Entries Tagged 'Free Speech' ↓

In my opinion, one of the most important jobs in this world is held by those who report from the parts of the world ‘less traveled by’. My favorite poem, by Robert Frost, finishes like this:

“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.”

Today’s New York Times prominently features a story on the inherent dangers associated with reporting from places often forgotten about. Sometimes the reasons for the inattention are due to the country’s lack of resources, failing public infrastructure or disassociated importance from the rest of the world. But often such places are not read about because of political pressure keeping such things unsaid. But ask any foreign correspondent about his or her sense of accomplishment and the answer will revolve around traveling the road less traveled. They have, putting their own lives in danger, impacted change throughout history in the most important way; telling stories.

Now, with the fractured media landscape and cost-cutting, these stories are not being told in the same fashion. First, we are seeing an increased bias towards “American” coverage, as opposed to news from the rest of the world, as I wrote about in April. But what international stories are being told, are being reported by different people or at least backed by different and less powerful organizations than the BBC and CNN. This has a very dramatic effect on the coverage or lack there of…

Back in March I asked my readers the following question after journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee were detained by the North Korean government:

“However, my more pressing question is whether or not the North Koreans would have detained the two for more than a few hours or days had they been on assignment for a large news organization. My guess is no; the larger organization would have worked to arrange their release sooner than Current TV is doing. Of course, it doesn’t even appear that Al Gore, the Chairman of Current TV and one of its primary investors, has had any affect on the situation (either out of choice or not). I’m sure the diplomatic back channels are buzzing because of Gore’s connection, but take a circumstance where the independent journalists don’t have the backing of a former Vice President. Do you think the same thing would be playing out? There are examples of this out there for sure. In Russian it doesn’t matter how big or small your backing is, but in African countries or other locales where the central government isn’t as powerful as in Moscow or Pyongyang, would it make a difference? What about in China where economic policy seems to trump all? When NBC has the backing of GE, does that matter? What do you think? Are small and independent news organizations more susceptible to political pressure with diminished resources for negotiation and the inability to apply appropriate political pressure?”

Apparently the mainstream media has caught wind of this precarious situation with today’s Times’ article. But if Al Gore’s journalists can be sentenced to 12 years in a labor camp, where does this leave us? Where does this leave those brave journalists willing to travel the road less traveled by, in order to make what difference they can?

The Soviets would be proud. Central American dictators of decades past would be proud. Dictators the world around have nothing on what our government is capable of in corrupting the basic principles and foundations on which this country was founded. Many times before I have written about Don Siegelman’s case. You remember, the former Democratic governor of Alabama who was indicted, convicted and jailed in a case so full of holes, you could fill the Albert Hall. (Siegelman is currently free on bail pending yet another appeal, meanwhile Sen. Ted Stevens’ case has been dropped by the Department of Justice; for prosecutorial misconduct.) From the look of things, Attorney General Holder could spend the entirety of Obama’s first term just reviewing prosecutorial (and judicial) misconduct in political prosecutions over the last 8 years.

A group called “Project Save Justice” has created an hour-long film entitled, “The Political Prosecutions of Karl Rove” detailing the prosecutions of hundreds of people around the country based almost completely on political affiliation and involving dozens of corrupted prosecutors and judges. The film shows how widespread this problem became throughout the Bush years and how the actions of the parties involved have created a calling card of sorts for Karl Rove. The politicization of the Justice Department is a scary, scary prospect and it is not fiction. This stuff happened and real peoples’ lives were destroyed because of how they voted. You can watch the film below, which includes commentary by Scott Horton, a professor, civil rights attorney and editor for Harpers Magazine.

Horton describes how the mainstream media was used in many of these cases to convict the target of an investigation in the court of public opinion often before prosecuting the case in court. This PR game is nothing new, but when case after case shows the systematic use of the media by the prosecution to try and convict, something is seriously wrong (actually, this is a crime). Innocent people are in jail or even worse, dead because of these prosecutions and save for a story here and there about the most vocal victims of this campaign (i.e. Gov. Siegelman), the mainstream media has remained silent. I knew political prosecutions had become more widespread over the last 8 years, but I had no idea how widespread. But this is precisely why often low-level political activists in the Democratic party were targeted… Sensationalism in the media is what sells and only on a hyper-local level will the prosecution of a state legislative fundraiser be reported. Actually, you are more likely to find 10 minutes of your evening “news” broadcast dedicated to the latest health scare (remember Anthrax?) or the price of gas, then a report on innocent member of your government being sent to jail because of how they vote.

I just want to clear the air of something that is on one hand funny, but also sadly representative of the conservative movement in this country. I’m talking about the ultra right-wing’s dissociative behavior where its members continue to prove how out of touch they are with reality. FOX “News” is leading the pack with its slander and blatant lies, but more importantly the fuel it is giving to comedians everywhere. For anyone under the age of 35 who attended university or for anyone else in this world under about 30 years old (or for that matter with half a brain), the term “tea bagging” is a familiar one. FOX “News” thinks it has something to do with protesting taxation, but they better think again. Keith Olbermann, the MSNBC commentator and former sportscaster, is certainly familiar with the term and wrapped as many euphemisms as possible into this 10 minute piece the other night (so to speak).

But first, for those of you who aren’t familiar with the definition of tea bagging, here are two options to consider thanks to UrbanDictionary.com:

First: Tea bagging

The act of lowering one’s balls onto someones face, or into their mouth while they are laying down. Kind of resembles dipping a tea bag into a hot cup of water.

Second: Tea bagging

A horribly misguided attempt by the most extreme of the American conservative right to find some basic form of party unity by lashing out against everything that the Obama administration has done since entering the White House.

“The Republican tea-bagging of the White House is a glorified waste of time and effort propagated by the Fox News Network in order to boost their TV ratings.”

“Hey Bob, did you go to yesterday’s Republican Tea Bagging Protest?”

“No I didn’t, Joe, because I have a legitimate understanding of the way the economy works.”

See also: “grasping at straws”

See also: “immature hissy-fit”

UPDATE: I’m sorry, but this has just gotten the best of me and I had to include Rachel Maddow’s discussion with Air America correspondent Ana Marie Cox (really, that’s her name):

UPDATE II: I’m just so, so sorry! I have to up the ante once again as we show how Stephen Colbert Tea Bagged the Alamo or Glenn Beck or not at all… This whole thing is starting to feel like a party that Eliot Spitzer might have hosted at this hotel (but please take note that “in and out privileges are for registered guests only.”

From the pages of Photography is Not a Crime:

“In what should send a frightening chill down the spine of every blogger, writer, journalist and First Amendment advocate in the United States, Phoenix police raided the home of a blogger who has been highly critical of the department.

Jeff Pataky, who runs Bad Phoenix Cops, said the officers confiscated three computers, routers, modems, hard drives, memory cards and everything necessary to continue blogging.

The 41-year-old software engineer said they also confiscated numerous personal files and documents relating to a pending lawsuit he has against the department alleging harassment – which he says makes it obvious the raid was an act of retaliation.”

You can read more from the local paper here. All I have to say is that at least they don’t kill bloggers here, like they do in Russia.

Continuing on my previous post about anonymity and blogging, I came across some related news this morning in catching up on my RSS feeds after a brief vacation. The MudFlats is a political blog in Alaska written by a local person who cares about the issues concerning her city, state and nation. A patriot who decided, for her own reasons, to share her opinions anonymously. At least until she happened to piss off a local politician. Alaska State Rep. Mike Doogan made it his mission to out the MudFlats blogger and has apparently succeeded in doing so. I’m not sure even he knows what he has accomplished, other than to apparently piss off his political base and endanger his career, but he did it anyway. Despicable indeed. Well, the blogger has responded with a very well written post on how she feels, some of the history behind it and this very good segment I’d like to share:

“If he were around, we could ask the “anonymous blogger” of his day, Benjamin Franklin what he thought about this.  Using the “screen name” Mrs. Silence Dogood, Franklin was able to put out thoughts and ideas that were weighted on their own merits, not attached to a particular person.  Sometimes it’s easier, if you don’t want to think, to attack the person, rather than the idea.  I think Franklin would heartily approve of anonymous bloggers.

So, it seemed odd to me that Mr. Doogan was seemingly more focused on the messenger, than on defending his position, or even better, apologizing to people whom he had insulted.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.