Marc Lacey or anyone who made real contributions to a story breaking in real time that was not dependent upon unnamed sources but on a very real human tragedy.
I e-mailed the Times to praise them during those two weeks. Okrent heard from me. But for once he didn't feel the need to play cheerleader for the paper and maybe that's because it proved that the big names are not necessary to solid, captivating reporting. Okrent gives props and shout outs only for the big names who can make it onto the chat shows. He's too busy wallowing in the basura to praise genuine achievements. Vergonzoso!

Polly: He's truly set the bar low for all who come after him.

Stan: He should have resigned when he outed "George."

Cedric: The man who would restore trust in the paper ending up inflicting more damage than anyone could imagine. Surely the of-course-it's-a-liberal-paper idiotic remark will haunt the paper for years to come and liberals be left having to explain why, no, it's not a liberal paper. His last day can't come soon enough for me.

Susan: I thought of a song written by Aimee Mann and Elvis Costello that describes how column by column Okrent destroyed all my hopes that a public editor could make a difference:

You're half-naked ambition and
you're half out of your wits
and though your wristwatch always works
your necktie never fits
Now it's so hard to pick the receiver up
and when I can. I never noticed
you could be so small
the answer was under your nose
but the question never arose.
I know it don't make a difference to you
But oh, it sure made a difference to me
When you find me here at the end of my rope
When the head and heart of it finally elope
You can see us off in the distance, I hope
at the other end
at the other end of the telescope.

That song, "The Other End (of the Telescope)," can be found on 'Til Tuesday's Everything's Different Now. And note, it's credited to Aimee Mann and Declan MacManus (MacManus is the birth name of Elvis Costello).

Even with Shirley and Dallas working hard to track down quotes and links (that sometimes were referred to but no quote included) , there are twenty-seven comments that aren't being included due to not being able to track down what was being referred to. If the e-mailers would like to track them down, we can do an addendum at some point. (And individual e-mails to those twenty-seven are written and will be sent out tomorrow morning.)

Of visitors who wrote in, one is summarized at the top because he appeared to offer his genuine belief that Okrent was worthy of praise. The fifteen who sent the exact same e-mail defended Okrent. They (or "they") were noted in case Okrent lovers all think exactly alike. There were nine additional e-mails defending Okrent. That makes for twenty-five total visitors who defended Okrent. If we estimate that two-thirds of the 1500 e-mails yesterday were about Okrent, that leaves us with one thousand (a conservative estimate) e-mails arriving on the subject of Okrent. Of that low-balled one thousand, we're left with twenty-five people (or ten people plus one who wrote fifteen times) defending Okrent.

In addition to those twenty-five, there were 378 e-mails from visitors (all weighing in against Okrent) that did not state they could be quoted. (378 is a precise figure and I recounted it twice to make sure.)
After the post on the Times went up, a number of members e-mailed to apologize for writing in when they didn't wish to be quoted. There's no need to apologize. You're input is always appreciated and this entry might have been shoved off to the weekend had so many not written in. The responses indicated that this is still a pressing issue to the community. Tommy's e-mail was not quoted (though he gave permission) because other than "Okrent" every word in his comments would require "*"s to maintain our workplace friendly environment.

The seventy five members (that figure is precise, I recounted it three times) who forwarded responses from Okrent should know that although their replies from Okrent were not put into this entry they were factored in as well and I attempted to convey them in a limited manner in my comments. I would sum those replies up as pats on the head that were supposed to make the reader feel that Okrent valued the issues they raised; however, Okrent never decided they were "what I want to write" so they were empty gestures in my opinion as well as the opinions of those who forwarded them.

If there is one message that comes through in all but twenty-five e-mails, it would be that Okrent did not serve the needs of the readers. That's something those rushing to shine him on continue to miss. Tonight, Shirley noted that anyone attempting to reflect on the success or failure of Okrent as public editor should be required to get input from readers.

Shirley: He was not hired to offer random musings. He was hired to address the concerns of the readers. Any criticism that doesn't factor in them in is acting as though he was hired to be a general interest columnist.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

Note: This entry was completed four hours ago. I held it to do a quick read through this morning to attempt to catch typos. The time stamp on the entry will reflect not when the writing of it began but when it went up.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]
 

The Bush administration and Senate Republican leaders are pushing a plan that would significantly expand the F.B.I.'s power to demand business records in terror investigations without obtaining approval from a judge, officials said on Wednesday.
The proposal, which is likely to be considered next week in a closed session of the Senate intelligence committee, would allow federal investigators to subpoena records from businesses and other institutions without a judge's sign-off if they declared that the material was needed as part of a foreign intelligence investigation.

Apparently to the Fourth Amendment, we, in the words of Billy Joel, "say goodbye, my baby." ("Say Goodbye to Hollywood.") The above excerpt is from Eric Lichtblau's "Plan Would Broaden F.B.I.'s Terror Role."

Please note the ACLU's "Is The FBI Spying On You."

The ACLU has launched a nationwide effort to expose and prevent FBI spying on people and groups simply for speaking out or practicing their faith. As a first step, the ACLU and its affiliates have filed Freedom of Information Act requests in more than a dozen states. Although the FBI has refused to turn over most of the files, we have obtained evidence (pdf) that confirms the FBI and local police, working through Joint Terrorism Task Forces, are spying on political, environmental, anti-war and faith-based groups. We think the public deserves to know who is being investigated and why. We have sued (pdf) the FBI and the Department of Justice to get those answers.
Our clients comprise advocates for causes including the environment, animal rights, labor, religion, Native American rights, fair trade, grassroots politics, peace, social justice, nuclear disarmament, human rights and civil liberties. When the FBI invades the privacy of political and religious groups in the name of fighting terrorism, it abuses our trust and freedom.

There are numerous resources on the page linked above but please take note of "Documents Obtained by ACLU Expose FBI and Police Targeting of Political Groups:"

The American Civil Liberties Union charged today that the FBI and local police are engaging in intimidation based on political association and are improperly investigating law-abiding human rights and advocacy groups, according to documents obtained through a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. ACLU affiliates today filed FOIA requests seeking similar documents in ten states.
"Since when did feeding the homeless become a terrorist activity?" asked ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson. "When the FBI and local law enforcement target groups like Food Not Bombs under the guise of fighting terrorism, many Americans who oppose government policies will be discouraged from speaking out and exercising their rights."
In response to widespread complaints from students and political activists who said they were questioned by FBI agents in the months leading up to last summer’s political conventions, the ACLU filed FOIA requests in six states and the District of Columbia in December 2004 on behalf of more than 100 groups and individuals. To date, the ACLU has received fewer than 20 pages in response to the FOIAs.
The ACLU charged that the FBI is wrongfully withholding thousands of pages of documents, and today filed a lawsuit in federal court to compel the FBI to comply with the FOIA requests. The complaint seeks files kept by the FBI on the ACLU, as well as Greenpeace, United for Peace and Justice, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
The ACLU said that the few documents received to date through the December FOIA requests shed light on the FBI’s misuse of Joint Terrorism Task Forces to engage in political surveillance. In Colorado, one memo indicates an ongoing federal interest in Food Not Bombs, a group that provides free vegetarian food to hungry people and protests war and poverty,
The same memo suggests that an FBI interview of Sarah Bardwell and call to Scott Silber prior to last fall’s political conventions were intended as a means of intimidation. The FBI notes that although they did not obtain information about criminal activity from either student, it was unnecessary to contact others in the area as the "purpose of the interviews was served."

I'm going through the paper and not finding anything on this. Rachel Maddow discussed on The Rachel Maddow Show yesterday. Is the Times covering this?

Wally e-mails to note Douglas Jehl's "2 Sides in Bolton Debate Take Positions for Next Stage of Fight:"


One message circulated by a Bolton aide on June 7, 2002, contains a still classified draft letter from Mr. Bolton and Mr. Reich that is addressed to George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence.
The draft "urged the immediate replacement" of Mr. Armstrong and indicated that Mr. Bolton and Mr. Reich would take several measures on their own, including excluding Mr. Armstrong from official meetings at the State Department and official travel in the Western Hemisphere, the Democratic report says.
It cites a reply by a State Department official who reported that he had discussed the matter with Mr. Bolton, and said that Mr. Bolton "would prefer at this point to handle this in person with Tenet."

Martha e-mails to note an Associated Press article entitled "3 Colombians Held in U.S. Drug Smuggling:"

The authorities have arrested three Colombians, including a former serviceman, on charges of helping American soldiers who are accused of smuggling cocaine to the United States aboard an American military aircraft, the Colombian Air Force said Wednesday.
Five United States military personnel were previously arrested in the case, which caused widespread anger in Colombia. One suspect has been released, but the others are being held at an undisclosed location in the United States.

Richard W. Stevenson quotes Bully Boy (with a straight face) "Bush Says Patience Is Needed
as Nations Build a Democracy." He's learned his lessons well while serving under Elisbeth Bumiller on the Elite Fluff Patrol. I understand that besides nations needing patience to build democracy, nations need truth to decide whether or not to wage war. We'll assume that was on an index card Bully Boy didn't have time to get to because he was too busy doing air guitar and posing as Slash while informing us all that "We just need a little patience, yeah, yeah, yeah, just a little patience." Did Guns 'N Roses make his iPod list that Elisabeth Bumiller compiled recently?

Lynda e-mails to note Monica Davey's "Those Who Outgrow Foster Care Still Struggle, Study Finds:"


As the definition of adulthood has shifted in this country and young people are living with their parents even into their 20's, one group has been mostly left behind in this phenomenon: thousands of people who grow up in foster care.
Nationally each year, some 20,000 youths who were once removed from their homes because of abuse or neglect leave their second home - the child welfare system - because they get too old for it. In some states, they are allowed to stay on until they turn 21, but in many more places, they "age out" when they turn 18.
And that, the authors of a new study to be released on Thursday by the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago say, can have devastating consequences. The study, which is believed to be the broadest of its kind in 20 years, looked at a rarely examined group - more than 600 young people, mostly 19 years old and in Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin, who recently left foster care or will soon do so.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Dahr Jamail has a new post up at Iraq Dispatches. Here's an excerpt:

Yesterday Hassan Nuaimi, high ranking member of the Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS) was found dead in Baghdad. One of his arms was broken and a hole was drilled into the side of his head.
This coming the day after the AMS had accused the Shia led governmnet of state sponsored terrorism by using the Badr Brigades to murder Sunnis.
In response to the murdering of Nuaimi, two Shia clerics were gunned down in Baghdad yesterday.
Harith al-Dhari, head of the AMS, blamed the Shia Badr Brigades for the recent spate of killings of Sunni clerics in the country.
Dhari, making a statement that could be interpreted as an announcement of civil war, said Sunnis would not keep silent over the killings.
"We are heading towards a catastrophe, only God knows when it will end, this is a warning from us," he said angrily.
The Badr Brigades were in exile in Iran during much of Saddam's rule, and returned to Iraq after the invasion and have been a fully operational militia in Iraq ever since. I have seen their members in full uniform and with heavy weapons in Baghdad during a Shia demonstration last summer. The Badr Brigades was headed for years by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance who won the largest percentage of votes in the January 30 "election."
There has been a low-grade civil war going on for quite some time-but now the veil has been ripped off by the statements made by Dhari.

For those wondering where the posts are tonight, we're working on one on Okrent. We're includes Dallas and Shirley who are hunting down links to statements quoted in some e-mails.
The post is being worked on and if we can't find a link to a quote after X-number of attempts, we'll have to leave those comments that were intended to be public out.

The Okrent post will go up tonight.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]
 

We'll note the upcoming dates for Amy Goodman's Un-Embed The Media Tour. Shirley noted that some of the dates we posted earlier now had more details. This covers all dates for the rest of this month through June as announced at the Un-Embed The Media home page.

San Francisco, CA:
Friday, May 20, 7:30 PM
U.S. premiere of the documentary,
Helen's War: Portrait of a Dissident,
with Dr. Helen Caldicott of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute
and Julia Butterfly Hill
Castro Theatre
429 Castro Street at Market
San Francisco
$25 for the event ($15 student/seniors) and $100 for the event and reception following the film with Dr. Caldicott, Amy Goodman and Julia Butterfly Hill.
To purchase advance tickets online or print out a mail-in order form, visit www.nuclearpolicy.org/EventArticle.cfm?EventID=91

Philadelphia, PA:
Saturday,
May 21,
4:15 PM
Sustainable Business Network of Philadelphia
Keynote speech,
The Importance of Independent Media
Law School of the University of Pennylvania
3401 Sansom St.
www.sbnphiladelphia.org

Ashland, WI:
Saturday,
May 28,
2:30 PM
Northland College Commencement
Alvord Theatre
1411 Ellis Avenue
Ashland, WI 54806
For more information, visit www.northland.edu

Ashland, WI:
Saturday,
May 28,
8 pm
Kendrigan Gymnasium
Northland College
1411 Ellis Ave
Ashland WI 54806
Tickets: $10.00 general admission, $5.00 studentsFor more information, visit www.northland.edu

Los Angeles, CA:
Sunday,
May 29,
8:00 PM
11th Annual Pedagogy & Theatre of the Oppressed Conference
Co-hosted by the Center for Theatre of the Oppressed; and Applied Theatre Arts, Los Angeles; and CAFE of the Paulo Freire Instute, UCLA
Renaissance Hollywood Hotel
1755 North Highland
Hollywood, California
Tickets for this event:
The Saturday through Tuesday Conference tickets are available online at PTO Website
Tickets for the Saturday, 8:00 PM event: $10 donation, available at the door
For more information, call (213) 740-6673

New York, NY:
Wednesday,
June 1,
6:30 PM
First Annual New York Civic Participation Project Bridge Builders Awards Reception
SEIU Local 32BJ
101 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY
This is a fundraising awards dinner for NYCPP.
Amy Goodman will be the program MC.
For tickets, visit www.nycpp.org, and click on the "Upcoming Events" link.

Riccione, Italy, :
Friday,
June 3 &4
9 pm
IIlaria Alpi Journalistic Television Awards
4 pm: Seminar organized by Tavola Della Pace
9 pm: Traditional Round Table
Palazzo del TurismoRiccione, Italy
This event is free and open to the public
For more information, visit www.ilariaalpi.it/premio

New York, NY:
Tuesday,
June 7,
12:30-2 PM
National Council for Research on Women's Annual Conference
Panel discussion
365 5th Avenue
New York City
Registration fee for conference:$70 for Tuesday only. For more information, visit www.ncrw.org

Croton-on-Hudson, NY:
Saturday,
June 18
Saturday, June 18 or Sunday, June 19
Clearwater Festival
Croton Point Park

Amy Goodman and her brother David Goodman have written Exceptions to the Rulers (as every member of this community knows) and is out in paperback. You can purchase a copy at the Un-Embed The Media Tour web site or you can purchase a copy at BuzzFlash and many other places online. You can also find it at your local bookstores (it's a bestselling book) and at your libraries.

Since we get more and more visitors, in case anyone doesn't know Amy Goodman, they can see her work at Democracy Now! and they can read Lizzy Ratner's "Amy Goodman's 'Empire" from The Nation.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]
 

Democracy Now!: (Marcia: "always worth watching"):
Headlines for May 18, 2005
- Los Angeles Elects First Latino Mayor in 130 Years
- Bush Administration Moves Toward the Weaponization of Space
- U.S. Officials Arrest Anti-Castro Cuban Militant in Miami
- CIA Assassinates Al Qaeda Suspect in Pakistan
- Rep. McDermott Calls for Depleted Uranium Investigation
- Ex-Haitian PM Neptune Enters 2nd Month of Hunger Strike
- Media Reform Group Calls For Ouster of CPB Head Tomlinson
- Protesters Gather Outside Halliburton Shareholder Meeting

U.S. Arrests Anti-Castro Cuban Tied To 1976 Airline Bombing
Cuban militant Luis Posada Carriles was arrested in Miami shortly after he gave a press conference. Despite having been jailed on terrorism charges in Venezuela and Panama, Carriles managed to sneak into the United States in March in order to seek political asylum.

Attorney: Former Detainees Have Repeatedly Accused U.S. of Desecrating Koran at Guatanamo
In August 2003, 23 Yemeni detainees reportedly tried to commit mass suicide after a guard stomped on the Koran. In addition, the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights reported former detainees said they saw the Koran being thrown into the toilets. Three British citizens released last year from Guantanamo reported similar treatment of the Koran in a 115-page dossier on the conditions at the detention camp.

British MP Galloway Slams U.S. War in Iraq & Ties to Saddam During Senate Testimony
On Tuesday British politician George Galloway testified in Washington as part of the Senate's so-called oil for food scandal. Galloway said "This is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth." [includes rush transcript]

Los Angeles Elects First Latino Mayor in 130 Years
Antonio Villaraigosa, a son of a Mexican immigrant, defeated incumbent Mayor Jim Hahn. Villaraigosa took about 59 percent of votes against 41 percent for Hahn, who beat Villaraigosa in a bitter 2001 election. [includes rush transcript]

25 Years Ago: The Kwangju Massacre in South Korea
Democracy Now's Juan Gonzalez looks back at the 1980 pro-democracy uprising that ended when South Korean soldiers opened fire. The official body count was 500. Some human rights groups have estimated the number of dead as high as 2,000. Despite his public policy of supporting human rights, U.S. President Jimmy Carter refused to back the pro-democracy protesters in South Korea. [includes rush transcript]

Over at The Daily Howler, Bob Somerby's addressing Newsweek, the Times coverage of Janice Rogers Brown and other topics. We'll focus on the Times coverage (but read his points regarding Newsweek -- they are worth reading) for the excerpt below:

NO FILIBUSTERS ON SUBSTANCE: As Dems prepare to filibuster that first pair of judges, the national press keeps it short and sweet. This morning, Neil Lewis profiles Janice Rogers Brown in the paper of record. Incredibly, this is his only attempt to examine the claim that Brown is a judicial activist:
LEWIS (5/18/05): The Supreme Court case cited most often for the idea that Justice Brown might inject her views into court opinions is San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco in 2002. The majority upheld a requirement, intended to maintain low-cost housing, that owners pay a fee to demolish a residential hotel. In her dissent, Justice Brown said the city had engaged in theft of the property. ''Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery,'' she wrote. ''Turning a democracy into a kleptocracy does not enhance the stature of the thieves, it only diminishes the legitimacy of the government.''
Incredibly, that's the entire discussion of the San Remo case, and Lewis mentions no other case where Brown is alleged to have inappropriately "injected her views" into court decisions. If readers want to know what this fuss is about, they'll have to take their business somewhere else.
But then, Lewis gave the same cursory treatment to Justice Priscilla Owen on Monday. [. . .]
Do you want to know why people claim that Brown and Owen are activist judges? To all appearances, you won't find out from reading the Times. We can find no news reports in the past six months which examine this question in more detail--and this morning, Lewis gives you exactly one paragraph. But so it goes in our modern press corps--a cohort with an almost pathological aversion to exploring matters of substance. This week, Democrats will talk and talk about the activist pair. Providing balance, the Times keeps it brief.

From CounterPunch Seth e-mails Dave Lindorff's "The Plot to Make the PATRIOT Act Even Worse:"

The administration has been arguing for renewal or for making the provisions permanent, but a coalition of conservative and liberal groups calling itself Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, has expressed hopes of convincing a majority of the Judiciary Committees of both House and Senate to modify those and several other rights-threatening measures in the PATRIOT Act before sending the renewal legislation to the full Congress in June.
This surprise move by the Intelligence Committee, which is packed with senators from both parties who have not been particularly friendly to civil libertarians, appears to be an end run by supporters of the White House.
Says Lisa Graves, intelligence lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union, "This is an effort by the administration to get everything they want. It is an outrage." Graves says the move suggests that the administration and its congressional backers fear that they could lose in the Judiciary Committee, and are hoping to present the bill they want as a fait accompli and then call anyone who tries to weaken it "soft on terror."
"This is a radical bill," Graves says of the Intelligence Committee work-in-progress. She says her sources tell her that besides making the controversial sunset provisions of the PATRIOT Act permanent, the Intelligence Committee version of the revised act would greatly expand one of its most dangerous provisions, the administrative subpoena. "It would allow administrative subpoenas for virtually anything held by a third party, such as bank or phone or medical records, with only the merest unsubstantiated hint of a foreign connection." Equally troubling, she says, the Intelligence Committee version of the bill would strip out a current bar on using warrantless administrative subpoenas in cases that involved primarily protected First Amendment activities, such as legitimate political protest.

Beth e-mailed to note Matthew Rothschild's latest "This Just In" entitled "The Newsweek Retraction:"

Newsweek's retraction of its story about the U.S. interrogator at Guantanamo flushing a Koran down the toilet raises serious questions about the state of journalism in America.
The threshold question is whether the initial story was true.
"We are not in a position to know that," Mark Whitaker, Newsweek's editor, told the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Whitaker explained that the anonymous high-level government source the magazine relied on could not reconfirm the story in all its details, though the source said "he thought he had still seen something," Whitaker said.
Of course, there are issues of journalistic practice at stake here, as well. Should journalists use anonymous sources, and should editors run a story based on only one such source? In Newsweek's defense, it did ask the Pentagon for comment, even showing the whole story to a senior Pentagon official who did not take issue with the Koran bit, according to Whitaker.
But beyond Journalism 101, there is something much more troubling here.
Did Newsweek cave?

Please note, those who read "This Just In" regularly (which includes myself), this is a lengthier one than usual. The cut off point for the pull quote seemed to fall naturally with "Did Newswee cave?" Click the link to read the rest.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
_____________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]