Government Control and the (In-)Dependent Media

Here in the US we can be proud of a long tradition of free media. The media is permitted to write what they like, as long as they adhere to accepted standards, especially in reporting the news unbiased and based on facts. The Media even have the right to criticize the government, and they can also report on issues that the government would rather keep from the American citizens. It's known as 'Freedom of the Press', and it is an ingrained principle of our democracy.

We treat that principle highly and even scold other countries that do not adhere to it. Recently Russia was the country often criticized by our leaders for its increase in government control over the media there. Other countries are criticized regularly as well, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.

However, the principle of free media is also assaulted in another part of the world, and this is not widely reported. I am talking about the United States here, and I am deeply worried about our 'Free Press'. Today I'll write about government influences, a later article will deal with self-censorship.

The (current) administration is surely no media darling. As such, it is subject to a lot of criticism, some of which may be justified, while some may be not. However, when truly critical stories appear the administration tries to influence what is actually reported. Press conferences are held, and the speaker of the White House or the Pentagon deliver their (biased) views, which are uncritically reported in many media outlets. Funny thing is that the information given by the administration is often false and many of those press conferences are pure propaganda. Accountability on the administrations side does not seem to be important, a lot of the original critical stories turn out to be correct after all. But Americans do not seem to care.

One specific and very illuminating case is the recent Newsweek report on the abuse of the Koran in Guantanamo Bay. Here is a timeline: (This is an abbreviated version, only news relevant to the media are covered. A full timeline can he found here (up to the retraction) and here.)

• May 2 : Newsweek reports the military is investigating the abuse of the Koran in Guantanamo
• The days following the report: No public reaction, and no challenge to the story
  
• May 11: Anti-American Protests in Afghanistan and Pakistan
• May 12: Condolezza Rice states that the Koran is treated with respect in the US. The military reports that no evidence of abuse has been found.
  
• May 12-15: mounting pressure on Newsweek (news stories, TV coverage etc.)
• May 15: Newsweek apologizes
• May 16: Newsweek retracts story
• May 16-22: Retraction is widely reported in around the world. Asian/Moslem News outlets claim that the retraction is a political maneuver and is not based on facts
  
• May 22: The Los Angeles Times reports about the abuse of the Koran in Guantanamo
• May 25: The ACLU releases details about the abuse, taken from government documents
• May 26: The Pentagon is forced to confirm that the Koran was abused in Guantanamo
  

So, it turns out the Newsweek story was correct in most parts after all. Why did they retract the story? The administration put a lot of pressure on Newsweek, forcing them to retract the story and to apologize for the deaths of innocent Afghans. All that while the administration knew that the Newsweek story is mostly correct, thus lying about the facts in Guantanamo and deceiving Americans.

What we have here is a story in which the government tried to force the media to stop reporting unpleasant news. The government showed no respect for the freedom of the press, even worse, it tried to force its own manipulated propaganda story on the media. The entire Newsweek incident shows that the government is trying to control the media, and does not take the freedom of the press very seriously. It also shows that our government does not care much about the truth.

Who lost in this story?

• Several people lost their lives.
• The administration lost its credibility when dealing with the media.
• Newsweek lost its credibility for accurate reporting, not for the story itself, but rather for backing down under government pressure and retracting the story
• The US lost further credibility in the world and will encounter more and more resistance to its claims (Iranian Nukes, Russian Free Media...)
• The American media, as it shows that they are susceptible to governmental pressure and deception.
  

'Freedom of the Press' is under assault in America. And we should start caring about it

Thank God for the ACLU. Seriously.

We should all be thankful for the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union. I think it is even right to thank God for this organization. Not only do they work to preserve the civil liberties of the average American, oh no, they are also helping to preserve that religious matters are taken seriously. And for that we should thank God.

The ACLUs effect is clearly felt this week, especially if you follow the news. The ACLU was the first to publish substantiated reports about the treatment of religious items in an American military prison. And that treatment was not good: the Holy Book was not treated with respect. So, lets thank God for the ACLUs effort to bring the issue to the light.

The Holy Book I am talking about is the Koran, which is more important to Muslims than the Bible is to Christians. And abusing such a Holy Item is clearly a sin, even if it is not a Holy Item in our religion. Such treatment and abuse brings shame to our faith, and we should not accept this. So let us thank God for the ACLU and pray for the sinners that abuse religious items in our name.

AI, AI, AI

Amnesty International (AI) released its 2005 report yesterday. And wants you to believe that Human Rights are in retreat. And they represent one country as an example that you wouldn't expect to see there: the United States of America.

So, we got on the list as the bad example, not the one to follow! How come? Here are some reasons:

• The president has unlimited and uncontrollable powers, as such he can declare anyone an 'enemy combatant', taking away their constitutional rights. (Only dictatorships permit similar measures.)
  
• The US does not apply justice equally, it wants its government and all people dealing on its behalf exempt from prosecution for crimes. Thus, the US does not participate in the International Criminal Court, even though all participants rights are as well protected as in the US judicial system. (Putting us at a level with Libya and China. Even Afghanistan recognizes the court now.)
• We permit detainment of any non-US citizen without access to the judicial system.
• Torture is used as a technique on detainees, even though it was renamed (now sensoric manipulation or putting detainees in stress situations/positions)
  
• The US randomly kidnaps what it considers suspects in the 'war on terror'. Those people are usually transferred to countries that permit torture, to better get 'information'. Several mishaps occurred: A German national was kidnapped and held, leading to tensions in US-German relations (similar problems with Italy). Other reports here and here.
  
• And, of course (its amnesty, what do you think), the death penalty and police brutality.

All that information actually went over our news channels, and (as with many other international news stories) I think correctly represents the facts. However, not that many people here in the US seem to care. Or to care enough, since those facts probably don't apply to you or anyone you know. Problem is that that's the start of human rights getting more and more elusive.

We may not think much about those stories, but America usually sets the standards in the world, and it would be a really bad example to set a low or weakening standard on human rights. I certainly like writing those lines without any fear of being jailed by my government tomorrow, and that should be so for everyone in the world. Sadly, that is not the case. The situation in other countries is much, much worse than it is here.

Cherish what we've got, but don't forget that many fight with their lives on the line for the freedom we already enjoy. And take a look at the AI report, it's a sad but necessary read.

How American Heroes Die ... Twice.

Ever noticed how some stories are not big news? There is a story to be told but nobody is interested enough to really tell it? Such a story just surfaced Monday, when it was revealed that Pat Tillman's family had several issues with the army's investigation into Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan in April 2004.

But that is not the real story. The real story is the abuse of media power by the Pentagon. Remember the big news-topic of April and May 2004? Yes? No? It was the pictures from Abu Ghraib, and the news was not good. America was (and still is) loosing the war in Iraq, but at least one could believe that America was helping Iraq on its way to democracy.

So what better to come along than the story of a true hero, one that was killed fighting an enemy of coward terrorists? One that gave up a privileged live to serve his duty to his country? One hero that truly stood principles. Such as honor and dignity and liberty for all.

Guess what, that story came around. Told by the Pentagon, and quickly picked up by the media. Our true hero, dying fighting the enemy. And some of the heroism fell on the fellow members of our forces. And thus a story was born in order to take away the blemishes form our armed forces.

It took about a month until first reports occurred that our hero may have died in a friendly fire incident. (You can read that report here.) It doesn't make the soldier less of a hero, he died fighting for his country. But now even the hero's family is convinced that details of his death were withheld and that they were deceived by the Pentagon. The top rank in the military knew that he died in a friendly fire incident, but withheld the truth until after his funeral service, which was nationally televised. All that, it now appears, was a staged PR stunt in order to stop suspicion about our armed forces, which surely couldn't be abusers of defenseless prisoners when they had such heroes in their ranks. (Good for our souls or are we also potential abusers? Or murderers? Or permit such abuse in our name?)

The Pentagon and the army brass (and probably the political elite) abused a true hero for political and ideological gain. Abusing his noble intentions for political games. Having his name appear in a big political lie. They put his name into the dirt, forever tarnishing his name. Our hero, in the gutter.
Murdered a second time.

Frisk Fry...?

The compromise on the filibuster for judicial nominees in the Senate has had its share of publicity. And many of the actors involved made their feelings on the issue public. However, I doubt that all the members of the senate truthfully disclosed their opinion. So, for one, lets take a look at Senator Frisk from Tennessee, who is also the majority leader in the Senate.

As the majority leader, Mr. Frisk had a lot at stake in this issue, but did neither advance nor prevent a compromise. He also hinted that he would prefer a vote on the filibuster, and as such he would have preferred the nuclear option. But a careful reconsideration of the facts shows different view than the one advocated by Mr. Frisk.

First, Mr. Frisk would have to bear most of the Democrats' rage against the Republican leadership if the filibuster would have been scraped. The Democrats would make sure that Mr. Frisk is well known throughout the country - but with a bad aftertaste, because his actions changed the rules and traditions of the senate and brought ideologues to judicial benches. As a consequence, Mr. Frisk would appear to be a right-wing, ideologically driven senator to large parts of the population. Mr. Frisk also needs a working relationship with is fellow Democratic senators, which is hard to maintain if you take away their (minority) rights.

Then there are the moderate Republican senators, and they don't really like to change the rules of the senate. A certain amount of pressure would thus be necessary to convince those senators to vote in favor of doing away with the filibuster for judicial nominees. Of course, they would like to have something in return. What? Here are some examples: Moderate candidates for the Supreme Court, no vote on gay marriage and no change in abortion laws. In the end a vote on the filibuster would cost Mr. Frisk in the long run, because several issues could become non-issues.

Thirdly, there are the Republican senators running for re-election in 2006. They might support a vote on the filibuster, but Senators from several states might feel the heat from supporting Mr. Frisk on the filibuster, especially in the Northeast and the West. As a consequence, they would expect especially strong support in their re-election campaign from Mr. Frisk. That means time on the Senate floor on high profile issues (such as homeland security etc.) and a lot of dough for their campaign fonds, which at least in part Mr. Frist would have to collect. Take Pennsylvania as an example. Senator Santorum is up for re-election in 2006 and is already running behind his challenger. And it would be hard to explain why he supported Mr. Frisk on this issue, especially since it is unclear how his fellow Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, would have voted. All that in a state that has consistently elected moderates in the last five years.

All those issues appear minor and are expected to occur in normal political discourse. As such, Mr. Frisk's advocated views on the change in the senate rules appear to be what is expected from the Senate Majority Leader in such circumstances. But there are some other facts that also bear heavily on the issue: Mr. Frisk would like to run for President in 2008. And in this position as a presidential candidate his views on changing the senate rules appear suspicious. Mr. Frisk would have a lot to loose if the senate rules were changed:

1. Democrats would make sure that Mr. Frisk is known as right-wing ideologue with no respect for minority rights. That makes Mr. Frisk unelectable in large parts of the country, hurting his presidential bid enormously.
2. Moderate Senators would be less likely to fully support Mr, Frisk's bid for president if he forced them to vote for the rule change in the senate. Those Senators are usually from moderate states (Maine, Rhode Island, Arizona) and would need to fight for their reputation in their home states. That of course is bad news for Mr. Frisk's presidential campaign, since those states tend to tip elections. A lack of clear support from the senators from such states would dramatically reduce Mr. Frisks chances of getting elected (at least in those states).
3. If the filibuster rule change had passed Mr. Frisk would be required to support Republican Senators up for re-election in 2006 to a greater extend than he has to do now. This of course leaves more time for his campaign for president and more of the money he collects can go towards his presidential bid.
4. It is unclear how a vote on the filibuster would end. A failure to get the rule change through would reflect badly on the Republican leadership in the senate, especially Mr. Frisk as the Majority Leader. This of course would damage Mr. Frisks standing in the party and effectively end all presidential aspirations he might have.

The point illustrated is this: Nobody benefits as much from the compromise as Mr. Frisk. In fact, the compromise is a godsend for him. It does not hamper his presidential aspirations while ensuring that his standing in the Republican party remains unchallenged. Why then Mr. Frisk's indication that he would have preferred a vote? Well, there is President Bush, who wanted his judicial nominees confirmed, and whose support is essential for Mr. Frisk's election campaign. And there is also the right wing of the Republican party and their supporters (who, incidentally are whining about the compromise), and Mr. Frisk for sure would like to have their support for his presidential bid. Therefore he had to bend the truth a bit and can't really say that the compromise is an excellent resolution to the situation from his point of view.

In fact, those bendings of the truth prove that he is truly presidential material, as lying to the public seems to be one of the core requirements for successful politicians those days.

Hitler on the floor

Never thought I would have to come back to my dear friend Rick Santorum so soon. But his remarkable selection of words doesn't really give me another choice.

As you may know, Rick Santorum compared the Democrat in the Senate to Hitler in Paris. (I know Kennedy called the Republicans Neanderthals.) There is something about the Hitler card: it ends all debates, because there is nothing more that can be said and actually top the Hitler remark. Thus dear Rick S actually missed the chance of attributing the blocking of judicial nominations on the Democrats. And he drew attention to himself rather than to the Democrats action. There couldn't have been a worse time for doing that, it benefited the Democrats and not the Republicans.

It also puts Santorum in a bad light: there are quite a few Jews in Pennsylvania (they may vote democrat anyway) and Santorum didn't make new friends with his remarks. The Hitler comparison also shows a lack of historical knowledge on Santorums part: Hitler was not French, or are all Democrats from Canada nowadays?

Stormy Weather - Rick Santorums forecast

Slightly out of the focus of the media, Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania wants to take away your free, unbiased weather forecast. He introduced a new bill that is so generic and unspecific that it can be interpreted as doing away with the National Weather Services' (advertisement) free weather forecast.

The issue looks like cronyism, Accuweather, one of the largest commercial forecast companies is located in Pennsylvania and, of course, supports Santorums bill. And the bill is excellent for such commercial forecasters - requiring the National Weather Service to deliver all its data to commercial forecasters but prevents it from actually giving a forecast.

Would the free service of the National Weather Service be missed? Of course, because it is responsible for storm, flood and a lot of other warnings. I for sure would miss the forecast, I think it is better than the forecast delivered by the commercial forecasters. I am talking accuracy here: Ever noticed how the next weekends forecast is `clear skies, nice, weather ' Mondays through Wednesdays, `a mixture of clouds and sun' on Thursdays and `unseasonably cool and rainy' on Fridays? Happens quite often. Also, commercial forecasts tend to predict too high temperatures during the cold season as well as cooler temperatures during the hot season (personal observation, but compare the forecast from your local PBS with a commercial one - the commercial forecast is usually the `nicer' one, though not accurate). Of course, those TV or radio stations that give you a commercial forecast want to keep you as a consumer, and who wants to hear bad news?

So let Senator Santorum know that it is necessary to change his bill, so that the National Weather Service can keep forecasting. You may have a shot here: Santorum is running behind his challenger in polls in Pennsylvania for this Novembers election, and can't ignore the wishes of the populace as he otherwise could or would...

What's wrong with politics these days...?

Welcome to PolitWatch!

This blog will be the place for my observations and comments on the state of politics. I am a political news junky and will give my opinion on the current state of politics, both in Washington and other places. There will also be some discussion about threats to freedom, justice and liberty for all.

Enjoy! And post comments!