Journalism's Code of Deception

The latest version of journalism's code of ethics lets scribes off the hook when it comes to reporting the truth. According to the most widely used codes (from ASNE and APME), journalist need only present both sides of an issue -- even when those cited are lying -- to fulfill their role.

The code wasn't always written this way. Earlier versions state that, “every effort must be made to assure that the news content is accurate, free from bias, and in context." Journalists and their editors dropped this wording from recent redrafts to make the code “more operational," explained David Hawpe, APME's ethics committee chairman.

Therefore, when President Bush declared on October 6 that the US had foiled "at least ten serious al Qaeda terrorist plots since September the 11th, including three al Qaeda plots to attack inside the United States," most journalists reported this on face value. A few -- including the LA Times -- went the extra yard to press the White House for examples, which revealed the President's speech to be more shrill rhetoric than reality. The Times' effort to get at the truth was the exception.

Martin Lobel, decries the press' failure to examine the inequalities embedded in our national tax system. Statistics show that the economy is growing but most of the benefit has gone to the top 1/10th of 1 percent of the population, which has been able to shift a significant portion of its tax burden to the middle class. Writes Lobel:

The key to an effective democracy is an effective press. One place an effective press is sorely needed is in coverage of the economy, a vital underpinning for democracy. But here the press, by and large, is failing. It too often reduces stories to “he said, she said,” with little real analysis. . . . The press should stop acting like trained seals and start asking serious questions about the abuses of our economy.

Reviving the earlier standard for discerning the truth is more important now than ever before. Political spin and deception have gone into hyper-drive. This as a dangerous byproduct of the accelerated 24-7 news cycle. The machinations that transform un-sourced reports into legitimate subject matter for mainstream consumption exist within every news organization; a prominent smear that emerges from the fringes of the Internet can eventually make its way up the media food chain onto front pages.

A lie can now now get into the media bloodstream, turn virulent and travel fast, Ken Auletta of the New Yorker once told me. "Speed is always the enemy of context and thought and fact-checking."

Lying, as a result, has become the new rule of political campaigns -- not the exception. Media's inability to discern the truth for their audience undermines our democratic system at its core.

Without a concerted effort to rewrite their code and put it into vigorous practice, journalists will play a leading role in a future of misinformed voters and the leaders who lie to them.

Clear Channel to the Rescue

In a speech at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, Clear Channel CEO Mark Mays mentions Katrina relief to underscore the importance of Big Radio in times of emergency.

We were "literally, the lifeline to thousands who were trapped in the flood waters along the Gulf Coast," Mays told an audience of well-paid industry analysts. "It was free radio professionals who opened impassible roads and waded through life-threatening waters to restore broadcasts."

Amidst the accolades, Mays forgets to mention his radio stations' less than heroic performance in Minot, ND.

No matter. The real problem for his radio colossus is that their service to the public is "crippled by at-times suffocating regulations." Increasing the station limit, he said, will let this work continue by "making the playing field level."

Forgive my math, but how does allowing one company own up to twelve stations in a single market balance out?

Prosecute White House Propaganda Crimes

Free Press today called upon Congress and the Justice Department to prosecute those in the Bush administration who violated federal laws by buying favorable news coverage of the president's policies.

Last week an official government investigation determined that the Bush Administration broke the law when it used taxpayer dollars to disseminate “covert propaganda” in advance of the 2004 elections. Free Press president Robert McChesney wrote to the organization’s 220,000 activists asking them to sign a letter urging the Congress and the Justice Department “to prosecute these crimes to the fullest extent of the law.”

(Read MediaCitizen's full analysis of these propaganda crimes)

This White House has a knack for evading prosecution. The only way for justice to be served is for thousands to stand up and demand that charges stick against an administration that has set aside more than a quarter billion dollars to push propaganda on the public.

In a report released on Sept. 30, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the administration illegally used taxpayer dollars to fund a covert propaganda campaign, funneling money to commentator Armstrong Williams to tout Bush's education policies and hiring a public relations company to produce video news releases (VNRs) analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party. The investigation also dug up other instances of abuse, including a previously undisclosed case in which the Bush administration commissioned a newspaper article that praised the White House's role in promoting science education.

Free Press will deliver all letters to the leaders of the Judiciary and Appropriations Committees and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. The organization will continue to exert public pressure for full public disclosure of all White House publicity expenditures using taxpayer funds.

Throughout the year, Free Press has mobilized citizens to put a stop to government propaganda. In April, the media reform organizations mobilized more than 40,000 concerned citizens to urge the FCC to launch an investigation into the widespread use of government-sponsored VNRs. Within weeks the agency issued a public notice citing the public outcry and calling on all broadcasters and cable outlets to disclose the origin of VNRs used on their programs.

GAO and the Justice Department, the administration's controlling legal authority, have not seen eye to eye on covert propaganda in the past, specifically on the issue of unidentified packaged video news releases. GAO says VNRs are illegal; Justice says the releases are not, so long as they are fact-based. Alberto Gonzalez's Justice Department appears unwilling to take the next step: a criminal investigation into the administration’s use of millions of taxpayer dollars to cloak its political agenda as news and push it upon unsuspecting Americans.

Without popular dissent, an emboldened White House will continue to throw up obstacles to full disclosure. It is now up to the public to pressure our government to enforce the law and stop propaganda crimes.

To join the call for White House prosecution, visit Free Press.

A Ghost in the Media Machine

"State-run media" is a phrase normally reserved for regimes such as North Korea that manipulate and censor all public information.

Media in the United States were thought to be immune to such autocratic control, but recent maneuvers by the Bush administration should make Americans wonder how free our press actually is.

Earlier this year, several "journalists" were exposed as propagandists on the White House payroll. We then learned that broadcasters routinely air government-funded video news releases without disclosing their source; the White House has set aside a quarter billion taxpayer dollars to hire public relations firms and infiltrate our news system with fake news.

A handful of media reformers, including my organization Free Press, are leading the campaign to reveal the extent to which government propaganda has violated laws and compromised media newscasts, and press lawmakers and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to prosecute those in the White House that have used tax dollars to spread fake news.

Their actions come none too soon. 2005 has become a banner year for propaganda. In early January, the $240,000 Armstrong Williams took from the Department of Education headlined national news. Covertly paying journalists to flack for government policies is not only outrageous, it's illegal. The Williams case sparked a public outcry, compelling more than 40,000 people to write the FCC and demand that the agency launch a probe. Other journalists have since admitted being on the take.

In March 2005, the New York Times ran a front page article documenting widespread government efforts to create official video news releases that are cloaked as real news and broadcast to millions of unsuspecting Americans. At least 20 federal agencies have used this tactic distributing hundreds of government-produced news segments via local TV outlets.

A Sept. 30 report by the Government Accountability Office found the White House violated federal law by buying favorable news coverage in advance of the 2004 elections. This is the fourth time the GAO has uncovered the White House's illegal use of taxpayer money to produce "covert propaganda."

These violations may just form the tip of the iceberg. The administration has more than doubled its public relations budget, tapping a quarter billion in taxpayer dollars since Bush came into office. And while the report is damning, the GAO doesn't have enforcement powers to reveal the full extent of the abuse.

Some in Washington have taken up the call for further action. But they have yet to raise this issue beyond a probe into a few bad actors -- such as Williams -- to finger the real source of the problem. In April, Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and John Kerry (D-MA) introduced the "Truth in Broadcasting Act" that would ensure that all propaganda contains announcements to inform viewers that it is a product of the US Government.

Minority calls for a propaganda probe have sounded a hollow echo through the halls of the Justice Department. Washington remains under the thrall of the majority Republican Party, which would rather ignore this simmering scandal than demand that justice be served.

While justice may be blind, presidential appointee Gonzalez is not.

GAO and the Justice Department, the administration's controlling legal authority, have not seen eye to eye on covert propaganda in the past, specifically on the issue of unidentified packaged video news releases. GAO says VNRs are illegal; Justice says the releases are not, so long as they are fact-based. Worseover, Gonzalez's Justice Department appears unwilling to take the next step: a criminal investigation into the administration’s use of millions of taxpayer dollars to push fake news upon Americans.

The official silence speaks volumes. Without popular dissent, an emboldened White House will continue to throw up obstacles to full disclosure. It is now up to the public to do what our elected officials are unwilling or unable to: pressure our government to enforce the law and stop propaganda crimes.

Google Plans Free WiFi for San Francisco

Google sent shivers down the spines of cable and telecom executives yesterday with the announcement of plans to provide free wireless internet services to San Franciscans.

The plan, one of many proposed to the city, would offer free access to more than 750,000 Bay Area residents, potentially slicing into profits of entrenched local broadband providers, SBC and Comcast, that now offer high-speed Internet at costs from $25 to $70 a month. To compete in the thick of Google's "Wifi cloud," these incumbents would have to slash prices, increase speeds and improve services.

Throughout the summer, speculation over Google's designs on America's broadband market has shaken a sector that is still controlled by a handful of giant cable and telephone companies. These internet service providers are loath to lose their hold on a market that, according to the Telecommunications Industry Association, could yield $212.5 billion in revenues by 2008.

Media reports in September suggested that Google is seeking to offer broadband access on a national scale. Sources contacted by mediacitizen believed that the company was merely trying to pump its stock value in anticipation of a massive offloading of shares by founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Google's share price has soared from $85 when it was floated last year to more than $320 this week.

The company's announcement for San Francisco adds fuel to the fire. The wireless proposal aims to reach the city's handheld organizers, computers or mobile phone devices, from the financial district to low-income neighborhoods. While a Google spokesperson said that the company didn't "have any plans to expand this community service beyond the (San Francisco) Bay Area," others suspect its desires run further afield.

Building a national broadband network massive enough to rival even the country's biggest Internet service providers would require an investment in the tens of billions. Business 2.0 reports that Google is already gathering the fiber backbone for such a system. Over the past year, it has quietly been shopping for miles and miles of "dark," or unused, fiber-optic cable across the country from wholesalers such as New York’s AboveNet, Cogent Communications and WilTel.

By mapping the elusive final mile using affordable WiFi systems and working with city networks, Google could leapfrog lumbering cable and DSL providers into American homes and save on a significant portion of infrastructure costs. With its announcement for San Francisco, it's become clear that Google has opted to bridge the divide using more affordable Wireless technology.

Still, the shift from search engine to national ISP would require an overhaul of Google's corporate culture. Anything is possible for a company with mountains of cash, extremely positive brand recognition and a market capitalization of more than $88 billion. But, essentially, Google is several smart engineers and marketing people sitting on massive warehouse of web servers. Google has made bold moves in the past, but none has so significantly changed their way of doing business.

Perhaps, even more significant an impact will be felt by the likes of the competition. Comcast, Verizon, Qwest and SBC had long been planning to boost their bottom line by hoarding the billion dollar broadband market. But hundreds of locally-based services, many of which are public-private partnerships have rushed in where the large incumbents have failed, meeting America's broadband needs with local networks.

The explosion of "Community Internet" initiatives was documented recently by the media reformers at Free Press with the release of a national database that maps more than 270 Community Internet projects across the country. The map is the most comprehensive list of such projects available. It shows projects operated by local governments, partnerships, schools, non-profits and community groups. It includes wireless mesh networks, fiber to the home systems, and those using broadband over power lines.

Over the year, the largest cable and DSL providers have attempted to squash local initiatives by introducing prohibitive legislation in statehouses across the ocountry. In May, Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX) sponsored a House bill that would "prohibit municipal governments from offering telecommunications, information, or cable services." Sessions -- who was a 16-year SBC executive prior to taking office -- still owns more than half a million dollars worth of stock options in the telephone giant; his wife, Juanita, works for the company.

In June, a more credible piece of legislation was introduced by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). Their "Community Broadband Act of 2005" would specifically permit municipalities to offer low-cost broadband service and overturn all state legislation prohibiting municipal broadband systems.

Should Google decide to charge into the space, the broadband dynamic -- both in the marketplace and on Capitol Hill -- would take on a radically new dimension.

Peek-a-Boo President

Project Censored has released its annual survey of “The News That Didn’t Make the News.” Atop their list is an under-reported story about under-reporting: Karen Lightfoot’s investigation of the Bush administration’s quiet efforts to cloak the government in secrecy and disembowel the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that once provided citizens with a measure of access to government secrets.

FOIA, signed into law by President Johnson in 1966, enshrined the public's right to review federal documents. It has since become the victim of a government that would rather veil its operations from the people it's meant to serve.

Lightfoot writes: “the Bush Administration simply fails to respond to FOIA requests at all. Whether this is simply an inordinate delay or an unstated final refusal to respond to the request, the requesting party is never told. But the effect is the same: the public is denied access to the information.”

This issue came to my attention soon after the Armstrong Williams scandal broke at the beginning of the year. Williams was the center of a media controversy when USA Today discovered that his frequent TV appearances -- posing as an objective journalist touting Bush policies -- were, in fact, paid for by the White House. Melanie Sloan of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) fired off FOIA requests to 22 federal agencies, seeking official evidence of similar "payola pundit" arrangements between the executive branch and PR firms. She faces an uphill challenge, though, as the Bush administration has thrown up a bureaucratic maze.

A Sept 2005 report by OpenTheGovernment.org found that the government continues to expand secrecy across a broad array of government action. Perhaps most alarming, the report describes at least 50 types of designations the government now uses to restrict unclassified information deemed “sensitive but unclassified.”

"Many of these numerous terms are duplicative, vague, and endanger the protection of necessary secrets by allowing excessive secrecy to prevail in our open society," according to the report

In their 2004 annual survey, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) provide a rundown of actions taken by public officials to turn basic government information into state secrets. RCFP executive director Lucy Dalglish says that many Bush administration actions were designed to undermine the Act.

Since September 11, 2001, rollbacks to access have included striking the release of names of terrorism-suspect detainees to library information on bodies of water.

The change in attitude can be traced straight to the top, as seen in the policy statement released by Attorney General John Ashcroft in October 2001 that has come to be known as "The Ashcroft Memorandum." Dalglish writes: "A month and a day after the events of September 11, [Ashcroft] revoked what had been a seemingly permissive Clinton-era Freedom of Information Act instruction to federal agencies. He issued his own: a hard-nosed missive that promised agencies that if there were any 'sound legal basis' for withholding information from FOIA requesters, the Justice Department would support the withholding."

"The memorandum emboldened federal agencies in using exemptions more often and to use other tactics to prevent FOIA requests from being fulfilled," Says James Benton, Legislative Representative for public advocacy group Common Cause. Now some FOIA requests can take up to ten years to be fulfilled, Benton says.

Dalglish and her journalist members hoped that the government's post-September 11 move toward non-disclosure would be viewed as temporary or emergency measures: "Unfortunately, that has not been the case. Led by secrecy-loving officials in the executive branch, secrecy in the United States government is now the norm."

Since President Bush entered office, there has been a more than 75% increase in the amount of government information classified as secret each year. Based upon information collected by the Information Security Oversight Office, the total number of classification decisions increased from 9 million in FY 2001 to 11 million in FY 2002, 14 million in FY 2003 and 16 million in FY 2004."

"Yet an even more aggressive form of government information control has gone un-enumerated and often unrecognized in the Bush era, as government agencies have restricted access to unclassified information in libraries, archives, Web sites, and official databases," writes Steven Aftergood, director of the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.

Recently, there have been some encouraging signs that FOIA might get back some teeth. On Feb. 16, Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced the OPEN Government Act to force agencies to pay legal costs in more cases when faced with a lawsuit over improperly withheld records.

The bill, S. 394, would also make the federal Freedom of Information Act easier to use when the public seeks documents from government. It would make several changes in the way the government handles FOIA requests, including creating an ombudsperson to review agency responses to FOIA requests, and establishing a tracking system for the public to check the status of requests. The House version is H.R. 867.

"[The Act] is one way to undo some of the damage caused by the 'Ashcroft Memorandum,'" Benton says. More public support of the legislation could push it through.

Broadband: Coming to a Town Near You

Free Press today unveiled extensive new online resources designed to educate the public and foster development of “Community Internet” projects around the country.

In recent years, dozens of local communities have started providing high-speed broadband service to their citizens through a variety of wired and wireless technologies. Hundreds more cities and towns have municipal broadband systems on the drawing board.

Despite aggressive lobbying efforts by big telephone and cable companies to derail these projects, Community Internet is thriving.

Efforts to restore communications in the wake of Hurricane Katrina have brought greater attention to these systems from public officials. Wireless networks were the only means available for communications among New Orleans city officials after their satellite phones failed. In addition, wireless networks were quickly established at shelters after the storm and are being used to help evacuees locate and communicate with loved ones at distant locations.

Free Press' interactive map links to short profiles of more than 270 Community Internet projects across the country. The map is the most comprehensive list of Community Internet and municipal broadband projects available. It shows projects operated by local governments, public-private partnerships, schools, non-profits and community groups. It includes wireless mesh networks, fiber to the home systems, and those using broadband over power lines.

“Community Internet is the future of all communications,” said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press. “In the near future, all media -- TV, telephone and the Web -- will be delivered to our homes via a broadband connection. These innovative projects are closing the digital divide and bringing much-needed competition to the broadband market.”

Big telecom and cable companies have responded by furiously working to slam the door on Community Internet. The telephone and cable giants are trying to use their lobbying clout in state capitals to pre-empt localities from offering the service, keep prices high and preclude competition. Fourteen states now have laws on the books restricting municipal broadband. Five states approved anti-municipal broadband measures in 2005. But in nine other states, attempts to restrict Community Internet were either defeated or delayed indefinitely.

The fight over Community Internet is now moving to Capitol Hill. Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) recently introduced the Community Broadband Act of 2005 (S. 1294), which would “preserve and protect the ability of local governments to provide broadband capability and services.”

Free Press is mobilizing support of the bill, urging our members to contact their senators and ask them to co-sponsor the legislation. “The Community Broadband Act would ensure that local communities everywhere can decide for themselves how to best serve the technology needs of their citizens,” Scott said.

Google Wi-Fi

Google.net may be coming to a neighborhood near you. According to a recent press reports the world's leading search engine may change its game to offer broadband access nationwide. One catch, they would have to build a broadband network massive enough to rival even the country's biggest Internet service providers.

They plan to map the elusive final mile, however, using municipal WiFi systems, a move that could leapfrog lumbering cable and DSL providers into American homes.

Google's plans could tie into municipal efforts to expand Wi-Fi. Dozens of municipalities of all sizes are looking to install citywide Wi-Fi access as a way to get broadband to more people. To learn more about a municipal broadband service near you visit Free Press.

Business 2.0 reports that Google is already building the fiber backbone for such a system: "For the past year, it has quietly been shopping for miles and miles of 'dark,' or unused, fiber-optic cable across the country from wholesalers such as New York’s AboveNet. It's also acquiring superfast connections from Cogent Communications and WilTel, among others, between East Coast cities including Atlanta, Miami, and New York."

That's a lot of fiber, especially for an Internet company that has no experience or means to maintain hardware stretched over thousands of miles.

Essentially, Google is several smart engineers and marketing people sitting on massive warehouse of web servers. Transitioning from that to an ISP with nationally distributed hardware and customer service infrastructure will require billions of dollars in startup -- and a complete overhaul of corporate culture.

Google has made bold moves in the past, but none has so significantly changed their way of doing business -- with an emphasis shift from clicks to mortar.

They can save some related costs, however, with WiFi into homes and businesses. And according to a report yesterday in Investor's Business Daily, that's exactly what they're doing: "Its latest project: security software for accessing the Internet wirelessly via the popular Wi-Fi standard. The new software works with Google's limited free Wi-Fi service."

A source inside Google says they're looking more intently at, first, building localized networks in major metropolitan areas. They have already created a hot spot service that is limited to parts of the San Francisco Bay Area but have proposed a free service for the whole city.

"All you would need would be a Wi-Fi-equipped laptop and, boom, you're on the Internet for free," Greg Sterling, an analyst with the research firm Kelsey Group, told the Investor's Daily. "Think about the brand Microsoft has built being on every desktop, and Google doing the same by providing free Internet access. It could become a next-generation service provider."

With Google in the market, the broadband dynamic could change once more. The cable/telecom duopoly would become more vulnerable with each passing week.

Either way, high-speed Internet service is gearing up to become corporate battle royale. Get off the sidelines and stake your claim to affordable and ubiquitous broadband.

SEPT 19 REPORT: Google Plans National Optical Fiber Network

Google is reviewing bids from tech vendors to build a nationwide optical DWDM network, which means that the cash-flush web giant could soon have a communications network that few can rival. The vendors who have seen Google’s fiber network RFP say that the nature of the network can really only mean that Google ultimately hopes to push massive amounts of voice, video and data close to the end user. The perennial problem is that close is not enough — to reach the end user, Google has to have access to the last mile. WiFi would be the answer.

Timothy Karr responds -- Oct 19, 05

Thanks for writing Gregg. I will take you up on that beer. Seriously.

I am disturbed by the number of people who have misread my post as an attack on the troops. I'm more concerned, however, that the Pentagon and the White House are using you and your fellow soldiers as bit players in a deceptive political scheme.

The Thursday event came across very poorly in mainstream media -- as though it were a desperate White House bid to reverse the president's decline in public opinion polls. I have watched the raw feed several times and wasn't the least bit convinced.

It's clear that the intent of the White House was to have troops spin the war for political gain. I base my assumptions upon a preponderance of evidence (laid out in this and other posts on MediaCitizen) and on considerable expertise in government propaganda techniques (related to my work at FreePress.net and collaboration with the Center for Media and Democracy).

This White House is fearful of dissenting views. Their control extends well beyond "frank" conversations with the troops to "town hall" meetings and press events in the US, where Bush’s handlers pre-screen all participants based upon their loyalty to the president.

While your words may have been heartfelt, it's clear that you were selected to deliver them because of your previous comments in media -- particularly those reported by Chattanooga Times-Free Press correspondent Edward Lee Pitts.

I'm not questioning your sincerity as much as I question the ways the White House uses soldiers as fodder to accomplish a partisan end.

If you believe in Bush's cause, then you might not have a problem playing a part in this deception. But what occurred on Thursday, was in no way an honest and balanced assessment of the situation on the ground in Iraq. They orchestrated this event to pull the wool over the eyes of the media – and by extension the American public.

It was a staged event. The White House needed only to present it for what it was. I can excuse them for dopey PR. I can't excuse them for trying, once again, to fool Americans about this war.

There are many who don't share your optimism about our prospects for a peaceful handover and exit from Iraq. Some are soldiers who, like you, are stationed in country. I have read their letters, blogs and listened to some of their speeches.

If Bush wanted to have a frank and honest discussion with the troops, why not include more diverse perspectives. Instead, the White House gave us an event that further highlighted this president's inability to consider any other view than his own.

I applaud the work that you are doing to ensure a peaceful future for that country.

Godspeed.

Tim.

P.S. -- fixed the 2003 reference. My Bad.

-- Read Lt Murphy's comments
-- Return to original post

First Lt Gregg Murphy -- Oct 19, 2005

Tim,

I noticed a few inconsistencies with your page. I wonder how I was quoted praising Bush in 2003, when I didn't arrive in country (Iraq) or make any comments prior to December 2004.

Some other interesting factoids that your blog missed: I am a registered Democrat. I have voted that way for the past 12 years. Not until my recent deployment have my views started moving over to the right.

The reason I support Bush, is because Bush supports all of us over here. We are using the latest and greatest equipment, our families are better protected by a higher death benefits and health insurances, our pay is higher than ever, and the President fixes shortcomings that we tell him about – up armored tactical vehicles.

If you really look at my record you will find that I am a recent Bush convert. I've learned that hindsight is 20-20, at least in my political views. A wise man once said that "if you're not a liberal at age 20 you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by age 30 you have no brains.

I'm sorry that the improvements of the Iraqi Army and other Iraqi Security Forces is not as evident to you as they are to me. My unit has logged over 15,000 man hours this year training the Iraqi Army. Our police teams have logged over 6,000. They are getting better at their jobs, we've invested a lot to make that happen.

I'm sorry that I cannot agree with your assessment of the interview we had with Mr. Bush. Your view assumes too much. You have not given enough evidence to support your claims.

There were 10 American soldiers present to know better. More importantly, there are millions of Americans who hear your opinions yet remain steadfast in their support of the President.

I'm really disapointed that assumptions have been made by you and others, which you have no possible way of verifying without speaking to any one of us.

Poor journalism works the same way, it doesn't seek the truth by knowing all sides of a situation. You have your opinion, and I have mine. That's one of the things that kes America great. If you're ever in Chattanooga, look me up. I'll buy you a beer at Big River and tell you my side of the story.

Respectfully, G.M.

-- Read Tim Karr's response

-- Return to original post

Google WiFi

Google.net may be coming to a neighborhood near you. According to a recent press reports the world's leading search engine may change its game to offer broadband access nationwide. One catch, they would have to build a broadband network massive enough to rival even the country's biggest Internet service providers.

READ THE UPDATE:
Big Broadband Shudders at Google's Plans for Free Wifi

They plan to map the elusive final mile, however, using municipal WiFi systems, a move that could leapfrog lumbering cable and DSL providers into American homes.

Google's plans could tie into municipal efforts to expand Wi-Fi. Dozens of municipalities of all sizes are looking to install citywide Wi-Fi access as a way to get broadband to more people. To learn more about a municipal broadband service near you visit Free Press.

Business 2.0 reports that Google is already building the fiber backbone for such a system: "For the past year, it has quietly been shopping for miles and miles of 'dark,' or unused, fiber-optic cable across the country from wholesalers such as New York’s AboveNet. It's also acquiring superfast connections from Cogent Communications and WilTel, among others, between East Coast cities including Atlanta, Miami, and New York."

That's a lot of fiber, especially for an Internet company that has no experience or means to maintain hardware stretched over thousands of miles.

Essentially, Google is several smart engineers and marketing people sitting on massive warehouse of web servers. Transitioning from that to an ISP with nationally distributed hardware and customer service infrastructure will require billions of dollars in startup -- and a complete overhaul of corporate culture.

Google has made bold moves in the past, but none has so significantly changed their way of doing business -- with an emphasis shift from clicks to mortar.

They can save some related costs, however, with WiFi into homes and businesses. And according to a report in Investor's Business Daily, that's exactly what they're doing: "Its latest project: security software for accessing the Internet wirelessly via the popular Wi-Fi standard. The new software works with Google's limited free Wi-Fi service."

A source inside Google says they're looking more intently at, first, building localized networks in major metropolitan areas. They have already created a hot spot service that is limited to parts of the San Francisco Bay Area but have proposed a free service for the whole city.

"All you would need would be a Wi-Fi-equipped laptop and, boom, you're on the Internet for free," Greg Sterling, an analyst with the research firm Kelsey Group, told the Investor's Daily. "Think about the brand Microsoft has built being on every desktop, and Google doing the same by providing free Internet access. It could become a next-generation service provider."

With Google in the market, the broadband dynamic could change once more. The cable/telecom duopoly would become more vulnerable with each passing week.

Either way, high-speed Internet service is gearing up to become corporate battle royale. Get off the sidelines and stake your claim to affordable and ubiquitous broadband.

SEPT 19 REPORT: Google Plans National Optical Fiber Network

Google is reviewing bids from tech vendors to build a nationwide optical DWDM network, which means that the cash-flush web giant could soon have a communications network that few can rival. The vendors who have seen Google’s fiber network RFP say that the nature of the network can really only mean that Google ultimately hopes to push massive amounts of voice, video and data close to the end user. The perennial problem is that close is not enough — to reach the end user, Google has to have access to the last mile. WiFi would be the answer.

Verizon's Back Yard Sermon

I delivered this speech across the street from Verizon Communications headquarters near Times Square. The event was part of Andrew Rasiej's campaign for New York City Public Advocate. It was a joy to stand beside Andrew, in the shadow of Verizon's glass and steel monolith, and sling a couple of stones:

Thank you . . .

High-speed Internet service is no longer a luxury. As it becomes a necessity for all Americans, control of this vital service has fallen into the hands of fewer and fewer corporations.

This consolidation of broadband power is not through the natural ebb and flow of the free market, but through political influence-peddling by corporations who seek to monopolize the multibillion-dollar industry.

Today, we stand before the headquarters of one of the biggest influence-peddlers of them all.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, Verizon Communications, Inc. has spent more than $12 million on political candidates and party committees since 1998. Add to this the more than $82 million Verizon spent on political lobbyists.

For New Yorkers, Verizon’s million-dollar shopping spree means fewer choices, higher costs and slower speeds.

It’s the same across the country. Over the past two years, this company has bought up politicians in statehouses, Congress and the FCC to support Verizon-friendly policies that eliminate ISP competitors, squashes local broadband alternatives and bar towns and cities across the country from providing citizens their own high-speed Internet services.

In the past three years, American broadband prices have not declined and speeds have not increased. That’s unheard of in a technology market unless it’s monopoly controlled.

Over the same time, America has dropped to 16th in the world in broadband penetration, falling behind countries such as South Korea, Canada and Japan – nations that have drafted national broadband policies, which involve strong public-private sector initiatives, open access and healthy competition.

“Broadband Reality Check” – a report just released by Free Press, The Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America and available at http://www.freepress.net/ – reveals that the cost of broadband in other countries has dropped dramatically while speeds have increased. On a per megabit basis, U.S. consumers pay 10 to 25 times more than broadband users in Japan.

The fallout of Internet price gouging is a growing digital divide in cities like New York and across the country. Today, 200 million Americans are without high-speed Internet services. More than five million of those without broadband are New Yorkers.

The growing digital divide is the direct result of Verizon-purchased policies that stifle competition in the name of deregulation. But there’s no deregulation going on. Instead, the future of communications is being regulated on behalf of telecom and cable giants like Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner and SBC.

These are policies that we’re bought and paid for by companies that have only one interest in mind.

You see, Verizon is not in the business of “working for you” as their ads claim.

Verizon is in the business of selling out customers to line their pockets.

And it’s beginning to show.

The rising cost of broadband combined with spotty services for urban and rural communities has resulted in declining customer faith in broadband companies like Verizon and Comcast. These companies, now rate at the bottom of this year’s American Consumer Satisfaction Index. The problem for frustrated customers is they have few other choices for broadband. For New Yorkers wanting DSL, indeed, it’s Verizon or the highway.

As Verizon buys up politicians to loosen oversight and deregulate the broadband industry, costs escalate, the digital divide widens and customer service declines.

That’s why hundreds of communities, towns, and neighborhoods across the country are building their own broadband networks, scrapping the shoddy service and high prices of the telecom and cable companies.

These “Community Internet” projects are being developed from Philadelphia to Portland, San Francisco to Chicago. They're good for local economies. They’re already up and running in small towns like Scottsburg, Indiana and Chaska, Minnesota.

But why not in New York?

Fortunately, we have a committed community leader in Andrew Rasiej -- a man who is determined to provide New Yorkers with a broadband alternative.

Andrew’s plan for citywide wireless service recognizes that New Yorkers need more broadband choices. He understands that we need to break down price gouging monopolies and build up a low-cost wireless Internet system for all New Yorkers.

Rasiej's plan for WiFi New York is based on the experiences of Philadelphia and other municipalities that developed unique public private partnerships that bridge the digital divide. A similar network here in New York would provide basic broadband service for $20 a month, with discounts for low-income residents and students.

The only way this situation is going to change is with leaders who understand that technology is critical to communities and enact policies that get everyone connected in the Information Age.

It's time New Yorkers had the courage to stand up against Big Telecom and fight for our right to get connected. Supporting community internet projects like WiFi New York is one way we can win.

The Death of a Politician

Frank Rich's column in the Sunday New York Times is burning up the blogosphere. It's a concise and powerful statement of what many of us -- on both the right and left -- have known for some time: The war has become a quagmire of Bush's creation; the president (by failing to acknowledge his mistakes) has lost all moral authority.

The country is turning against Bush and the political fallout is beginning to spread. An Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults found approval of Bush's handling of Iraq, which had been hovering in the low- to mid-40s most of the year, dipped to 38 percent in early August. More than 55 percent said they disapproved of his overall performance as president.

Rich's strength is in distilling the American cultural landscape into a written certainty:

Nothing that happens on the ground in Iraq can turn around the fate of this war in America . . . What lies ahead now in Iraq instead is not victory, which Mr. Bush has never clearly defined anyway, but an exit (or triage) strategy that may echo Johnson's March 1968 plan for retreat from Vietnam . . .

The sputtering of the right's message machine is itself a testament to Rich's dead aim. The right blogosphere can only point fingers, wave the flag and blame the messenger. Their A-list of on-air bloviators can turn up their spittle and volume but none can challenge Rich on the facts. At last, history is catching up with histrionics.

They know as well as any political observer that the president's second term is on life support. No combination of spin from O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity or Limbaugh can put Bush II back together again. Americans are already looking elsewhere for leaders who can re-assess our fight against terrorism and restore faith in our intentions. This message of popular discontent with Bush is piercing the mainstream media "filter" and seeping through the cracks in the right establishment.

With mid-term elections looming, the president could become a liability for Republicans seeking office in '06.

I had been thinking about the predicament LBJ faced in 1968 -- the escalation of an un-winnable war in Vietnam -- which forced him not to seek nor accept the nomination for re-election. LBJ understood what GWB cannot -- that there comes a time when a leader has to put the best interests of the country before politics, remove himself from the political process and own up to his own failures.

Bush, however, is entirely a political creation. You separate the politics from his DNA and he evaporates like a Texas mirage. There's no man behind the façade -- no human capacity to make a decision that isn't calculated to benefit those few who propped him up as a leader. Admitting his mistakes, would be political suicide. If you kill the politician, you're left with a hollow shell.

Bush has no option but to ride his ship of state to the bottom. But how many more of us -- Americans, Iraqis and others -- is he going to sacrifice before his dismal turn at the wheel is up?

Rich's indictment is helping right what's been wrong with the White House for too long. His column is going viral (according to technorati and the Times' own email counter) adding weight to the evidence -- real, anecdotal and editorial -- that's tipping history's ballast against a politician who isn't man enough to face the facts.

Broadband Through a Rose-Tinted Lens

New report disputes FCC claim that
U.S. "leads the world" in broadband,
calls for universal and affordable access

Despite the rosy picture painted by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, access to affordable, high-speed Internet in America lags far behind the rest of the digital world. A new report released today at Free Press shows that Martin's glowing appraisal of broadband in America glossed over the serious problem of our ever-widening digital divide.

In a "wildly optimistic" July 7 Wall Street Journal editorial, Chairman Martin claims, "the dramatic growth in broadband services . . . proves that we are well on our way to accomplishing the president’s goal of universal, affordable access to broadband by 2007.”

By overstating broadband availability, Martin is trying to erect a façade of success that maintain the status quo -- a broadband service sector dominated by predatory cable and telecom giants -- at the expense of American consumers.

If the president’s goal of universal, affordable high-speed Internet access is to be achieved in two years, policymakers in Washington must change course. And Chairman Martin tops the list of those in need of a reality check.

The new report authored by Free Press research fellow S. Derek Turner, depicts a more accurate state of the broadband union:

• The FCC overstates broadband penetration rates. The FCC report considers a ZIP code covered by broadband service if just one person subscribes. No consideration is given to price, speed or availability of that connection throughout the area.
  
  
• The FCC misrepresents exactly how many connections are “high-speed.” The FCC defines “high-speed” as 200 kilobits per second, barely enough to receive low-quality streaming video and far below what other countries consider to be a high-speed connection.
  
  
• The United States remains 16th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. The United States also ranks 16th in terms of broadband growth rates, suggesting our world ranking won’t improve any time soon.
  
  
• Despite FCC claims, digital divide persists and is growing wider. Nearly 60 percent of households with incomes over $150,000 annually have broadband access, compared to just 10 percent of households with incomes below $25,000. In addition, broadband penetration in urban and suburban in areas is double that of rural areas.
  
  
• Reports of a broadband “price war” are bogus. Analysis of “low-priced” introductory offers by companies like SBC and Comcast reveal them to be little more than bait-and-switch gimmicks. On a per megabit basis, U.S. consumers pay 10 to 25 times more than broadband users in Japan.
  
  
• The FCC ignores the lack of competition in the broadband market. Cable and DSL providers control almost 98 percent of the residential and small-business broadband market. Yet the FCC recently eliminated “open access” requirements for DSL that represented the only true competition in the broadband market.

FCC is trying to put the best face on these problems it can. Its new chairman, like his predecessor Michael Powell, seems all too eager to please powerful media giants -- such as Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner and SBC -- who routinely strong arm regulators to pass policies that eliminate local choices and competition for Internet services. It's an insider's game of corporate and political influence peddling that leaves consumers paying more for less.

As my colleagues Craig Aaron and Ben Scott wrote at TomPaine.com last month:

Powell may be gone, but the FCC still doesn’t get it. Their answer to anti-competitive practices -- which have left two-thirds of American households without broadband connections -- is to reward the cable and telephone industry dinosaurs with sweetheart policies that make a mockery of the free market and undercut any serious commitment to solving our technology woes.

The Free Press report exposes the Chairman's misleading rhetoric for what it is: an attempt to hand over control of last mile of the Internet -- and the hundreds of billions of dollars in annual service revenues that go with it -- to an oligopoly of media companies.

But fudging the facts won’t provide high-speed Internet access to those who need it most. With 200 million Americans still without broadband access, the FCC needs to open up more broadcast spectrum to wireless internet applications and remove restrictions from public entities that seek to offer broadband services to their citizens.

If the FCC is content to let cable and phone companies control the broadband market, then consumers need more options. Wireless broadband, which is less expensive and doesn’t depend on DSL or cable modems, offers one best way to close the digital divide.

Another prospect is broadband over power lines, still under development in a number of pilot locations.

Novak Walks the Walk

Robert Novak can flee from the cameras, but where can he hide? Many, in and out of the blogosphere, report that the embattled right-wing columnist has few options left.

In an appearance on CNN's Inside Politics on Thursday, Novak stormed off the set after cursing Democratic strategist James Carville.

It's clear that Carville had little to do with Novak's departure. The Democratic strategist had described Novak's as trying to "show these right-wingers that he's got backbone, you know. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you. Show 'em you're tough."

Novak responded, "I think that's bullshit, and I hate that," and exited stage right.

Bloggers from left to right, however, judge the Carville prodding as typical partisan banter for a show of this sort. Other factors must have caused this cable pundit to come unhinged.

Host Ed Henry had planned to end the segment by asking Novak about his role in the Plame leak investigation. "Hopefully, we'll be able to ask him about that in the future," Henry explained to his viewing audience after Novak's exit.

Jay Rosen of Press Think speculates:

Novak "was in an impossible position every time he went on the air to talk politics. If he met his duty to himself (by not speaking up while the Plame case was open) then he could not meet his duty to his peers and his profession. . . Novak knew that dodging his colleague Ed Henry was no longer going to work. He solved a problem for himself, and for CNN with his theatre of phony rage.

Indeed, Novak, as someone who claims to be a journalist, had painted himself into a corner. But he has been taking heat from other quarters as well.

On Thursday, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania publicly blasted Novak for "falsely and maliciously" libeling staffer Bettilou Taylor after Novak wrote a column that critiqued Specter's performance during a Senate hearing.

The hard right's disdain for Specter is well known – making Novak's ascerbic column less than unusual -- but the GOP's anti-Novak club doesn't end with the Senator. The columnist is being pilloried by right establishment figures including strategists within the White House sausage factory. According to a source in the DC press corps, Bush's communications office sees Novak as a walking time bomb set to explode when least convenient to their boss. They would much rather see Novak disappear quietly beneath the toxic sludge of the Potomac.

If this is true, it would appear that the right have begun to eat their own -- and that Novak is now among the hunted.

And only yesterday the Plame-Rove-Novak case was slipping towards the back pages. Thanks to Novak, it's now burning up the blogosphere -- a fire that threatens to jump lines to the mainstream.

For its part CNN called his behavior "inexcusable and unacceptable" and asked Novak "to take some time off."

SIDEBAR: Jon Stewart puts it all in perspective. B&C gives a historical rundown of famous on-air meltdowns but forgets to mention personal favorite Brigitte Quinn.

Sony Fakes It, Again

Sony can't seem to handle the truth. Instead of offering legitimate fare the media giant is paying off broadcasters and fabricating reviews to tart up their media products and push them on an unsuspecting public.

Late last month, Sony agreed to pay $10 million for payola improprieties after they were found to have funneled millions to radio broadcasters who bumped Sony artists to the top of playlists. If you were surprised that your local station exhumed Celine Dion from pop obscurity in 2003 -- following five years without a hit -- wonder no further. Sony had bribed radio stations with money and prizes in exchange for frequent airplay of two tracks from Dion's latest.

And the hits keep on coming. This week, Sony agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle a lawsuit accusing the studio of citing a fake movie critic in ads for several films.

In 2001, Sony's faux reviewer of choice, a David Manning of the Ridgefield Press, heaped praise atop their cinematic stinkers, including Hollow Man, which he declared had "the summer's best special effects!" The Animal starring Saturday Night Live castaway Rob Schneider was "another winner" as seen through Manning's benevolent lens. More than 700 viewers at Yahoo!'s news group graded this "winner" with a less favorable C+. Manning was one of very few critics to reserve kind words for 2000's Vertical Limit, a movie that I saw in theaters (true confession) and liked. In an ad for A Knight's Tale, Manning was quoted calling actor Heath Ledger ''this year's hottest new star!''

The Ridgefield Press, a small weekly newspaper in Connecticut, has never had a movie critic named David Manning. No matter for Sony. The company's brilliant legal team attempted to cloak Sony's misleading practices in the First Amendment, citing the media giant's Constitutional right to lie to consumers. A California court of appeal threw out this feeble defense, ruling that faux reviews counted as commercial speech and were, therefore, not protected by the Amendment.

Indeed. It's called "truth in advertising" and it's enshrined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, which states:

• advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
• advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
• advertisements cannot be unfair.

In the fallout since the Manning farce came to light in 2001, the fictional critic has launched his own blog where you can read reviews.

Posters over at the Onion's "AV Club" eulogized Manning today, speculating what the ghost of this fake critic would have to say about more recent Hollywood flops.

Duped audiences who paid for Manning's top picks during their original theater runs can now file a claim for a $5 per ticket reimbursement, according to the lawyer who brought the suit against the studio.

Bush Losing the War against Time

Bush is losing the war of public opinion, according to a new poll by Ipsos, an international polling firm. The timing couldn't be worse for the White House. With mid-term elections looming, the president could become a liability for Republicans seeking office in '06. If opinion continues to plummet -- as more Americans see Iraq for the quagmire it's become -- Bush Republicans' prospects for 2008 are also at risk. A McCain who distances himself from this administration may prove the GOP antidote to Bushitis.

Snippets from the Ipsos poll (1,000 adults conducted Aug. 1-3):

1. Approval of Bush's handling of Iraq, which had been hovering in the low- to mid-40s most of the year, dipped to 38 percent.

2. Bush's overall job approval was at 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving.

3. The portion of people who consider Bush honest has dropped slightly from January, with 48 percent saying he's honest and 50 percent saying he's not. The drop in the number of people who see Bush as honest was strongest among middle-aged Americans as well as suburban women, a key voting group in the 2004 election.

4. The portion of people who view his confidence as arrogance has increased from 49 percent in January to 56 percent now.

5. Six in 10 said they think the country is headed down the wrong track, despite some encouraging economic news in recent weeks.

The wheels of history continue to pull this administration under.

Ann Coulter 'Has the Media'

Big media's favorite "public intellectual," turns on her kind to admit that their "liberal media" mantra is nothing more than right-wing lip service.

During Sean Hannity's show on Tuesday, Coulter explained to neo-nanny Brent Bozell that President Bush should have turned further right than Roberts in his choice for the Supreme Court. The right would win this appointment because “we have the media now,” Coulter explains to a nodding Sean Hannity (What better confirmation). Hannity's own version of "objectivity and balance" is to pit Coulter against Bozell, giving his lucky listeners a broad sampling of political views in this debate.

Thanks Ann, Brent and Sean, I couldn't have said it more succinctly myself.

Audio courtesy of Oliver W.

Find the Flak

The following story appeared in the Albany Times Union in June. Lurking midst the report is a paid flak for the military. Mssgr O'Brien failed to let his readers in on this little secret. Can you spot the interloper? For the answer, read "Media No Longer Taking Flak?"

= = = = =
Members of a division in mourning
return for a break from Iraq

By TIM O'BRIEN
Staff Writer Albany Times Union
Tuesday, June 21, 2005

TROY - Members of the 42nd Infantry Division say they hope the murder of two commanders, allegedly by one of their own, will not overshadow the hard work they are doing in Iraq.

Staff Sgt. Alberto B. Martinez, 37, of Schaghticoke, is charged with two counts of premeditated murder in the deaths of Capt. Phillip T. Esposito and 1st Lt. Louis E. Allen. Martinez is accused of using an explosive to kill the two leaders, then trying to make it look like an attack by insurgents.

On Monday, a few members of the 4,000-person 42nd Infantry Division returned from Iraq for two weeks of rest and relaxation. They arrived at noon at Albany International Airport to the welcoming arms of friends and family.

Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo, a 24-year Guard veteran, said she had met Martinez but was limited in her freedom to discuss him. "Other than hard-working, there is nothing I can say," she said.

"I can see where it's going to be a topic of conversation and interest. Personally, I just hope it doesn't taint the accomplishments the 42nd has made."

She described Esposito as a commander who cared for those he led. "Eight of 10 conversations I had with him were conversations about bringing his soldiers home safely," she said.

The infantry division is overseeing a force of 23,000 soldiers in an area the size of West Virginia. They have been working to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure, "everything from transportation to the power stations to rebuilding oil pipelines."

"A great deal of what we're doing is training the Iraqi forces so they can take over the mission," she said.

"Unfortunately, it seems the more efforts the coalition forces and the Iraqi forces do, we're still fighting terrorists that are causing problems."

Capt. Robert Giordano of Niskayuna said he too knew Martinez but could not discuss the case. "Obviously, our thoughts and prayers are with the families of Capt. Esposito and Lt. Allen," he said.

"We have a mission to do, and we're proud of what we're doing. I've seen news reports that say morale is low. It's garbage. Morale is doing well. I liked Sgt. Martinez. I can't talk about it. It's still under investigation."

Martinez is accused of using an explosive device to kill Esposito and Allen, then allegedly trying to camouflage the murders as an attack by insurgents. Martinez also has been accused of trying to cover up for a crime in a lawsuit he filed against an insurance company over a December 2002 fire that destroyed his home in Cohoes.

Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company contended the fire was arson, made to look like an electrical fire. Court papers show Martinez's co-workers at Watervliet Arsenal claimed he had said he might burn his home down if he could not sell it.

He also doubled the insurance policy coverage on the house, a move that took effect seven weeks before the fire, the court records show. The defense in the case, which is scheduled for trial in September, focuses on Martinez's financial troubles.

He had not paid his mortgage in four months, attorney Thomas O'Connor said in the documents. "Mr. Martinez was having difficulty making ends meet and, in fact, his gas and electricity service had been frequently terminated for nonpayment," he wrote.

During his stay home, Giordano said he planned to spend time with his family. It was his first visit home since being deployed in November. Lombardo, a Scotia resident, said she is grateful for the support she has received.

But she said she was especially happy to be home now, to celebrate both her wedding anniversary and her daughter's 12th birthday. And despite all the 42nd Infantry is enduring, Lombardo signed up for another six years the day before she left Iraq - two days after the charges against Martinez were announced.

"I enjoy what I'm doing over there and enjoy getting to know the Iraqi people," she said. "The support of my family has been tremendous."

Tim O'Brien can be reached at 454-5096 or tobrien@timesunion.com.

That Great Sucking Sound

That great sucking sound coming from your radio and TV is the deflation of American trust in the Fourth Estate. Increasingly obsessed with celebrity sensationalism and crime driven news, the mainstream media have created a vacuum into which is being dragged the credibility of the few remaining responsive and aggressive journalists -- people who provide the type of hard-hitting coverage this country desperately needs.

The Pew Research Center's latest survey on people and the press reveals a yawning gap between news credibility and its favorability, as growing numbers question the accuracy of the news they read, listen to and watch. These sentiments are echoed in the Project for Excellence in Journalism's annual report, "The State of the News Media."

"Credibility ratings for most major news outlets had reached a low ebb," the Pew reported in June 2004 (see News Audiences Increasingly Politicized). The latest survey adds to the decline and concludes that there is "a startling rise in the politicization of opinions on several measures" in the United States. The State of the News Media Report found that, from 1985 to 2002, the number of Americans who thought news organizations were highly professional declined from 72% to 49%.

Left in the lurch of media's downward turn is the hard-hitting news and investigative journalism that Americans need to shake up the powerful and challenge the status quo.

In a society where corporate and government priorities combine to control the political agenda, a forthright media is meant to serve as provocateur -- advocating for truth, speaking on behalf of disenfranchised, and using facts to shake undeserving elites from their higher perch.

Journalists who work on behalf of the public good, and against the blindly pro-corporate and government agenda of mainstream media, are being dragged down by a media system that has sold out good journalism to serve its bottom line.

Tom Fenton, in his 2005 book Bad News: The Decline of Reporting, the Business of News and the Danger to Us All, reports that the news industry – and in particular the networks – were once thought of as a public service.

Commercial news media have been commandeered by their corporate parents as a cash cow, argues Fenton. “None of the networks is talking about providing more international news, more context, or serving the American public better,” he writes. “Their vision is focused as always on the bottom line.”

This brand of news programming -- exemplified most recently by the proliferation of corporate- and government funded VNRs and “payola pundits” -- sends a message that the people who control the airwaves simply no longer understand their roles, not to mention their duty to the public.

Pew's report confirms the resulting public cynicism.

Karl Rove is chalking up another victory in the concerted campaign to dismantle and discredit dissenting views. The key to our response is to be both critical of the corporate news industry -- which has become a convenient if not undeserving target in the failure of public trust -- while fostering an empowered and independent news system to flush out Rove and his fellow rats, once and for all.

Propagandists Overrun Public Broadcasting

Listen to Democracy Now this morning. I'll be live at 8:15 with Amy Goodman to discuss the recent coronation of White House propagandist Patricia Harrison as president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

For those of you who don't know Ms. Harrison here's a primer: She presently serves as the State Department's Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs where her primary duties were to create media materials or "good news" that would help the Arab world better understand that the Iraqi occupation was in their own best interests.

Describing her role to the House International Relations Committee in August, Harrison said, "We are helping Arab and Muslim journalists produce balanced reports and documentaries on topics from policy to culture" as well as "'good news' stories on reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan that American and foreign news editors have incorporated in their programs."

These "balanced reports" are better known as "video news releases" or government propaganda dressed up as news in order to be covertly slipped into newscasts to help sway public opinion. You can learn more about this, "payola pundits" and other propaganda at my Free Press pages devoted to fighting fake news.

Together with CPB chair Kenneth Tomlinson, Harrison forms a formidable front in the ideological campaign to both gag and starve public broadcasting. They claim that their working to correct the perception of liberal bias at PBS, NPR and other public media. They want to help America by restoring "objectivity and balance" to our noncommercial media system.

Don't believe it. Tomlinson and Harrison use "objectivity and balance" in the same way that their counterparts at Fox News Channel use "fair and balanced." It's meant more as a provocation than statement of fact. It cloaks a real intention, which is to transform our Fourth Estate into the public relations wing of the White House. They have already coopted (or "embedded") many in commercial news media , now it's public broadcasting's turn.

You can help put a stop to Tomlinson, Harrison and their fellow propagandists by joining nearly 100,000 others who have signed Free Press' petition calling for his immediate resignation.

The fight for more independent, democratic and accountable media is fight is far from lost.

UPDATE: Watch the streaming video of the interview.

Deus Ex Machina

The formidable right-wing message machine is churning away on PBS.

There's a consistent tone to the talking points emanating from their chief bloviators. They figure that screaming "liberal bias" repeatedly and at volume will make it true. Unfortunately, mainstream media's echo chamber seems helpless to debunk their fact-challenged claims.

Dumb: Timothy Graham

[PBS wants] to create an empire that does not have to answer to the Congress or the people . . .Conservatives do not want to give more tax dollars to television stations that attack their ideas.

Dumber: Cliff Kincaid

[Moyers] had a show on PBS for three years. . . He is an admitted liberal partisan. Who did PBS have to balance him? Nobody. . . Tomlinson is coming under fire by the liberal elites who run PBS and NPR simply because he's trying to document the bias and do something about it.

Dumbest: George Neumayer

I do. I see a pervasive bias. PBS looks like a liberal monopoly to me, and Bill Moyers is Exhibit A of that very strident left-wing bias. . . . So I think the problem of bias is quite deep, and I applaud Ken Tomlinson for making an attempt to correct it.

These spin doctors, however, fail to muster an intelligent response to polls -- including those commissioned and conducted by Republicans -- that find an overwhelming majority (80%) of Americans believe PBS to be "fair and balanced".

Hey, don't let those facts get in the way of an effective barrage.