The national media watch group
If you followed the coverage of President Barack Obama's May 23 speech at the National Defense University, you would think something big happened to the "war on terror." That was probably the message the White House wanted the press to send. But is true?
President Barack Obama's address yesterday on U.S. terror strategies got a lot of attention for supposedly charting a new course in America's longest war. But some of the facts were mangled along the way.
This week: PBS won't be showing us the documentary Citizen Koch–for some very dubious reasons. Also: The New York Times points out that the U.S. role in supporting genocide in Guatemala was hardly discussed at the trial; the same goes for U.S. media coverage of that trial. And Donald Rumsfeld goes on Meet the Press to talk about accountability. No, it's not what you think.
The reality is that it is possible to both protest government intrusions on press freedom and to condemn bad journalism of the sort practiced by Jonathan Karl. It's important for protect journalism from official control for the same reason that it's important for media outlets to do a good job.
Suggesting that the Free Syrian Army believes Iranians are in Syria–which is probably true–is not the same thing as saying "Iran has sent soldiers to Syria" to fight on Assad's behalf.
If you think public television exists to offer challenging, independent news and public affairs shows that bring us stories the stories the commercial media too often ignore, free of the influence of big sponsors and corporate owners… well, this hasn't been a good week.
The New York Times report, "Trial on Guatemalan Civil War Carnage Leaves Out U.S. Role," raises at least one obvious question: How much has U.S. coverage of the Ríos Montt trial talked about U.S. support for genocide?
The New Yorker's James Surowiecki has figured out who's to blame for unsafe working conditions for garment workers: people who wear clothing: "The problem isn't so much evil factory owners as a system that's great at getting Western consumers what they want but leaves developing-world workers toiling in misery."
What should we make of the so-called "trifecta" of scandals hitting the Obama White House? And what questions should we ask about the IRS/Tea Party story? Also this week: Chris Matthews wants Obama to take charge–just like the union-busting Ronald Reagan. And the Newseum decides two Palestinian journalists shouldn't be considered part of their tribute to journalists who died reporting the news.
Benghazi, the Justice Department seizing AP phone records, and the IRS targeting Tea Party groups: Much of the Beltway press corps–which has pushed the Benghazi story for months–is seeing the Obama presidency in a state of near free-fall. But what's actually happening?
From Free Press's helpful explainer of the AP phone records scandal, noting the legal background: Smith v. Maryland — In this 1979 decision, the Supreme Court found that people have no expectation of privacy when it comes to the numbers they call because they understand it has to be transmitted through a third party (telephone company). Thus, the [Digital Media Law Project] notes, "the government can obtain that information simply by issuing a subpoena to a telephone company or other third party." As Mr. Bumble says, "If the law supposes that, the law is a ass–a idiot." Everyone who wouldn't [...]
Praise for a conservative president's breaking the air traffic controllers' union–that's what you hear on the liberal cable channel.
CBS anchor Scott Pelley declared, "We are getting big stories wrong, over and over again.'" Well, that sounds like pretty dramatic self-criticism. But, as usual with corporate media self-critiques, Pelley's criticism mostly misses the mark.
