When FAIR released a study of the PBS's NewsHour (then known as the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour) in 1989, one finding stood out:

The Exxon Valdez oil spill was the major environmental story of the period. MacNeil/Lehrer had seven segments on the spill; not one included an environmental representative. Several discussions were limited to Exxon officials and friendly officials: The March 30, 1989 program, for example, featured Exxon's chairman and Alaska's governor ("The chairman of the board of Exxon, I think, has been to heavy on his own company").

And the summary of a segment from last night's broadcast of the NewsHour (4/29/10):

Costs Climb as BP Struggles to Contain Oil Spill
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is threatening sensitive coastline and commercial fisheries, following last week's explosion at an offshore oil rig. Jeffrey Brown talks to a BP spokeswoman about the implications of the spill for the company and for offshore drilling.

Let's hope the company wasn't too hard on itself.

The Obama Justice Department--or at least one of its top prosecutors--is cracking down on investigative reporting without regard for the First Amendment.

The first disturbing development was the indictment of NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake, whose leaks to the Baltimore Sun helped expose how the NSA's warrantless spying program deliberately failed to protect the privacy of U.S. citizens.

Now the same prosecutor who indicted Drake--William Welch, who stepped down from a prior post as head of the Justice Department's public integrity unit after botching the prosecution of Sen. Ted Stevens (R.-Alaska)--has opened a new front against freedom of the press. Welch subpoenaed New York Times reporter James Risen to reveal his sources for the account in his book of a CIA operation that may have given Iran important information about how to create a nuclear bomb in the course of trying to infiltrate the Iranian nuclear program. The New York Times reports today (4/29/10):

The Obama administration is seeking to compel a writer to testify about his confidential sources for a 2006 book about the Central Intelligence Agency, a rare step that was authorized by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

The author, James Risen, who is a reporter for the New York Times, received a subpoena on Monday requiring him to provide documents and to testify May 4 before a grand jury in Alexandria, Va., about his sources for a chapter of his book, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration. The chapter largely focuses on problems with a covert CIA effort to disrupt alleged Iranian nuclear weapons research....

The Bush administration had sought Mr. Risen's cooperation in identifying his sources for the Iran chapter of his book, and it obtained an earlier subpoena against him in January 2008 under Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey. But Mr. Risen fought the subpoena, and never had to testify before it expired last summer. That left it up to Mr. Holder to decide whether to press forward with the matter by seeking a new subpoena.

If a judge does not agree to quash the subpoena and Mr. Risen still refuses to comply, he risks being held in contempt of court.

The Times report alludes to the case of Judith Miller, who was subpoenaed by independent counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to reveal which Bush administration official had revealed that the Valerie Plame, the wife of a prominent Bush critic, was an undercover CIA officer. FAIR encouraged Miller to cooperate with the prosecutor in that case, because no genuine public interest was served in protecting the identity of an official who had used classified information to punish a government critic.

In both the cases pursued by Welch, on the other hand, the targets are legitimate whistleblowers who revealed information that was of vital concern to the public. Risen has announced through his lawyer that he will fight the subpoena in court, and if he gets a judge who respects the First Amendment he should succeed. If Barack Obama and Eric Holder respect the First Amendment, meanwhile, they will rein in these disturbing efforts to squelch journalistic scrutiny of the state.

Fox host Glenn Beck has had it (4/27/10) with opponents of Arizona's new immigration law making analogies to Nazi Germany:

I hate to rain on the hate parade here, but can we please slow down for just a minute and, I don't know, think? You are comparing the systematic, cold-blooded extermination of  millions of Jews to America making sure people are here legally. The parallels are... nonexistent.

Indeed. The guy who's made a regular habit of deriding various White House officials as Communists, Maoists and the like is urging restraint with the historical analogies. Save the Hitler talk for people who really are behaving like the Nazis. Like Al Gore's climate change activism, for example:

Here's Beck talking about Al Gore on his radio show in 2006 (Media Matters, 6/8/06):

When you take a little bit of truth and then you mix it with untruth, or your theory, that’s where you get people to believe. . . . It’s like Hitler. Hitler said a little bit of truth, and then he mixed in “and it’s the Jews’ fault.” That’s where things get a little troublesome, and that’s exactly what’s happening.

UPDATE: Here's Glenn Beck on the cover of the current issue of Extra!, comparing the systematic, cold-blooded extermination of millions of Jews to...religions calling for social justice:

George Will, defending Arizona's draconian new immigration law, concludes his column (Washington Post, 4/28/10) with this today:

Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with illegal immigrants passing through their back yards at 3 a.m.

There are 47 million Latinos in the United States.  Will's assumption that the only ones known to the readers he's addressing are likely to be waiting tables or mowing lawns is quite bizarre--and a testament to how homogeneous his world must be.

Equally strange is the contrast he draws between the "fine" individuals his readers know and the presumably more sinister types found in Arizona backyards.  Arizona is not the only state with many Latino residents, nor with numerous unauthorized immigrants. At the beginning of his column, Will mocks House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for representing San Francisco, but California has more undocumented workers per capita and eight times as many in total; shouldn't he stop judging her disdainfully from a distance?

I'm having trouble getting my mind around the legal case against Gizmodo editor Jason Chen, who purchased an iPhone prototype that was apparently mislaid in a bar, published photographs of it on the Gawker-affiliated blog, and then returned it to Apple when the company asked for its property back.

Here's a thought experiment: Suppose you're out walking and a neighbor says to you: "Look at this cool dog I found.  I think I'm going to keep him."  You think you know who actually owns the dog--let's call him Steve--and so you offer the neighbor some money to give it to you instead.  You take a picture of the dog and make a flyer that says, "Steve, I think this is your dog."  When Steve sees your flyer and calls you, you give him his dog back.

Now, are you guilty of grand theft dog?  I'm no lawyer, but I have to think the answer is obviously no--because you have no intention of keeping Steve's dog.

The main difference between the dog situation and the iPhone case is that--even though in each case the stolen property is brought to the attention of and returned to the owner--the primary motivation for purchasing the property is not returning it, but publishing a news story about it. Does this journalistic intention really transform the action from a good deed into a potential felony?

It seems that what the 17 police agencies involved in this case are protecting is not Apple's physical property but its secrets. The spectacle of cops seizing computers from a journalist's home in defense of corporate secrecy is, as CJR's Ryan Chittum (4/26/10) suggests, more than a little creepy.

As a U.S. political columnist, the Washington Post's Anne Applebaum ("Britain's Spot of Tea Party," 4/27/10) might be excused for calling the Liberal Democratic Party "Britain's historically insignificant third party"; historically speaking, it was actually one of Britain's two major parties in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It's Applebaum's misunderstanding of the politics of her own country that's harder to forgive.

Applebaum's column asks, "What would the Tea Party movement look like if it were British"--and the answer is, like the Liberal Democrats, as embodied by candidate Nick Clegg. Presumably it's not his support for immigration or his mixed ethnic background--two things the Tea Parties are not notably enthusiastic about--that makes her see a resemblance.

So apparently the similarity she's talking about is in Clegg's third-party message: "Instead of ideology, he offers an option: If you are sick of Labor, if you can't bring yourself to vote Conservative, if you are bored of the two-party system itself--then vote for me." Applebaum concludes her column by saying that the ordinary British voter, "like his Tea-Partying colleagues across the Atlantic, is perfectly happy to vote for the end of politics as we know it. The faster the better, please."

But Tea Party activists are not particularly interested in third parties, nor are they equally disenchanted with each of the two major ones.  According to a New York Times/CBS News survey (4/5-12/10),  Tea Party supporters are 6 percentage points less likely than all respondents to support a new third party (40 percent vs. 46 percent).  Sixty-six percent of Tea Partiers usually or always vote Republican; 6 percent usually or always vote Democratic. Applebaum seems, like many journalists, to believe that the Tea Party protesters are pretty much like Perot voters; as political scientist Ron Rapoport told the FiveThirtyEight blog (4/19/10), "The major difference is that Perot movement was a total rejection of both parties, while the tea party movement is a total rejection of only one party--the Democrats."

Applebaum also claims that "Britain, like the United States, has 'first past the post' voting: a two-party system and, usually, a one-party government--albeit Britain's has far fewer checks and balances than that of the United States." Actually, since the election of Richard Nixon in 1968, divided government has been more the rule than the exception in the U.S.--with different parties controlling the White House and at least one house of Congress in 30 of the last 42 years.

A Washington Post article (4/23/10) about the International Monetary Fund focused on the advice it is offering for the United States. The piece notes that this is somewhat unusual. Even stranger, though, is the Post's description of IMF officials as folks who "have a long history of stabilizing economies and solving global financial problems."

This might come as news to those who've been on the receiving end of the IMF's advice. As economist Dean Baker put it at his Beat the Press blog (which has a new home at cepr.net--bookmark it!):

Back in the '90s, the IMF came to be known as the "Typhoid Mary" of emerging markets as its policy prescriptions led to sharp economic downturns in one country after another. It tried to impose a harsh austerity plan on Argentina in 2001 and did everything it could to sabotage its economy when the country refused to go along. Its sabotage effort included economic growth projections that were likely politically motivated, since they consistently under-projected growth. This would have the effect of scaring away potential efforts. By contrast, the IMF consistently over-projected Argentina's growth in the years when it was following policies recommended by the IMF.

And that someone is Fareed Zakaria, in columns published in the Washington Post ("Cool the Goldman Rage") and in the Post-owned Newsweek. Zakaria is unimpressed by the SEC's fraud case against Goldman Sachs; he likens the firm's mortgage securities bonds to someone placing a bet against the New York Yankees.

Then he writes:

But the rage surrounding the Goldman case can cloud our perspective and distort public policy. We're going through a familiar part of America's boom-and-bust cycle. Having been mesmerized during the go-go years, having unduly lionized and feted industries, firms, and people as they rode the wave, we now want to throw these people to the wolves.

Hold on a second. Who is the "we" that "lionized and feted industries, firms, and people as they rode the wave"? How many people spent the last decade shouting, "Let's hear it for Wall Street, everyone!" Talk about a clouded perspective.

A real headline today (4/26/10) in the Washington Post:

Amid Outrage Over Civilian Deaths in Pakistan, CIA Turns to Smaller Missiles

The piece--by Joby Warrick and Peter Finn--has government officials (anonymously, of course) providing new assurances:

The technological improvements have resulted in more accurate operations that have provoked relatively little public outrage, the officials said.... The CIA declines to publicly discuss its clandestine operations in Pakistan, and a spokesman would not comment on the kinds of weapons the agency is using. But two counterterrorism officials said in interviews that evolving technology and tactics have kept the number of civilian deaths extremely low. The officials, along with other U.S. and Pakistani officials interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity because the drone campaign is both classified and controversial.

The piece goes on to offer some numbers:

According to an internal CIA accounting described to the Washington Post, just over 20 civilians are known to have died in missile strikes since January 2009, in a 15-month period that witnessed more than 70 drone attacks that killed 400 suspected terrorists and insurgents. Agency officials said the CIA's figures are based on close surveillance of targeted sites both before and after the missiles hit.

Unofficial tallies based on local news reports are much higher. The New America Foundation puts the civilian death toll at 181 and reports a far higher number of alleged terrorists and insurgents killed--more than 690.

The Post account is one of those instances where accepting the government's (anonymous) claims at face value is really the only way to accept the storyline, since they're unwilling to go on the record or share their data with independent researchers.

The piece includes this strange comment:

The drone strikes have been controversial in Pakistan, where many view them as an infringement on national sovereignty.

Yes, "many" people would probably agree that another country conducting secret, deadly airstrikes in another country infringes that country's sovereignty. Does that conclusion really need to qualified?

The headline of this Washington Post piece today (4/26/10) is certainly not promising:

Sharing a West Bank Highway Proves a Tall Order for Israel, Palestinians

The highway in question was built by the Israeli government on occupied Palestinian territory. Since 2000, Israeli authorities have barred Palestinians from using the road. They are now offering to open just two on-ramps for use by Palestinians, who would be searched upon entering the road. And the highway would still not provide access to the crucial Palestinian city of Ramallah.

So what would justify the notion that Palestinians, like Israelis, aren't doing their part to "share"? Nothing. This is the only explanation of any sort that the Post's  Janine Zacharia offers:

The debate over Highway 443 illustrates a fundamental rub in the West Bank: If the Israelis and Palestinians can't agree over how to share nine miles of pavement, how will they ever resolve the far more complex issues that divide them?

From an Israeli viewpoint, allowing Palestinians on the road increases the risk of violence and adds traffic. To Palestinians, the road is another example of Israel's reluctance to make life easier for them in occupied areas.

Perhaps segregationists in the United States lodged similar complaints about overcrowding too.

Perhaps the most revealing anecdote (noted by Glenn Greenwald, and likely others) in Sunday's New York Times Magazine profile (4/25/10) of the Politico's gossip-journalist Mike Allen:

On a recent Friday night, a couple hundred influentials gathered for a Mardi Gras-themed birthday party for Betsy Fischer, the executive producer of Meet the Press. Held at the Washington home of the lobbyist Jack Quinn, the party was a classic Suck-Up City affair in which everyone seemed to be congratulating one another on some recent story, book deal, show or haircut (and, by the way, your boss is doing a swell job, and maybe we could do an interview).

McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chairman, arrived after the former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie left. Fox News' Greta Van Susteren had David Axelrod pinned into a corner near a tower of cupcakes. In the basement, a very white, bipartisan Soul Train was getting down to hip-hop. David Gregory, the Meet the Press host, and Newsweek's Jon Meacham gave speeches about Fischer. Over by the jambalaya, Alan Greenspan picked up some Mardi Gras beads and placed them around the neck of his wife, NBC's Andrea Mitchell, who bristled and quickly removed them.

Comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable--it's what journalists do. That and partying with lobbyists and powerful political figures. The presence of soon-to-be PBS host Jon Meacham is yet another sign that the network was not looking to replace Now and the Bill Moyers Journal with a host that will challenge the establishment. They opted for a member of that establishment.

FAIR's latest Action Alert (4/23/10) concerns the Frontline program Obama's Deal, which not only didn't mention the single-payer proposal, but misrepresented single-payer advocates as proponents of a public option. You can leave copies of your messages to Frontline, or comments on the alert, in the comments thread of this post.

A New York Times article (4/23/10) by Peter Baker and David Herszenhorn remarks of Barack Obama:

With his poll numbers sagging, the choreographed confrontation seemed aimed at tapping the nation’s antiestablishment mood as well as muscling financial regulation legislation through Congress.

While Obama's confrontation with the financial industry was no doubt choreographed, are his poll numbers really sagging?

This chart from Pollster.com, averaging out all the major national polls, reveals instead that opinion on Obama's job performance is remarkably steady (and remarkably evenly divided, too).

It's hard to turn a line like that into exciting news, which isn't to say that the people who write press releases for polling firms can't try.  The Monkey Cage blog (4/21/10; via Yglesias, 4/21/10) noted a release from Quinnipiac that began:

President Barack Obama’s job approval, which bounced slightly to a 45-46 percent split March 25 in the wake of his healthcare victory, has flattened out at 44-46 percent, his lowest approval rating since his inauguration, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

The approval ratings since the beginning of this year on which Quinnipiac based this exciting tale: 45, 45, 46, 45, 44. The margin of error of these polls: +/- 2.2 percentage points.

Brian Williams introduced a report on NBC Nightly News (4/21/10) with this declaration: "Public schools from coast to coast in this country are looking at tens of thousands of layoffs, a lot of them teachers, because the money is not there." Correspondent Ron Allen went on to report:

In Springfield, Illinois, thousands of teachers turned out to try to save their jobs and programs; music, art and sports activities all being threatened with elimination. Many school districts are hoping for federal stimulus help, but in the meantime are locked into longer teacher contracts and higher salaries for tenured teachers. Some experts predict that American education must adjust to a new reality.

This was followed by a quote from Michael Petrilli (who is identified as representing the Thomas Fordham Institute, which is not identified as a conservative education group): "Not only do our schools have to go on a diet, they need to adapt to a whole new way of life because I--this money is gone, and it's not coming back anytime soon."

Concludes Allen: "A crucial test now facing the nation, how to educate more than 50 million public school students with less."

"Less"--that's the key message here, that teachers, parents and children need to accept that "the money is not there" and "adapt to a whole new way of life"--one in which teachers get paid less and children get less education. Only, if the "money is gone," where did it go?

Here are some facts from the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis: Between 1971, when I was entering my school-age years, and 2009, the U.S. per capita GDP doubled, from roughly $21,000 to $42,000 a year (in constant dollars).  Since 1984, a couple of years after I graduated from high school, it's risen by 50 percent--from about $28,000.  Just since 1996, the nation's income per person has increased by something like 20 percent.

Assuming that educating our children is at least as important as our other national priorities, we ought to be able to fund education twice as well as we did 40 years ago, and half again as well as we did 25 years ago.  Why is it, instead, that NBC is telling us that schools are going to have to get by with less? Because while the country as a whole has a lot more money, most of it has gone to making the rich richer--and they have no intention of getting by with less.

Usually propaganda is a little more clever than this (Reuters, 4/20/10):

Israel, like the United States, European Union and others, suspects Iran is developing atomic weapons, a charge Tehran denies. Iran, whose president has said Israel should be wiped off the map, says its nuclear program is peaceful.