Saturday, December 02, 2006

neoConMen

It is bizarre to see the Bush economic acolytes, the GOP pundits on cable news, and the Wall Street Journal celebrating the current stock market having posted “new highs.” As though--in a country so ravaged by inequality of wealth as ours now is--the stock market could ever serve serve as a fair representation of well-being for most average families. That said, --accepting the stock market for what it is and what it is not--let's examine whether what we see today is truly an economic miracle, a touchstone for validation of the current regime’s economic policies.

On Nov 29 the S&P 500 Index had advanced about 51.5 points from its close on January 20, 2001--the day before Bush’s First Inaugural.

That’s a cumulative gain of 3.8%--in 6 years! And yes, atop that 3.8% "gain” we should pile another 1.5% (net after tax) per year in dividends.

We are now about 2 months shy of Bush’s 6th complete year “in office.” So that cumulative dividend stash has grown to a whopping 9%.

Presto! Cue the Herald Trumpets! We now celebrate a combined investment gain of 13% in 5 years and 10 months: a total return of 2.2% per year!

By all means, let's ignore such ephemeral factors as inflation, job loss, stagnant wages and inequality in wealth. Is ANYONE spending LESS than 13% MORE than 6 years ago for that famous basket of life's incidentals—including food, heat, electric and gas, insurance, dental and health care, mortgage or rent, and school taxes and tuition?

For some perspective:

During the 8-year tenure of the previous occupant of the White House, we experienced a 200% gain in the S&P 500 Index--and yes, for dividends you can also add another 11% net.

OK, since we’re short-changed by missing-out on the last 26 months of Bush’s Economic Miracle, let’s take away that last 60% of the total gains under Clinton.
So we’re left with a much tighter race: +13% under Bush and +151% under Clinton.

Close, but no cigar.

Centre Media Values

Glen Greenwald has an excellent post today (Dec 1, 2006) on the insideous role that Tom Friedman played from his conspicuous perch on the Opinion page of the New York Times in selling Bush's Iraq War. This is a small excerpt. Read the entire critique on Greenwald's blog.

Friday, December 01, 2006
The Tom Friedman disease consumes Establishment Washington

(updated below)

Someone e-mailed me several days ago to say that while it is fruitful and necessary to chronicle the dishonest historical record of pundits and political figures when it comes to Iraq, I deserve to be chastised for failing to devote enough attention to the person who, by far, was most responsible for selling the war to centrists and liberal "hawks" and thereby creating "consensus" support for Bush's war -- Tom Friedman, from his New York Times perch as "the nation's preeminent centrist foreign policy genius."

That criticism immediately struck me as valid, and so I spent the day yesterday and today reading every Tom Friedman column beginning in mid-2002 through the present regarding Iraq. That body of work is extraordinary. Friedman is truly one of the most frivolous, dishonest, and morally bankrupt public intellectuals burdening this country. Yet he is, of course, still today, one of the most universally revered figures around, despite -- amazingly enough, I think it's more accurate to say "because of" -- his advocacy of the invasion of Iraq, likely the greatest strategic foreign policy disaster in America's history.
--------------

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Centre Media Values

NOW they tell us! Oh for a courageous--or even an honest, critical press? What-pray tell-has Dick Meyer of CBS News.com been doing with his time for the last 12 years? This is precisely why we need a a robust, independent and non-corporate -controlled media.

"Good Riddance To The Gingrichites
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16, 2006(CBS) This commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.

This is a story I should have written 12 years ago when the "Contract with America" Republicans captured the House in 1994. I apologize.

Really, it's just a simple thesis: The men who ran the Republican Party in the House of Representatives for the past 12 years were a group of weirdos. Together, they comprised one of the oddest legislative power cliques in our history. And for 12 years, the media didn't call a duck a duck, because that's not something we're supposed to do.

I'm not talking about the policies of the Contract for America crowd, but the character. I'm confident that 99 percent of the population — if they could see these politicians up close, if they watched their speeches and looked at their biographies — would agree, no matter what their politics or predilections.

I'm confident that if historians ever spend the time on it, they'll confirm my thesis. Same with forensic psychiatrists. I have discussed this with scores of politicians, staffers, consultants and reporters since 1994 and have found few dissenters.

Politicians in this country get a bad rap. For the most part, they are like any high-achieving group in America, with roughly the same distribution of pathologies and virtues. But the leaders of the GOP House didn't fit the personality profile of American politicians, and they didn't deviate in a good way. It was the Chess Club on steroids.

The iconic figures of this era were Newt Gingrich, Richard Armey and Tom Delay. They were zealous advocates of free markets, low taxes and the pursuit of wealth; they were hawks and often bellicose; they were brutal critics of big government.

Yet none of these guys had success in capitalism. None made any real money before coming to Congress. None of them spent a day in uniform. And they all spent the bulk of their adult careers getting paychecks from the big government they claimed to despise. Two resigned in disgrace.

Having these guys in charge of a radical conservative agenda was like, well, putting Mark Foley in charge of the Missing and Exploited Children Caucus. Indeed, Foley was elected in the Class of '94 and is not an inappropriate symbol of their regime.

More than the others, Newton Leroy Gingrich lived out a very special hypocrisy. In addition to the above biographical dissonance, Gingrich was one of the most sharp-tongued, articulate and persuasive attack dogs in modern politics. His favorite target was the supposed immorality and corruption of the Democratic Party. With soaring rhetoric, he condemned his opponents as anti-American and dangerous to our country's family values — "grotesque" was a favorite word.

Yet this was a man who was divorced twice — the first time when his wife was hospitalized for cancer treatment, the second time after an affair was revealed.

Gingrich made his bones in the party by relentlessly attacking Democratic corruption, yet he was hounded from office because of a series of serious ethics questions. He posed as a reformer of the House, yet championed a series of deforms that made the legislative process more closed, more conducive to hiding special interest favors and less a forum for genuine debate.

And he did it all with epic sanctimony.

These squirrelly guys attracted and promoted to power similarly odd colleagues: birds of a feather, you know, stick together. Bill Clinton of Monica Lewinsky fame had no more zealous and moralistic critic than Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana, who ran a then-powerful committee. In the course of his crusade, Burton was forced to admit he had actually fathered a child in an extramarital affair.

The man who led the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings with equal, if saner, bloodlust was Rep. Henry Hyde. In the midst of this, Hyde was forced to admit to a five-year affair.

When Gingrich stepped down, Republicans turned to a master Louisiana pork-barreller, Robert Livingston. That lasted a day or so, until Livingston (you guessed it) admitted to having extramarital affairs.

Livingston was succeeded by Dennis Hastert, perhaps the most, well, conventional of the GOP leaders of his era. Still, Hastert was a hawk with no military service and a defender of the rich with no money or experience in business.

In this year's election cycle, House Republicans were justly vilified for their subservience to the corruptions of Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay's entire K Street project. While extreme, there have been many other periods of extreme corruption in Congress.

What marked this Republican cadre was not their corruption, but the chips on their shoulders.

It was a localized condition. It didn't spread to the Senate. The Republican leaders there — again, suspend your ideology and just look at biography — were pretty typical American politicians.

Bob Dole, Trent Lott and Bill Frist were not acting out in office. They were not ideologues and did not use the rhetoric of the righteous. The colleagues that wielded the most power — like McCain, Simpson, Lugar, Specter, Stevens, Warner — have had long runs of service in several arenas relatively free of public and private embarrassment and hypocrisy — and even some substantial accomplishments pre-Senate.

History reveals that great leaders and intellectuals often appear in clusters, inspiring and motivating each other to extraordinary achievement. American historians have focused on this in recent books looking at the "founding brothers," Lincoln's "team of rivals," the 19th-century pragmatist philosophers called "the metaphysical club," Roosevelt's New Dealers and Kennedy's "best and the brightest."

The opposite is also true.

What's next for the House is of course uncertain, but an undistinguished chapter has come to a close. Good riddance."


Dick Meyer is the editorial director of CBSNews.com, based in Washington.

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Centre Media Values

Just three weeks before the election and the Republican "ground game" heats up (This courtesy of Billmon on .

October 13, 2006
Paranoia Watch

Some Republican strategists are increasingly upset with what they consider the overconfidence of President Bush and his senior advisers about the midterm elections November 7 -- a concern aggravated by the president's news conference this week.

"They aren't even planning for if they lose," says a GOP insider who informally counsels the West Wing.

U.S. News and World Report
Bush Is Said to Have No Plan if GOP Loses
October 13, 2006


The aircraft carrier Eisenhower, accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Anzio, guided-missile destroyer USS Ramage, guided-missile destroyer USS Mason and the fast-attack submarine USS Newport News, is, as I write, making its way to the Straits of Hormuz off Iran. The ships will be in place to strike Iran by the end of the month. It may be a bluff. It may be a feint. It may be a simple show of American power. But I doubt it.

Chris Hedges
Does Bush Think War With Iran is Preordained?
October 10, 2006
Posted by billmon at 09:29 PM

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Centre Media Values

Friends--Keith Obberman of MSNBC is one of the few nationally prominent media commentators who has consistently brought a critical perspective to reporting on the Iraq war as well as corruption, malfeasance and incompetence in the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress.

Below is a disturbing warning from Jeff Cohen, founder of the media watch group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.
-----------------------------------------

Is Olbermann On Thin Ice?
Jeff Cohen
October 04, 2006



Jeff Cohen is the founder of the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting , and author of Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media.

I fear for Keith Olbermann.

Like so many others who hunger for some journalistic independence on TV news, I often marvel at Olbermann’s dogged reporting and unique commentary. In a cable news environment of conformity and conservatism, the MSNBC host takes on the Bush administration for “demonizing dissent,” for abusing our constitutional traditions, for “taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love [following 9/11], and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death.”

Only Olbermann talks about Team Bush “monstrously transforming [9/11 unity] into fear and suspicion, and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections.” He was virtually alone on TV news in seriously reporting on 2004 election irregularities in Ohio, and in exploring the pre-Iraq war Downing Street Memos indicating White House deception. In recent months, his prime targets seem to have evolved from softer ones like Bill O’Reilly to bigger game: Bush and his minions.

It’s worth noting that strong criticism of an extremist presidency hardly makes Olbermann a leftist.I remember Olbermann as the whimsical sports guy on ESPN. I remember his first go-round on MSNBC in 1998 when he could have sued his bosses for repetitive stress disorder for having to host scores of Lewinsky episodes on the road to Clinton’s impeachment—an impeachment that may well have been impossible if not for the complicity of TV news.

It’s obvious his bosses at MSNBC/NBC/GE never envisioned the increasingly bold Olbermann of recent months. It’s likely that Olbermann himself could not have foreseen his current role as the lone voice of those who feel assaulted by a cable news business dominated by the O’Reillys and Hannitys.

So why do I fear for Olbermann? Because I know his bosses. In the runup to the Iraq war, I too worked for MSNBC—as an on-air pundit and a senior producer on the primetime “Donahue” show.

As I detail in my new book Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media, the suits at MSNBC/NBC muzzled us and ultimately terminated us. They feared independent journalism and serious dissent. They smeared Bush critics, with MSNBC’s editor-in-chief at the time, the late Jerry Nachman, actually going on air—without evidence—to accuse Iraq WMD skeptic Scott Ritter of being a paid agent of Saddam Hussein.

Olbermann has been gaining in audience ratings. That provides him some security, but perhaps not enough.

When “Donahue” was terminated three weeks before the Iraq invasion, it was MSNBC’s most watched program. Canceling your top-rated show doesn’t happen often, but it happened to “Donahue.” Who knows what will happen to Olbermann?

With “Donahue,” management cared less about building up audience than tamping down dissent. While independent outlets and blogs were soaring in audience by questioning the rush to war, our bosses imposed straightjackets on us that prevented similar growth.

In the last months of “Donahue,” management gave us strict orders: if we booked a guest who was antiwar, we needed two who were pro-war. If we booked two guests on the left, we needed three on the right. When a producer proposed booking Michael Moore, she was told she’d need three right wingers for ideological balance.

Olbermann’s increasingly bold dissent has been occurring at a time when Bush’s approval ratings are low and Bush’s war is in shambles. That gives him some added security.

During “Donahue’s” tenure at MSNBC on the eve of war, Bush’s popularity was high. And media conglomerates were particularly concerned about not ruffling the White House at that moment—as they were lobbying hard to get FCC rules changed to allow them to grow still fatter.

The day after “Donahue” was terminated, an internal NBC memo leaked out; it said that Phil Donahue represents “a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war.” Why? Because he insisted on presenting administration critics. The memo worried that “Donahue” would become a “home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.”

NBC’s solution then? Dump Phil, stifle dissent and brandish the flag.

NBC’s solution now? So far, Olbermann appears to be on more solid footing—mostly because the political zeitgeist is much changed from four years ago.

But MSNBC is still owned by GE’s conservative bosses, and managed by NBC’s ever-timid executives. Olbermann knows this reality as well as anyone; six months ago on C-SPAN, while expressing confidence that good ratings would keep them at bay, he remarked: “There are people I know in the hierarchy of NBC, the company, and GE, the company, who do not like to see the current presidential administration criticized at all.”

I’m pulling for Olbermann; I’m one of the multitudes who find his commentaries online (perhaps more on the web than on TV)—and forward them far and wide.

But with each new broadside against the Bush administration, I fear for his future. His best security is us, an active citizenry. It’s media activism, organized heavily on the Net. It’s media watch groups like FAIR and Media Matters for America. It’s the movement that resisted the FCC changes in 2003, challenged Sinclair Broadcast propaganda before the 2004 election, and recently exposed the 9/11 “hijacking” of ABC by rightwing Clinton-bashers.

In the epilogue of Cable News Confidential, I lauded this movement: “My only regret was that such a potent movement had not coalesced by 2002—to flex its muscles against MSNBC brass in defense of an unfettered ‘Donahue.’”

If Olbermann gets muzzled or terminated for political reasons, it will be up to us to fight —not only for him, but for the concept that without serious dissent, democracy is a sham."

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Centre Media Values

From blog post by Jim Henley (on 'Unqualified Offerings'):

September 22, 2006
We Killed ‘Em at the Palace, Babe, And We Murdered ‘Em in Rome

The Senate has made it official: torture is official government policy so long as it meets the strict test of being called something else, said test to be proctored, taken and graded by the President in consultation with . . . the President.

Two days ago Megan McArdle wrote

I do not think it is even remotely likely, as my reader demanded, that Bush is trying to move this country towards dictatorship. As I wrote him, a dictatorship is a real thing, not a super-synonym for “governments that do things I don’t like”. I am so confident that Bush is not trying to move the country towards dictatorship that I offered to bet him $5,000 that the elections go off as scheduled.

I wouldn’t take that bet. I’d say, instead, the following syllogism:

1. The theory is that an election is the people saying what they want.

2. The one thing we know torture is really good for is getting someone to say what they think the torturer wants to hear.

3. Who needs a dictatorship?

We should be able to combine official torture, free elections and multiple political parties into functional one-party rule.

Posted by Jim Henley @ 11:42 pm, Filed under: Main

Saturday, August 26, 2006

music is life festival

music is life festival

Hey, if anyone is in the area and wants to see some great music, the 2006 milfestival is the way to go! http://musicislifefestival.blogspot.com/ . It benefits some local cancer survivors, and is bound to be a great time! I hope to see you there!

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Centre Media Values

As Bob Barosage writes on www.TomPaine.com, Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut may herald the triumph of "The New Moral Center." Yet we are reminded that right-wing forces for torture and indecency are still pushing their cause at home and abroad. As often, Billmon (www.Billmon.org) says it best:

' August 09, 2006
The Boys From Brazil

I guess this is Shrub's idea of "faithfully executing" the laws -- he wants to take the War Crimes Act out and shoot it with Dick Cheney's shotgun.

The Bush administration has drafted amendments to a war crimes law that would eliminate the risk of prosecution for political appointees, CIA officers and former military personnel for humiliating or degrading war prisoners, according to U.S. officials and a copy of the amendments . . .

"People have gotten worried, thinking that it's quite likely they might be under a microscope," said a U.S. official. Foreigners are using accusations of unlawful U.S. behavior as a way to rein in American power, the official said, and the amendments are partly meant to fend this off.

This is like letting John Gotti rewrite the RICO statute.

I guess somebody finally was able to make Shrub understand what was in that Hamdan ruling:

Once Common Article 3 applies to the conflict with al Qaeda, the legal framework within which we analyze the various interrogation and torture allegations changes dramatically, as does the . . . potential liability of various U.S. officials under the War Crimes Act.

So now we have the shameful spectacle of an American president asking his rubber stamp Congress to redefine the meaning of "war crimes," lest at some future date and in some future place he and his flunkies be forced to account for theirs. Just call it the Milosevic Amendment.

Is there a pit of slime so filthy these moral cretins won't drag us through it? A cup of national humiliation so bitter they won't make us drain it to the dregs?

Apparently not.

But I really wouldn't worry about it that much if I were one of the boys. With a bit of luck they should be able to push their CYA legislation through while the heelclickers are still in the majority.

Besides, even if they fail, and the legal situation does goes south on them, there's always Brazil. Who knows? Dick and Rummy might even make a few friends down there.'

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Centre Media Values

Today's (Aug 2, 2006) Centre Daily Times has an excellent, balanced Op Ed by Cynthia Arnold discussing the plight of the Palestinians, including trenchant comments on the US role in contributing to tragedy we see now see unfolding in Lebanon.

..."Each year, more than $3 billion U.S. tax dollars enable illegal and inhumane policies that are squeezing the life out of an entire people who are innocent of having inflicted the Holocaust terror that has resulted in decades of fear-based militaristic policies. This must end."

Billmon(on Billmon.org)is also worth reading.

'August 02, 2006

The Stranger

Blair said the war in the Middle East was in part a fight between "reactionary Islam and moderate mainstream Islam" and that Western intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan had turned into "existential battles for reactionary Islam."

"We posed a threat not to their activities simply: but to their values, to the roots of their existence."

Great. Lebanon is in flames, the Iraqis are playing Name That Death Squad, the neocons want to renact Hiroshima in Iran, the Turks are talking about settling scores with the Kurds, the Taliban are cultivating their Pashtun gardens, and Bush's butler is giving us existentialist psychobabble.

I think he may be even more deranged than his master. The other day Blair said something to the effect that he was absolutely confident -- way down in that "irreducible core" of his -- that his Middle East policies are correct. It was the sort of thing Shrub might say if he knew what the word "irreducible" means.

I remember thinking: Anyone who has even a smidgeon of knowledge about, or experience in, the Middle East, and who says he is absolutely, 100% certain he has the right answers, is either a liar, a fanatic, or Tom Friedman -- which is to say, a world-class educated fool.

Blair, unfortunately, is all three.

Well, given Tony's absolute belief in his own moral and intellectual superiority, and the slaughter of the innocents currently underway in both Iraq and Lebanon, I think there's another existentialist classic Tony needs to read.

It's also about killing Arabs.
Posted by billmon at 01:49 AM'

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Exarchos and Dersham sell out our democracy....

Are they getting kickbacks? Are they intentionally trying to get the "fix" in for the next election? Why else would they vote for a more expensive, less secure, and basically non-auditable system?

Who has anything to gain by not having a voter verifiable paper trail? Only those that want to steal the election. I hope my fellow citizens wake up and keep a very close eye on these two....

Will the mainstream media ever report on the voting fraud of the last presidential election?

If Rolling Stone is the last bastion of journalistic integrity left, I think we are already sunk.

People did notice the fraud back in 2004, but no-one seems to care...

Saturday, June 03, 2006

Centre Media Values

Oh, those good old days...one nation, with liberty and justice for all. All for one and one for all. Super-size this! After an increase of 200% in the the Estate Tax Exemption amount in the last several years, a little more "relief"--for those who need it least. From an OP Ed in the The Washington Post.

Estate Tax Lunacy

By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, May 31, 2006; A19

Spring has given way to summer's full-furnace heat in Washington, apparently taking with it any scintilla of sense that Congress may yet possess.

In the House, Republicans who could not even raise an eyebrow at reports that the National Security Agency has been conducting warrantless wiretaps of Americans became instant civil libertarians when the FBI conducted a search of a congressman's office.

The Senate, meanwhile, is scheduled next week to take up legislation by Arizona Republican Jon Kyl that would permanently repeal the estate tax on the wealthiest Americans. If enacted, Kyl's bill would plunge the government another trillion dollars into the red during the first decade (2011-2021) that it would be in effect.

Behind the scenes, the action has been on the Democratic side in the Senate, as the party's leadership has sought to dissuade Montana's Max Baucus, ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, from forging a halfway-house compromise with Kyl that would deplete revenue by only $500 billion to $600 billion during that decade. The Republicans would need Baucus to bring roughly a half-dozen Democrats along with him to reach the magic number of 60 votes required to overcome any filibuster that the vast majority of Democrats would mount to block any such measure.

Even a paltry $500 billion, of course, is a lot of money to drain from public coffers just when boomers are going onto Social Security and Medicare and the number of employers providing health insurance, if present trends continue, might have dropped to a virtuous handful. To cover those and other needs, Congress will either plunge us deeper into debt or increase some other levies -- payroll taxes, say -- that will come out of the pockets of the 99 percent of Americans whom the estate tax doesn't touch.

A decades-long campaign by right-wing activists (brilliantly documented by Yale professors Michael Graetz and Ian Shapiro in their book "Death by a Thousand Cuts") has convinced many Americans that the estate tax poses a threat to countless hardworking families. That was always nonsense, and under the estate tax revisions that almost all Democrats support -- raising the threshold for eligibility to $3.5 million for an individual and $7 million for a couple -- it becomes more nonsensical still. Under the $3.5 million exemption, the number of family-owned small businesses required to pay any taxes in the year 2000 would have been just 94, according to a study by the Congressional Budget Office. The number of family farms that would have had to sell any assets to pay that tax would have been 13.

On the other hand, an estate tax repeal would save the estate of Vice President Cheney between $13 million and $61 million, according to the publicly available data on his net worth. It would save the estate of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld between $32 million and $101 million. The estate of retired Exxon Mobil chairman Lee Raymond would pocket a cozy $164 million. As for the late Sam Walton's kids, whose company already makes taxpayers foot the bill for the medical expenses of thousands of its employees, the cost to the government for not taxing their estates would run into the multiple billions.

The Baucus split-the-difference measure wouldn't repeal the estate tax, but it would still cut the tax rates on the estates of the super-rich by 15 percent. The Montana senator spent much of last week trying to line up a handful of his Senate Democratic colleagues to support his proposal, in the hope of being able to announce an unshakable 60 votes favoring this folly when the debate begins next week.

Why any Democrat would back such a measure, however, is a deep mystery. From the policy standpoint, it would make it vastly more difficult both to shore up programs that Democrats believe need shoring up -- better educating the nation's children, for one -- and to get the nation's fiscal house in order. Politically, backing the measure is even wackier. The Democrats are running this year as the party of comparative fiscal sanity and greater economic equity and security. Baucus's compromise would undermine all those premises. Republicans might very well attack Democratic senators up for reelection this year for failing to repeal this hideous death tax, as they call it, but any Democratic senator who can't rebut that charge in what is shaping up as a very Democratic year should probably be in another line of work.

Last Friday Baucus's staffers assured the Democratic Senate leadership's staff that their boss would back off his compromise campaign. Still, given Baucus's penchant for mischief (it was largely he who rounded up enough Democratic votes to enact Medicare Part D and its Big Pharma giveaway), those assurances have met with some skepticism on Capitol Hill. The Democrats' capacity to undermine themselves has not vanished with the final days of spring.

meyersonh@washpost.com
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Yet another Bush administration falsification.......

These types of intentional manipulation are status-quo for the Bush administration, apparently..... Are the LIES so frequent now, that we have all become numb and complacent?
"On May 25th, President Bush said that Treasury Secretary John Snow had not given him any indication that he was leaving soon.........."

Thursday, May 25, 2006

EFF versus At&T



I find it very telling how many House members are up in arms about the office of a corrupt official being searched. It is funny how suddenly they care about "civil liberties" when they risk getting exposed for their corruption, yet they could give less of a damn when the average citizens rights are being stepped on. At least the EFF is still looking out for us.

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Centre Media Values

Ex-'Inky' Editor: New Ownership Of Philly Papers Could Be 'Dangerous'

By Joe Strupp

Published: May 23, 2006 6:10 PM ET

NEW YORK Former Philadelphia Inquirer Editor Robert Rosenthal, who spent 22 years at the paper, said the sale to a local investors group could prove problematic.

"It is a unique situation and I don't think it is necessarily a great one for journalism," said Rosenthal, who is currently managing editor at the San Francisco Chronicle. "Many of them are some of the most influential business people in Philadelphia and people who actively support politicians locally and nationally."

The veteran editor called the situation "very interesting and dangerous ... at times." He said it would be interesting "to see where the paths and relationships cross when it comes to the owners' relationships in the city and where the journalism leads." He added, "I don't think there is a situation like this in the country where the ownership group is so much a part of the political and economic power structure of a city."

In addition, Rosenthal called the leader of the investment group, Brian Tierney, a "fierce advocate who is used to getting his own way....I can't imagine a guy like Brian Tierney taking a back seat and letting things get in the paper that he is unhappy with," Rosenthal told E&P just hours after the deal was announced. "He was a very fierce advocate for his clients, there was nothing subtle about him -- elbows and knees."

Tierney served as national head of Catholics for Bush in 2000 and has been active in other Republican campaigns. He served as chairman of Sam Katz's unsuccessful run for mayor of the city in 2003.

Rosenthal tangled with Tierney years ago when the Inquirer was sued by a former reporter, Ralph Cipriano, over a story Cipriano wrote about the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. The suit ended in a settlement in which the Inquirer paid Cipriano $7 million. Tierney, who runs a major public relations firm, had handled P.R. for the church and dealt with Rosenthal on that and other stories.

Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, in an interview with E&P then, praised Tierney for keeping certain stories out of the Inquirer. Tierney told E&P at that time that religious organizations and non-profits should be covered differently than other institutions.

Cipriano had sued the paper after Rosenthal made comments to The Washington Post that were critical of Cipriano's work on the Archdiocese story. The reporter, who was fired, had complained about the paper refusing to publish some elements of his reporting, which included accusations that money had been wrongly spent by the church.

"I have no idea how he views journalism," Rosenthal said of Tierney. "Or whether he will be hands-on in terms of his interests or friends."

Tierney led the formation of the Philadelphia Media Holdings, which announced today its purchase of the Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News from McClatchy for $562 million. The investment group also includes a number of major Philadelphia business and political leaders, including Bruce E. Toll, who owns several of auto dealerships; Hamilton Lane Advisors founder Leslie E. Brun; and Aramark Corp. chairman Joseph Neubauer, according to the Inquirer.

Rosenthal said the owners have their hands in such volatile issues as labor, politics, development and other business circles, which may cause problems with balanced coverage. "A lot of those people involved in owning the paper do have and will have involvement in those issues," he said. "The danger is whose toes are going to get stepped on. Perception is something very powerful, whether it is real or not. People who own the paper now are deeply embedded in many of the issues that confront Philadelphia and have a personal stake."

According to one of his online bios, "Early in his career, Brian worked in Washington, D.C. for the Republican National Committee and was a Presidential appointee to the U.S. Small Business Administration." His P.R. firm designed the Web site for the Republican National Convention that nominated George W. Bush in Philadelphia in August 2000.
Joe Strupp (jstrupp@editorandpublisher.com) is a senior editor at Editors&Publishers.