Al Jazeera “Real News”

Yesterday United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed, "Viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it's real news. You may not agree with it, but you feel like you're getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news which, you know, is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners." Because viewership is up that translates to "real news"? Many, here on the blog and elsewhere, rail against Fox News for their fabrications and stretching of the truth. If viewership is the prerequisite of "real news" then Fox News would trump them all.

Perhaps Secretary Clinton should look to the recent Census Bureau report that counted nearly 1.2 million Arabs in 2000; 860,000 in 1990; and 610,000 in 1980. Combine the rising Arab population with the increase uses of the internet and it is reasonable to conclude that increased viewership is driven by other factors unrelated to "real news". Or did CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News change their programming similar to what MTV did when they moved from music videos to reality television shows? I figured Secretary Clinton to be smarter than this. Then again she may be taking a shot at the liberal media outlets for their lack of vetting and holy alliance with Obama during the Democratic Primary and the 2010 Presidential campaign. Either way, if Al Jazeera is being considered as a "real" news source by the Obama Administration over the outlets here in the United States does make one ponder…….

Wikileaks: Investigative Journalism or “Irresponsible” Journalism?

A newspaper called Wikileaks is at the center of controversy today as it will release 92,000 "secret" documents on the Afghanistan war. The White House is saying the release of information is irresponsible and is a threat to security of our forces in the region. "The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security," National Security Adviser James Jones said in a White House statement (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-25/u-s-denounces-publication-of-classified-documents-on-war-in-afghanistan.html). Wikileaks provided the New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel access to these documents several weeks ago. All three news outlets are stating that the documents bring to light certain elements of the 9-year war but "no smoking gun" exists.

In light of last week's knee jerk reaction by the White House and the NAACP and the fact that wiki is part of this groups name begs the question of the legitimacy of their documents or how they obtained them. To Wikileaks credit they did allow other organizations, see above, to vet the information. The article "CNN Host Calls for Crackdown on 'Bloggers' in Wake of Sherrod Incident: 'Something's Going to Have to be done'" from newsbusters.org highlighted the suggestion that a "gatekeeper" is required on the internet because bloggers can post items anonymously without any accountability. Everyone knows, or at least should know, that anyone can post anything in the blogosphere and one should do their due diligence to vet the information before taking it as gospel. Perhaps if organizations like CNN did their journalistic job and got back to investigative reporting the deceptions of the blogosphere would never see the light of day.

Then again, without the internet press, like Wikileaks, would the truth about the Afghanistan War come to light? Don't we, as readers of things on internet, need to ensure the information we are reading is accurate? Or are we suppose to once again turn to the government to tell us which information is true and which are not? I fear a society that relies so heavily on the government to vet the information.

Tax Day Rallies; What will be tomorrow’s headline?

Today is April 15^th. Have you filed your taxes? The bigger story today will be the millions attending Tea Party rallies around the United States. In Minnesota there will be 8 or 9 rallies with the largest one likely to be in St. Paul. I understand that many have formed their opinion of the Tea Party movement by what they gleam from MSNBC, CNN, ABC or other media outlets. I challenge everyone to make your own mind up by attending a rally today. Do not let the media through their slant or bias taint your understanding of the Tea Party movement.

The powers that be in the United States are using us as pawns in their game of power and see the Tea Party movement as another means. Groups on the Left will be attending the Tea Party rallies today to disrupt the rallies and attempt to blend themselves into the group in order to get sound bites for the mass media. This is not to say that a fringe element within the Tea Party muffles the message as the mass media has focused on them instead of the core.

Our 1^st Amendment right of freedom of assembly will be tested today as well. I am sure there will be counter rallies to the Tea Party as well. Although last year there was one in St. Paul that had a total of five people. No matter what side of the debate one is on, we can all agree that our current government is heading us to the cliff. The CBO has reported that our current spending is unsustainable and will lead to deficits unseen. So, get out there and have your voice heard. Be part of the action instead of having it reported to you. See with your own eyes and hear with your own ears as to the message being sent forth by the Tea Party. I do not expect anyone to agree with all their points but at least one will be able to hear them unfiltered.

White House vs. Fox News: The insanity continues

Sen. Obama campaigned last year on the premise of Change, Hope, and bringing people together. The Nobel group awarded Obama with the Nobel Peace Prize, not for what he has done rather for what he stands for; Change, hope, and bringing people together. So why is it then that White House officials were on Sunday talk shows imploring other news outlets alienate Fox News? White House communications director Anita Dunn claimed Sunday that Fox News Channel is "opinion journalism masquerading as news".

David Axelrod, Obama's senior advisor, claimed on to George Stephanopoulos Sunday that Fox is "not a new organization" and added "other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way." The biggest target has been Glenn Beck as is evident by the ongoing fact check blog page on the White House home page. The White House declaration of war on Fox News smacks of the paranoia of the Nixon years. The catalyst of the attack on Fox News appears to be over "Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace's fact checking Tammy Duckworth this past August. Anita Dunn is aghast by the gull of Wallace to fact check since that is "something I've never seen a Sunday show do." The kicker in this tiff is that the White House never said the fact-checking that Wallace did was wrong; rather the White House is upset that Wallace did it in the first place.

Are we really living in an age where News channels cannot fact check anyone let alone an administration official? Although it does not surprise me because little fact checking was done by ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC during the 2008 Presidential election. With unemployment over 10%, 2% points higher than the White House said would happen if the Stimulus Bill was passed, why isn't the White House focusing their efforts on job creation? Our economy, as many economists have warned, is on the brink of a second recession and need a stronger effort in job creation. The "war" on Fox News Channel is pathetic and smacks of Chicago politics which is something, I thought, Obama campaigned against. Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff for Obama, said Sunday on "Face the Nation" when asked about Fox News Channel, "It is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."

Since Fox News Channel has a prospective that disqualifies them as a news channel? On the criteria alone it would eliminate all "news" channels. David Axelrod explained, on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, that "The only argument Anita was making is that they're not really a news station. It's not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming. It's really not news. It's pushing a point of view." I think that the White House is missing the mark here. Granted Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly posses a conservative tinge that is just three hours of Fox News Channel programming. As I have been home finding a new job I have had the luxury of being able to watch programming on several news channels. The programming during the day on Fox News is no different than CNN.

At the end of the day the White House is attempting to exert their power to control the media. The White House has the majority of news channels in their hip pocket while Fox News chooses to fact check them. What happened to journalism? Isn't the journalist supposed to question, investigate, and report the facts of the situation? While true journalism has been going the way of the dinosaur for years, it fell off the cliff last year during the Presidential election cycle. Fox News Channel is reporting the news and their news commenter's – Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly – have a 1^st amendment right to question and fact check the White House while putting their conservative spin on it. If Americans are not intelligent enough to realize this, just as MSNBC & CNN put their liberal spin on the issue, it is not the job of the White House to wage a war on Fox News. Again, I thought Obama was going to come to Washington to be above petty politics and usher in a new era of transparency and bi-partisanship????

Fox News vs. White House: Sound Strategy?

Has the White House lost it? I mean, what do they hope to gain with their attack and continual denial of granting an interview with Fox News. This past Sunday White House Communications Director Anita Dunn commented about the rift between the White House and Fox News by saying, "What I think is fair to say about Fox – and certainly it's the way we view it – is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party. They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is." Now I have been laid off since January and it has given me ample time to watch CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, CSPAN, and other channels that make the claim to be reporting the news. What I have learned is that not one of these channels, with the exception of CSPAN, is unbiased in the programming. I have watched conservative pundits, with the exception of The Morning Joe, removed from MSNBC in favor for more White House friendly pundits.

Regardless of the White House view of the Fox News network the numbers do not lie. According to http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/cable-news the numbers of viewers for October 12, 2009 were for the major news channels:

Total Day
FNC – 1,385,000 viewers
CNN – 458,000 viewers
MSNBC –335,000 viewers
CNBC – 182,000 viewers
HLN –314,000 viewers

Prime Time
FNC – 2,453,000viewers
CNN— 563,000 viewers
MSNBC –683,000 viewers
CNBC – a scratch w/112,000 viewers
HLN – 566,000 viewers

A few weeks back President Obama appeared on 5 Sunday morning shows and on David Letterman on Monday night. Not one appearance was on Fox News Channel. The goal of President Obama for his media blitz was to get his message out and debunk the myths and rumors being spread on his health care reform plans. One has to question the logic of the Obama Administration. Nielsen Rating data for the week ending October 11, 2009 for cable shows had The O'Reilly Factor Thursday show ranked 25^th. No other political talk show cracked the top 25.

With the ratings game going to Fox News and seemingly garnering the lion share of viewers, does it not make sense for Obama to appear on a channel that reaches the most number of people? Instead of granting the request of Fox News for interviews, the White House has starting using the daily blog to create a "Truth-O-Meter" to monitor lies said on Fox. Here is the statement on www.whitehouse.gov website: "For even more Fox lies, check out the latest "Truth-O-Meter" feature from Politifact that debunks a false claim about a White House staffer that continues to be repeated by Glenn Beck and others on the network."

Really, the White House is wasting their with pundits on Fox News Channel!! Wolf Blitzer last Sunday asked David Gergen on CNN about the White House's use of the blog strategy. David Gergen warned, "It's a risky strategy and it's not one that I would advcate. If you are going to get personal against the media you're going to find that the animosities are just going to deepen, and you're going to find that you are almost going to draw viewers to people you are attacking. You build them up is some ways, you give them stature." Bingo!!! Gergen hits the nail on the head with his assessment.

By singling out one media outlet as the White House is doing they are driving up their ratings and giving them legitimacy. Now the entire channel is not filled with pundits like Glenn Beck just as MSNBC is not riddled with pundits like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, or Rachel Maddow. Anita Dunn while on CNN's "Reliabe Sources" complained the coverage Fox News had during the Presidential compaign ignored stories like the "financial collapse" instead featured stories that focused on "a guy named Bill Ayers and something called ACORN."

Granted Bill Ayers has not blown anything up or killed any cops lately; however he still contends that he wished they, Weatherman Underground, had done more. ACORN has seen their funding stripped, Census activities revoked, and is in the middle of a video scandal involving giving advise to a pimp and prostitute on housing. The Pew Research Center (an independent, non-partisan public opinion research organization) tracked campaign stories during the 2008 Presidentail election. It found that Fox News showed 40% negative stories on Obama as well as 40% on Republican candidate Sen. McCain. Over at CNN the contrast was a 22-point difference with 39% negative stories on Obama and 61% negative stories on McCain. Then we have MSNBC that ran only 14% negative stories on Obama while running 73% negatiave stories on McCain.

Back to my original question: Has the White House lost it?

The next smoking ban: Military personnel

Monday morning is here again. As I sip on my green tea, I came across a small news article in the Star Tribune that had the tag line “Can soldiers handle combat pressure without smokes?” At first I thought this question silly until I read the details. According to the article, a study done by the Institute of Medicine reported that “30% of active-duty military personnel and about 22% of veterans use tobacco.” The average in civil life is 20%.

While I understand having a strict code and chain of command in the military, I fail to see where an outright ban of smoking will benefit the morale of the company. Set aside the health risks – current and future – have on the soldier. Gary Stein posed this question in his article, Military should butt out of troops’ smoking habits, “The U.S. military can send brave and injured troops home to incredibly hellacious hospital conditions – or have you already forgotten about the Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal?”

That is just part of the intrusion being made. A soldier, especially fighting in the Middle East, has bigger threats facing them as they try to keep the peace and/or eradicate the terrorists. I cannot imagine the stress that one experiences while being under the constant threat of death. Retired Gen. Russel Honore quipped on CNN, “When you’re tired and you’ve been going days on end with minimum sleep, and you are not getting the proper meals on time, that hit of tobacco can make a difference” in response to the relief smoking can give the stress soldiers are under.

While suicide rates are on the rise among those in the military since the start of the war efforts in the Middle East. I am not saying that smoking is a cure or a determinant to suicide. Retired Gen. Honore acknowledges what many who smoke in America already know, the hit of tobacco can bring a perceive calm to the day. Now if a man or a woman in the military feels the need to light up a cigarette after the stress of combat so be it.

Now if tobacco was illegal than we have a different conversation on the topic. The call for the ban is political correctness gone too far. With the big push by the Obama administration in overhauling the health care system and it is reported, by the Pentagon, that smoking in the military costs $846M a year in “medical care and lost productivity”. Let’s not confuse the argument.

Simply put. Tobacco is legal, some, 30%, of active-duty military personnel use tobacco to relieve the stress of the day. While everyone understands the health effects on a person, at the end of the day it is a personnel choice not something the government needs to determine.

Who is lying: Pelosi or CIA?

House Speaker Pelosi just needs to shut up. In her press conference last week she made the claim that the CIA “misled” her in September of 2002 and was not told that water boarding was being done, especially on Abu Zubaydah. Friday, after Speaker Pelosi’s grandstand, CIA Director Leon Panetta stated, “CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing ‘the enhanced techniques that have been employed’”.

According the law of the land, it is a crime to lie or mislead Congress. If this is the case, why is it okay then for Speaker Pelosi is able to stand there and lie to the American Public? The surprising message being lost here is the lack of defense of Speaker Pelosi by the White House. Why might this be?

Perhaps it is because the CIA did let Congress know of the techniques being used to ferret out information. On CNN’s State of the Union, Rep. John Boehner said, “If the speaker is accusing the CIA and other intelligence officials of lying or misleading the Congress, then she should come forward with evidence and turn that over to the Justice Department so they be prosecuted. And if that is not the case, I think she ought to apologize to our intelligence professionals around the world.”

As I am writing a promo came on MSNBC for Hardball. Chris Matthews’s teaser put forth the question if the Republican Party is using the Pelosi CIA attack as a distraction to Bush era policy. Now, I understand that Chris Matthews is a commentary but many people in our realm feel he is a news reporter. Why doesn’t the liberal media focus on Pelosi’s retort to CIA Panetta’s charge that she was given full disclosure?

Speaker Pelosi shifted her focus from the CIA to the Bush administration when she put out the statement last Friday, “My criticism of the manner in which the Bush administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe.” Really? Is Speaker Pelosi for real? As it has been reported, she first claimed that she was never briefed only to later soften her stance then to an outright blast of the CIA.

It was the role of the CIA to inform Congress of the techniques used, which according to CIA Panetta was done in September 2002. I would love to see a truth commission as it will bring to light to truth. My only concern is if the media will report the facts and not add their bias.

Is real Journalism dead?

What happened to journalism in America? I understand that with our 24/7 news cycle more pressure is on the various news sources to retain viewership. As I sit here looking for a job, I have the television on in the background. A typical day starts with Morning Joe on MSNBC then a switch to CNN around 11 am. After lunch, I turn the channel back to MSNBC to watch Press Secretary Robert Gibbs daily briefings. All the while I am reading about 10 websites – newspaper, blogs, and other – in my attempt to gain a greater understanding of the issues of the day.

These so-called news programs need to be called out. Newspapers need to be called out. They are all yellow journalists. No longer does the Woodward/Bernstein investigative reporting exist in America. Journalists, mainly those on television, are more in the business to expand their own ego. Why cannot the 24/7 news cycle (MSNBC, CNN, and Fox) report the news without the side commentary or slant of those reporting the news.

The late concept in the electronic media is the aligning with political ideologies. We have MSNBC in with liberals while Fox is aligned with conservatives. The news has always had a bias and rarely do they have a columnist or a host that runs the middle ground. This was obvious during the historic Presidential election of 2008.

In some backroom agreement the major hitters in the industry agreed to put in depth reporting of Sen. Obama on the back burner. The Fox channel was one of a few outlets that tried to vet all candidates properly. The trouble is they were vilified as a right-wing extreme channel due to their intense scrutiny of Sen. Obama. I wonder though if the perception of intense scrutiny was a result of other major news outlets were ignoring virtually everything questionable about Sen. Obama’s past.

It was during the 2008 Presidential election process that journalism fell off the cliff. The climb back to reporting the news without bias may never come. It is truly sad that our country has succumbed to the journalist hacks in the blogosphere that pass themselves off as news reporters. When will America demand better unbiased reporting?