Of course all of this is the fault of former President Clinton. If he had never had that BJ, everything would be alright with the world.
maggie saidQuote:Of course all of this is the fault of former President Clinton. If he had never had that BJ, everything would be alright with the world.
I read recently of a woman who wore a t-shirt which sported a picture of Dubya on the front and written below..."Will someone please give this man a blowjob."
blatham wrote:POM
I've read a fair bit on the matter. It's really not an easy thing to measure but there are ways to go about it with integrity. For example, one can survey daily newspapers in the US and get figures on how many editorial pages came out supporting the dem candidate for President or the repub candidate. But the two clucks above won't like the result of that measurement for the last election.
Supporting the "dem candidate" does not make a paper "left wing."
Rupert Murdoch is effectively a member of Blair's cabinet
Only a spin doctor would deny that the media baron has a say in all major decisions taken in Downing Street
Lance Price
Saturday July 1, 2006
The Guardian
Rupert Murdoch has never been a man to let details get in the way of a good headline. This week he accepted the accolade of being the most influential Australian of all time, even though by his own admission there were others on the shortlist who'd done a lot more to make the world a better place.
Surely he should be stripped of his title without further ceremony - and not because of the inconvenient little fact that he's been an American citizen for the past 21 years. His editors insist that he never influences the way they produce their papers. The politicians maintain that, for their part, they act in the best interests of the country, not those of Rupert Murdoch.
He may carry some clout in the boardroom, but in the cabinet room? Mr Murdoch should throw up his hands, give back the award and admit that he has no more influence over government policy than you or me. Less, in fact. At least we have a vote in this country.
In my spin-doctoring days I might have tried an argument like that, although not without that tell-tale flicker of a smile. It's true that Rupert Murdoch doesn't leave a paper trail that could ever prove his influence over policy, but the trail of politicians beating their way to him and his papers tells a different story.
There is no small irony in the fact that Tony Blair flew halfway round the world to address Mr Murdoch and his News International executives in the first year of his leadership of the Labour party and that he's doing so again next month in what may prove to be his last.
I have never met Mr Murdoch, but at times when I worked at Downing Street he seemed like the 24th member of the cabinet. His voice was rarely heard (but, then, the same could have been said of many of the other 23) but his presence was always felt.
No big decision could ever be made inside No 10 without taking account of the likely reaction of three men - Gordon Brown, John Prescott and Rupert Murdoch. On all the really big decisions, anybody else could safely be ignored.
I was reminded just how touchy Downing Street is about Mr Murdoch when I submitted the manuscript of my book, The Spin Doctor's Diary, to the Cabinet Office. The government requested some changes, as is its right. When the first batch came through, it was no surprise that Tony Blair's staff were deeply unhappy. The real surprise was that no fewer than a third of their objections related to one man - not Tony Blair or even Gordon Brown, as I might have expected, but Rupert Murdoch.
In my first few weeks as Alastair Campbell's deputy, I was told by somebody who would know that we had assured Mr Murdoch we wouldn't change policy on Europe without talking to him first. The Cabinet Office insisted that I couldn't say in my book that such a promise had been made because I did not know it for a fact. With some reluctance I turned the sentence around so that it read: "Apparently News International are under the impression we won't make any changes without asking them." Every other request relating to Murdoch was rejected. It seemed to me that the government was simply trying to avoid political embarrassment on a subject of wholly legitimate public interest.
All discussions - and let us hope the word "negotiations" isn't more appropriate - with Rupert Murdoch and with Irwin Stelzer, his representative on earth, were handled at the very highest level. For the rest of us, the continued support of the News International titles was supposed to be self-evident proof of the value of this special relationship. The Sun and the Times, in particular, received innumerable "scoops" and favours. In return, New Labour got very sympathetic coverage from newspapers that are bought and read by classic swing voters - on the face of it, too good a deal to pass up.
In fact, New Labour gave away too much and received too little that it couldn't have expected to get anyway.
Rupert Murdoch loves power and loves the feeling that he has the ear of other powerful men. Who else was going to give him that feeling? Would he get it from William Hague? Iain Duncan Smith? Michael Howard?
It may be that Rupert Murdoch has never once vetoed a government decision, nor tried to do so. I just don't know. What I do know is that, as the entries in my book show, I spent far too much time trying to stop ministers saying anything positive about the euro. When two prominent Conservatives, furious at Tory policy on gay rights and Section 28, decided to defect to Labour, I made them say that it was over our management of the economy. I attended many crisis meetings at the Home Office - the influence of the Murdoch press on immigration and asylum policy would make a fascinating PhD thesis.
Now Mr Murdoch tells us he might support David Cameron, and his papers take regular potshots at Gordon Brown. Do Messrs Cameron and Brown take notice? You bet they do. In a close election the support of News International will be courted as never before. They know that Rupert Murdoch likes to back a winner and that it is support in the country that separates the winners from the losers, but they won't dare risk leaving it to the voters. So in the meantime, Rupert, much as it pains me to say so, you can keep the award.
ยท Lance Price, a media adviser to Tony Blair from 1998 to 2001, is the author of The Spin Doctor's Diary
I have to disagree BernardR. I believe that the majority of the people working in the press believe themselves to be fair minded and centrist when it comes to reporting the news. Commentaters and opinionists are paid to be slanted, but reporters and journalists can not afford to do so. They must report the news.
Newspapaers are owned by people and when the newspaper decides to back a candidate, it is the owners that do so, not reporters or the staff working for that newspaper. The same newspapers you cite, also reported on the Clinton scandals. None of them shied away from the stories nor did they try to ignore them. I am sure that during the Clinton years many decried the press as a tool of the conservatives.
For that reason alone I believe the press, in general, try to stay in the middle. Right now it is time to pound the conservatives becasue they are in office.
I am looking forward to the next Democratic president. I want to see what happens to the left when their darling Jon Stewart hits as hard on the Democrats as he has been on the Republicans. I believe he will do so because that is the nature of his business. To satirize the current government. I look forward to the cries of betrayal.
blatham wrote:maggie saidQuote:Of course all of this is the fault of former President Clinton. If he had never had that BJ, everything would be alright with the world.
I read recently of a woman who wore a t-shirt which sported a picture of Dubya on the front and written below..."Will someone please give this man a blowjob."
Obviously I hang out where the women are a bit more...shall we say, enlightened. I saw a woman with a George Dumbya Bush t-shirt that read:
"Will someone please give this man a blowjob so we can impeach the ignorant motherfu..."
...well...
...I suppose you can figure out how the delightful thought ended.
I am sure that the learned and erudite Mr. Blatham can back up his statement that "conservative voices outnumber liberal voices and have done(?) for some time". If he cannot post an authoritative link that backs up his statement, I must regretfully conclude that he is indulging in wishful thinking to back up his thesis.
I can wait but I am sure that Mr. Blatham has neither the courage nor the ability to debate with me!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope you are correct, Frank APisa. I hope that he is toying with me. The problem is that he is toying with me at such a great distance that I can't see him or read him.
I must really conclude that he is miffed at me since I eviscerated him in the past a few times. He really never posts anything that is memorable.
I will match my output of posts backed by evidence and documentation on the Global Warming thread with anything he is ever done.
The problem with Mr. Blatham's posts( although he is very erudite and learned) is that he indulges in repeated bons-mots. He obviously does not realize that they may be mots but they most usually are not bons!
We Need Fewer Secrets
By Jimmy Carter
Monday, July 3, 2006; A21
The U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) turns 40 tomorrow, the day we celebrate our independence. But this anniversary will not be a day of celebration for the right to information in our country. Our government leaders have become increasingly obsessed with secrecy. Obstructionist policies and deficient practices have ensured that many important public documents and official actions remain hidden from our view.
The events in our nation today -- war, civil rights violations, spiraling energy costs, campaign finance and lobbyist scandals -- dictate the growing need and citizens' desire for access to public documents. A poll conducted last year found that 70 percent of Americans are either somewhat or very concerned about government secrecy. This is understandable when the U.S. government uses at least 50 designations to restrict unclassified information and created 81 percent more "secrets" in 2005 than in 2000, according to the watchdog coalition OpenTheGovernment.org.
Moreover, the response to FOIA requests often does not satisfy the transparency objectives or provisions of the law, which, for example, mandates an answer to information requests within 20 working days. According to the National Security Archives 2003 report, median response times may be as long as 905 working days at the Department of Agriculture and 1,113 working days at the Environmental Protection Agency. The only recourse for unsatisfied requesters is to appeal to the U.S. District Court, which is costly, timely and unavailable to most people. Policies that favor secrecy, implementation that does not satisfy the law, lack of a mandated oversight body and inaccessible enforcement mechanisms have put the United States behind much of the world in the right to information.
Increasingly, developed and developing nations are recognizing that a free flow of information is fundamental for democracy. Whether it's government or private companies that provide public services, access to their records increases accountability and allows citizens to participate more fully in public life. It is a critical tool in fighting corruption, and people can use it to improve their own lives in the areas of health care, education, housing and other public services. Perhaps most important, access to information advances citizens' trust in their government, allowing people to understand policy decisions and monitor their implementation.
Nearly 70 countries have passed legislation to ensure the right to request and receive public documents, the vast majority in the past decade and many in middle- and low-income nations. While the United States retreats, the international trend toward transparency grows, with laws often more comprehensive and effective than our own. Unlike FOIA, which covers only the executive branch, modern legislation includes all branches of power and some private companies. Moreover, new access laws establish ways to monitor implementation and enforce the right, holding agencies accountable for providing information quickly and fully.
What difference do these laws make?
In South Africa, a country emerging from authoritarian rule under the apartheid system, the act covering access to information gives individuals an opportunity to demand public documents and hold government accountable for its actions, an inconceivable notion just a decade ago. Requests have exposed inappropriate land-use practices, outdated HIV-AIDS policies and a scandalous billion-dollar arms deal. In the United Kingdom, the new law forced the government to reveal the factual basis for its decision to go to war in Iraq.
In Jamaica, one of the countries where the Carter Center has worked for the past four years to help establish an access-to-information regime, citizens have used their right to request documents concerning the protection of more than 2,500 children in public orphanages. Two years ago there were credible allegations of sexual and physical abuse. In the past year, a coalition of interested groups has made more than 40 information requests to determine whether new government recommendations were implemented to ensure the future safety and well-being of these vulnerable children.
Even in such unlikely places as Mali, India and Shanghai, efforts that allow access to information are ensuring greater transparency in decision making and a freer flow of information.
In the United States, we must seek amendments to FOIA to be more in line with emerging international standards, such as covering all branches of government; providing an oversight body to monitor compliance; including sanctions for failure to adhere to the law; and establishing an appeal mechanism that is easy to access, speedy and affordable. We cannot take freedom of information for granted. Our democracy depends on it.
The writer was the 39th president and is founder of the Carter Center.
Frank Apisa
I've read your exchanges with Bernie, Bernie...and any reasonable assessment of the situation has him way, way ahead on points. You play debating games. He debates.
But...there is nothing easier in this world than to declare victory. So keep on doing it. Someday you may convince someone other than yourself.
Iraq: Worse than it looks?
The news out of Iraq today is bad -- a car bomber killed 12 and wounded 41 this morning -- but a Newsweek reporter says the underlying story may be worse. In an interview with Foreign Policy, Rod Nordland, the magazine's chief foreign correspondent and former Baghdad bureau chief, says that conditions in Iraq are "much worse" than they're described in the U.S. press.
The reason? The Bush administration does a "great job of managing the news," and the military has begun to crack down on embedded reporters who might otherwise offer a clear assessment of facts on the ground. "Before a journalist is allowed to go on an embed now, [the military] check[s] the work you have done previously," Nordland says. "They want to know your slant on a story -- they use the word 'slant' -- what you intend to write, and what you have written from embed trips before. If they don't like what you have done before, they refuse to take you. There are cases where individual reporters have been blacklisted because the military wasn't happy with the work they had done on embed."
Still, Nordland says that reporters "get out among the Iraqi public a whole lot more than almost any American official, certainly more than military officials do." And he says that there's only so much the administration and the military can do to hide the reality that Iraqis are facing. "It is certainly hard to hide the fact that in the third year of this war, Iraqis are only getting electricity for about 5 to 10 percent of the day," Nordland says. "Living conditions have gotten so much worse, violence is at an even higher tempo, and the country is on the verge of civil war. The administration has been successful to the extent that most Americans are not aware of just how dire it is and how little progress has been made. They keep talking about how the Iraqi army is doing much better and taking over responsibilities, but for the most part that's not true."
Even in such unlikely places as Mali, India and Shanghai, efforts that allow access to information are ensuring greater transparency in decision making and a freer flow of information.
Increasingly, developed and developing nations are recognizing that a free flow of information is fundamental for democracy.
providing an oversight body to monitor compliance;
Quote:http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/Iraq: Worse than it looks?
The news out of Iraq today is bad -- a car bomber killed 12 and wounded 41 this morning -- but a Newsweek reporter says the underlying story may be worse. In an interview with Foreign Policy, Rod Nordland, the magazine's chief foreign correspondent and former Baghdad bureau chief, says that conditions in Iraq are "much worse" than they're described in the U.S. press.
The reason? The Bush administration does a "great job of managing the news," and the military has begun to crack down on embedded reporters who might otherwise offer a clear assessment of facts on the ground. "Before a journalist is allowed to go on an embed now, [the military] check[s] the work you have done previously," Nordland says. "They want to know your slant on a story -- they use the word 'slant' -- what you intend to write, and what you have written from embed trips before. If they don't like what you have done before, they refuse to take you. There are cases where individual reporters have been blacklisted because the military wasn't happy with the work they had done on embed."
Still, Nordland says that reporters "get out among the Iraqi public a whole lot more than almost any American official, certainly more than military officials do." And he says that there's only so much the administration and the military can do to hide the reality that Iraqis are facing. "It is certainly hard to hide the fact that in the third year of this war, Iraqis are only getting electricity for about 5 to 10 percent of the day," Nordland says. "Living conditions have gotten so much worse, violence is at an even higher tempo, and the country is on the verge of civil war. The administration has been successful to the extent that most Americans are not aware of just how dire it is and how little progress has been made. They keep talking about how the Iraqi army is doing much better and taking over responsibilities, but for the most part that's not true."
Bernie quoted in an overlong diatribe calculated to appeal to the Wets-
Quote:Even in such unlikely places as Mali, India and Shanghai, efforts that allow access to information are ensuring greater transparency in decision making and a freer flow of information.
Which is transparently meaningless and as we all know wasted words prove to warn that he not busy being born is busy dying.
Quote:Increasingly, developed and developing nations are recognizing that a free flow of information is fundamental for democracy.
One has to presume from that that if Mr Carter believes that the free flow of information is being unnecessarily restricted he must also believe that democracy in being undermined in the US or that it doesn't even exist assuming by "fundamental" he means fundamental.
He sounds like he also believes that the public are quite safe knowing everything that goes on.
Quote:providing an oversight body to monitor compliance;
A new gang with jobs for wets and no sooner established in its cosy offices than it starts taking advantage of the very things complained about;
bureaucracies having such things fundamental to their nature being staffed as they must be by flawed human beings rather than some idealised objects in the minds of utopians.
The fundamental complaint is against human nature and is therefore futile given 290,000,000 Godforsaken and rich media junkies running loose who need their backsides wiping for them to keep any sort of order.
