Letters to the Editor
Jim White
Published Letters: 1089 Editor's Choice: 15
-
@RMP re M$M
[Read the article: Joe Klein: Both factually false and stuck in the 1980s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have commented several times that I would like to see an effort put forward to establish a large, independent, nonprofit newsgathering organization.
Although several damning articles from Time and other M$M outlets during Vietnam have been put forward lately to illustrate that reporting biased toward the government has always existed, I agree with those who have pointed out that the demise of the fairness doctrine, especially when coupled with the massive consolidation of media outlets, has taken the problem to unprecedented levels.
Coincident with consolidation is the MBA-driven cost-cutting that narrows even further the number of individual reporters who pursue each story. Competition, especially in the form of "the scoop", is virtually dead. Instead, the larger organizations rely on the lazy approach of accepting whatever wire feed is available on any given story. When coupled with the laziness Glenn documents on the part of the pundits, there simply is very little real effort at uncovering the truth.
This laziness, however, provides one avenue of hope for a nonprofit news organization. If it can reach a critical mass and accumulate a number of "successes" where critical information is revealed in a timely fashion, some of the larger media outlets will carry the stories simply to fill space with little to no investment.
Working in direct opposition to this idea, however, is the "liberal bias" of the truth. The corporate owners of the media outlets are very likely to bristle once they realize what would be provided by such an organization, and they would take action to minimize its exposure. I think McClatchy is a good for-profit example of this case. They provide independent, accurate and timely coverage of a number of issues, but their wire stories are not picked up on a consistent basis. Given the accuracy of their work in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, the way they have been minimized lately would seem to me to be the result of decisions at the highest levels in the larger outlets not to give a larger voice to these stories.
Those of us who are involved and who care can take the time to find the stories from sources like McClatchy and the analyses provided in the progressive blogosphere. I remain clueless on how awareness can be spread among the general population. My argument above has taken me to the point where I doubt a new newsgathering organization would result in the kind of information penetration into the general public that is needed.
Does anyone else have any ideas on how a thirst for real information can be generated in a society that is drowning in the noise generated by Fox and Limbaugh?
-
Great conversation
[Read the article: Joe Klein: Both factually false and stuck in the 1980s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But gotta run. I probably won't have much web access through the rest of the weekend.
The question I would pose to WT would be whether there is a way, short of the social upheaval you predict, to engage "the masses" in a meaningful way? If that could be found, much suffering could be avoided. I fear that you have described it presciently.
-
@Ché Pasa
[Read the article: Time magazine's FISA fiasco shows how Beltway reporters mislead the country]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You may be right, but I go for the simpler explanation that, although the attention has been on the telephone companies in the illegal wiretapping story, the internet companies are just as involved, and so Time is working to "protect" its AOL business here. They are not "reporting" anything at all, just using their tool Klein to "mold" public opinion around the "reasonable" idea of amnesty. Don't look for a correction of Klein's lies anywhere else than what has been produced so far, that would be too risky. After all, with the fairness doctrine dead and the Fox victory in court, publishing lies instead of journalism is a perfectly legitimate business.
-
Consequences?
[Read the article: The Republicans who would've impeached Bush?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Vincent,
Pols on both sides hide behind the "public doesn't want this" mantra to justify keeping impeachment off the table. How about a little follow-up to show us how these politicians who courageously voted for impeachment fared in their next elections?
-
Shooter
[Read the article: Time magazine's FISA fiasco shows how Beltway reporters mislead the country]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for a post aimed at trying to find the truth. I hope you had a pleasant Thanksgiving.
Here is a link to Thomas with the version of the bill as passed by the House: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:2:./temp/~c110PSUlSt:e3684:
The key for the sections you mention, where procedures are outlined for monitoring, is that this applies when the foreign targets are believed to be communicating with people inside the US. Note the very large text at the beginnings of the sections 3 and 4 that you note, where it says:
SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF ACQUISITIONS OF COMMUNICATIONS OF NON-UNITED STATES PERSONS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES WHO MAY BE COMMUNICATING WITH PERSONS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:
`ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF ACQUISITIONS OF COMMUNICATIONS OF NON-UNITED STATES PERSONS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES WHO MAY BE COMMUNICATING WITH PERSONS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
/snip/
SEC. 4. EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION OF ACQUISITIONS OF COMMUNICATIONS OF NON-UNITED STATES PERSONS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES WHO MAY BE COMMUNICATING WITH PERSONS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
Section 105C of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:
`EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION OF ACQUISITIONS OF COMMUNICATIONS OF NON-UNITED STATES PERSONS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES WHO MAY BE COMMUNICATING WITH PERSONS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
So, as I read the bill, communications reasonably believed to be between foreign, non-US people require no warrants or notifications. Only when it becomes apparent that some of the communications by a target are with US persons do the provisions in Sections 3 and 4 kick in. Those provisions would seemed to be aimed at protecting the rights of those US persons.
Hope this helps.