Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 She often steers clear, sos to avoid a highly unprofessional shock. See, Why do flowers grow toward sunlight, Why do political science professors grow towards Pocantico etc.... At this level of most even mildly centralized nervous systems, mindset is an afterthought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/28/biases/index.htmlMonday, Feb 28, 2011 13:29 ET The nationalism bias of journalists By Glenn Greenwald The nationalism bias of journalists Harvard Former Bush OLC official Jack Goldsmith defends the decision of The New York Times and several other American media outlets to conceal from their readers that Raymond Davis worked for the CIA -- even though those papers published President Obama's misleading description of him as "our diplomat in Pakistan" and the NYT told its readers about what it deceitfully called "the mystery about what Mr. Davis was doing with this inventory of gadgets." This concealment stands in stark contrast to The Guardian, which quickly told the truth about Davis to its readers. But what's most notable is Goldsmith's reasoning. He argues that this concealment reflects the fact that American national security reporters are "patriotic" -- by which he means they are driven by a desire to protect American "interests" -- and this, he believes, is a good thing:... http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/Why-Conservatives-Should-Be-Optimistic-About-the-MediaJanuary 21, 1992 by L. Brent Bozell, III Why Conservatives Should Be Optimistic About the Media ...Leftism on the Defensive The Dominant Media Culture today is clearly on the defensive. The conservative movement ushered in by Ronald Reagan is the driving cultural force on the American scene... .8) Help train the next generation. ...Imagine, if you will, a future wherein the media willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States. A time when the left can no longer rely on the media to promote its socialist agenda to the public. A time when someone, somewhere in the media can be counted on to extol the virtues of morality without qualifications. When Betty Friedan no longer qualifies for "Person of the Week" honors. When Ronald Reagan is cited not as the "Man of the Year," but the "Man of the Century.".... Bozell III's "future" is now. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/27/hastings/index.htmlSunday, Feb 27, 2011 04:28 ET The military/media attacks on the Hastings article By Glenn Greenwald Last June, when Rolling Stone published Michael Hastings' article which ended the career of Obama's Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal -- an article which was just awarded the prestigious Polk Award -- the attacks on Hastings were led not by military officials but by some of Hastings' most celebrated journalistic colleagues. The New York Times' John Burns fretted that the article "has impacted, and will impact so adversely, on what had been pretty good military/media relations" and accused Hastings of violating "a kind of trust" which war reporters "build up" with war Generals; Politico observed that a "beat reporter" -- unlike the freelancing Hastings -- "would not risk burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal’s remarks"; and an obviously angry Lara Logan of CBS News strongly insinuated (with no evidence) that Hastings had lied about whether the comments were on-the-record and then infamously sneered: "Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has." Here's Jon Stewart last year mocking the revealing media disdain for Rolling Stone and Hastings in the wake of their McChrystal story. Hastings has now written another Rolling Stone article that reflects poorly on a U.S. General in Afghanistan. The new article details how Lt. Gen. William Caldwell "illegally ordered a team of soldiers specializing in 'psychological operations' to manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war" and then railroaded the whistle-blowing officer who objected to the program... ...In other words, military officials want to impugn Holmes and Hastings, but are afraid to attach their names to their claims and thus be accountable for them -- exactly the way these officials seek to influence the Afghanistan war debate with covert propaganda, all without any accountability. So they instruct their media servants to disseminate their message anonymously, uncritically, and without a shred of accountability, and "journalists" like O'Donnell and Barnes then snap into line and comply. As a result, the focus of the story has been quickly shifted away from Holmes' allegations of illegal military propaganda to whether Hastings is a bad journalist and whether Holmes has integrity: all accomplished without any of these military officials having to speak publicly or even to offer any specifics. As Hastings told me today: The key question -- which they are trying to avoid -- is whether it's legal to use an information operations cell-- trained to conduct psychological operations, among other things -- to influence and manipulate U.S. senators. Two lawyers told Holmes it was illegal, and other experts I spoke to said the same thing. But a few media outlets have quickly turned their focus on Holmes in an obvious attempt to discredit him. Now, General Caldwell and his people claim that what the general and his staff were doing was "innocent." I don't doubt Gen. Caldwell and his friends actually believe that -- and that is what's truly disturbing. That's what our establishment media outlets largely are for: to disseminate and amplify the messages of our most powerful political, military and financial factions without any accountability.... .... Yahoo! News called attention to the Post's initial story shortly after it went online Friday, noting that reporter Karen DeYoung relied on an unnamed “senior military official” to make allegations against Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings’ methods for sourcing. The official did not provide evidence to back up his or her viewpoint, such as specific quotes in the Rolling Stone article that were supposedly off the record, or the point at which an off-the-record agreement was hashed out. Still, the Post reported that some anonymous officials believe Hastings "betrayed" McChrystal. . . .Shortly after the Post’s story ran online, ABC News’ Luis Martinez published a blog post raising similar questions about Rolling Stone’s sourcing, and similarly relied on information from a “senior military official.” Granting anonymity to powerful political and military officials to attack journalists, watchdogs and whistleblowers is about the lowest and most journalistically reckless act a reporter and their editors can undertake -- recall this recent anonymous attack on departing TARP watchdog Neil Barofsky by a Treasury official and enabled by The Washington Post -- as it turns these media outlets into nothing more than protectors of those officials and mindless amplifiers of their attacks, which, thanks to the anonymity, can never be engaged. But that's what they want to be; it's what they are; and that's why these officials tell them they will comment only under the cover of anonymity: because they know it will be immediately granted the minute it's demanded regardless of whether there is any journalistic justification for it. Anonymity does have a valid purpose in journalism: its legitimate purpose is to protect the vulnerable and powerless when they expose wrongdoing by those who wield power.... Or, Nathaniel, did you intend for this discussion to focus on Larry Dunkel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/28/biases/index.htmlMonday, Feb 28, 2011 13:29 ET The nationalism bias of journalists By Glenn Greenwald The nationalism bias of journalists Harvard Former Bush OLC official Jack Goldsmith defends the decision of The New York Times and several other American media outlets to conceal from their readers that Raymond Davis worked for the CIA -- even though those papers published President Obama's misleading description of him as "our diplomat in Pakistan" and the NYT told its readers about what it deceitfully called "the mystery about what Mr. Davis was doing with this inventory of gadgets." This concealment stands in stark contrast to The Guardian, which quickly told the truth about Davis to its readers. But what's most notable is Goldsmith's reasoning. He argues that this concealment reflects the fact that American national security reporters are "patriotic" -- by which he means they are driven by a desire to protect American "interests" -- and this, he believes, is a good thing:... http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/Why-Conservatives-Should-Be-Optimistic-About-the-MediaJanuary 21, 1992 by L. Brent Bozell, III Why Conservatives Should Be Optimistic About the Media ...Leftism on the Defensive The Dominant Media Culture today is clearly on the defensive. The conservative movement ushered in by Ronald Reagan is the driving cultural force on the American scene... .8) Help train the next generation. ...Imagine, if you will, a future wherein the media willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States. A time when the left can no longer rely on the media to promote its socialist agenda to the public. A time when someone, somewhere in the media can be counted on to extol the virtues of morality without qualifications. When Betty Friedan no longer qualifies for "Person of the Week" honors. When Ronald Reagan is cited not as the "Man of the Year," but the "Man of the Century.".... Bozell III's "future" is now. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/27/hastings/index.htmlSunday, Feb 27, 2011 04:28 ET The military/media attacks on the Hastings article By Glenn Greenwald Last June, when Rolling Stone published Michael Hastings' article which ended the career of Obama's Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal -- an article which was just awarded the prestigious Polk Award -- the attacks on Hastings were led not by military officials but by some of Hastings' most celebrated journalistic colleagues. The New York Times' John Burns fretted that the article "has impacted, and will impact so adversely, on what had been pretty good military/media relations" and accused Hastings of violating "a kind of trust" which war reporters "build up" with war Generals; Politico observed that a "beat reporter" -- unlike the freelancing Hastings -- "would not risk burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal’s remarks"; and an obviously angry Lara Logan of CBS News strongly insinuated (with no evidence) that Hastings had lied about whether the comments were on-the-record and then infamously sneered: "Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has." Here's Jon Stewart last year mocking the revealing media disdain for Rolling Stone and Hastings in the wake of their McChrystal story. Hastings has now written another Rolling Stone article that reflects poorly on a U.S. General in Afghanistan. The new article details how Lt. Gen. William Caldwell "illegally ordered a team of soldiers specializing in 'psychological operations' to manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war" and then railroaded the whistle-blowing officer who objected to the program... ...In other words, military officials want to impugn Holmes and Hastings, but are afraid to attach their names to their claims and thus be accountable for them -- exactly the way these officials seek to influence the Afghanistan war debate with covert propaganda, all without any accountability. So they instruct their media servants to disseminate their message anonymously, uncritically, and without a shred of accountability, and "journalists" like O'Donnell and Barnes then snap into line and comply. As a result, the focus of the story has been quickly shifted away from Holmes' allegations of illegal military propaganda to whether Hastings is a bad journalist and whether Holmes has integrity: all accomplished without any of these military officials having to speak publicly or even to offer any specifics. As Hastings told me today: The key question -- which they are trying to avoid -- is whether it's legal to use an information operations cell-- trained to conduct psychological operations, among other things -- to influence and manipulate U.S. senators. Two lawyers told Holmes it was illegal, and other experts I spoke to said the same thing. But a few media outlets have quickly turned their focus on Holmes in an obvious attempt to discredit him. Now, General Caldwell and his people claim that what the general and his staff were doing was "innocent." I don't doubt Gen. Caldwell and his friends actually believe that -- and that is what's truly disturbing. That's what our establishment media outlets largely are for: to disseminate and amplify the messages of our most powerful political, military and financial factions without any accountability.... http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/exclusive-excerpt-the-operators-by-michael-hastings-20120103 Exclusive Excerpt: The Operators by Michael Hastings McChrystal, Petraeus and the inside story of America's war in Afghanistan By Michael Hastings January 3, 2012 11:00 AM ET ....Now, in a new book, The Operators: The Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America's War in Afghanistan, Hastings recounts the behind-the-scenes tale of the McChyrstal affair, set against the larger backdrop of America’s doomed war. Frank Rich calls the book “an impressive feat of journalism by a Washington outsider who seemed to know more about what was going on in Washington than most insiders did.” In this exclusive excerpt, Hastings, two days into his European embed with McChrystal, gets a brief taste of the kind of reckless candor that will ultimately do the general in. He also reveals, for the first time, which of McChrystal’s aides made the notorious "Bite Me" comment about Vice President Joe Biden.... This should be noted, FWIW ...... maybe I am old fashion, but I would have appreciated disclosure by CBS or by Lara Logan or McClellan himself that, when he was assigned as Lara Logan's producer in March 2006, and before that when he worked for Dan Rather, Max McClellan's mother-in-law happened to be the sister of sitting DCI, Porter Goss, who did not resign from CIA until May, 2006. Why don't they even pretend to inform and avoid even the appearance of impropriety? The recent attack on fellow journalist, Hastings, and her praise and adoration of Gen. McChrystal by CBS's "correspondent" Lara Logan did not discourage me from thinking the worst about her motives and the manipulation by government propagandists behind the curtain. Link to page displaying joint realty purchase by Lara Logan's current producer McClellan, and his wife, the niece of Porter Goss.: http://dc.blockshopper.com/property/7-057-00570570/5914_welborn_drive/ Lara Logan's producer, Max McClellan, is on record saying he began working for her in March, 2006. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500486_162-3305432-500486.htmlThe Public Eye Chat With … Max McClellan September 27, 2007 ...Matthew Felling: How long have you been producing Lara Logan's work? Max McClellan: I've been working with Lara since March 2006. So, about a year and a half. In fact, she works with many producers, particularly when she's in Iraq for long stretches, but my current assignment is to work exclusively with her... Porter Goss resigns as CIA chief - CNN http://articles.cnn.com/2006-05-05/politics/goss.resignation.2209_1_cia-director-porter-goss-intelligence-failures-albert-m-calland?_s=PM:POLITICS May 5, 2006 – CIA Director Porter Goss is resigning, President Bush announced Friday."Porter's tenure at the CIA was one of transition, where he's helped this http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/07/style/atlantic-page-m-c-mcclellan.html Atlantic Page, M. C. McClellan Published: November 07, 1999 Atlantic French Page, the daughter of Garril Goss Page of San Anselmo, Calif., and Charles Hall Page of San Francisco, was married yesterday to Maxwell Couper McClellan, a son of Elizabeth B. Powers of Weston, Vt., and James O. McClellan of Hilton Head, S.C. .... ....Mr. McClellan, 34, is the White House producer for ''The CBS Evening News With Dan Rather.'' He graduated from Haverford College.... http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/25/classified/paid-notice-deaths-goss-virginia-johnston.html Paid Notice: Deaths GOSS, VIRGINIA JOHNSTON - New York Times nytimes.com - Sep 25, 1997 GOSS-Virginia Johnston, at Sanibel, FL., on September 23, 1997. ... by two sons, Richard W. and Porter J., 2 daughters, Wayne G. Douglas & Garril G. Page, . Edited February 5, 2012 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now