BakerMuckraker
Blogs in the Month of
MAY - 2006
- May 16,
TELEPHONE SPOOKS GOING DOTTY
- May
12,
ALEXANDER GRAHAM GREENE BELL GONE
CRACKERS (that's code)
- May
04,
UNITED ESTATES OF MAMMON
TELEPHONE SPOOKS GOING DOTTY
It’s interesting how slooooow we are to get to the nub of the spying scandals.
Consider first the new poll numbers. According to USA Today, two-third of Americans are bothered by the revelation that the National Security Agency has a domestic-call database. A smaller group, fifty-one percent, actually oppose the database. But just 22 percent say they'd be "very concerned" to learn that their phone records had been obtained by the government.
Whether it is ‘bothersome,’ worth being against or ‘jump-out-of-your skin-alarming' depends on what you think the purposes of the surveillance are. Even those ardently suspicious of CheneyRumsfeldBushenstein would agree that there probably was a genuine desire to find terrorists and prevent another 9/11, (Which is emphatically not to deny that some in the administration might well like to keep tabs on their political enemies.)
But how effective is this snooping? In all probability, not effective at all, says a noted mathematician in a compelling op-ed in the New York Times:
>….[L]egal or not, this sort of spying program probably isn't worth infringing our civil liberties for — because it's very unlikely that the type of information one can glean from it will help us win the war on terrorism.
If the program is along the lines described by USA Today — with the security agency receiving complete lists of who called whom from each of the phone companies — the object is probably to collect data and draw a chart, with dots or "nodes" representing individuals and lines between nodes if one person has called another.
....the National Security Agency's entire spying program seems to be based on a false assumption: that you can work out who might be a terrorist based on calling patterns. While I agree that anyone calling 1-800-ALQAEDA is probably a terrorist, in less obvious situations guilt by association is not just bad law, it's bad mathematics, for two reasons.
The simplest reason is that we're all connected. ….Looked at this way, President Bush is only a few steps away from Osama bin Laden (in the 1970's he ran a company partly financed by the American representative for one of the Qaeda leader's brothers… So much for finding the guilty by association.
A second problem with the spy agency's apparent methodology lies in the way terrorist groups operate and what scientists call the "strength of weak ties." As the military scientist Robert Spulak has described it to me, you might not see your college roommate for 10 years, but if he were to call you up and ask to stay in your apartment, you'd let him. This is the principle under which sleeper cells operate: there is no communication for years. Thus for the most dangerous threats, the links between nodes that the agency is looking for simply might not exist….<
Well, if that is true, then why are they collecting all that info on our calls? Are they simply incompetent, generally clueless, or worse? Good journalism not only reports on poll numbers; it affects them.
FROM THE P.R. DEPARTMENT
Continuing on a theme from the last blog: The excessive hyping by large, obviously-influential news organizations (notably the Times) of their scoops and the rapid government action in response – all noted in pursuit of recognition and awards. Considerthis item in the Times today:
>A 28-year-old computer consultant was arrested here Monday for his suspected involvement in the case of a California teenager who used a Webcam to start his own online pornography business.
……The arrest of Mr. Gourlay signals a new front in the government's response to the revelation that minors have been using Webcams to run their own child pornography Web sites, one that could have a crippling effect on this once-burgeoning business.
…..In December, a front-page article in The New York Times described Mr. Berry's involvement in the underworld of Webcam child pornography, and the case has generated national interest. Last month, Congress held hearings on the issue.
Mike Cox, the Michigan attorney general, said Monday that after reading the Times article and learning that Mr. Berry had been abused in Michigan, he began investigating Mr. Gourlay.
…..The Times article on Mr. Berry revealed that at least hundreds of teenagers had created sites similar to his, with help from Web hosting companies that accept a lucrative cut of their revenue in exchange for access to the servers needed to operate the site. ….<
It was not immediately known which, if any, of the figures named in the article, besides Mr. Cox, are Times subscribers.
LIKE A GENIE
Like a genie released from a lamp, the Times “grants anonymity” to sources.
Muckraker finds this trend of explaining why anonymous sources are not named in an article really really annoying, since in truth, there are only a few reasons why sources don’t want to be on the record. Here are the two main ones:
■The source is saying something that will infuriate the boss and lead to dismissal or other punishment.
■The source is saying something that has been ordered by the boss but is so inane that he/she (and the boss) can’t be identified with it
Since it’s pretty obvious (from the context of the remarks) which of those it is, why belabor the issue with these phony ‘disclosures’ – transparent non-transparency by news organizations?
Here’s the Times on Sunday alone:
■ “…said the officials, who were granted anonymity to discuss the debate inside the Bush administration…”
■ “said one former Homeland Security official, granted anonymity because he now works for an organization that does not permit him to speak about the matter.”
■ “said one…former [company] official who was granted anonymity because his current job does not permit him to speak about a previous employer.”
■ “…one book designer told me -- she was granted anonymity because she works with both publishers involved here…”
■ “Two senior Army officers, who were granted anonymity to publicly discuss the private deliberations of Army leaders….”
■ “…said a general who recently served in Iraq. Like some other officers and officials interviewed for this article, he was granted anonymity because he said he had been ordered not to discuss troop levels.”
“This is pretty stodgy and imperial-sounding stuff,” said a source who was granted anonymity because he is a muckraker who is already in trouble enough with The Times. “Journalists don’t ‘grant anonymity’ – they beg sources to talk, and promise them they won’t use their names and sometimes are desperate enough to offer anything else sources want (within reason, taste and company rules –like ego boosts, a free lunch, and so on) in order to get the story. Why not just periodically publish a small notice in the newspaper explaining this rather obvious phenomenon -- and be done with it?”
FIDELING WHILE HAVANA BURNS?
According to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel (via Romenesko), Fidel Castro is steamed about a Forbes magazine claim that he is worth $900 million.
>Fidel Castro says the magazine's report is "garbage" that "disgusted me." One Florida International University professor believes Forbes' figure is low. "I find it hard to believe that over almost 48 years he has only skimmed $900 million," says Antonio Jorge. "I would not be surprised if Castro had $4 billion to $5 billion." <
Muckraker is highly skeptical. What would he do with all that money? Okay,
>Castro is known to have at his disposal several homes including hunting ranches, a fleet of Mercedes vehicles and private planes<
But what CEO doesn’t? And what president? Sounds like what George W has at his disposal, for starters. Not sure how someone pins such greed on a fellow like Fidel. Besides, best as this reporter can figure, the man only has one change of clothes and a crumpled olive cap. What would he need with billions?
ALEXANDER GRAHAM GREENE BELL GONE CRACKERS (that's code)
Spy novel fans, rejoice. The revelations of spook quackery, or kook spazzery, or however you prefer to label it, just keep on coming.
We have learned that the government has been accessing everyone’s phone records. Before they start releasing info on dangerous citizens, Muckraker will admit to having dialed 1-800-SexyPsychic. He does wonder, however, whether media coverage of this affair will ever get down to the nitty-gritty: did this unspeakably vast invasion of privacy net a single terrorist? Probably we will never find out, because if the answer is No, imagine what a threat to national security such an admission would be. Technical correction -- threat to national security budgeting.
Little media sideshow here. USA Today broke this explosive story, but as the New York Times reminds us, the NYT broke a far less detailed version of this story months back. What’s wonderful about this is the glimpse into the shameless world of self-promotion, which Muckraker has embraced eagerly after being criticized for years for laboring in obscurity. The Times is the leader in this practice -- writing articles, writing editorials calling for action in response to the articles, getting politicians to call hearings, citing the hearings and how they were prompted by the Times articles, then repeating that ad nauseum until it is time to submit nominees for the Pulitzer and other prizes. The Times is hardly alone in this practice, but they are the kings.
The problem with all this is how little commitment there is to simply getting the public whatever information is out there. Major news organizations routinely ignore revelations from competitors when they can get away with it, and definitely ignore scoops from those without the ‘legitimacy’ of being a big corporate news organization. Heaven forbid they should have to acknowledge weighty exclusives from websites and freelancers.
With the media rapidly decentralizing, and with more people getting their news online, the ‘majors’ have had to acknowledge the little guys and gals more often. But they prefer to cite things on pop culture – like lies from the memoirs of writer James Frey, with some Oprah frisson added in. But when it comes to things about war and peace, you see comparatively few acknowledgments. Why does this matter? If you consider The New York Times the ultimate arbiter of newsworthiness, and depend almost exclusively on that paper, and that paper ignores something that is raging on the Internet, then you’re not very well-informed.
Ok, enough on that. Until next time. And, media types, never forget: Muckraker (or his Big Brother) Is Watching.
BIPARTISAN? BALONEY
Various news accounts suggest that the Republicans in Congress are as upset about the massive spying as Democrats, but that’s just another example of the media trying to be “fair and balanced” about something where there isn’t even a drop of material to be balanced. In fact, with each new revelation of the government threatening individual rights – long a favorite topic of the Republicans when they were out of power – it’s amazing how few of their leaders speak out. Each time, it is Arlen Specter, or Olympia Snowe, or some other moderate Republican trying to survive politically in a state with Democratic leanings.
Meanwhile, the failure of the Democratic leadership to do enough with this incredible evolving scandal confirms that it is just not ready for prime time. In many GOP voters’ minds, Bill Clinton’s tiny, screwy investment deal in Whitewater, and his consensual affair, are still much bigger civil liberties concerns than the discovery that Karl Rove & Company can find out what time an anti-Bush civil rights attorney placed an incriminating call to MovieFone -- or about your unpatriotic taste for dialing up for pineapple and ham pizza.
To their credit, news organizations like the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post have become more aggressive in noting the Congressional GOP’s zeal for investigating...nothing. No problem is too big on their watch to sweep it under the rug. But it's getting lumpy under there.
THINGS WE DON’T RECALL SIGNING
Slate’s Eric Umansky spots a noteworthy paragraph buried deep in an article in the Post:
>One government lawyer who has participated in negotiations with telecommunications providers said the Bush administration has argued that a company can turn over its entire database of customer records—and even the stored content of calls and e-mails—because customers "have consented to that" when they establish accounts.<
Well, knock me over with some fine print! (How appropriate that extremely important material about fine print should itself be buried in the newspaper.) Imagine if we actually read (and understood) all the gobbledygook we’re made to accept (often by default) every time we get a thick wad of technical updates from our bank or visit a website and click “accept.” (By the way, in agreeing to receive this blog, you have consented to spend the summer doing hard labor at the “Muckraker OK Corral Work Farm.” Check the fine print.)
GOING, GOING….GONE?
With the latest spying scandal, one wonders how low the administration will go. One also wonders how low the approval ratings will go. According to the Wall Street Journal, Bush is now registering at 29 percent – the lowest yet. When they get to 19 percent, bet the Democrats still won’t have figured out an effective alternative message.
ROVE WATCH
The Associated Press reports that Rumsfeld’s Raiders are investigating ways the military can get involved in guarding the border with Mexico. That’s grand, because this will go nicely with the previously reported plan to create giant internment camps, run by Halliburton (this is no joke – this blog noted the story some months ago.)
AP, increasingly eagle-eyed, notices that the Pentagon’s move follows a conversation between Karl Rove and Southern lawmakers who called for adding troops to block the sombrero siege. That darn Rove! When votes (and the balance of power) are at stake, he can move mountains. If some GOP politician could prove that withdrawing from Iraq would guarantee a GOP victory, Rove would have the troops out faster than you can say “51-49.”
HOW MANY PUSH-UPS WOULD JESUS DO?
A Washington Post article reports (Slate spots it but others seem not to) a defense bill passed by the House that, among other things, allows military chaplains to invoke the name of Jesus at public military ceremonies.
This goes against guidelines, and even prompted the Navy’s top chaplain to decry the way in which this favors some troops’ religious beliefs over others’.
Muckraker believes this has all been misconstrued. The idea is simply to permit military chaplains to respond to new policy pronouncements from the Pentagon by exclaiming, “Jesus Christ!”
NIGERIAN BANK SCAM E-MAIL UPDATE
As loyal readers know, Muckraker has had a perverse fascination with those e-mails claiming to offer untold riches in return for a little quick help repatriating treasure, dictators’ booty, and the like. He even wrote an article about the matter.
Now, he is concerned about the declining quality of these scams. They show an urgent need for better education. On the other hand, they also show a certain newly-inspired creativity (including linking disparate news items into a fanciful scenario) suggesting perhaps that arts funding is outpacing efforts to improve reading and comprehension worldwide.
>Please help me out in this desperate situation. I am a Mexican national and also an illegal immigrant living in the state of New Orleans of the disaster hit area of the U.S.A. I was working as a member of a rescue team, following the event of the recent disaster in New Orleans which is caused by "Hurricane Katrina".
In a relief effort to save the lives of the indigenes, I personally made a recovery of some treasure boxes which belong to a private banking firm, here in New Orleans. These boxes which are currently in my possession were found to be containing uncountable number of defaced foreign currencies, which ranges from United States Dollars down to Japanese Yens, thus running into hundreds of millions of U.S. Dollars when converted.
I have so far decided to undisclose these funds to the "Federal Emergency Management Agency", pending my personal use, soon after this disaster as things come back to normal in New Orleans.
Dear colleague, I have already made prior arrangements with a private courier services firm who will assist me to convey these boxes, out of the U.S.A. to LONDON for collection.
I am desperately searching for a trustworthy individual who will keep this as a confidential matter and also would help me receive these boxes in london, outside U.S.A (particularly in Europe or Asia), where these boxes can be conveyed, so as to start immediate investment opportunities.
I am sorry, I may not be able to leave U.S.A at present due to lack of authentic travel document, but I would like to entrust these funds in you, and I will make my way out of U.S.A as soon as the boxes are moved out of U.S.A.
Thank you for taking out time to read about my problem. I look forward to your reply.
Please you can always reply me on email: macney@walla.com
Your contact information will required for easy communication.
Warm Regards
Macney lee.<
Warm regards back at you, Mr Macney Lee. You are surely one of the few Mexicans with such a conspicuously Anglo-Saxon name. If Karl Rove knew that such non-Mexican Mexicans existed, he would probably be less enthusiastic about calling out the Pentagon to secure the southern flank. Oh-lay!
UNITED ESTATES OF MAMMON
Muckraker always thought that estate taxes were mortgaging the future of the vast brood he hopes to one day sire. But he was wrong, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
>Eighteen of America's wealthiest families…are bankrolling efforts to permanently repeal estate taxes that would save their families a total of $71.6 billion.....
Groups funded by the super-rich have engaged in a deceptive campaign to convince the public that estate taxes cause widespread problems for small businesses and family farms when they actually affect about one in 370 estates, said the report released by Public Citizen and Boston-based United for a Fair Economy.
This year, all assets under $2 million for individuals and under $4 million for couples are exempt from estate taxes. Current tax law will boost those exemptions to $3.5 million and $7 million in 2009, eliminate the estate tax in 2010, and reimpose it in 2011 with a $1 million exemption.
The House voted to permanently repeal the estate tax last year, but the measure stalled in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to override filibusters. Majority Leader Bill Frist says he will bring the bill up in May.
….Groups that support estate tax repeal say they're close to getting the 60 votes they need. Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform says 68 percent of Americans want the tax eliminated. He says estate taxes affect a broad range of people and dismissed the report's contention that it only affects the super rich as "tired rhetoric of hate and envy."
The groups that released the report called it a "myth" that estate taxes force families to sell farms and businesses. They said the taxes raise revenue from those most able to pay, prompt the rich to give to charity and deter concentrations of wealth.
They said families including those that founded Wal-Mart, Gallo wineries, Nordstrom's department stores, Wegman's grocery stores, the Mars candy company, Cox media chain and Campbell Soup Co. joined…in bankrolling an effort the groups' report called "one of the biggest con jobs in recent history."
The report says the 18 families financed business groups, trade associations and lobbyists to push for their goals.<
Including, perhaps,
Grover Norquist?
MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE (TO
IDENTIFY)
[per www.mediamatters.org ]
>Fox News chief White House correspondent Carl Cameron and former Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke both obscured the role the White House played in the display of the "Mission Accomplished" banner that appeared behind Bush on May 1, 2003, when he declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq. Cameron referred to the banner as a "Navy banner," while Clarke claimed "it's still a matter of debate" who printed and put up the banner, despite a 2004 report that a White House spokesperson confirmed that White House staff had the banner made…..<
That’s a new one in the confuse-and-mind-boggle department. The entire event was, of course, carefully choreographed out of Karl Rove's office. Here’s CNN’s headline on May 1, 2003: “President Bush makes a tailhook landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln.” Next thing, they will claim that it wasn’t Bush who emerged from that fighter jet on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier, and therefore not Bush to blame for the slightly premature claim that Iraq had been won.
They might even try to claim that it couldn't have been Bush, since he hasn't flown a plane since departing prematurely from his Air National Guard unit back in 72. And if Bush didn't actually fly that plane onto the aircraft carrier, well then, c'mon, why would he have had anything to do with that banner? See how neat things can be when you want them to be?
MATTHEWS FOR THE DEFENSE
[per Media Matters]
>Chris Matthews touted President Bush's comedic performance at the White House Correspondents Association's 2006 awards dinner on April 29, while joining Time magazine White House correspondent Mike Allen in panning comedian Stephen Colbert's performance at the same event.<
Did you see that? You be the judge whether Colbert’s performance deserves panning. Muckraker didn’t laugh much, but mostly because he was sitting slack-jawed at Colbert’s gutsiness and perfect aim, asking why Bush invaded Iraq with the president just a few feet away.
>Also on the program, while hosting White House communications director Nicolle Wallace, Matthews declared that it is "very courageous for a White House person" to appear on Hardball. <
Indeed. At the time of the “Mission Accomplished” scene, here’s what Hardball host Matthews had to say:
>We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like [former President Bill] Clinton or even like [former Democratic presidential candidates Michael] Dukakis or [Walter] Mondale, all those guys, [George] McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. <
Clearly, it takes a lot of guts for an administration official to appear on Hardball.
Meanwhile, over at the New York Times, they did not even mention Colbert's historic act in the paper the next day.
EMBEDDING DOWN WITH KATRINA AND BROWNIE
www.prwatch.org has this item from Broadcasting & Cable, April 27, 2006
>"Reporters will be embedded with the government during natural disasters, according to a plan outlined by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff at the Radio-Television News Directors Association convention," writes John Eggerton. Chertoff assured the audience, "We're not going to be censoring information," since the program wouldn't involve battleground situations. Eggerton notes that during the crisis around Hurricane Katrina, "reporters seemed to know more about what was happening on the ground than the administration did." ….<
That’s a new one: domestic embedding. That is, instead of actually checking things out ourselves and getting first-hand info out on the streets, we will be hanging with the FEMA officials who have no idea what is going on. Perhaps embedding would mean enjoying margaritas with a clueless Michael Brown while New Orleans goes under, offering the director the fashion advice he sought at the time.
Meantime, here's another use for embedding: embed administration officials in the media. Starting with Hardball.
EMBEDDED PR
[per Romenesko]
>O'Dwyers PR Daily reports that Bill Dixon and Laurie Adler, who handled PR for the Lincoln Group which gained notoriety for using Pentagon funds to plant news articles in Iraqi newspapers, have jumped ship. Dixon only started with the company in January while Adler served as the company's main spokesman. In the Columbia Journalism Review Daniel Schulman reports that a U.S. army officer, who helped select the company for contracts in Iraq, was scathing in his assessment of their work. "They were sending guys over there that had absolutely no knowledge of Iraqis whatsoever. ... It was a scheme written up on a cocktail napkin in D.C. They were just completely inept," the officer said.<
In other words, they fit in perfectly.
MUCKRAKER’S PROPOSED BORDER SWAP
[Slate summary]
>The Los Angeles Times [featured] Mexico's President Fox preparing to sign a bill legalizing personal use of cocaine, heroin, and just about any other drug Courtney Love could think of. The new law will be among "the most permissive in the world," and looser than the Netherlands' codes. The original measure only proposed decriminalizing possession for addicts. But at the last minute it was changed to apply to all "consumers." Lawmakers said they were "unsure who amended the bill." (Short-term memory loss, obviously.) <
The good news about this is that there’s likely to be some reversal of the cross-border flow, with Americans of particular appetites heading South. Bush could declare this a swap: Jobs for Joints.
CAREFULLY LAID PLANS
The Washington Post offers some insight into Bush’s out-of-character call the other day for the authority to raise fuel economy standards:
"One aide acknowledged the idea was devised on the fly, with almost no planning or discussion among relevant agencies. This became obvious within hours when White House officials cautioned that Bush had no immediate plan to use the authority even if he had it."<
The aide quickly [NOT] pointed out that he was speaking only of the fuel economy statement when he said it had been hastily improvised – not of the entire operation to prospect for oil in Iraq.
GOOD NEWS ON BAD CARS
Speaking of fuelishness, The New York Times reports that in April, sales of major brands of SUV’s were down 40 percent from the year before. According to Detroit [NOT], millions of SUV owners have tried to return them since Muckraker began campaigning against the fuel-wasting ego-mobiles.
ELMER GANTRY GETS A RAISE
[from UNC school of journalism blog via Romenesko]
>Total compensation for the top executives at financial news web site TheStreet.com fell slightly in 2005 as the CEO and others received smaller bonuses than they did in 2004, according to a proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
However, co-founder Jim Cramer, whose CNBC show Mad Money is seen every night, saw his salary increase dramatically, according to the proxy. Cramer’s salary was increased from $400,000 to $500,000 annually for 2005, $750,000 for fiscal 2006 and will be increased to $1 million for fiscal 2007. In addition, he will continue to be paid the radio talent fee — currently $450,000 per year — paid to TheStreet.com by CBS Radio Inc. under the company’s January 2006 radio agreement. <
Have you ever seen Jim Cramer? Aside from his wild man shtick, screaming and jumping up and down and pulling out his few remaining hairs over the opportunities to make a killing in the market, all of which is ever so vaguely entertaining, he shills for some appalling principles. Recently, Muckraker, in a stupor, ended up watching Cramer with a kind of perverse pleasure. Cramer was condemning socially responsible investing, and urging viewers to buy tobacco stock, and rhapsodizing about oil company ceos and why they deserve $400 million golden parachutes -- and various other equally awful things. Great to know that Cramer, too, is making out like a bandit.
THIS ONE NOT VERY PUNNY
[from Washington Post via Romenesko]
>From Post copy desks assistant managing editor Don Podesta's chat transcript:
Richmond, Va.: What do you think
about the San Antonio Express-News' decision to
ban puns in its headlines? For me, writing good puns was one of the
best parts of being a copy editor.
Don Podesta: It's not good to ban language from the paper.
Avoiding cliches, loaded language, off-color words is the right
thing to do, but you should never say never because there
will come a time when an exception is needed.<
Um, Don, isn’t “never say never” itself a cliché? You’re way banned, guy.
In response to the woeful prospect of slicing puns from headlines, Muckraker was trying to think of a cutting remark. Perhaps “Ban-ner Day in Newsroom”?
In any case, Muckraker is just glad he lives in a city with two tabloid newspapers, which will never stop punning as long as they live. And, for those who can’t understand how helpful puns can be in a pinch, try this on for size (apparently from the Reuters news service, but maybe not):
URINE FOR A TREAT: YOU CAN BUY COW-DUNG AFTERSHAVE FOR THE MANURE IN LOVE WITH