Tag Archives: media

All Media Have Been Banned From Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill Cleanup Sites

In an amazing development, all media have been banned from Gulf of Mexico oil spill cleanup sites. Yes, you read that correctly. All media have been banned. In yet another sign of just how far free speech rights in the United States have fallen, “National Incident Commander” Thad Allen has banned all media access to oil clean up sites in or around the Gulf of Mexico. Instead of devoting all of their energy to trying to save the environment in the Gulf of Mexico, BP and the U.S. government seem absolutely obsessed from keeping people away from seeing what is really going on. It is now a class B felony that carries a fine of up to $40,000 for any media representative to come within the 65 foot “exclusion zone” that has been established. That means that all members of the media – print, television, radio and bloggers – are banned from coming within 65 feet of anything important down in the Gulf of Mexico. added by: Revelation1217

Arianna Huffington Whines When PolitiFact Doesn’t Support Her Half-Truth

In today’s “Careful What You Ask For” segment, liberal publisher Arianna Huffington is crying at her website because the folks at PolitiFact didn’t back up her statement that Halliburton has defrauded American taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraq. Making this most delicious, Huffington asked to be fact-checked by the group! For those that have forgotten, the former outspoken conservative was a guest on ABC’s “This Week” on June 6 when she get into the following squabble with Liz Cheney (video and transcript follow with commentary, relevant section at 7:30): ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Right here, we have the poster child of Bush-Cheney crony capitalism. Halliburton involved in this, and we haven’t said about that. They after all were responsible for cementing the well. Here’s Halliburton, after it defrauded the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars — LIZ CHENEY: Arianna, I don’t know what planet you live on, but that’s not — HUFFINGTON: — it’s involved again. I’m living on this planet. You’re living in a planet that is — CHENEY: — it’s — Arianna, what you’re saying — HUFFINGTON: — continuing — CHENEY: — has no relationship to — HUFFINGTON: It is completely — CHENEY: No relationship to the effects — HUFFINGTON: — Halliburton was involved in this. How can you say it is not? TAPPER: Well, Halliburton was cementing the pipe. HUFFINGTON: How can you say Halliburton has no relationship? CHENEY: Her assertion that Halliburton defrauded the U.S. government — HUFFINGTON: It did. It did. CHENEY: It was Bush-Cheney cronyism is the left talking point — HUFFINGTON: It was — hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraq. CHENEY: Arianna, is absolutely not true. It is absolutely not true. HUFFINGTON: OK, I’m so glad Politifact is going to be checking this. I’m so glad. CHENEY: Good. On June 9, PolitiFact acceded to her request: In evaluating Huffington’s statement, we’re most bothered by her use of the word “defrauded.” Some of the overbilling in Iraq appears to have been done from haste or inefficiency, or even in a desire to please military officials in the field without regard for cost. Whether the waste in contracting constitutes fraud is still being examined. “It’s a lot money being spent in a region of the world where we don’t have a lot of infrastructure for accounting for how the money is being spent. It will take years before we fully determine how we spent the money,” said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow for defense budget studies at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. In ruling on Huffington’s statement, we find much in the public record to support her statement, most notably the Justice Department lawsuit. Certainly there have been hundreds of millions of dollars that Halliburton’s KBR attempted to charge the government that have been denied. Government audits of KBR’s work in Iraq will likely continue for some time, and we do not expect a final accounting on these fronts anytime soon. Huffington glossed over some of these points in her back and forth with Liz Cheney. There’s also much evidence that makes us believe that hundreds of millions of dollars were lost to waste and inefficiency, not deceitful fraud. So we rate Huffington’s statement Half True. Almost a month later, Huffington is whining about it at her website: Whenever I speak about the future of media, I get the most positive reaction when I talk about the urgent need to create an online tool that makes it possible to instantly fact-check politicians and commentators as they speak (a bubble pops up, containing the actual facts supporting or contradicting what’s been said). Truth 2.0. That’s why I had such high hopes when it was announced that PolitiFact.com, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking project of the St. Petersburg Times, was going to evaluate the truthfulness of statements made each Sunday an ABC’s This Week. It wasn’t going to be instant, but it was a step in the right direction. Then my dust-up with Liz Cheney on the show last month was given the PolitiFact treatment — and I saw firsthand why the pursuit of Truth 2.0 is going to be harder than we think. PolitiFact’s finding that my statement that Halliburton had defrauded American taxpayers of “hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraq” was “Half True” — after first documenting example after example of why it was completely true — was an object lesson in equivocation, and a prime exhibit of the kind of muddled thinking that dominates Washington and allows the powerful to escape accountability. Despite the ludicrousness of the Half True rating — and since I was in the final throes of finishing my new book — I let it stand, feeling that the absurdity of PolitiFact first making my case for me, then falling back on the safety of a split-the-baby conclusion spoke for itself. Then, over the weekend, I read this entry detailing PolitiFact’s readers’ reaction to the Half True finding. Rummaging through its Mailbag, PolitiFact quoted three readers who said I was right (while castigating the site for “rhetorical tap-dancing” and “falling victim to the ills of pious fairness”), one who said I was wrong, and one who thought Half True was “right on.” Because this kind of hedging-your-bets thinking runs rampant in our media and political circles, and allows the corrupt no-accountability status quo to continue wreaking havoc on our country — and with my book at the printers, and a long weekend on my hands — I’ve decided it’s worth returning to the scene of the crime to do a little CSI exam of the evidence and see what we can conclude from PolitiFact’s head-scratching conclusion. After equivocating her case, Huffington concluded: Which is why I’d like to borrow two of the busiest letters of the day, and take this BP: Beyond PolitiFact. In the end, this is not about me, or Liz Cheney, or even Halliburton. It’s about our accountability double standard. It’s actually not that complex, nor is it ambiguous. It’s plainly obvious and the American people know it. And the refusal of our political and media leaders to acknowledge it is contributing to the widespread anger and cynicism sweeping the country right now. As long as we allow truth backed up by a mountain of evidence to be, in the name of “pious fairness,” downgraded to Half True, that’s the way the planet we’re all living on is going to continue to operate. And that’s a fact. I guess she’s no longer “so glad Politifact is going to be checking” her!  In the end, Huffington asked PolitiFact to access the veracity of her statement. They complied, and came to the conclusion that she was only half right. And like a true liberal, she whined about it claiming that it’s an example of everything that’s wrong with the world. Don’t you love how the mind of a liberal media elite works?

Read more here:
Arianna Huffington Whines When PolitiFact Doesn’t Support Her Half-Truth

Al Gore’s Current TV: Worth Saving

____ http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65O0HA20100625 Firstly, reading the comments at this link I can't help but wonder how many people are paid to go to sites with Al Gore articles and trash the man just for the hell of it. The immature political ranting is just too obvious. Anyway, as someone who has been participating on Current TV and Current.com since its first day(s) I have to honestly state that I am a bit disappointed with where it has gone the past couple of years. It appears the dilemma is one that Mr. Gore spoke about in his book, The Assault On Reason and it also appears his station has turned into the very model he used in the book illustrating what is wrong with the media which was not his original vision, and that is sad because it was/is a wonderful innovative vision. By hiring people from MTV however, what do you expect that Current will be turned into? But again, that also goes back to what makes money these days in order to stay afloat and it would seem that in order to do that you have to sacrifice quality because the predominant theory is that the American populace on the whole does not care about quality they care about entertainment, which actually proves the premise of Mr. Gore's book quite sadly and ironcially. However, I do not believe that is entirely true. When Current first came to be the material was fresh because it was for the most part viewer created content made by younger filmmakers looking for a way to be known and it was judged by participants who actually got to see their work firsthand and vote on it to be seen on tv. I think it was what helped grow this station and why the Emmy sits on your mantle. Combining tv and Internet in this fashion is truly innovative and unlike even what You Tube offers, and I was excited to be a part of it at that time. But unfortunately it is not the kind of material advertisers and sponsors which a station needs to create revenue to compete in the marketplace can use to build profits on longterm -or so they think. And of course, the competition from Internet outlets like You Tube severely cut into the staying power of that concept as the Internet has become a predominant media, even though it is said that TV will always remain the predominant media outlet. That may or may not be true but speaking for myself, tv is not my predominant media and I am not even within the demographic Current sought to appeal to. In my view, take away reality tv shows today and you lose viewers because I don't think many people watch tv these days because they think the shows are good. They watch it (1) out of habit (2) to be voyeuristic and escapist, hence the popularity of “reality” TV that at times is far from it and (3) to look for shows that educate and inform… Current could be the station people watch because they want to do so and because they find that information and education because I believe that is what people really want, which is why features like Vanguard should be expanded on by allowing viewers to be the reporters as well and that market and demographic sought more aggressively instead of always trying to appeal to the “entertainment tonight” mentality. I have to also state honestly that I think Mr. Gore keeping his distance from the station may have hurt it. He was part of the conversations in the beginning and it drew in viewers and participants and made people see he cared about where this station was going. I think a more hands on approach by Mr. Gore is now required with a revival of the viewer created content balanced with less “popular” entertainment. So my message to Al is this: You are the Chairman, not someone from MTV, and not those who are your detractors who seek to silence you and your vision. You have the power to bring this station/website to the vision you had when you first crafted this concept with Mr. Hyatt. As someone who has been here from day one, I strongly suggest you do this: Fire the MTV clones and bring the people here who want to help you see this station be a success and listen to those who are already here who wish that as well. There are also many bright, innovative, creative young minds out here making good film and tackling important issues. You can search them out and let them help mold a station of the future. Viewer created content and the feedback from it are the core of the “agora” you spoke of when this station was born. Your passion and vision about this was why I originally came here, and why I stay. It is unfortunate that the mentality of the average TV watcher isn't in tune with your vision. However, many of us are ( more than you know) and those of like mind will help you change direction and in the course of it, change the concept of how tv/Internet interaction can educate and empower instead of just being a habit or a babysitter. Please let us. I hope you will. Current is too innovative a concept to just give it up to the trappings of mainstream media. added by: JanforGore

Gore story goes mainstream

The story of Al Gore’s alleged unwanted sexual advances toward a Portland, Ore., masseuse, which had been simmering since the National Enquirer first published the allegations last week, broke into the mainstream news cycle Friday after the Portland police announced they would reopen their investigation. Anderson Cooper did a segment on the story on CNN Thursday night. By Friday, it was all over network television newscasts, while the Oregonian had a front-page mea culpa by the Portland police chief saying his department had mishandled the investigation when it first surfaced in 2006. The story’s jump from the fringe to the mainstream compounds the problems for Gore, whose family spokesman, Kalee Kreider, has said that Gore “unequivocally and emphatically” denied making unwanted sexual advances. “Further investigation into this matter will only benefit Mr. Gore.” It also brought up by-now-familiar accusations of the media’s complicity in covering up the scandal when it first surfaced. The Portland Tribune, which was looking into the story in 2007 and 2008, has taken some heat for its decision not to go forward with the story. In a piece titled “Al Gore and the Media Protection Racket,” The American Spectator’s Jeffrey Lord argued that the existence of a police report involving the former vice president was news in itself, and the Tribune should have reported it as such. For the Spectator, it was d

Cynthia Tucker: ‘Steele Would’ve Been Fired Long Time Ago Were He Not Black’

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker on Sunday said that Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele “is a self-aggrandizing, gaffe-prone incompetent who would have been fired a long time ago were he not black.”  Chatting with ABC’s Jake Tapper during the Roundtable segment of today’s “This Week” about Steele’s recent remarks concerning Afghanistan, Tucker went even further with what many would consider overt racism.  “The irony is that he never would have been voted in as Chairman of the Republican Party were he not black” (video follows with transcript and commentary): JAKE TAPPER, HOST: Cynthia, you once called, let me underline “You” once called Michael Steele an affirmative action hire gone bad. What’s your take on this? CYNTHIA TUCKER, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: Well, Michael Steele is a self-aggrandizing, gaffe-prone incompetent who would have been fired a long time ago were he not black. Of course, the irony is that he never would have been voted in as Chairman of the Republican Party were he not black. Let’s remember how the Party wound up with Michael Steele. In November 2008, the Party was devastated that the Democrats had elected the nation’s first black president while the Republican Party was stuck with being seen as largely the party of aging white people, with good reason. A party that was hostile to people of color, especially blacks and Latinos. So the Party needed a new face, preferably a face of color, and they didn’t have very many officials to choose from. So, they came up with Michael Steele. And it is very ironic since the Republicans have been so critical of affirmative action, to watch them stuck with their affirmative action hire that they dare not get rid of because that would generate even more controversy. If this were said about a black Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, or any high-ranking black Democrat, the media, the NAACP, and the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be up in arms demanding that person’s resignation. But because Steele is a black Republican, this kind of talk is completely acceptable. In fact, nobody on the panel including the host even batted an eye when Tucker made these disgusting remarks. Yet there’s a potentially even more striking hypocrisy here: didn’t Tucker with her accusation admit that some incompetent black people are hired exclusively because of the color of their skin, and they don’t get fired for exactly the same reason? As such, wasn’t Tucker accidentally making a case AGAINST affirmative action?  Somehow you imagine she missed this while she was eviscerating Steele on national television. 

Continue reading here:
Cynthia Tucker: ‘Steele Would’ve Been Fired Long Time Ago Were He Not Black’

White House Enacts Rules Inhibiting Media From Covering Oil Spill

The White House Thursday enacted stronger rules to prevent the media from showing what’s happening with the oil spill in the Gulf Coast. CNN’s Anderson Cooper reported that evening, “The Coast Guard today announced new rules keeping photographers and reporters and anyone else from coming within 65 feet of any response vessel or booms out on the water or on beaches — 65 feet.” He elaborated, “Now, in order to get closer, you have to get direct permission from the Coast Guard captain of the Port of New Orleans. You have to call up the guy. What this means is that oil-soaked birds on islands surrounded by boom, you can’t get close enough to take that picture.” As the segment continued, Cooper expressed disgust with this rule repeating several times, “We are not the enemy here” (video follows with transcript and commentary, h/t Cubachi via Hot Air ): ANDERSON COOPER, HOST: But we begin, as we do every night, “Keeping Them Honest”. This time, however, we’re not talking about BP. We’re talking about the government, a new a rule announced today backed by the force of law and the threat of fines and felony charges, a rule that will prevent reporters and photographers and anyone else from getting anywhere close to booms and oil-soaked wildlife and just about any place we need to be. By now, you’re probably familiar with cleanup crews stiff-arming the media, private security blocking cameras, ordinary workers clamming up, some not even saying who they’re working for because they’re afraid of losing their jobs. BP has said again and again that’s not their policy. Yet, again and again, it has happened. And we have seen it. But that’s BP. And now the government apparently is getting in on the act, despite what Admiral Thad Allen promised about transparency just nearly a month ago. Here is what he said back then. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ADMIRAL THAD ALLEN (RET.), NATIONAL INCIDENT COMMANDER: I have put out a written directive — and I can provide it for the record — that says the media will have uninhibited access anywhere we’re doing operations, except for two things, if it’s a security or a safety problem. That is my policy. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Uninhibited access, unless it’s a security or safety problem. Well, the Coast Guard today announced new rules keeping photographers and reporters and anyone else from coming within 65 feet of any response vessel or booms out on the water or on beaches — 65 feet. Now, in order to get closer, you have to get direct permission from the Coast Guard captain of the Port of New Orleans. You have to call up the guy. What this means is that oil-soaked birds on islands surrounded by boom, you can’t get close enough to take that picture. Shots of oil on beaches with booms, stay 65 feet away. Pictures of oil-soaked booms uselessly laying in the water because they haven’t been collected like they should, you can’t get close enough to see that. And, believe me, that is out there. But you only know that if you get close to it, and now you can’t without permission. Violators could face a fine of $40,000 and Class D felony charges. What’s even more extraordinary is that the Coast Guard tried to make the exclusion zone 300 feet, before scaling it back to 65 feet. Here is how Admiral Allen defends it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ALLEN: Well, it’s not unusual at all for the Coast Guard to establish either safety or security zones around any number of facilities or activities for public safety or for the safety of the equipment itself. We would do this for marine events, fireworks demonstrations, cruise ships going in and out of port. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: So, this is the exact same logic that federal wildlife officials used to prevent CNN on two occasions from getting pictures of oiled birds that have been collected, pictures like — like the — well, that we’re about to show you which are obviously deeply disturbing, pictures of oiled gulls that we just happened to catch. Suddenly, we were told after — after that day we couldn’t catch it anymore. So, keeping prying eyes out of marshes, away from booms, off the beaches is now government policy. When asked why now, after all this time, Thad Allen said he had gotten some complaints from local officials worried people might get hurt. Now, we don’t know who these officials are. We would like to. But transparency is apparently not a high priority with Thad Allen either these days. Maybe he is accurate and some officials are concerned. And that’s their right. But we’ve heard far more from local officials about not being able to get a straight story from the government or BP. I have met countless local officials desperate for pictures to be taken and stories written about what is happening in their communities. We’re not the enemy here. Those of us down here trying to accurately show what’s happening, we are not the enemy. I have not heard about any journalist who has disrupted relief efforts. No journalist wants to be seen as having slowed down the cleanup or made things worse. If a Coast Guard official asked me to move, I would move. But to create a blanket rule that everyone has to stay 65 feet away boom and boats, that doesn’t sound like transparency. Frankly, it’s a lot like in Katrina when they tried to make it impossible to see recovery efforts of people who died in their homes. If we can’t show what is happening, warts and all, no one will see what’s happening. And that makes it very easy to hide failure and hide incompetence and makes it very hard to highlight the hard work of cleanup crews and the Coast Guard. We are not the enemy here. We found out today two public broadcasting journalists reporting on health issues say they have been blocked again and again from visiting a federal mobile medical unit in Venice, a trailer where cleanup workers are being treated. It’s known locally as the BP compound. And these two reporters say everyone they have talked to, from BP to the Coast Guard, to Health and Human Services in Washington has been giving them the runaround. We’re not talking about a CIA station here. We’re talking about a medical trailer that falls under the authority of, guess who, Thad Allen, the same Thad Allen who promised transparency all those weeks ago. We are not the enemy here. Actually, Anderson, to this administration, anyone trying to tell the truth to the American people is the enemy. Maybe if folks like you would have accurately reported the background of Barack Obama when he was running for president he wouldn’t have assumed you were going to continue to misrepresent and ignore facts for his benefit after if he got elected. To anyone with even a lukewarm intelligence quotient, this was an eminently foreseeable consequence of the media treating candidate Obama like a rock star. If they had acted like journalists back then instead of groupies, maybe they’d be treated with more respect today.  Now that some press members actually want to act like reporters again and aggressively try to cover what’s going on in the Gulf Coast, the White House must feel somewhat spurned by his previously complicit press thereby necessitating rules to keep them from getting close to the truth now that they mysteriously seem interested in reporting it. Of course, those on the other side of the aisle are not at all surprised, for like so many of the promises this man made during the campaign, we didn’t believe his most transparent administration in history pledge either. Maybe in the future media won’t allow their love for a candidate to make them so gullible and compliant, but I wouldn’t count on it.

See the original post:
White House Enacts Rules Inhibiting Media From Covering Oil Spill

Underreported: The Irony of BP’s ‘Beyond Petroleum’ PR Crusade

One narrative the liberal media has strenuously failed to develop is the incredible irony of BP presenting itself as the greenest oil company, the “Beyond Petroleum” folks who recognized they were boiling the planet with oil. In Friday’s Wall Street Journal , Mark Mills reviewed a new book, Oil, by Tom Bower:   But the most interesting figure in Mr. Bower’s narrative is not Mr. Putin but BP’s Lord Browne, who understood cultural politics better than his peers. In the 1990s, BP launched what was arguably the oil industry’s most successful public-relations campaign, for all the good it is doing the company now. The campaign transformed BP into a shining example of a progressive company—one supposedly “Beyond Petroleum.” It is clear from Mr. Bower’s account that, while BP remained first and foremost an oil company, Lord Browne drank his own Kool-Aid, basking in encomia from the media and green mavens. He gave lectures at Stanford, appeared on “Charlie Rose,” cozied up to Greenpeace and promised to spend $1 billion on solar technology. The Beyond Petroleum campaign, conceived by PR masters Ogilvy & Mather, was originally intended as an internal strategy, aimed at making the company appear more green-sensitive. But it so excited Lord Browne that he delivered a May 1997 speech proclaiming BP the first “green” oil major. The company produced a 200-page “Reputation Manual” with facts about BP’s greenness, formed a political-style “war room” in Houston, and launched a multiyear media blitz. Mr. Bower claims that the rebranding cost BP $200 million. The cost is now measurable in irony, as the Gulf of Mexico grows ever more slick and BP ever more hated. But the campaign was hokum from the start. At this point in history it is almost impossible to find a place “beyond” petroleum. It’s not just the scale of the task but its nature. Energy-dense liquids are valuable, and oil is uniquely valuable in its combination of density, ease of storage and transport, and, believe it or not, safety. Every alternative is worse on all metrics, including cost, even at twice today’s oil price. If liquid hydrocarbons didn’t exist, we would have to invent them

See the original post:
Underreported: The Irony of BP’s ‘Beyond Petroleum’ PR Crusade

The Hollywood Reporter’s High-Priced Gambit for Page Six Boss Richard Johnson [Media]

When Richard Beckman took over the Hollywood Reporter , he promised to turn the trade rag around . One of his most dramatic moves to date: attempting to lure Page Six editor Richard Johnson to LA with a million dollar pay package. More

Why is Climate Change Coverage Still Lacking in the Media?

Photo via Isiria This week saw a couple lively debates over cap and trade and media coverage and public understanding of climate change. Central to the latter seems to be the question of whether industry interests that go to certain lengths to sew doubt in the public about climate change really have all that much influence over how the average American perceives the threat of global warming… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read more:
Why is Climate Change Coverage Still Lacking in the Media?

Judge Judy Beats Oprah

For the first time ever, “Judge Judy” has topped “The Oprah Winfrey Show” in the ratings. How does this fiery hellcat keep the viewers tuning in? infoMania is a half-hour satirical news show that airs on Current TV. The show puts a comedic spin on the 24-hour chaos and information overload brought about by the constant bombardment of the media. Hosted by Conor Knighton and co-starring Brett Erlich, Erin Gibson, Ben Hoffman, Bryan Safi and Sergio Cilli, the show airs on Thursdays at 10 pm Eastern and Pacific Times and can be found online at http://current.com/infomania/ or on Current TV. And make sure to check out our facebook profile for special features at http://facebook.com/infomania . added by: Conor_Knighton