Bruce Springsteen occasionally writes a letter to the editor of his local paper, the Asbury Park Press.  Yesterday (3/30/11) the Press published a letter from the musician congratulating the paper for some trenchant poverty coverage, that in his view was the exception. As FAIR's work has shown, Springsteen is on to something. Here's the full text of the letter:

Thank you for your March 27 front-page story by Michael Symons, "As Poverty Rises, Cuts Target Aid." The article is one of the few that highlights the contradictions between a policy of large tax cuts, on the one hand, and cuts in services to those in the most dire conditions, on the other.

Also, you've shone some light on anti-poverty workers and analysts such as Adele LaTourette, Meara Nigro, Cecilia Zalkind and Raymond Castro, among others, all of whom have something important to add to the discussion: real information and actual facts about what is happening below the poverty line.

These are voices that in our current climate are having a hard time being heard, not just in New Jersey, but nationally. Finally, your article shows that the cuts are eating away at the lower edges of the middle class, not just those already classified as in poverty, and are likely to continue to get worse over the next few years. I'm always glad to see my hometown newspaper covering these issues.

Bruce Springsteen
Colts Neck

The Washington Post's Paul Farhi has a piece today (3/30/11) about NBC's non-coverage of the revelation that part-owner General Electric is making piles of money--and paying no federal taxes. I'm quoted in it.

Farhi breaks it down, and gets an NBC response:

It's the kind of accountability journalism that makes readers raise an eyebrow, if it doesn't raise their blood pressure first. General Electric Co., reported the New York Times last week, earned $14.2 billion in worldwide profits last year, including $5.1 billion in the United States--and paid exactly zero dollars in federal taxes.

The front-page story drew widespread commentary in newspapers and on many websites. ABC News and Fox News, among others, were all over it.

But the story was conspicuously absent from the reportage of one news organization: NBC.

During its Friday broadcast, NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams had no time to mention that America's largest corporation had essentially avoided paying federal taxes in 2010. Or its Saturday, Sunday or Monday broadcasts, either.

Did NBC's silence have anything to do with the fact that one of its parent companies is General Electric?

NBC News representatives say that it didn't. "This was a straightforward editorial decision, the kind we make daily around here," said Lauren Kapp, spokeswoman for NBC News. Kapp declined to discuss how NBC decides what's news or, in this case, what isn’t.

NBC used to do a series called "The Fleecing of America," which focused on corporate tax cheats and wasteful spending.  GE's tax trickery would have been an ideal issue to spotlight--if it wasn't perpetrated by GE, that is.

FAIR's alert on the NewsHour's limited debate on Libya hasn't sparked any immediate changes at the program. From last night's broadcast:

JUDY WOODRUFF: For more on Libya and the president's speech, we get the views of two senators. Rhode Island Democrat Jack Reed is on the Armed Services Committee. And Georgia Republican Johnny Isakson is on the Foreign Relations Committee. I spoke to them a short time ago.

Senators, thank you very much for joining us, Sen. Reed and Sen. Isakson. Before I ask you about what President Obama said last night, Senator Isakson, just quickly, do you believe the U.S. should be involved militarily in Libya in the first place?

SEN. JOHNNY ISAKSON, R-Ga.: I think we have done the right thing but in the wrong way. I think the president should have first come to Congress, as did Bill Clinton when we went into Kosovo and George Bush went into Iraq and Afghanistan.

But I do think it's important, when democracy is emerging around the world, for the United States to be a supporter of those who want freedom and peace.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And what about you, Senator Reed? Should the U.S. be there at all?

SEN. JACK REED, D-R.I.: I think the president has very adroitly assembled a diplomatic initiative that complemented a very limited military initiative. We basically set the parameters for turning it over to our allies. They're in charge now. I think the military role has been important, and I think it's been complemented by very adroit diplomacy.

There's a range of debate for you--is the Libyan bombing "adroit diplomacy," or is it "the right thing but in the wrong way"? Those who look to public television for a broader range of perspectives are still out of luck.

The bombing of Libya has sharply divided public opinion, but the PBS NewsHour has avoided a wide-ranging debate by overwhelmingly featuring the views of current and former government and military officials. If you'd like to see a more diverse group of voices arguing the pros and cons of intervention, see FAIR's Action Alert.

Please leave copies of your messages to PBS, and comments on the alert, in the comments thread of this post.

One of the questions about U.S.-led war in Libya is the scope of the conflict. Some rebel forces seem to want more U.S. military action. The Washington Post reports today (3/29/11) that this is already happening. Under the headline "U.S. Deploys Low-Flying Attack Planes," Greg Jaffe explains:

The U.S. military dramatically stepped up its assault on Libyan government ground forces over the weekend, launching its first missions with AC-130 flying gunships and A-10 attack aircraft designed to strike enemy ground troops and supply convoys.

The use of the aircraft, during days of heavy fighting in which the momentum seemed to swing in favor of the rebels, demonstrated how allied military forces have been drawn deeper into the chaotic fight in Libya. A mission that initially seemed to revolve around establishing a no-fly zone has become focused on halting advances by government ground forces in and around key coastal cities.

The obvious implication is that the United States is involved more deeply that we've been led to believe. And the Post has known this for some time:

The Washington Post learned of their deployment last week but withheld reporting the information until their first missions at the request of U.S. military officials.

Why did the Post keep this information from readers? The Post adds:

Military officials consider AC-130s and A-10s well suited to attacks in built-up areas, although their use has led to civilian deaths. Unlike fighter jets and bombers, which typically carry 500- or 1,000-pound bombs, the AC-130s and A-10s deliver more discriminate but still devastating machine-gun fire.

The article adds that "AC-130s were used to great effect during the two U.S. offensives in Fallujah, a stronghold of the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq in the early days of the Iraq war." If this is a preview of what is to come, it is an ominous development.

The New York Times' Helene Cooper on President Obama's speech last night (3/29/11):

To the democracy protesters across the Middle East, he vowed that the United States would stand by them, even as he said that "progress will be uneven, and change will come differently in different countries," a partial acknowledgment that complex relations between the United States and different Arab countries may make for different American responses in different countries.

"Complex relations" make for "different American responses"? That's a nicer way of saying that we are on the side of the dictators you are protesting, which makes it rather unlikely the U.S. will intervene on your behalf.

In a New York Times science article (3/29/11) about the CIA and Pentagon's psychological profiling of foreign political figures, reporter Benedict Carey adds a note of caution:

Yet the assessments can also be misleading, even embarrassing. Profiles of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq that circulated in the early 1990s suggested that he was ultimately a pragmatist who would give in under pressure.

Carey gives no explanation for why such an assessment would be misleading or embarrassing--as if it went without saying that this was a misreading of the Iraqi dictator. In fact, after Iraq invaded Kuwait, Hussein made repeated offers to negotiate a withdrawal--offers that were rejected by the elder Bush administration, and all but ignored by corporate media (Extra!, 11-12/90--see "Writing Off Negotiations").

Hussein also destroyed his chemical and biological weapon stocks under pressure from the U.N.; when the younger Bush insisted that U.N. inspectors be allowed to verify his lack of unconventional weapons, Hussein let them in--and Bush invaded anyway. Though the U.N. inspection teams were a major story in the months before the Iraq War began, corporate media sometimes seem to forget that they existed (Action Alert, 12/2/08).

Presenting Saddam Hussein as a madman who could never be reasoned with obviously helped the U.S. government justify military action. Why journalists should accept this depiction in the face of the historic record--well, you might need a psychological profile to explain that.

You may have heard about the New York Times report (3/25/11) explaining that General Electric made $14 billion in worldwide profits in 2010--and paid the federal government exactly nothing in taxes. The Times explained this is "based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore."

Despite the Comcast purchase, GE is still a part owner of NBC and MSNBC--the latter conventionally thought to be a liberal-leaning outlet. So did they say much about a giant corporation keeping profits offshore in order to avoid paying taxes? Not really; Paul Abrams pointed out at the Huffington Post (3/26/11), host Lawrence O'Donnell deserves credit for going after the company.

What about NBC? Checking Nexis doesn't turn up much, though I did come across this conversation between Kathie Lee Gifford and Hoda Kotb on the Today show, which is apparently about various Prince William-Kate Middleton royal wedding memorabilia (3/24/11):

KOTB: That's the top of the cake, so if you cut it....

GIFFORD: Oh my gosh. They've never looked so unattractive. That's terrible.

KOTB: Well, anyway, the baker, Michelle Wibowo, she did it, spent eight hours on it.

GIFFORD: Oh, sorry, baker.

KOTB: All right.

GIFFORD: Sorry. It's lovely. Gosh.

KOTB: And if you need a place to put your cake, just--how about the Will and Kate refrigerator by GE? Who's part owner of this company.

GIFFORD: Yes.

KOTB: Yes.

For the record, there really is a GE refrigerator honoring Will and Kate.

Outside the GE media world, ABC's Jake Tapper turned in a good report on ABC World News.

UPDATE:  Over at ThinkProgress Zaid Jilani notes that one outlet has expressed a keen interest in GE's tax avoidance: the Fox News Channel.

From Meet the Press (3/27/11):

GREGORY: I'll start with you, Ted Koppel. You spent time, in your early days as a correspondent, with Henry Kissinger.

KOPPEL: I did.

GREGORY: Who knew something about the big ideas for the world.  Is this administration getting the big ideas right in the--in the tumult of the Middle East?

Who knows what those "big ideas" might be. But if you want to make Ted Koppel feel comfortable, it's good to praise Henry Kissinger-- as we noted recently:

Koppel once boasted of Kissinger: "Henry Kissinger is, plain and simply, the best secretary of state we have had in 20, maybe 30 years.... I'm proud to be a friend of Henry Kissinger. He is an extraordinary man. This country has lost a lot by not having him in a position of influence and authority."

For another view of the value of Kissinger and his "big ideas," see my article from Extra! Update: "Questions for Kissinger Go Unasked: Journalists Show 'Sensitivity' to War-Crime Suspect's Feelings" (8/01).

The Washington Post's Lori Montgomery has what sounds like a pretty important story in today's paper (3/25/11). 

The headline:  

Democrats Splinter Over Strategy for Reducing Deficit
Battle Lines Drawn as More Are Willing to Put Entitlements on Table

The piece leads off:

Democrats are sharply divided over whether to tackle popular but increasingly expensive safety-net programs for the elderly, particularly Social Security. 

According to Montgomery,  a "growing number of Democratic lawmakers say they are willing to consider controversial measures such as raising the retirement age and reducing benefits for wealthier seniors."

That would be big.  Who are they? She tells us who they aren't:

But senior lawmakers such as Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) are lining up against them, arguing that tampering with Social Security would harm the elderly--as well as the political fortunes of Democrats hoping to maintain control of the White House and the Senate in 2012.

OK--that's not them. And then there's this:

And House Democrats this week signaled their intention to use Social Security as a cudgel in next year's elections by launching an ad campaign accusing 10 GOP lawmakers in swing districts of plotting to cut the program.

Not them, either. So where is this split, exactly?

Meanwhile, Third Way, the centrist Democratic think tank, plans to release a memo Friday arguing that the deficit has emerged as an uncommonly powerful political issue and that 2012 voters will reward the party that takes bold action to restrain government spending--including overhauling Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Well, that's not really noteworthy at all--it's exactly the sort of thing a right-leaning, corporate-funded Democratic think tank would say. What else?

Democrats have traditionally defended the program, but even some liberal lawmakers now say changes in the benefit structure are required. Last week, 32 Senate Democrats joined 32 Senate Republicans on a letter in support of a broad-based deficit reduction effort that includes changes to entitlement programs.

That letter is a rather bland call for Obama to engage more forcefully on deficit reduction--certainly not evidence of a "sharp divide."

She also adds:

Since the program's creation in 1935, the cost of Social Security benefits has been entirely covered by payroll taxes paid by current workers. This year, however, payroll tax revenues are projected to fall $45 billion short of covering benefits, and the problem is projected to grow as the number of retirees balloons compared with the number of working adults.

As Dean Baker points out, there have been other years when taxes did not cover benefits; the suggestion here is that this is something new. And, of course, the program's massive trust fund surplus, which is money the Social Security system loaned to the U.S. Treasury, was designed to deal with precisely this situation. By calling it a "problem" for the trust fund surplus to be used for its intended purpose, Montgomery is suggesting that it would be better if the Treasury didn't pay back its debts--which is an odd position for the Washington Post to take.

Last night (3/24/11) Jim Lehrer introduced a NewsHour discussion segment about the Libya War:

Now, how it looks to two former U.S. senators, Democrat Gary Hart of Colorado and Republican Norm Coleman of Minnesota. Senator Hart is now a scholar in residence at the University of Colorado and chair of the Defense Department's Threat Reduction Advisory Council. Senator Coleman is CEO of the American Action Network, an issue advocacy organization that supports Republican candidates and policies.

The same broadcast featured an interview with Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough.

Monday's broadcast featured this segment:

JIM LEHRER: Now some perspective on the Mideast turmoil from two former U.S. national security advisers. Zbigniew Brzezinski held that post for President Carter. He's now a counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Brent Scowcroft had that same job during the George H.W. Bush administration. He now has his own consulting firm.

And also this one:

GWEN IFILL: Now, for a closer look at the situation in Libya, we turn to retired Maj. Gen. Dutch Remkes. He spent 32 years in the Air Force, including service -- service as a top commander of Operation Northern Watch, the no-fly zone over Iraq. And Robert Malley, he served as director for Near East and South Asian affairs at the National Security Council during the Clinton administration. He's now Middle East and North Africa program director at the International Crisis Group.

That's a lot of Official Voices--exactly the sorts of folks well represented everywhere else in the media. PBS exists (in theory at least) to bring us something more. Unfortunately, this sort of coverage is par for the course on the NewsHour.

UPDATE: Last night's NewsHour:

JEFFREY BROWN: And we assess the military campaign in Libya now.

 For that, we're joined by retired Army Gen. Jack Keane. He was Army vice chief of staff when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001. He now has his own consulting firm. And Frederic Wehrey is a senior policy analyst at the RAND Corporation. As an Air Force Reserve officer, he served as a military attache in Libya in 2009 and then earlier this year.

 Keane favors putting U.S. Special Forces on the ground in Libya. Wehrey, on the other hand, agrees with that idea.

USA Today has a regular left-right feature between hard-right pundit Cal Thomas and TV "liberal" Bob Beckel. Today's topic? Nuclear power. And the verdict? Well, the headline tells you all you need to know.

Knee-Jerks and Nukes

Cal and Bob agree that despite the chorus of hand-wringers, it would be foolish to give up on nuclear power plants in the wake of Japan's tragedy

To give you a sense of the seriousness of the discussion, here's Beckel criticizing Joe Lieberman:

Bob: I grew up in his home state near one of the country's oldest nuclear power plants (the Connecticut Yankee plant), and in all its years of operation--like virtually every other nuclear plant in the world--not a single life-threatening event has occurred.

Cal: And you told me you used to swim in the warm water generated by that plant. No wonder you became a liberal!

I had heard Cal Thomas was funny, but not that funny.

In his New York Times column today (3/24/11)--headlined "Hugs From Libyans"--Nicholas Kristof boils down the argument in favor of the war in Libya:

Then, on Wednesday in Benghazi, the major city in eastern Libya whose streets would almost certainly be running with blood now if it weren’t for the American-led military intervention, residents held a "thank you rally." They wanted to express gratitude to coalition forces for helping save their lives.

Kristof goes on to write that "a humanitarian catastrophe has been averted for now," and that the air strikes could not wait: "A couple of days of dutiful consultation would have resulted in a bloodbath and, perhaps, the collapse of the rebel government."

At the same time, Kristof acknowledges that "the uncertainties are huge" and that "there are enormous uncertainties," concluding:

But weighed against those uncertainties are a few certainties: If not for this intervention, Libyan civilians would be dying on a huge scale.

It is somewhat jarring to read someone argue that there are many uncertainties about the Libya war, but simultaneously declare that a bloodbath was certain.  However you feel about this war, one could argue that a slaughter in Benghazi was a possibility, or that it was more likely than unlikely. But a certainty?

What is certain is that fighting on the ground is continuing in some Libyan cities. A Times news article today describes the situation:

A pounding from allied warplanes in the rebel-held city of Misurata forced Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's troops to pull back for much of the day, residents said, but by nightfall his forces had renewed their attacks. Government tanks terrorized the city, in one instance firing a shell that landed 20 yards from a hospital door.

It is somewhat unusual for the Times to describe shelling near a hospital as terrorism. Is that label applied consistently? When Israeli forces shelled a UN school in Gaza and killed 40 people in 2009, was it considered to terrorize the local population? Read one of the Times accounts of that attack, and others like it that killed civilians. Or read this one. No doubt in both cases civilians were terrorized. But the label seems to apply in one case more than another.

A condensed version of an AP story (3/23/11) about USA Today's new business plan:

The nation's second-largest newspaper is expanding its coverage of advertising-friendly topics, designing content for smartphones and tablet computers and refreshing the look of its print edition, whose circulation has fallen by 20 percent over the past three years....

For readers, it means lots of travel tips, gadget reviews, sports features, financial advice and lifestyle recommendations. Top editors say investigative journalism will also be emphasized....

Even as it publishes more stories aimed at attracting advertisers, USA Today is promising to produce more hard-hitting coverage from an expanded team of investigative reporters. The investigative unit now consists of nine reporters and editors compared with more than 30 people devoted to entertainment coverage.

For more on the reality of ad-friendly journalism, read Janine  Jackson's "Fear and Favor" report in the March issue of Extra!.

The New York Times' reassuring reporting on the radioactive plume drifting across the U.S. continues the paper's troubling tradition of parroting comforting words from officials in the midst of modern-day environmental crises--like the environmental fallout post-9/11. Let's compare headlines:

"Radiation Over U.S. Is Harmless, Officials Say" (3/22/11)

"Workers and Residents Are Safe, Officials Say" (11/2/01)

As I have documented (Extra!, 11-12/06), in the months and years following the September 11 attacks, the Times ignored studies and voices that cast strong doubt on official proclamations that the air and dust near Ground Zero were not a serious hazard. Andrew Revkin, the Times' environmental reporter at the time who was responsible for much of the reassuring coverage, explained the stance taken by the paper:

The Times' Revkin told American Journalism Review (1–2/03), "We were, I think, bending over backwards to be sure we were reporting a risk only if we knew it, whereas others, I feel rather strongly, were flipping it the other way." Revkin cited the Daily News as an example. When asked how he thought the 9/11 health story would end, Revkin told AJR, "I think it's going to fade away." Unfortunately, the chronic health problems already measured among those exposed to Ground Zero pollution ensure that this story is going to be with us for years to come.

News outlets certainly shouldn't be spreading unnecessary panic in the aftermath of disasters. And no doubt there are many differences between the radioactive plume and Ground Zero dust and air. But the Times' failure and culpability on 9/11 reporting should have taught it something about official reassurances and role of journalists in questioning them.