Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald gets the site's lead story today (5/8/09, ad-viewing required) with an excerpt from the New York Times obituary for U.S. fighter pilot Harold E. Fischer Jr., who, as the Times headline puts it, was "Tortured in a Chinese Prison." Greenwald deems such naming of Fischer's ordeal--"kept in a dark, damp cell with no bed and no opening except a slot in the door...handcuffed. Hour after hour, a high-frequency whistle pierced the air"--to be "a major editorial breach" for the paper that so agilely dances around the T-word when reporting on U.S. actions:

So that's torture now?... Using the editorial standards of America's journalistic institutions--as explained recently by the NYT public editor--shouldn't this be called "torture" rather than torture--or "harsh tactics some critics decry as torture"? Why are the much less brutal methods used by the Chinese on Fischer called torture by the NYT, whereas much harsher methods used by Americans do not merit that term? Here we find what is clearly the single most predominant fact shaping our political and media discourse: Everything is different, and better, when we do it. In fact, it is that exact mentality that was and continues to be the primary justification for our torture regime and so much else that we do.

Along those same lines, I learned from reading the New York Times this week (via the New Yorker's Amy Davidson) that Iraq is suffering a very serious problem. Tragically, that country is struggling with what the Times calls a "culture of impunity." What this means is that politically connected Iraqis who clearly broke the law are nonetheless not being prosecuted because of their political influence!

Luckily for us, such a scenario could never play out under the press' watchful eye (let alone with its outright endorsement) here in the U.S. where "everything is different, and better."

The current Democracy Now! (5/8/09) features New York Times Pentagon Pundits reporter David Barstow giving Amy Goodman the background on the U.S. military's retraction of a report clearing itself of domestic propaganda wrongdoing:

So the report comes out in January, and it effectively exonerated the program. Now, one thing your viewers should know is that as soon as the stories ran, the program itself was suspended by the Pentagon, pending the outcome of this investigation. But what happened earlier this week was really unusual. It really is very rare for the inspector general of the Defense Department to rescind and repudiate and, in fact, even withdraw the report from its own website.

And the reason why they did is because after the report was released, it became pretty clear that there were significant problems with it, significant factual problems with it. The one that jumped out to me immediately as I read through the report for the first time was that it listed one particular general who I had written an awful lot about, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who's probably the preeminent military analyst for NBC and MSNBC. They listed him as having absolutely no ties to any defense contractors.

In a piece of reality too large for even the Pentagon to deny, the most prominent paper in the U.S. had published Barstow's "5,000 words that detailed tie after tie after tie he had to defense contractors" as board-member, consultant and adviser--which much corporate media apparently cared little about, offering as they do, to this day, a platform for propaganda-worker McCaffrey's conflicted views.

Asking "Can We Get Reporters to Stop Saying That EFCA Takes Away the Secret Ballot?" Dean Baker bluntly states (Beat the Press, 5/7/09) that "it's not true." Even though this is one of the "most often repeated lines of the opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act"--"that it will deny workers the right to vote decide on a union with a secret-ballot election"--Baker explains exactly how "that is wrong, wrong and wrong":

First of all, workers do not currently enjoy that right. Maybe that should be repeated a few times in case there are any very slow reporters reading: Workers do not currently have the right to a secret-ballot election to decide whether or not to be in a union.

Under current law, an employer has the option to recognize a union based on a majority of workers decision to sign cards requesting recognition. That's right, folks; under current law, employers can decide to recognize a union without a secret-ballot election.

In fact, with the EFCA, "the decision as to whether or not to have a secret-ballot election or to organize through majority sign-up would rest with workers, not employers." Which means that "anyone who claims that they oppose the Employee Free Choice Act because they support workers' right to a secret ballot, they are not telling the truth. The media should be pointing this out." See the recent issue of FAIR's magazine Extra!: "For Media, 'Card Check' Promise Is One to Break: Corporate Outlets Suddenly Discover 'Workers Rights'" (2/09) by Janine Jackson.

It is quite telling that, even considering how in Ed Schultz's May 7 MSNBC interview of Physician for a National Health Program Margaret Flowers and Sen. Debbie Stabenow, he "slaps a gratuitous insult on the heroines of Code Pink" and "says he's against protesting and "getting arrested" as a rule but thinks it's OK if doctors in suits and 'educated professional people' do it" and even "pretends to believe (or actually believes) that President Obama favors considering the possibility of creating single-payer healthcare," activist and author David Swanson (OpEd News, 5/7/09) "can't recall a better corporate news video segment in at least the past decade":

The heart of this story is the gaping chasm between majority opinion and the corporate agenda of the United States Senate....

Ed goes after the health insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies and the HMOs. He plays video of activist Kevin Zeese speaking up at the recent Senate Finance Committee hearing and being arrested. He explains perfectly what single-payer healthcare is. (I recommend this flyer.) And he denounces the anti-democratic exclusion of single-payer advocates by committee chairman Max Baucus.

And then Ed brings on Margaret Flowers, who absolutely nails every question he asks, and he asks the right questions. Flowers lists the polls showing that over 60 percent of Americans and 60 percent of physicians want single-payer.

Schultz's choice to air Flowers telling viewers "that the next Senate hearing is on March 12 and that advocates are asking for at least one supporter of single-payer to be included," has Swanson exclaiming that "that sort of mention of an upcoming event and very nearly inclusion of exactly what people can do to improve their country is rare indeed on our televisions."

Quoting John Dewey's warning about "the proper role of the press in a democracy"--"a class of experts is inevitably so removed from common interests as to become a class with private interests and private knowledge"--Eric Alterman finds it (Nation, 5/6/09) "difficult to imagine a more telling--and disturbing--manifestation of Dewey's prediction than the current torture debate in Washington":

Even after the disgraceful performance of so many armchair warriors during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, who would have dared predict the willingness, nay, eagerness, of respected journalists and pundits to argue in favor of purposeful ignorance? Sadly, many of them have shown less interest in potential war crimes committed by the Bush administration than little Misha Lerner, the Jewish Primary Day School fourth grader who quizzed Condoleezza Rice about her inability to explain the legality of these policies to a group of Stanford students.

While many have made the case to varying degrees, Peggy Noonan made it most explicitly: "Some things in life need to be mysterious," she said of America's role in torturing terrorist suspects. "Sometimes you need to just keep walking." And while defenders of the insider establishment may note, as a mitigating factor, that Noonan is less a journalist than an ex-Reagan flack who plays a journalist on the Wall Street Journal editorial page and ABC's This Week, what, then, to say about David Broder?

And how does Alterman describe the recent writings of the man who "sets a tone for many of his colleagues and represents a goal to which many if not most of them aspire"?--Well, "he, too, advises his colleagues to keep walking, eyes wide shut."

During his regular review of scientific reporting for the Knight Science Journalism Tracker, Boyce Rensberger describes (5/7/09) how the "11-year (give or take) sunspot cycle, associated with a periodic reversal in the sun’s magnetic poles" means that "the number of sunspots increases in the years just before a reversal." But Rensberger notes that "Where are we now?" depends on "Who you gonna read?":

The Christian Science Monitor says the next reversal, expected in 2012, could be associated with an unusual number of sunspots and solar flares. Those flares send out barrages of charged particles that can cause problems on Earth. The story carries this hed: "Solar Storms Ahead: Is Earth Prepared? / Sunspot Cycle Beginning in 2012 May Put Satellites, Power Grids at Risk." The story, by James Turner, focuses strongly on the threat of coming solar storms.

But over at the National Geographic, a different story. Anne Minard writes about a “prolonged lull in solar activity” (the recent absence of sunspots has gone on longer than expected) and whether it might bring another “little ice age.” Minard writes: "The sun is the least active it's been in decades and the dimmest in a hundred years." She goes on to talk about the past little ice age during the sun's so-called Maunder minimum, when Europe saw harsher than average winters. She does include scientists' belief that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since then would swamp any solar-forced cooling.

Meanwhile, almost inevitably, into this otherwise reasoned debate wades a less-than-scientific outlet reaching its own conclusions: "Fox News, predictably, notes the Geographic story and plugs it with this hed: 'Quiet Sun May Trigger Global Cooling.'"

Reading Mark Lander's and Elizabeth Bumiller's New York Times "tidbit out of an overheated Washington last week: 'President Obama and his top advisers have been meeting almost daily to discuss options for helping the Pakistani government and military repel the [Taliban] offensive,'" Tom Engelhardt (TomDispatch, 5/7/09) decides to toss some cold water on "this kind of atmosphere that naturally produces the bureaucratic equivalent of mass hysteria":

Reports indicate that Obama's national security team has been convening regular "crisis" meetings and having "nearly nonstop discussions" at the White House, not to mention issuing alarming and alarmist statements of all sorts about the devolving situation in Pakistan, the dangers to Islamabad, our fears for the Pakistani nuclear arsenal and so on. In fact, Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landy of McClatchy news service quote "a senior U.S. intelligence official" (from among the legion of anonymous officials who populate our nation's capital) saying: "The situation in Pakistan has gone from bad to worse, and no one has any idea about how to reverse it. I don't think 'panic' is too strong a word to describe the mood here."...

You know, that offensive in the Lower Dir Valley. That's near the Buner District. You remember, right next to the Swat Valley and, in case you're still not completely keyed in, geographically speaking, close to the Malakand Division. I mean, if the Pakistani government were in crisis over the deteriorating situation in Fargo, North Dakota, we would consider it material for late night jokesters.

Reminding you that "if Pakistan poses a mortal threat to you in New York, Toledo or El Paso," you'll just have to "get in line"--and "it will be a long one and you'll be toward the back"--Engelhardt sees "a certain irony" in that "we essentially know what those crisis meetings will result in. After all, the U.S. government has been embroiled with Pakistan for at least 40 years and for just that long, its top officials have regularly come to the same policy conclusions--to support Pakistani military dictatorships." Even McClatchy reports on how "that, another senior official acknowledged Wednesday, 'means another coup.'"

Bringing us the news that "the North Carolina legislature just sent a bill to study committee (a.k.a shelved it at least until next year) that would have crippled municipal broadband projects in the state," AlterNet's Tana Ganeva (5/6/09) tells "why that's a really, really good (albeit temporary) thing":

According to a recent study, America ranks 15th in the world in broadband access. This is partly because we have a very large population spread over a very large amount of space. But it is also because private companies don't care about poor people and refuse to build broadband infrastructure in rural areas and many low-income city neighborhoods.

This is where municipal broadband plans come in. Local governments set up networks providing fast Internet access to underserved or totally ignored areas, for free or at significantly lower prices than would private providers.

Which sounds great--to everyone except giant telecommunications companies "distressed by the prospect of actual competition in an otherwise monopolized industry." Their general response "is to lobby for deeply unpopular legislation that would effectively kill local government broadband projects"--as has been their strategy for quite some time; see the FAIR magazine Extra!: "Strings Attached: Telecom Industry's Spin Machine Casts Net Over Community Broadband" (9-10/05) by Michelle Chen.

In the wake of the release of the U.S. military's own figures showing a record number of bombs were dropped by U.S. warplanes in Afghanistan during April, newspapers are reporting today on a particularly deadly bombing attack on Monday that killed over 100 civilians, according to Afghan officials and witnesses.

Anonymous U.S. military officials of course vigorously denied that they were responsible, instead blaming the deaths on Taliban grenades. As one anonymous offiical put it in an interview with the Washington Post, "the Taliban went to a concerted effort to make it look like the U.S. airstrikes caused this;" however the Post noted that "The official did not offer evidence to support the claim, and could not say what had caused the deaths."

If the more than 100 dead are confirmed, the New York Times notes, Monday's bombing "will almost certainly be the worst in terms of civilian deaths since the American intervention began in 2001."

Yet the fact of the U.S.-authored civilian deaths themselves is not what the Times found to be the most newsworthy aspect of the story, as expressed by the headline it chose for its front page story about the attack: "Civilian Deaths Imperil Support for Afghan War"

To the Times,  as well as to the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, there is clearly a far more significant cost to this deadly U.S. attack than the reported killing of a hundred Afghans. As the Times remarked, "Civilian deaths — more than 2,000 Afghans were killed last year alone, the United Nations says — have been a decisive factor in souring many Afghans on the war." And, as the Washington Post noted, "The allegations came at a particularly sensitive time for the U.S. military and the Obama administration, which is pushing more than 21,000 additional American troops into the country and shifting strategy."

And the Wall Street Journal's headline took the prize for callousness: "Claim of Afghan Civilian Deaths Clouds U.S. Talks."

One has to wonder about the values of a press where U.S. taxpayer-funded slaughter of civilians elicits journalists' concern not about victims, but about the war's popularity with the population having record numbers of bombs dropped on them and how that might hamper U.S. strategic goals.

In a column attacking Google and other "accused newspaper industry killers," the Washington Post's Dana Milbank (5/7/09) doesn't present much of an argument for why newspapers are dying--but he provides an excellent example of why journalism like his deserves to die.

[Marissa] Mayer, who oversees Google News, explained how "Google is doing its part" to preserve journalism--by keeping the lion's share of ad revenue before directing readers to newspaper sites. "Google News and Google search provide a valuable service to online newspapers specifically by sending interested readers to their sites," she said.

Oh? Let's plug in "Senate Commerce Committee 'Future of Journalism' hearing" into Google News and see what comes up. After a link to a wire story, the second headline is "Google's Mayer to Dispense Advice to Newspapers at Senate Hearing."

One obvious feature of journalism that's worth preserving is that it makes sense, which this passage clearly does not.  What is the relevance of the fact that a headline about Google comes up when you do a Google News search on a hearing whose most newsworthy aspects include a Google executive's testimony?  It seems unlikely that Milbank is advancing a conspiracy theory that Google is rigging its search results to get more publicity for itself, because he plainly thinks Mayer's testimony was newsworthy as well.

Milbank instead seems to be saying that this link turning up somehow disproves Mayer's contention that Google News provides as "valuable service to online newspapers"--but how does it disprove this, exactly? The link goes to a Wall Street Journal blog post--and the Journal is presumably happy to have Google sending people to it, because the Journal gets paid every time someone sees the ad sitting next to the post.

The one intelligible point that Milbank makes here is his complaint that Google is "keeping the lion's share of ad revenue before directing readers to newspaper sites."  Yes, it does--it does keep most of the revenue that it gets for selling ads on its own website, revenue that would not exist if Google did not exist.  That's wrong, in the eyes of Milbank and other self-pitying newspaper pundits,  because Google is getting paid to find things that belong to newspapers.  It's not fair!  You can almost hear Milbank's foot stamping the floor.

This is unpersuasive on a few counts.  For one thing, quoting newspaper headlines and a minimal amount of text, as Google does, is plainly fair use--anyone has the right to do this without asking the newspaper owner's permission or paying them anything.  FAIR often quotes Milbank's copy--generally to point out how inaccurate, misleading or servilely devoted to power it is--and we're not about to start paying him for the privilege. Google has no more obligation to pay newspapers for directing Internet users to their stories than tour guides have to pay the owners of the landmark buildings they point out.  Or, for that matter, than newspapers are required to pay newsmakers for creating the events that newspapers profit from reporting.

But Google, as we've pointed out before, does not rely on what would seem to be a strong fair use claim; it allows newspapers to opt out of Google News by adding a simple line of code to their websites.  If the Washington Post thinks it's being killed by Google News, it can immediately stop Google News from directing readers to it. Clearly, the Post doesn't want to do that--it wants Google to keep sending readers to the it, and it wants Google to send it a great big check as well.  That's not the way the capitalist system works, but you can understand why Dana Milbank wishes it were.

Eyeing a new poll that "revealed that one in four Americans now believe that the 'faux' news delivered by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert is replacing 'real' news sources as viable outlets," Greg Mitchell (Editor & Publisher, 5/5/09) has to wonder "if the remaining (if relatively low) public respect for the press is gone for good":

Yes, the delivery platform of the future will change--the Kindle, iPhone apps or rubbery plastic may replace paper everywhere--but the content still has to be credible. And now it must be said: The media blew both of the major catastrophes of our time.

I speak, of course, of the Iraq war and the financial meltdown. I wrote a book about the first, calling it So Wrong for So Long. I could write a sequel on the second disaster, and maybe title it So Wrong Again.

Even though "individual reporters at certain papers did some fine watchdog work," Mitchell writes that their efforts were "to no avail" and that "defenders of the press in this matter are cherry-picking the good stuff, much like Bush with his intelligence on Iraqi WMDs."

See Extra!: "Busted Bubble: The Press Fell Down on the Job on Housing Prices" (11-12/08) By Veronica Cassidy.

Blogging on how May 4 and 5 broadcasts "feature NPR continuing its function of justifying and sanitizing the U.S. torture regime," dedicated public radio critic Mytwords (NPR Check, 5/5/09) plumbs the depths of NPR's aversion to "human rights or international law advocates or experts"--instead preferring "members or former members of various U.S. government agencies," even "the very ones implicated in formulating and carrying out torture":

For a long time NPR news has minimized (June 2006), dismissed (February 2007), ignored (April 2007), covered over (October 2007) and collaborated with (December 2007) the use of torture by agencies and agents of the U.S. government. You can search NPR news in vain for any original investigative work on exposing torture or on any serious elucidation of the laws and conventions that prohibit the U.S. from committing torture and require prosecution for violators.

See the FAIR publication Extra! Update: "Tortured Justifications for Bad Journalism" (12/07) by Jim Naureckas & Candice O'Grady.

The North American Congress on Latin America has published (NACLA Magazine, 5-6/09) Dan Beeton's account of how, following Evo Morales' huge win in the Bolivian presidential referendum of last August, his opponents instigated "riots, economic sabotage and the massacre of more than 20 indigenous"--during which Bolivia threw out the U.S. ambassador for attempted spying and allegedly providing "funding for violent opposition groups." Yet, Beeton tells us, "save for one Washington Post article, the [subsequent U.S.] Morales visit garnered no full-length reports in major U.S. papers."

This could arguably be a good thing, considering the results of what little attention was paid to Morales having solicited Sen. Richard Lugar's "remarkable statement implicitly acknowledging that the United States had made a mistake in failing to condemn the September violence":

Only the Associated Press and the Washington Post even mentioned it, and the AP initially misrepresented the statement completely, reporting that Lugar had said "the United States rejects any suggestion that it did not respect Bolivia's sovereignty or the legitimacy of its government." (A correction was never issued. A subsequent AP article in December cited Lugar's statement correctly and reported Morales' encouraging response.)

Although Lugar's statement was handed directly to the Post, neither the meeting with Lugar nor Lugar's statement made it into the print edition of the paper's article on Morales' visit. This is a striking omission in a 700-word article, since it was arguably the most newsworthy event of the visit. A Web version of the article did mention the Lugar meeting, but only in the 13th paragraph.

Hear of similarly shoddy press treatment of the other great official U.S. enemy of Latin America on FAIR's radio program CounterSpin: "Dan Beeton on Venezuela" (2/13/09).

Just one highlight in Brad Jacobson's wide-ranging interview of Editor & Publisher's Greg Mitchell (Media Bloodhound, 5/5/09) is Mitchell's scorn for "media coverage of the anti-tax tea parties":

Greg Mitchell: Most amazing was that they tended to treat it like protests in the past. There have been national abortion rights protests and immigration rights protests and of course anti-war protests and everything spread out around the country. But never, that I'm aware of, has there ever been protests like this that were essentially promoted by a major news organization, that is Fox, who were actually promoting it, not just saying we're going to cover this. And so it was almost like the mainstream media was afraid to sort of say, "Look, this is not just grassrootsy or even sponsored by a national organization." It was also promoted by talk radio and promoted by the leading cable news network, which makes it a completely different thing than local activists who want to speak out. They're going to a rally to see Glenn Beck. It's a whole different thing.

Well worth reading, the interview also hits upon coverage of the McCain/Palin ticket, Internet media's effect on for-profit journalism and Jon Stewart's "boiling point." Also listen to any of Mitchell's CounterSpin appearances--on topics as varied as media presentations of the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima, friendly fire-victim Pat Tillman and the New York Times' mea culpa for pre-Iraq War misreportage.

New York Times editorialist Lawrence Downes (5/4/09) has some good questions about Pete Seeger's big 90th birthday party. The broadcast surely is bound to "be a PBS special made in pledge-week heaven," but Downes has to "wonder, though, how many of the angry moments will survive":

Will we hear the Native American musicians pleading for support in their battle with Peabody Energy? Peabody is a giant strip-mining company that has been at the center of lawsuits by Southwestern tribes over drinking water and income from mineral rights.

Will we hear the praise for the Clean Water Act of 1972, or the acid remark from one of the Indians: "Ever since that man by the name of Hudson went up that river, it's gone to hell."

The evening was, after all, a benefit for Clearwater, the name of an organization and a boat, both built by Mr. Seeger, that have fought for decades to rescue the Hudson River from life as an industrial sewer. The job isn’t done. Remember PCBs? General Electric dumped tons of them in the river. The company is about ready to dredge them out, but for now they are still there, seeping downriver and into fish.

Some insight into the priorities likely to hold sway in PBS's editing process may be gleaned from the "public" network's long-standing close relationship with at least one major sponsor... General Electric.