The online world was up in arms last week after Twitter announced they would be complying with local speech laws around the world. The service would be taking down tweets that the local government deemed illegal. Obviously the chorus of “Censorship!” was deafening. The short-form social media network has been ground-zero for a range of popular uprisings from Iran to the “Arab Spring,” used to organize protests and disseminate breaking news stopped by official censors.

So, it comes as no surprise that a wide range of players, especially in the countries most affected by draconian suppression of free speech, have been vocal about the announcement.

Twitter founder Biz Stone came out with a clarification this week, stating that the blog post was poorly worded and that the company is fully committed to free speech across the globe. To wit, they most likely have a legal obligation to comply with local laws in countries in which they operate . With that, they will only be removing “offending” tweets in that specific country using Geo-filtering.

For instance, it is illegal to post anything pro-Nazi in France. If French authorities see a tweet praising the Third Reich, they would request Twitter remove it. It will then be removed and be replaced with a Tweet mentioning the removal, but only in France. The original would still be visible around the world. This removal also would not take into account retweets, which would continue on their merry way.

While this may have some affect on the organizing of local protests, the main added value of Twitter, in this case, remains.

That brings us to exactly what it is that makes Twitter such a wonderful tool for the modern age. It is the ultimate disintermediation of information. Without the need for the traditional gatekeepers of news, it now can flow directly from observers on-site to all corners of the world.  With approximately 300 million subscriber accounts producing  over a billion tweets every four days, the amount of information flowing through the system is mind boggling. While much of it is banal at best, the unregulated nature of it is perfectly suited for the democratization of information.

(more…)

During the rise of the tea party Anderson Cooper called conservatives “tea baggers” on CNN and remarked about “teabagging.” The network featured a multitude of guests and contributors who likened tea partiers to nazis, bigots, pick your poison. No pressure was ever brought about to censor the speech of those babbling on air. CNN never found any of the remarks objectionable. Fast-forward to present time. Dana Loesch mocks the absurdity of the left’s predictable Outrage Chic on her radio show, Erick Erickson mocks occupiers on his radio show, Roland Martin mocks soccer (who doesn’t mock soccer?) and David Beckham’s underwear using his personal Twitter account and all hell breaks loose. Note: not a single one of these individuals said any of this on CNN’s airwaves, as demonstrated above. That doesn’t matter to the Progressive Inquisition.

Progressives have been falling over themselves to get Loesch and Erickson fired from CNN since CNN decided it wasn’t going to actually attempt to make money and offer a variety of opinion. Progressives hate variety, they loathe diversity of thought. The George Soros mouthpiece, Media Matters for America actually pays people to listen to Erickson and Loesch’s radio shows, record them, and try to trump up outrage over nothing. For instance, last week Loesch said that women can use birth control methods such as pills, condoms, and natural family planning as their “choice,” as opposed to the “choice” of murdering a baby. Eric Boehlert, a man who, to our knowledge, is not a licensed OB/GYN and has not, to our knowledge, ever been a woman at any time, mocked the idea that a woman is smart enough on her own to actually prevent pregnancy naturally. Because they don’t teach about menstrual cycles in high school, or the most fertile times of the month for a woman, information Boehlert apparently missed out on in school. They tried to get CNN’s attention with it on Twitter after posting it to their site.

Erickson joked about violent, raping, drug peddling occupiers getting tased — the violent movement MMfA endorsed — and MMfA/Boehlert put the clip on their site and also tried to get CNN’s attention with it. MMfA endorsed Occupy, defended it, and said nothing with this hit a cop in the face with a brick, when women were being raped, drugs being sold, absolutely nothing when the White House was shot up and smoke bombs were thrown by occupy campers. That wasn’t bad enough to earn their condemnation but cracking a joke when one of them is so out of control they have to be tasered for the safety of the police — and the person who cracked the joke is the bad guy. Those are their priorities.

They failed. They did the same thing last month as well, completely proving the point Loesch was making about hysterical reactions to the Marines appearing to urinate on the bodies of dead terrorists who had just tried to kill them in battle.

CNN didn’t fire Loesch, they didn’t fire Erickson, either which enraged Boehlert and MMfA. It showed their impotence, their weakness, that no one truly gives a damn what they do all day over on their little corner of the Internet.

Roland Martin spent Super Bowl Sunday writing #rolandsrules, jokes about watching the Super Bowl. I cannot stand the man’s politics and I damn near hated him during the midterm elections because he was one of the racial demagogues who called tea partiers every name in the book. His Tweets were funny. He joked about appetizers, about soccer — because soccer is stupid — and David Beckham’s underwear. His Tweets angered GLAAD, who believe that they have the patent on soccer and David Beckham’s underwear, thus if you insult and/or mock them, they will take it as gay bashing. Advocacy to GLAAD is trolling Twitter trying to see how many different ways innocuous Tweets can offend them.

GLAAD does more to make a mockery of themselves than Martin or anyone else could ever do.

CNN suspended Martin over the Tweets as they are close with GLAAD.

(more…)

It’s becoming clearer and clearer that the Obama Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder is not just politicized and biased – it’s a hit squad for Obama’s enemies.

Remember when President Obama’s Department of Justice shut down investigation of the New Black Panther Party in the aftermath of their taped voter intimidation in 2008?  J. Christian Adams, author of the book Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department and former DOJ attorney, exposed the DOJ’s corruption in dropping the case altogether.  Or how about when the DOJ stonewalled investigations into Fast and Furious, the gunwalking operation that ended with weapons in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels – weapons used to kill American citizens?

Well, the DOJ is on the warpath again.  Not against the New Black Panthers or the Mexican drug cartels – against Rupert Murdoch.  According to Reuters, “U.S. authorities are stepping up investigations, including an FBI criminal inquiry, into possible violations by employees of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire of a U.S. law banning corrupt payments to foreign officials such as police, law enforcement and corporate sources said.”  What’s the evidence on which they’re basing the investigation?  Says Reuters, “U.S. investigators have found little to substantiate allegations of phone hacking inside the United States by Murdoch journalists, the sources added.”

So why, then, is the DOJ so intent on finding wrongdoing about Murdoch?  It couldn’t have something to do with Murdoch’s ownership of Fox News – the same network the Obama White House tried to exclude from inside administration interviews, according to papers uncovered by Judicial Watch – could it? (more…)

The media is calling the Barack Obama attack on the Catholic Church a “culture war.” Culture War. The words and graphics are everywhere. It was the ABC News headline one morning, “Candidate’s Culture War” is what the graphic said. As if this is some sort of battle between Obama and the Republican candidates. Yes, it is that, but it us much, much more.

This is also a fight much larger than “culture.” Culture is something that defines art and common belief. Culture is something that changes with the times and can actually be defined as you wish. Much of our culture today is not what it was 50, 100, or 200 years ago. What I think is culture, may not be what you think is culture. Yes, there is an “American culture, and I believe I know what it is, but I certainly don’t trust the media or this President (who would probably see me as a “bitter” American who “clings to guns and religion”) to tell me what it is.

The Constitution doesn’t work that way, certainly not the First Amendment which guarantees religious liberty and expression. I would like to think the Constitution would define our culture, but sadly that is not always the case. For the media to call this a “culture war” greatly diminishes its value, this is a battle over the First amendment of the US Constitution. Obama wants the Constitution circumvented to pander to his base, I would hope that most of us would be united with the Catholic Church in wanting it protected.

The new part of the ObamaCare law (that nobody read before they voted on it) says that churches that provide health care and insurance, must also provide contraceptives. The Catholic Church opposes contraception.

“The White House insists this achieves a balanced approach that respects women’s health care and religious liberty, but that’s not how the Republican candidates see it,” said Jake Tapper of ABC this morning. Jake, this does nothing to protect religious liberty. It tries to destroy it.

Thankfully, the presidential hopefuls joined in the fight.

“We must have a president who is willing to protect America’s First right, a right to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience. This is a violation of conscience,” said Mitt Romney

Rick Santorum says Obama has been “hostile to people of faith particularly Christians and specifically Catholics.”

Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have also been avid opponents to Dear Leaders actions on this. Not just because they want to be seen as opponents, they all believe what he is doing in inherently wrong.

(more…)

If you’re a Twitter user, you might start getting notifications just like this from Twitter in the very near future if you tweet something that some foreign governments don’t like.

On Thursday, the social media company announced on its blog that, effective immediately, it has implemented the ability to withhold specific content from certain geographical regions in order to respond to government censoring without affecting its entire base of users.

Until now, the only way we could take account of those countries’ limits was to remove content globally. Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it available in the rest of the world. We have also built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why.

We haven’t yet used this ability, but if and when we are required to withhold a Tweet in a specific country, we will attempt to let the user know, and we will clearly mark when the content has been withheld. As part of that transparency, we’ve expanded our partnership with Chilling Effects to share this new page, http://chillingeffects.org/twitter, which makes it easier to find notices related to Twitter.

According to PC Magazine, Twitter will determine which content to withhold in much the same way it does DMCA notices, albeit proactively. (more…)

If you were mad about Obamacare, if you were made about the Patriot Act, the DHS watch lists, the administration’s reach into your diets, then you’re already concerned about SOPA.

SOPA = Stop Online Piracy Act sounds benign, as almost all legislation does. The names of most bills are completely antithetical to what the bill would actually do. SOPA is no exception. You read the name. “Piracy is bad,” you think. “Respect for intellectual property is good,” you think. Both of these things are correct. SOPA survives on the assumption that this is all the bill entails. Piracy is a major problem, but SOPA, and its Senate companion PIPA (Protect IP Act), are the worst ways to go about solving it.

What is SOPA?

The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement.^[4] After delivering a court order, the U.S. Attorney General could require US-directed Internet service providers, ad networks, and payment processors to suspend doing business with sites found to infringe on federal criminal intellectual property laws. The Attorney General could also bar search engines from displaying links to the sites.^[13]

If the Justice Department or a copyright holder believed a site was directing users to pirated content, they would go to court. Depending on who’s complaining, different remedies would come into play: In some instances a judge could order an Internet service provider like Verizon to cut off access to a site. In others, a search engine like Google could be directed to delete links to an infringing site. The idea is to starve the offending sites of the web traffic that keeps them in business.

Inconclusively, too.

Google and First Amendment scholars like Harvard’s Lawrence Tribe argue that SOPA would squelch free speech by giving private parties power to effectively cripple sites that allegedly — but not conclusively — steal copyrighted content. The simple filing of a complaint, they say, would exert huge pressure on the Internet ecosystem to blacklist an accused site. They also say it would give the feds dangerous new powers to go after sites for political reasons.

Gizmodo:

Perhaps the most galling thing about SOPA in its original construction is that it let IP owners take these actions without a single court appearance or judicial sign-off. All it required was a single letter claiming a “good faith belief” that the target site has infringed on its content. Once Google or PayPal or whoever received the quarantine notice, they would have five days to either abide or to challenge the claim in court. Rights holders still have the power to request that kind of blockade, but in the most recent version of the bill the five day window has softened, and companies now would need the court’s permission.

The language in SOPA implies that it’s aimed squarely at foreign offenders; that’s why it focuses on cutting off sources of funding and traffic (generally US-based) rather than directly attacking a targeted site (which is outside of US legal jurisdiction) directly. But that’s just part of it.

…to the point of potentially creating an “Internet Blacklist”…

Here’s the other thing: Payment processors or content providers like Visa or YouTube don’t even need a letter shut off a site’s resources. The bill’s “vigilante” provision gives broad immunity to any provider who proactively shutters sites it considers to be infringers. Which means the MPAA just needs to publicize one list of infringing sites to get those sites blacklisted from the internet.

Potential for abuse is rampant. As Public Knowledge points out, Google could easily take it upon itself to delist every viral video site on the internet with a “good faith belief” that they’re hosting copyrighted material. Leaving YouTube as the only major video portal. Comcast (an ISP) owns NBC (a content provider). Think they might have an interest in shuttering some rival domains? Under SOPA, they can do it without even asking for permission.

Who is behind it?

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Logan Churchwell:

With the first legitimate event of the 2012 Republican presidential primary just days away in Iowa, the Associated Press today offered a clear example of hatchet jobs to come for the candidates. Mitt Romney was given an early example of what the AP means by “journalism with voice.”

I previously raised concerns over a leaked memo from AP Managing Editor Mike Oreskes two weeks ago. Charging all journalists to use the said “voice,” he did not offer any examples but, rather very contradictory directions (emphasis added):

“We’re going to be pushing hard on journalism with voice, with context, with more interpretation. This does not mean that we’re sacrificing any of our deep commitment to unbiased, fair journalism. It does not mean that we’re venturing into opinion, either. It does mean that we need to be looking for ways to be more distinctive and stand out in the field — something our customers need and want. The why and the how of the news are as crucial as the who, what, when and where.”

The AP offered a very clear example this morning for how these directions will be executed.

The title, “Romney tries to come across as man of the people” was bad enough and it only got worse from there. The AP revealed its playbook as to how they will frame the Romney campaign in 2012.

Step 1: Paint Romney as filthy rich; like his daddy before him. What better way to fan the flames of class warfare than to paint the Republican frontrunner as the quintessential political aristocrat of one-percenter roots? The AP led with (emphasis added):

“Mitt Romney reminisced before a noontime crowd about the long car trips his family took when he was a boy. ‘My dad made Ramblers, so we had one,’ the Republican presidential hopeful said…In fact, Romney’s father didn’t just make cars. He was chairman and president of American Motors, the company that made Ramblers, and a highly successful businessman before he entered politics. It’s a detail the son omitted as he sought to establish a bond with Iowans he hopes will support him in next week’s presidential caucuses.”

Toward the end of the piece, another wealth jab that now opens the Romney wardrobe and Christmas list to criticism:

“As he stood at the cash register at a Concord, N.H., toy store, picking up a few gifts for charity, a patron asked him what he gave his family for Christmas. Earlier in the day, he had bought his wife a $285 North Face jacket as a gift, he said…For his sons? ‘We sent them checks,’ said Romney, a multimillionaire. ‘Cash is always good’.”

Some may remember just how effective the smears were against the Palin family wardrobe in 2008; a standard not held to Michelle Obama.

Step 2: Suggest to readers that either Romney is too smart, or Republicans are too dumb to understand him. Not only is Romney rich and therefore uncaring, but he cannot speak the language and empathize with the common man. The AP cited Romney’s comments regarding company relocation affecting employee commutes:

“Sometimes it’s counter-intuitive,’ replied Romney, a former businessman, explaining that businesses often invent new, more efficient ways to compete…The term is called productivity. Output per person,’ he said. ‘Our productivity equals our income’.”

Anyone with a Business 101 course under their belt or basic sense gained from commercial employment can understand what that statement means, and therefore why the question was properly answered. To argue otherwise is an insult to the general intelligence of the electorate. But the AP does not stop there, suggesting that he can also be too smart and systematically-minded to be “sympathetic.”

“When one retired firefighter in New Hampshire said he was drawing a reduced Social Security check because he also had a state pension, the former Massachusetts governor was less than sympathetic. ‘If there’s a competition for who will give you the most free stuff, go vote for that guy.’ When the man said he wasn’t asking for any handouts, Romney said, ‘You knew what you were getting into. … I wish you well, but I’m not going to promise you more bucks’.”

Regardless of the approach, Romney will be made to look unfit to chat up a voter on Main Street. It also would be helpful to know the context of that exchange and the tone of the question.

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Logan Churchwell:

An internal memo penned by the Associated Press’ Managing Editor Mike Oreskes was leaked and featured on sites such as The Huffington Post and Gawker this morning. As an effort to keep up with the rapidly changing news cycle, Oreskes is now offering a new direction for the wire service.

(Source: Moonbattery/Media Mania)

The new plan of action is called “The New Distinctiveness.” But why the change? The AP defines the problem:

“AP wins when news breaks, but after an hour or two we’re often replaced by a piece of content from someone else who has executed something more thoughtful or more innovative. Often it’s someone who has taken what we do (sometimes our reporting itself) and pushed it to the next level of content: journalism that’s more analytical, maybe a fresh and immediate entry point, a move away from text, a multimedia mashup or a different story form that speaks more directly to users.”

To face this challenge, Oreskes will be leading assignment editors and reporters to respond quicker, focus on story themes (dig deeper into the story), diversify communication methods and most important, report with “voice.”

This “reporting with voice” plank of the proposal should set off alarm bells. The full passage states (emphasis added):

“Journalism With Voice. We’re going to be pushing hard on journalism with voice, with context, with more interpretation. This does not mean that we’re sacrificing any of our deep commitment to unbiased, fair journalism. It does not mean that we’re venturing into opinion, either. It does mean that we need to be looking for ways to be more distinctive and stand out in the field — something our customers need and want. The why and the how of the news are as crucial as the who, what, when and where.”

The use of words like voice, context and interpretation are broad pathways to journalism with a point of view. Ask yourself, how does one report with “voice” while maintaining a “deep commitment to unbiased, fair journalism?” Will the AP weigh the use of “voice” on an ad hoc basis against fair reporting?

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid:

Glenn Beck suggests that Newt Gingrich is so “progressive” that only racism could explain why the tea party would support him over President Obama. He is alluding to Gingrich’s praise of Theodore Roosevelt. But the “progressive” outlook of Republican Theodore Roosevelt (TR) was much different than the Progressive Party of Henry Wallace, who served as Democrat Franklin Roosevelt’s vice president. TR opposed socialism and communism.

During an appearance on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Fox Business Channel program, Beck said about Gingrich:

“This man is a progressive. He knows he’s a progressive. He doesn’t have a problem with being a progressive. So if you’ve got a big government progressive [in Gingrich] or a big government progressive in Obama, one in Newt Gingrich, one in Obama, ask yourself this tea party. Is it about Obama’s race? Because that’s what it appears to be to me. If you’re against him but you’re for this guy, it must be about race.”

With this comment, Beck is claiming that the policies of Gingrich and Obama are the same or at least very similar. However, in his interview with Beck, Gingrich made the point that he believes government has a role in maintaining some “minimum regulatory standards of public health and safety.” He also said government programs have to be reformed to maximize individual choice and that some federal subsidies, such as those which bolster a domestic oil and gas industry, are defensible. None of this qualifies as Obama-style socialism.

Christopher Ruddy of Newsmax noted in his article, “Glenn Beck Should Revere Theodore Roosevelt,” that “The policies advocated by TR were not those of some social engineer who wanted to remake the United States based on a Saul Alinsky radical model.”

Beck notes that Theodore Roosevelt started the Progressive Party, but this is not the same Progressive Party, dominated by the Communists, that nominated Henry Wallace for president in 1948 and which continues to influence the Democratic Party today. (more…)

Tis the season for buying books for your loved ones and as always the The New York Times Sunday Book Review is here to help. And as always the Sunday Book Review is there to help us understand that anything from the right side of the aisle, especially the tea party, is to be put in the worst possible light at all times.

So, what is it this time? Book reviewer Kevin Boyle lets us all know that he thinks that the folks of the tea partymovement are somehow just like the Ku Klux Klan. Nice, huh? That’ll get the holiday season started right!

In his Sunday book review Boyle reviews a pair of books actually on the KKK — meaning that for the first time bringing up the KKK in a New York Times article isn’t wholly gratuitous. So he has that going for him, which is nice.

But what was totally gratuitous was the way in which Boyle opened his review, slamming by inference the entire tea party and analogizing it to a modern day KKK:

Imagine a political movement created in a moment of terrible anxiety, its origins shrouded in a peculiar combination of manipulation and grass-roots mobilization, its ranks dominated by Christian conservatives and self-proclaimed patriots, its agenda driven by its members’ fervent embrace of nationalism, nativism and moral regeneration, with more than a whiff of racism wafting through it.

No, not that movement. The one from the 1920s, with the sheets and the flaming crosses and the ludicrous name meant to evoke a heroic past. The Invisible Empire of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, they called it. And for a few years it burned across the nation, a fearsome thing to behold.

Yeah, because today’s era and the tea party are so dang similar to the KKK and the era of the 1920s, right? What is a more natural fit, anyway? What left-winger could doubt Boyle’s hatemongering?

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid:

Brian Williams of NBC Nightly News attacked the police at UC Davis during a recent broadcast. He said the demonstrators were just “sitting on a sidewalk peacefully protesting” when they were pepper-sprayed. Inviting members of his viewing audience to take the side of the protesters, he said, “Imagine those are your kids sitting on the sidewalk.” In fact, some of those “kids” were non-student agitators. They were locked arm-in-arm and had refused reasonable and repeated requests to move. They were threatening the educational atmosphere on campus by erecting a tent city that was luring increasing numbers of criminal outsiders. They wanted a confrontation and got it. What’s more, they got it on film, making sure they could portray the police in the worst possible light, without context or background to the confrontation that should have been avoided.

Doesn’t Brian Williams have the ability to get facts on the ground before going public with sensational and wild allegations against the police?

Sitting in the comfort of his New York studio, Williams ignored the statement issued by Linda P.B. Katehi, the Chancellor of UC Davis, when she noted that “…on Thursday a group of protesters including UC Davis students and other non-UC Davis affiliated individuals established an encampment of about 25 tents on the Quad.” Notice the reference to “non-UC Davis affiliated individuals,” including outside agitators.

Katehi said, “The group was reminded that while the university provides an environment for students to participate in rallies and express their concerns and frustrations through different forums, university policy does not allow such encampments on university grounds.”

So the radicals were there in violation of university policy, interfering with the rights of others. The head of a college or university clearly had a responsibility to act under those circumstances.

The chancellor went on:

“On Thursday, the group stayed overnight despite repeated reminders by university staff that their encampment violated university policies and they were requested to disperse. On Friday morning, the protestors were provided with a letter explaining university policies and reminding them of the opportunities the university provides for expression. Driven by our concern for the safety and health of the students involved in the protest, as well as other students on our campus, I made the decision not to allow encampments on the Quad during the weekend, when the general campus facilities are locked and the university staff is not widely available to provide support.”

So the chancellor wanted to keep the campus safe on the weekend, for the benefit of the real students who were there. Was she expected to let more and more outsiders assemble on campus, to the detriment of the students paying to get an education?

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Benjamin Johnson:

Since people started camping out in the name of socialism or something, there have only been half measures by the media to determine whether union organizers were using dues to provide transportation, food and lodging for the Occupiers.  Accuracy in Media infiltrated the National Nurses United for the duration of their Occupy DC protest tour. As the footage reveals, NNU in association with the AFL-CIO sent over 1,000 nurses from across the country, public and private sector, all expenses paid. It’s pretty sad to think that American veterans are sitting in a hospital room wondering where their nurse went.

Accuracy in Media has recently received inquiries as to why we release video projects like this one. The answer is simple: we’re performing a new type of media criticism. Rather than simply screaming bias or demanding corrections, AIM has taken a proactive stance to challenge media narratives by mixing elements of citizen journalism with reality television production tactics.

(more…)

In his recent assessment of his year since he was unceremoniously — and illicitly in many folks’ estimation — fired by NPR, Juan Williams indulged one of those fallacious assumptions that just screams left-wing spin. It is the sort of straw man argument that casts aspersions on others — this time against Christians — while pretending to be the logical adult in the room, not to mention while pretending not to be casting aspersions. It is a logical sleight of hand that many liberals use.

First, let me say that I am 100% on Williams’ side in that his firing by NPR was a real breach of journalistic ethics: theirs. The comments he made a year ago that got him fired did not in any way harm his veracity as a journalist, nor were they racist or even incorrect. Heck, they weren’t even injudicious except when taking the brain dead political correctness that infests the left into consideration.

Though that was the discussion of a year ago and really is not something worth rehashing here, Williams did say something outrageous in his review of that year-old issue that deserves to be highlighted. In essence, Williams made an illogical argument about how we should think of radical Islam, and he did so by assuming that domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh of the Oklahoma City Bombing could be considered as representative of Christianity as the Saudi 19 were of radical Islam.

Here is what Williams said [my bold for emphasis]:

… we have to keep in mind that America is a country founded on the ideal of religious liberty. We can’t stereotype any group on the basis of the behavior of extremists among them. We don’t indict all Christians because of Timothy McVeigh.

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid & Benjamin Johnson:

Jumping on the anti-Wall Street media bandwagon, Josh Boak of Politico says Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio’s measure to tax Wall Street has “newfound momentum.” The Soros-funded Think Progress blog quickly jumped on the report, saying the plan is being seriously considered on the Hill. There is only one problem: DeFazio hasn’t introduced any such bill in the current Congress.

Despite the hype from Politico, the issue is a real one. And the threat is not only a “Wall Street financial transactions tax” that could affect ordinary investors but a global tax to finance various international agencies and causes.

It’s just a “tiny tax,” say proponents, that has the support of billionaire Bill Gates and can generate $100 billion a year. A global tax on financial transactions could generate at least $700 billion a year from the U.S. and other “rich” countries.

One of the groups pushing the tax is National Nurses United, whose Massachusetts affiliate is already putting its political muscle behind radical Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren. Her speech to the Massachusetts Nurses Association convention was given in front of posters saying, “RNs say Heal America. Tax Wall Street.”

Warren just made big news by raising more money than some presidential candidates did in the last quarter.

Taking Obama’s class warfare rhetoric to a new level, Warren recently said,

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody! You built a factory out there? Good for you! But I want to be clear: You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You, uh, were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory and hire someone to protect against this because of the work the rest of us did.”

At this point, the Capitol Hill “Tax Wall Street” measure has yet to be introduced. Backers are apparently waiting for the “Occupy Wall Street” protests to build, with further help from the media.

(more…)

Forced to choose between left-wing bias and federal stimulus, National Public Radio is choosing left-wing bias.

And that’s something to welcome.

As reported yesterday morning by NPR’s David Folkenflik, after the scandals and resignations of the past year, the organization has quietly begun plans to wean itself from federal funding:

Behind the scenes, NPR executives quietly mapped out what the public radio system might look like without those federal dollars.

The questions were not easily resolved. What cuts would that entail? Which stations would falter? Would the creation of a major new endowment for NPR allow the network to reduce the fees paid by stations to carry its programs? Or would such an endowment better belong to the entire system?

NPR’s board, which is dominated by member station officials, is far from unified on this subject. But the discussion itself was notable.

Former CEO Vivian Schiller–now working for NBC, and regarding NPR as a competitor–tweeted her opposition to federal funding over the weekend:

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Benjamin Johnson:

Is there a better way to bring in the weekend than by chatting with top newsmakers over drinks? Sure, the bar talk and news commentary device has been used before, but that was just a sound stage. Today Accuracy in Media introduces our new video series, Bar Stool Confessions, which offers a closer look at those who break and shape the news.

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid:

In a major blow to Al-Jazeera’s drive for acceptance and respectability in the West, the government of Israel says that one of the channel’s correspondents has confessed to acting as an agent of the terrorist group Hamas. The Israeli government also claims to have uncovered a network of Hamas operatives using Al-Jazeera as a cover.

The U.S. State Department designates Hamas as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” and states that it “was formed in late 1987 as an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.” Hamas does not recognize Israel and its founding charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. The group considers Israeli settlers and civilians legitimate military targets.

Samer Allawi, a Palestinian who ran Al-Jazeera’s Kabul, Afghanistan, bureau, was released, sentenced to time served, and agreed to pay a $1,400 fine. He was arrested on August 9 and held in an Israeli prison. Various press freedom groups had clamored for his release.

Some commentators are saying that the treatment of the Al-Jazeera correspondent is evidence of a tougher policy by Israel toward Qatar, an Arab dictatorship which completely finances Al-Jazeera and selects its news and editorial personnel. A classified report prepared by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and leaked to the Israeli media in August outlined Qatar’s more radical stance in the Arab and Muslim world and noted evidence of more frequent Hamas visits to Doha, the capital, and funding by Qatar of Hamas.

A story on the Israelnationalnews.com website about the report also indicated that Israel may start restricting the activities of Al-Jazeera correspondents inside Israel. It said, “Qatar is also the home of Arab satellite network Al-Jazeera, which the Foreign Ministry considers extremely anti-Israel. As a result, the Ministry has worked in recent months to prevent reporters from the network from operating in Israel, and has stopped giving them visas. Currently, the only way for an Al-Jazeera reporter to enter Israel is using a passport from a country that has full diplomatic relations with Jerusalem, but the Ministry is seeking ways to keep these individuals out of Israel as well.”

Although the emir of Qatar pours hundreds of millions of dollars into the channel, making it effectively a propaganda machine for the regime, he prohibits a free press and free elections at home. Bloggers critical of the royal family are simply taken away and tortured, while Al-Jazeera turns a blind eye and deaf ear to their fate.

But because the country hosts a U.S. military base, it enjoys a moderate and even pro-Western reputation. Qatar uses expensive public relations and lobbying firms like Barbour, Griffith & Rogers (BGR) and Brown Lloyd James.

(more…)

As a communications professional, my assessment of the Obama Administration’s communications strategy is that it may be the most inept performance I have ever seen of any political regime.

Crisis communications is not a silver bullet.  Some thing simply cannot be repaired.  The whole point of communications in general, however, is that the job should never be challenging if the entity the communicator works for doesn’t provide fodder for the opposition.

The Obama Administration has repeatedly handed its opposition ammunition — not 9mm bullets, but everything from Stinger missiles to bunker-busters.  The result is the appearance, to this citizen, of a White House on the verge of panic.  I’m not the only one.  When legendary far-left blabbermouth James Carville tells the White House it’s time to panic, it’s time to panic (That’s no diss on Mr. Carville.  I love watching him.).

Almost none of this has to do with the truth or facts of any given situation.  It has to do with how it all appears.  Generally, it makes Mr. Obama appear like an amateur politician.

It Started Out So Well!

The Obama campaign had it made in 2008.  The GOP had put up the Grumpy Old Troll against a PR juggernaut — the first viable Black presidential candidate.  Young and slick vs. old and creaky.  The backlash against the Bush presidency had peaked — people were tired of the war in Iraq, gasoline had hit $4, and the mainstream media so controlled the political narrative that it would’ve taken a literal disaster to push the Obama campaign off-message.  Not only did the GOP face an uphill battle anyway, but now they were facing a wave of messaging that was hard to ignore: hope and change.  So powerful was this message that, despite it and the candidate it spoke for being utterly lacking in substance, it swayed enough of the electorate to create an historic moment for America.  The country had elected a God.  I don’t need to tell you how this photo comes off:

(more…)

In complicated times, when even the grown ups can’t get it right, Gen Y TV sat down with new media publisher and New York Times Bestselling author, Andrew Breitbart (Righteous Indignation: Excuse me while I save the world!) to gain insight into the man behind BigGovernment.com, the Internet media outlet best known for breaking the ACORN and Anthony Weiner sexting scandals.  Addressing topics from new media opportunities to the current political landscape, Breitbart discussed each topic with a heavy dose of reality as it applies to Gen-Y, specifically young adults 18-35.

“Gen Y is very much SCREWED!” Breitbart said with conviction, “when it comes to the raw economics of what my generation and the baby boomers have handed to you.” Regarding the future of Generation Y in new media, he took a more positive, yet cautious position, “There are so many opportunities out there if media continues to be free, and if the government doesn’t try to impede and say we’re going to put limitations on you.” Breitbart stressed the innate compatibilities between young adults and new media, and encouraged anyone with a digital camera to report stories from their community that the mainstream media isn’t covering.

(more…)

California nears passage of a law whose effect, if not actual intent, will decimate the private nanny/caregiver industry in California.  Not coincidentally, it will simultaneously benefit unions and the powerful institutional nursing/caregiver lobby.  Cynically titled the “Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights,” AB 889 imposes a massive unfunded mandate on families and parents, and its indirect victims will be thousands of minorities who mostly populate the domestic worker ranks.  In short, Democrats have declared war on California families and minorities in favor of Big Business and the SEIU.

AB 889 declares any person who hires a nanny, babysitter, or in-home caregiver an “employer” who must comply with a mountain of regulatory red tape such as buying workers comp insurance, maintaining meticulous time records, hiring “back up” workers to fill in during state-mandated breaks, and subjecting mom and dad to a dizzying and expensive array of legal hellfire penalties for compliance miscues.  Imagine hiring a babysitter for a night then later being sued for an array of penalties because you failed to hire a second babysitter to cover during the first’s required breaks and dinner.

Parent-employers must also document and prove identification and citizenship with the worker’s social security number.  The indirect effect will be massive unemployment among illegal immigrants – mostly Hispanics and minorities – who comprise a significant proportion of the domestic workforce.

So, parents, minorities and the poor stand to lose big under this law.  Who stands to win?  Big business, lobbyists, and unions.

(more…)