Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	5/20/2005 11:46:25 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

A Word from Major E. Power Line Major Eric E. serves with the Iraq Explosive Device Task Force at Camp Victory in Baghdad. He understandably takes Linda Foley's remarks regarding the American military targeting journalists rather personally. He has sent us a copy of his letter to the union over which she presides: <<< Dear Newspaper Guild: As an American serving here in Iraq, and having previously served in Afganistan, I am deeply offended by Ms. Linda Foley's crystal clear allegation, made in a public forum to audience applause, that the U.S. military conducts targeted killings of foreign journalists in Iraq. Of course, she has no evidence. The U.S. military liberated these nations, and is providing security to facilitate the development of democratic governments that encourage constitutional freedoms, such as that of the press. On the other hand, however, there is possible evidence that there are journalists, or people posing as journalists, who are actively supporting the insurgents and, therefore, their terrorist tactics. For example, there was recently a CBS journalist who was firing at U.S. troops. Interestingly, when he was first apprehended, many of the newspapers you represent breathlessly reported that the U.S. had wounded a CBS journalist. After a brief investigation that revealed the man's actual role in attacking U.S. troops, many of the same papers changed their decription to say only that it was a man who carried the credentials of a CBS journalist. Another example of journalists who actively support the insurgency occurred recently at the 14th Street Bridge in Baghdad. My sources are the troops who were themselves involved in this incident. The south end of the bridge was the site of a spectacular car-bomb attack several months ago and there is an abandoned building that stands alone near the site. One morning, the Iraqi police guarding the bridge noticed an abandoned car near their checkpoint. Upon investigation, they found that it was filled with explosives. After safely moving the dozens of innocent civilians who would likely have otherwise been killed by a blast, the police neutralized the car bomb. Within minutes, a television camera crew, emerged from the abandoned building. When the Iraqi police questioned them, they simply showed their Al-Jazeera "journalist" credentials, saying that they were filming the river and knew nothing of the car bomb. They then drove north toward the next bridge, where thirty minutes later a different car bomb detonated, killing Iraqi civilians. To the surprise of no one, the footage was aired on Al-Jazeera that night. Obviously, the crew had at least been informed of the terrorist plans, and even back-up plans, then actively supported terror against Iraqi civilians by filming and broadcasting it around the world. Another example, which does not yet rise to the level of evidence, is the photographer who was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for his photo of insurgents executing Iraqi poll workers in the middle of a busy street, before the January 30th elections. From the perspective of the photo, it is clear that the photographer is close to the killers...and likely in the middle of the street with them. It raises the question of whether the photographer was collaborating with the killers. That question is unlikely to be answered though, because Associated Press, the news organization who paid the photographer, refuses to give his or her name, and explained that they were doing so in order to protect the individual's "safety." I ask you, if he or she was comfortable enough to be that close to the men who were executing those poll workers in broad daylight, exactly who is it that might pose a danger to this person? The men and women of the U.S. military are risking their lives to end tyranny and bring freedom to these countries. It is insulting for the leader and chief spokesperson for your organization, which represents journalists from all over the country, to make baseless allegations in order to smear the reputation of the members of our armed forces. She need not support, or even appreciate, the U.S. military, but she should not use her position to smear its reputation with charges that are equally horrible and baseless. Ms. Foley seems better suited to write an opinion column, rather than to serve as the head of a leading organization that represents the members of a profession that, at its core, requires integrity and objectivity. I ask you to relieve Ms. Foley of her duties, and replace her with someone who understands the importance of having evidence to support sensational allegations, such as saying publicly that the U.S. military murders those from around the world who carry out one of our nation's most sacred freedoms--the freedom of the press. Thank you for your attention. Please e-mail a response to this address. Sincerely, Major Eric E. Camp Victory Baghdad >>> Major E. promises to let us know as soon as he hears back from the guild, but we're not holding our breath on that one. JOHN adds: Linda Foley, head of the Newspaper Guild union, has picked up where Eason Jordan left off: <<< Journalists are not just being targeted verbally or politically. They are also being targeted for real in places like Iraq. And what outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq. I think it's just a scandal. It's not just U.S. journalists either, by the way. They target and kill journalists from other countries, particularly Arab countries, at news services like Al Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios, with impunity. This is all part of the culture that it is OK to blame the individual journalists, and it just takes the heat off of these media conglomerates that are part of the problem. >>> So Ms. Foley specifically alleged that journalists are being deliberately killed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq; that there are a "number" of such killings which are "brutal"; that the U.S. military has killed American journalists; and that soldiers have also murdered Arab journalists "with impunity". She cites exactly one example in support of these lurid charges, the blowing up of the Al Jazeera studio in Baghdad in the early phase of the Iraq war, in which an Al Jazeera employee died. I believe this incident did occur; however, I do not know of any evidence that the bombing was deliberate. The Army said that it was accidental. Which illustrates, of course, why the U.S. government urged all foreign journalists to leave the country before the war began. That's a mighty thin reed on which to rest her charges. powerlineblog.com washingtontimes.com mediainfo.com

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	5/21/2005 1:35:52 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The War on the Military By Blackfive on Military Get your kit ready. First off, let's set the record straight. There are some really wonderful journalists out there. There are some really great news organizations in the MSM. Quite frankly, I wouldn't be able to post about "Someone You Should Know" without them. But the President of the Newspaper Guild, Linda Foley, has made some comments that need to be addressed. Let's start with this piece from Editor & Publisher (covering the "jouralism industry"): <<< ...According to a video of the session available on the conference's Web site, her only comments on this specific subject were: "Journalists are not just being targeted verbally or politically. They are also being targeted for real in places like Iraq. And what outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq. I think it's just a scandal." "It's not just U.S. journalists either, by the way. They target and kill journalists from other countries, particularly Arab countries, at news services like Al Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios, with impunity. This is all part of the culture that it is OK to blame the individual journalists, and it just takes the heat off of these media conglomerates that are part of the problem."... >>> She then goes on to claim that saying the "U.S. military" is deliberately targeting journalists is NOT the same thing as saying the "troops" are targeting journalists. <<< ..."I was careful of not saying troops, I said U.S. military. Could I have said it differently? There are 100 different ways of saying this, but I'm not sure they would have appeased the right."... >>> Do you have to be on the right to think Linda Foley is full of @#$%? No, of course not. Someone explain to me, por favor, the difference between "troops" and the "U.S. military"...Was she talking about Taliban "troops"? And since when is the military, the plaything of the Republicans? Don't make me look at how many Democrats have taken us to war... Is the EasonGate team going to take this on? You'll just have to wait and see. In the meantime, Rodger Morrow takes a look at the Editor & Publisher article and blasts Linda Foley's baseless accusations. And there's lots more on this topic from Bill Roggio at Winds of Change and USMC Vet. The blogosphere has been responding in spades. I've been watching to see the reaction of the MSM. There's been some reporting of this in the more right-leaning media outlets, but nothing from the biggies, yet. There will also be a MSM defense in depth around Linda Foley. Just watch. Her statements definitely echo the sentiment of Eason Jordan. A lot of you asked about how I felt about Eason Jordan resigning. It wasn't victory. It wasn't satisfying. We didn't gloat (well, maybe a little - he is a deluxe asshat). It was more disheartening than anything else...to know that there are very powerful people in the MSM who don't care who they run over with their political agendas. They are almost Wahhabi-like in their fanaticism about taking down the President via the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. And they don't care if they tarnish the successes of millions of Americans serving to protect their right to do so. I am sure that a lot of you will join me when the time comes to expose this nonsense and protect the great work and reputations of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. We'll see how the MSM handles this, but don't hold your breath waiting for a defense of our military. Get your kit ready... blackfive.net blackfive.net mediainfo.com writingcompany.blogs.com windsofchange.net wordunheard.com

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	5/21/2005 2:50:52 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

A Linda Foley Round Up from Not The Usual Suspects By Tom on Homeland Security Scared Monkeys Every one is linking to the Big Kids on the Block, but I looked at some the the smaller fish who have made some great points. <<< Linda, you stupid cow. Now, please don’t take that out of context. As an aside, Editor & Publisher inadvertently indicts liberals in general and the liberal mainstream media by stating that “some conservative groups” and “several conservative news organizations” were upset with Foley’s slanderous and irresponsible remarks. That implies that liberal groups and liberal news organizations aren’t upset that this giggling, witless turd from the Newspaper Guild (Linda, don’t take that out of context either) has accused American servicepeople of murder. How many times have you heard liberals claim to support the troops? >>> From Eric Rangle, a soldier based in Baghdad (ed WOW) <<< Dear Newspaper Guild: As an American serving here in Iraq, and having previously served in Afganistan, I am deeply offended by Ms. Linda Foley’s crystal clear allegation, made in a public forum to audience applause, that the U.S. military conducts targeted killings of foreign journalists in Iraq. Of course, she has no evidence. The U.S. military liberated these nations, and is providing security to facilitate the development of democratic governments that encourage constitutional freedoms, such as that of the press. On the other hand, however, there is possible evidence that there are journalists, or people posing as journalists, who are actively supporting the insurgents and, therefore, their terrorist tactics. For example, there was recently a CBS journalist who was firing at U.S. troops. Interestingly, when he was first apprehended, many of the newspapers you represent breathlessly reported that the U.S. had wounded a CBS journalist. After a brief investigation that revealed the man’s actual role in attacking U.S. troops, many of the same papers changed their decription to say only that it was a man who carried the credentials of a CBS journalist. Another example of journalists who actively support the insurgency occurred recently at the 14th Street Bridge in Baghdad. My sources are the troops who were themselves involved in this incident. The south end of the bridge was the site of a spectacular car-bomb attack several months ago and there is an abandoned building that stands alone near the site. One morning, the Iraqi police guarding the bridge noticed an abandoned car near their checkpoint. Upon investigation, they found that it was filled with explosives. After safely moving the dozens of innocent civilians who would likely have otherwise been killed by a blast, the police neutralized the car bomb. Within minutes, a television camera crew, emerged from the abandoned building. When the Iraqi police questioned them, they simply showed their Al-Jazeera “journalist” credentials, saying that they were filming the river and knew nothing of the car bomb. They then drove north toward the next bridge, where thirty minutes later a different car bomb detonated, killing Iraqi civilians. To the surprise of no one, the footage was aired on Al-Jazeera that night. Obviously, the crew had at least been informed of the terrorist plans, and even back-up plans, then actively supported terror against Iraqi civilians by filming and broadcasting it around the world. Another example, which does not yet rise to the level of evidence, is the photographer who was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for his photo of insurgents executing Iraqi poll workers in the middle of a busy street, before the January 30th elections. From the perspective of the photo, it is clear that the photographer is close to the killers…and likely in the middle of the street with them. It raises the question of whether the photographer was collaborating with the killers. That question is unlikely to be answered though, because Associated Press, the news organization who paid the photographer, refuses to give his or her name, and explained that they were doing so in order to protect the individual’s “safety.” I ask you, if he or she was comfortable enough to be that close to the men who were executing those poll workers in broad daylight, exactly who is it that might pose a danger to this person? The men and women of the U.S. military are risking their lives to end tyranny and bring freedom to these countries. It is insulting for the leader and chief spokesperson for your organization, which represents journalists from all over the country, to make baseless allegations in order to smear the reputation of the members of our armed forces. She need not support, or even appreciate, the U.S. military, but she should not use her position to smear its reputation with charges that are equally horrible and baseless. Ms. Foley seems better suited to write an opinion column, rather than to serve as the head of a leading organization that represents the members of a profession that, at its core, requires integrity and objectivity. I ask you to relieve Ms. Foley of her duties, and replace her with someone who understands the importance of having evidence to support sensational allegations, such as saying publicly that the U.S. military murders those from around the world who carry out one of our nation’s most sacred freedoms–the freedom of the press. Thank you for your attention. Please e-mail a response to this address. Sincerely, Major Eric E. Camp Victory Baghdad >>> Media Lies says: <<< Ms. Foley obviously hasn’t a clue about targeting, projectile trajectories and effective miss distance. She is also apparently clueless about the jamming that Iraqis may have been doing to throw smart bombs off target. She most definitely didn’t have a clue how much her comments would anger Americans. The blogosphere literally erupted in anger, not least the milbloggers and American military men, who piled on with both feet. >>> Falcon at Lofted Nest: <<< Well, a Foley is a guy in the movies who makes sounds match actions. Linda Foley, head of a newspaper union, on the other hand, makes noise that doesn’t match actions. Ms. Foley claims, just like Eason Jordon at CNN did before he was forced to resign, that the United States Military purposefully targets Arab journalists, murders them and bombs their studios. One has to wonder how in the world the Arab press continues to operate since the United States Military has little trouble smashing dictators and despots flat. If we were targeting Arab journalists, I have confidence there would be none left — they’re a noisy lot and don’t hide nearly as well as terrorists do. — Be sure to read the link above to Andi’s World, she is justifiably angry, as well we all should be, and she has links. >>> Brain Droppings notes: <<< This is outrageous. There is much stronger evidence that American journalists constitute al Qaeda’s fifth column. Considering the direction in which the media is heading, however, it is concievable that they may make themselves legitimate targets before this war is over. >>> Please remember that the media is not the friend of the military. Some are sure, just as some some convicts actually did not commit the crime they are being punished for. So when you read your local paper, take it all with a grain of salt, and then head over to the blogosphere and get a dose of reality. scaredmonkeys.com dreadpundit.blogspot.com ericragle.com antimedia.us fas.org foxnews.com loftednest.blogspot.com andisworld.typepad.com andisworld.typepad.com http://this%20is%20outrageous.%20there%20is%20much%20stronger%20evidence%20that%20american%20journalists%20constitute%20al%20qaeda's%20fifth%20column.%20considering%20the%20direction%20in%20which%20the%20media%20is%20heading,%20however,%20it%20is%20concievable%20that%20they%20may%20make%20themselves%20legitimate%20targets%20before%20this%20war%20is%20over./

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	5/21/2005 6:03:13 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

I can't wait to see Linda Foley's outrage when she learns that terrorists are taught to shoot journalists first. Mujahideen Training to Kill Journalists Little Green Footballs A web-based training manual for Islamic holy warriors specifically advises targeting journalists: (Hat tip: Bill Roggio.) Iraqi Insurgent Sniper Training. From the section titled, “Who Would You Kill First?” <<< The first one is the Soldier... because he has a MG [machine gun]. Then is the stupid soldier on the left. He is a very easy target (look how he is elevated from the ground), then the soldier or the reporter carrying the camera. First, because the camera can be used as binoculars; second, it is the most difficult thing to hide the death of a reporter in Iraq. >>> littlegreenfootballs.com military.com

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	5/25/2005 1:02:39 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

"there is no question at this point that major media figures are targeting the men and women of the United States military in Iraq, repeatedly and with no evidence" Newspaper union leader: U.S. military targets journalists Chicago Sun Times BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB May 24, 2005 A public statement by Newspaper Guild President Linda Foley is reviving questions about the intentional targeting of journalists in Iraq by the U.S. armed forces. At a May 13 meeting in St. Louis, Foley said: "Journalists, by the way, are not just being targeted verbally or politically. They are also being targeted for real in places like Iraq. What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq." The Newspaper Guild that Foley heads represents 35,000 media workers in the United States and Canada. The Guild is the largest journalists union in North America. Candice Johnson, a spokeswoman for the Guild's parent union, the Communications Workers of America, said the comments, made at the National Conference for Media Reform, should be taken in context. "Foley's remarks were a small part of a much larger discussion about the problems of conglomerate media ownership," Johnson said. She pointed out that they are consistent with the Guild's affiliate program with the International Federation of Journalists to demand an investigation of the high number of U.S. and foreign journalists who have been Iraq casualties. A letter was sent to President Bush on April 8 laying out the International Federation of Journalists' and Newspaper Guild's concerns. The White House confirmed that it had received it. In the letter, signed by Foley, she wrote: "A prompt and convincing response to the questions raised over these deaths will end worldwide speculation that the U.S. targets journalists and the media." But Foley's later St. Louis statement ended speculation before a response from the White House was received. According to Foley, journalists are "being targeted for real." In an interview with Editor & Publisher magazine, Foley offered a clarification: "I was careful of not saying troops, I said U.S. military." Richard J. Roth, an old friend of Foley's, is senior associate dean at Northwestern University's journalism school, where Foley is on the board of advisers. Roth said that her statement is "a real puzzler." "It's beyond my ken that citizen soldiers, my brothers and others in uniform, would target journalists, men and women armed with little more than a pencil. Could it be true? Well, I suppose it could be, but it doesn't square with the rest of what I read." A similar issue surfaced in February when CNN executive Eason Jordan made unsubstantiated charges that the U.S. military was targeting journalists. At the Communications Workers of America, Candice Johnson said she could not provide any evidence for Foley's revival of the Eason Jordan charges. Linda Foley refused requests for an interview. Retired Air Force General Thomas McInerney, a Fox News military consultant, was "frankly astonished." "It may be legitimate to investigate whether there may or may not have been an incident in which U.S. troops have targeted journalists, but there is no question at this point that major media figures are targeting the men and women of the United States military in Iraq, repeatedly and with no evidence," he said. Thomas Lipscomb is a senior fellow at the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future at the University of Southern California. suntimes.com

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	5/26/2005 6:10:05 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

MediaSlander.com Goes Active, Challenges Foley's Easonizing, Other Attacks on U.S. Military By Mark Tapscott Tapscott's Copy Desk Newspaper Guild's Linda Foley really stuck her foot in it May 13 at the National Conference for Media Reform gathering in St. Louis when she repeated former CNN executive Eason Jordan's assertion about the U.S. military killing journalists in Iraq. Here's the key section of Foley's statement, which came during a panel discussion: <<< "Journalists, by the way, are not just being targeted verbally or, ah, politically. They are also being targeted for real, um, in places like Iraq. What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number, and the brutality and the cavalier nature of the US military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq. I think it's just a scandal." "They target and kill journalists from other other countries, particularly Arab countries like Al Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios with impunity." >>> In the uproar that predictably followed Foley's statement, she declined to respond to requests for interviews or to provide documentation. The Communications Workers of America, which is the Newspaper Guild's parent union, also declined to address the substance of Foley's assertion or provide any backup. In what may well be the most significant outcome from the Foley flap, though, the good folks who put togetherEasongate.com have now reconvened at www.mediaslander.com and will be tracking all sorts of stuff in addition to the Foley fall-out. The MediaSlander.com teams pledges they "will not cease operations with resolution of this particular controversy. We will remain active to confront any slanderous reporting and/or statements made defaming the honor of the men and women who constitute the US Military." Sounds good to me. I've added the new blog to my blogroll and I hope you do the same. feeds.feedburner.com mediaslander.com

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	5/27/2005 4:07:49 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The Dog That Didn't Bark By Captain Ed on Media Watch Captain's Quarters Thomas Lipscomb continues to follow the Linda Foley story, this time on the pages of Editor & Publisher. Foley resurrected the Eason Jordan allegations that the US military had a policy of deliberate assassination of journalists, especially foreign journalists, in comments taped earlier this month. When Foley, head of the Newspaper Guild union, offered the same amount of evidence for this allegation as Jordan did -- none -- critics erupted with indignation. However, as Lipscomb notes, darned few of those critics came from the newspaper journalists whom Foley represents. Lipscomb draws attention to this with an analogy from a Sherlock Holmes mystery: <<< Sherlock Holmes’s key clue to who stole the racehorse in “Silver Blaze” was a dog in the stall that didn’t bark. And something equally odd happened on the way to the Foley firestorm: To date, not a single pundit, editorial writer, or newspaper ran anything, with the exception of the Chicago Sun-Times story I wrote, a St. Paul Pioneer Press column by Mark Yost, and a Washington Times column item. Clearly Foley was correct in assuming the Right was the only danger to her repetition of the statement that got Eason Jordan canned. The Mainstream Media couldn’t be bothered to cover “Easongate: The Sequel.” And positioning Foley as the gallant defender of the lives of journalists targeted by the U.S. military was inspired PR. After all, Sherlock Holmes’s dog didn’t bark because he was good friends with the thief. ... If the most basic tenets of Journalism 101 are now no longer important enough for the media itself to honor and defend against their own members who violate them, where is the professionalism and the authority that is our main claim to writing the indispensable “first draft of history” – much less its value for sale? And if we lose sight of that irretrievably, who needs us? There are bloggers out there today with more credibility than Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, Eason Jordan, and Linda Foley combined, and their audiences are growing. >>> In fact, Foley's dodge received an assist from another serendipitous factor as well: she made her allegations at the time the Newsweek/Isikoff debacle broke. The outrage over Isikoff's deadly falsehood swamped out that of Foley's statement. Besides, no one really has heard of Foley before this happened, and unlike Eason Jordan, was not seen as being nearly as influential on news delivery. However, Lipscomb certainly nails the lack of response for Foley's charges among those whom she represents, and it shows a basic conflict of interest that has hampered the wide dissemination of Foley's slanders. Read all of Lipscomb's column. As always, he does an excellent job in tying together many different threads into a cohesive portrait of a decaying Exempt Media. captainsquartersblog.com editorandpublisher.com

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	5/27/2005 5:14:42 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The truth about bad legs Power Line Thomas Lipscomb writes to his friends and colleagues in the media: <<< This is a key moment in media history. So far NO ONE in MSM is covering this but my Chicago Sun-Times story and an item in the Washington Times. WHY? How do you account for it? Are you going to let this drop? If we do... are you ready to support a Eason Jordan's suit for reinstatement? HE did exactly the same thing as Linda Foley at the Newspaper Guild. Why the separate and unequal treatment? Email me back off the record. I'd like your opinion as to what is going on here. Good for Editor & Publisher for having the guts to run this... I hope this helps tee up the issues... this is something we all better look into seriously before former American MSM employees are blogging for pennies. And if we let this pass...we don't deserve much more. >>> Lipscomb's Editor & Publisher column is "The dog that didn't bark." Today Lipscomb omits the "Keep the aspidistra flying" with which he usually concludes his messages. In the spirit of Lipscomb's usual closing, I've taken the heading above from the advertising slogan George Orwell substituted for "New hope for the ruptured" at the demand of his publisher before Keep the Aspidistra Flying was released in 1936. powerlineblog.com editorandpublisher.com amazon.com

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	5/27/2005 7:53:19 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Has Linda Foley forgotten that Daniel Pearl was a reporter? Reader Feedback Posted by Trey Jackson Jackson's Junction We are truly blessed with some extremely intelligent readers who leave comments that need to be showcased. I plan to do more of this in the days that come. This comment was left by Greg in response to our post: <<< Linda Foley-"They target and kill journalists": "There have indeed been jounalists killed in Iraq, as there have been in many conflicts around the globe. I have read many of the reports from investigations into these incidents. In most cases the deaths were due to reporters being caught in crossfire within battles. There have been cases of mistaken identity, as with the camerman on top of that Bagdad hotel that was fired on by a tank gunner. News agencies have to be aware that the lense of a camera at distance resembles the scope on a rifle or other gun. Many of the claims of American Military killing were revealed to have come at the hands of insurgents. War is a deadly business and not everyone who gets killed was "targeted" for death. I don't doubt for a minute that any soldier that discovers he or she fired on a reporter rather than a combatant wishes they could take it back. Only the most bitterly hostile individual could attribute this to a systematic endeavor as Linda Foley and her ilk do. She disgusts me. She should save her indignation for those that sawed the head off a living Daniel Pearl, or has she forgotten that reporter?" >>> Well said, Greg! Posted by Trey Jackson

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	5/27/2005 11:08:01 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

"Media credibility is in the toilet, even if the Koran isn’t." The Dog That Didn't Bark EDITOR & PUBLISHER America's Oldest Journal Covering the Newspaper Industry The Press and Linda Foley: Why has there been so little mention in the mainstream media of the Newspaper Guild president's recent charge that journalists are "being targeted for real" in Iraq by the U.S. military? By Thomas Lipscomb (May 26, 2005) -- Newspaper Guild President Linda Foley made a public statement on May 13 that journalists are “being targeted for real in places like Iraq.” She has been trying to slide out of it ever since. Pressed by E&P’s Joe Strupp, Foley offered a clarification on who specifically was doing the targeting: “I was careful of not saying troops, I said U.S. military.” Everette Dennis, a former dean of a journalism school and founder of the Gannett Center for Media Studies, finds this a distinction without a difference. “A military without troops is inconceivable,” he told me this week. “One presupposes the other.” It is as logically impossible to separate the troops from the military as it is egg whites from an omelet. But let’s go with her “careful” and very artful clarification. After all thousands of bumper stickers do not say “Support the U.S. Military.” So now, according to Foley, it is the “U.S. military” that is arranging for journalists “being targeted for real.” Sound familiar? It should. Eason Jordan, president of CNN News, had to resign for making exactly the same accusation at Davos four months ago. He had a major problem--no evidence to back up his charges. And being a prominent person in the news business, once the word got out through the blogosphere, just as it had on CBS’s use of phony Bush records, Jordan was caught in a media firestorm. Every talking head rushed on air 24/7 to attack or defend what Jordan had supposedly said, and forests of newsprint were devoted to pundantics on the theme. And because no transcript was ever released, the entire affair was conducted in an embarrassing blather of hearsay. Foley had the advantage of seeing what happened to Jordan and, as the head of a powerful union of 35,000 journalists and media workers, she knew anything she said about targeting journalists would likely be scrutinized. So one would expect that she has a pretty solid case for her revival of the discredited Jordan charges? But one would be wrong. Her spokesperson, Candice Johnson, told me Foley can provide “no evidence” to support her charges either. A Sinclair Broadcasting commentator, Mark Hyman, watched the streaming video of Foley’s remarks and ran a tough piece that spilled into the blogosphere and onto The O’Reilly Factor. This time there was a record right on the Internet anyone could see for themselves. The Vast Rightwing Conspiracy started to lace up its track shoes for another victory lap. Foley braced for the worst. The Newspaper Guild stopped answering indignant phone calls, leaving a taped announcement explaining this was “due to the large numbers of what we believe to be coordinated phone calls....” (Vox populi, vox coordinati?) Foley was understandably concerned about her explanation of her original statement. “There are a hundred ways of saying this,” she told Strupp, “but I’m not sure they would have appeased the right.” Sherlock Holmes’s key clue to who stole the racehorse in “Silver Blaze” was a dog in the stall that didn’t bark. And something equally odd happened on the way to the Foley firestorm: To date, not a single pundit, editorial writer, or newspaper ran anything, with the exception of the Chicago Sun-Times story I wrote, a St. Paul Pioneer Press column by Mark Yost, and a Washington Times column item. Clearly Foley was correct in assuming the Right was the only danger to her repetition of the statement that got Eason Jordan canned. The Mainstream Media couldn’t be bothered to cover “Easongate: The Sequel.” And positioning Foley as the gallant defender of the lives of journalists targeted by the U.S. military was inspired PR. After all, Sherlock Holmes’s dog didn’t bark because he was good friends with the thief. Foley decided to improve the odds and issued another statement to me. In a further clarification of her clarification, Foley insists that she “doesn't believe that our service men and women would knowingly fire on journalists and innocent civilians.” So follow the logic. It is the U.S. military, not the troops, who targeted journalists. But if an occasional service man or woman just might have fired a tank round or two into the Palestine Hotel and killed some journalists, or dropped a bomb on Al Jazeera’s studio in Baghdad using the coordinates from the U.S. military (both cited in her letter to President Bush of April 8 th demanding an investigation), they didn’t do it “knowingly.” It recalls the gag epitaph on former Nazi space rocketry pioneer Werner von Braun’s tomb: “I aim at the stars---but sometimes hit London.” Or was that the Nazi military? The average circulation decline among 684 US daily papers is averaging 1.9% in the past year. In some places it is catastrophic. This is the biggest drop in the last five years. And no one is forecasting a turnaround yet. In case it hasn’t occurred to anyone, that means fewer slots for Newspaper Guild workers. Media credibility is in the toilet, even if the Koran isn’t. The Manchester Guardian’s Peter Preston explains where the circulation is going—-“the defectors are packing up and moving out of newsprint: to broadcasting in tiny measure (though radio and TV news are losing customers, too) but overwhelmingly to the Net.” And it isn’t the Right or the blogosphere that are doing this to us, although that is what the MSM would prefer to believe. We are doing it ourselves. If the most basic tenets of Journalism 101 are now no longer important enough for the media itself to honor and defend against their own members who violate them, where is the professionalism and the authority that is our main claim to writing the indispensable “first draft of history” – much less its value for sale? And if we lose sight of that irretrievably, who needs us? There are bloggers out there today with more credibility than Dan Rather, Mary Mapes, Eason Jordan, and Linda Foley combined, and their audiences are growing. If Foley is allowed to walk unchallenged from what Mencken might have called “a clear, simple, and” unproven statement, it will only accelerate the speed at which her members lose what is left of their credibility--and then their jobs. (Look at The New York Times newsroom downsizing this week.) If the press isn’t going to take its own standards seriously, it is hard to think of why anyone should take the press seriously enough to pay for it. In the meantime, Rupert Murdoch’s and Roger Ailes’s success offers a constant unpleasant reminder: the media market prefers dogs that bark. editorandpublisher.com

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	5/28/2005 3:36:47 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

The Rank And File Reply To Foley's Fables By Captain Ed on Media Watch Captain's Quarters Instapundit points to a response from Hiawatha Bray, a solid member of the Newspaper Guild, to president Linda Foley for her allegations of assassination policies against journalists. Bray published his open challenge to Foley on his blog Choose Honor, an excellent blog title considering the nature of this challenge: <<< I take my membership in the Guild very seriously. That's why I was dismayed to learn that you, the president of my union, made a speech on May 13 in which you asserted that the US military has deliberately killed journalists. The relevant portion of the speech was videotaped and is available for viewing here. Since then, you have failed to provide supporting evidence for your remarks, but neither have you retracted them. I spoke with you at 11:10 AM today by telephone; union secretary-treasurer Bernard Lunzer was also on the call. When I told you that I would publish your response to me on the Internet, you declined further comment--except for the following: "I am not going to discuss this with you on the eve of Memorial Day weekend." This remark strikes me as extremely odd. I can't think of a better time to redeem the honor of the US military by beginning a serious investigation of outrageous conduct on its part. If our soldiers are deliberately killing journalists, it's our duty to publicize it, so that such a terrible stain on our nation's integrity may be quickly cleansed. >>> Foley has resurrected Eason's Fables all over again. While I don't believe Foley to be anywhere near as influential on the delivery of news to the public, as a journalist she should still have to produce evidence of such a conspiracy or retract her allegations. Like Jordan, Foley cannot use her position in the media establishment to toss around slanders and then object to being challenged about it on the basis of the calendar. Read all of Bray's letter. choosehonor.blogspot.com captainsquartersblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	5/28/2005 3:51:51 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Knaves: Newspaper Guild President Linda Foley, for reviving a false — and very damaging — theory. The Washington Times Opinion/Editorial Miss Foley, meet former CNN executive Eason Jordan. At a May 13 meeting in St. Louis of the Newspaper Guild, Miss Foley said, "Journalists, by the way, are not just being targeted verbally or politically. They are also being targeted for real in places like Iraq. What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq." Ah, yes — where's the outrage? Perhaps it's because there is no evidence that the military is intentionally targeting journalists. Miss Foley obviously doesn't remember Mr. Jordan, who put forward the same notion at a conference in Switzerland. The ensuing controversy cost Mr. Jordan his job at CNN. Will a similar fate befall her? Miss Foley has gone well beyond the boundary crossed by Mr. Jordan. Last month, she sent a letter to the White House calling upon it to pursue the "worldwide speculation that the U.S. military targets journalists and the media." The burden of proof rests on those peddling such ridiculous theories. For further endangering U.S. troops, Miss Foley is the Knave of the week. washingtontimes.com

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	5/28/2005 4:21:04 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Slander is not a virtue In Foley, Linda Media Slander Linda Foley's history of slandering America's men and women in uniform is becoming more clear as we continue to research. We are all now familiar with Ms. Foley's slandering of America's military in St. Louis on May 13th: "Journalists, by the way, are not just being targeted verbally or … ah, or … ah, politically. They are also being targeted for real, um … in places like Iraq. What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq." Video here. treyjackson.typepad.com Now, we find that she was echoing the same sentiments just 2 days earlier at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on May 11, 2005. Foley: "News organizations need to make restoration of credibility the top priority." Foley: "These industries have to be clean, they have to be credible and they have to speak to what people think are good values." I agree with these two statements, but how does Ms. Foley follow them up? By saying this: Foley: "And then, finally, this notion, and we heard a little about this last night of targeting journalists, um, both physically, in places like Iraq, where a record number of journalists have been killed, um, 63, I think, was the last count." Audio Here. treyjackson.typepad.com According to this statement, Linda Foley not only slandered our troops on May 11th and May 13th, but she apparently held a similar conversation on May 10th. Slander is not a virtue, but it apparently is a pattern. Update: The Dusty Attic has a more in-depth transcript and analysis of this event. thedustyattic.blogspot.com radiobs.net

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	5/29/2005 9:07:51 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Taking the fight to the News Guild's member papers Media Slander Aside from Hiawatha Brey, Jack Kelly, Thomas Lipscomb and a few others I have missed, the 35,000 members of the Newspaper Guild have stayed eerily silent on Linda Foley's baseless accusation that soldiers are intentionally killing journalists. Are they being cowed into silence, as the liberal MSM accuses the current administration of doing to cover up the MSM's own bungling and incompetence? No. That would not make a union dedicated to preserving journalists' rights look too good. Its member journalists jut don't care, don't know or agree with what Foley said. So it's time for those of you who are truly outraged, especially during a Memorial Day weekend, to decide whether you want to subsidize Foley's union dues through a subscription. Although I suspect that many denizens here, like my Rathergate.com site, dropped their MSM subscriptions long ago, it wouldn't hurt to fire them off a letter. Here is a partial list of U.S./Canadian newspapers and magazines with Guild-CWA unions, but even if your newspaper is not unionized, the AP, UPI and Reuters all are. I have not included newspapers that have publicly questioned Foley's remarks: <<< The Buffalo News, The Denver Post, The Rocky Mountain News, The Detroit Free Press, Pioneer Press (a chain of Chicago-area papers), The Detroit News, The Boston Globe, The Kenosha News, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune, The Montreal Gazette, The New York Times, Newsweek, Time, The Sacramento Bee, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Seattle Times, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The Philadelphia Enquirer, The Philadelphia Daily News, The Providence Journal, The Portland Oregonian, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, The San Jose Mercury News, The Los Angeles Times, The Baltimore Sun, and the Washington Post. >>> Like I said, this is not a complete list. If you know of any more, please add a comment. If these newspapers won't ask Foley to show them the money with a little evidence that her accusations are true, maybe it's time you stop showing these newspapers your money. That yearly subscription will take a decent chunk out of the yearly cost of broadband, which you can use to find unbiased news free of laced opinion. Think of it as a public service to protect journalists. With the increasing drop in newspaper circulation, inevitable staff cutbacks will force newspapers to pull correspondents out of Iraq, thus sparing them from the targeting scopes of those evil soldiers. radiobs.net newsguild.org rathergate.com

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	5/31/2005 12:44:57 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Video: Media vs. Military Video Media Watch Jackson's Junction Kudos to Jim Pinkerton of the all-star panel on Fox News watch. When the discussion of whether or not the media was against the military, Pinkerton had this to say: Pinkerton: "Linda Foley is the president of the newspapers guild. She is repeating the Eason Jordan charge that troops are targeting journalist in Iraq. That's exactly what Eason Jordan said. He had to retract and he had to resign." Pinkerton: "For Linda Foley to say that the US government is targeting journalist is a slander." You can watch the video HERE. (windows media player) treyjackson.net Update: If anyone experiences any trouble viewing this video, please email me at treyjackson at charter dot net. Thanks. Update II: We have changed the layout of the site, so please click HERE and take a look at the main page and let us know what you think! Note: Quote updated for accuracy. Posted by Trey Jackson treyjackson.typepad.com

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	5/31/2005 12:49:15 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Snipers target journalists in Iraq Iraqnow Linda Foley: "What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq." Here's some evidence of journalists being targeted in Iraq "for real", Linda. Where's your outrage? Where's your commitment to accuracy and the truth? military.com Splash, out Jason iraqnow.blogspot.com

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	6/3/2005 7:29:28 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Believing The Worst by L. Brent Bozell III Media Research Center June 3, 2005 There is an unspoken but real impulse in today’s media to see themselves as "independent" of America, even above America, not so much because they are superior to America but because America is so egregiously flawed. It is their role to shed light on America’s failings. They’re not keen at being seen as Americans. They choke at the idea of wearing flag pins. ABC boss David Westin tried so hard to be above America that he wanted to stay neutral on the question of whether our Pentagon is a legitimate target for terrorists. It explains why so many reporters are willing to believe the absolute worst about our current government and its motives. So disdainful have they become that they are silent when fellow journalists claim – without a shred of evidence – that American soldiers are engaging in targeting and assassinating journalists hostile to America’s foreign policy aims. When CNN vice president Eason Jordan "exploded" earlier this year at a conference at Davos, Switzerland, in objection to liberal Congressman Barney Frank calling the death of journalists "collateral damage" in Iraq, there were no glaring mainstream-media spotlights on Jordan’s remarks. When Jordan resigned, there was a tiny blip on the February 12 Saturday "Today" show on NBC, a tiny blip on the Saturday night "CBS Evening News," and no mention on ABC until it was mentioned in passing on a March 8 "Nightline." The weirdest mention came on February 20, when the CBS show "Sunday Morning" ran a commentary on weblogs by David Gergen, who was a central figure in the Jordan controversy since he was moderating that discussion in Davos. It was Gergen who recalled Jordan "exploding" in anger about journalist assassination, and then "walking back" the evidence-free allegation. But there on CBS, just weeks later, was commentator Gergen, with no mention from anyone of his role in the Jordan fracas, declaring the "dark side" of the Internet, where bloggers "act like vigilantes, hanging a public figure without a fair trial. Others disagree, but I believe that happened in the Eason Jordan case at CNN." But Eason Jordan wasn’t the only journalist to make this scurrilous charge. Linda Foley, the leader of the Newspaper Guild, echoed the Jordan line at a leftist conference in St. Louis on May 13. She charged that the U.S. military "target and kill journalists from other countries, particularly Arab countries" and, in the case of Al-Jazeera, "they actually target them and blow up their studios with impunity." The evidence presented? None. But outside of Fox News and Thomas Lipscomb of the Chicago Sun-Times, the major media are taking a holiday on Foley’s remarks. When blogger Hiawatha Bray contacted Foley, he was told only that Foley said "I am not going to discuss this with you on the eve of Memorial Day weekend." How would Ms. Foley’s guild react if politicians were to take this attitude in response to every reporter inquiry? How would she respond to how she’s mangled the Guild’s mission statement to "raise the standards of journalism and ethics of the industry"? Just as bloggers discovered that Eason Jordan had made this journalist-assassination charge more than once, a weblog called The Dusty Attic found that Linda Foley didn’t make this mistake just once, either. Two days earlier, at another leftist media conference, this one in Champaign, Illinois, Foley repeated allegations of "targeting journalists, um, both physically, in places like Iraq, where a record number of journalists have been killed, um, 63, I think, was the last count." She complained "You can't keep targeting reporters and news people and expect them to do their jobs in a way that is conducive to public discourse." Joining Foley on that Champaign panel was Orville Schell, dean of the graduate school of journalism at Berkeley, who expressed the dominant media ethos well: "What we need is a news service that doesn't belong to any country." They want a People’s Republic of Medialand, a stateless organization of anti-war activists – the journalistic equivalent of the United Nations, Amnesty International, and a World Court of Public Opinion rolled into one. I have heard from many soldiers who have seen the way the American media have ignored their medal-winning heroes while they made household names of the sliver of sickos at Abu Ghraib; who have seen the media spend weeks laboring over the minutest "mistreatment" of the Koran; who have seen their rebuilding deeds and anti-insurgent victories ignored while media outlets tout the efficiency and well-organized nature of insurgent violence. I suspect that if you were to ask them about the proposed People’s Republic of Medialand, they would respond: yes, please leave and form your own country. And who would you find to defend you when some insurgents decided to overtake you by force? Probably us. mrc.org

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	6/4/2005 12:01:04 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

UNBELIEVABLE: Foley Says Balanced Reporting Just a Conservative Myth By Mark Tapscott Tapscott's Copy Desk Linda Foley, president of the National Newspaper Guild, says the idea that reporting both sides contributes to the truth is just "false." People only believe that because "conservatives" have fooled them! I wouldn't believe it, either, except that Ian Schwartz at Political Teen has the video here. thepoliticalteen.net feeds.feedburner.com

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	6/5/2005 6:37:23 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

MSM Attempts Story Murder Media Slander John Leo has an article up that mentions the under reporting of Linda Foley's comments. <snip> read the excerpt below to get to the crux of what he saying. <<< "A column in the St. Paul Pioneer Press mentioned it, and so did an editorial in the Washington Times . Bloggers and The O'Reilly Factor brought important national attention. But a Nexis database search last week failed to turn up a straight news report on Foley's remark anywhere in America since Foley spoke on the panel. Remember, she is president of the union representing 35,000 reporters, editors, and other journalism workers. "Where is the professionalism and the authority that is our main claim to writing the indispensable 'first draft of history'?" Lipscomb asked in a follow-up piece in Editor & Publisher. He wrote, "The mainstream media couldn't be bothered to cover 'Easongate: the sequel.'" Foley sent a letter to the White House calling on it to pursue the "worldwide speculation that the U.S. military targets journalists and the media." In other words, she doesn't have to back up her charge, but the White House should start trying to prove that what she said is false." >>> With the Eason Jordan saga, the main stream media began looking foolish for ignoring a story that needed it's attention. Now In an effort to save one of their own from the same fate as Eason, they have gone silent, hoping to kill the story. It won't work. Either she provides evidence of our troops hunting down journalists to kill, (in a fashion reminiscent of Gengis Kahn) or she does whats honorable for any journalist who makes up stories. She should resign as president of the Newspaper Guild. radiobs.net usnews.com

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	6/5/2005 6:55:51 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Hiawatha Bray Pursues....The Silence In Foley, Linda Media Slander Hiawatha Bray has picked up where he left off with Linda Foley, and once again at no small risk to his own career. On May 27th, Hiawatha Bray called and spoke to Linda Foley regarding his union president’s remarks that the US military ‘targets and kills journalists’. <<< I spoke with you at 11:10 AM today by telephone; union secretary-treasurer Bernard Lunzer was also on the call. When I told you that I would publish your response to me on the Internet, you declined further comment--except for the following: "I am not going to discuss this with you on the eve of Memorial Day weekend." >>> Surely Foley declined out of reverence towards the same US Military she stands accusing of murder. Touching. Now, fully a week later and Memorial Day safely past us, he attempted in vain to speak with her again, hoping to pick up the conversation where it left off. <<< I was wrong. I phoned the Guild yesterday and left a message for Foley. The callback came about an hour later, but the person on the line was Candice Johnson, the capable and affable spokeswoman for the Communication Workers of America, the Guild's parent union. >>> So let’s look at what Candice Johnson (again) provides, shall we? <<< Johnson told me that Foley would speak to me off the record as a union member, but not for publication on a blog or anywhere else. I told her that this was unacceptable; Foley made her claim in a public venue and should have to defend it publicly. >>> Precisely. Foley went ‘on the record’ with the charge, but now that her forum is less than the friendly confines of the National Conference for Media Reform, she seems to have crawled under a rug on the issue. I’m sorry Ms. Johnson, but with all due respect, can Linda come out and play? <<< She actually tried to defend her boss. "Her point during that panel," said Foley, "was to talk about how journalists have been scapegoated by forces in society...there are hundreds of journalists killed every year. This has raised concerns among journalists, the Guild included." >>> Media Slander does not care what ‘her point during that panel’ was. Whatever point she may now wish to claim was abandonned when she made this very clear, direct and forceful statement: <<< ”Journalists, by the way, are not just being targeted verbally or … ah, or … ah, politically. They are also being targeted for real, um…in places like Iraq.” >>> That is not being ‘scapegoated by forces’, that’s being murdered by forces. In the event Ms. Johnson would like to lob another mortar of ambiguity toward the statement, Ms. Foley armored her statements against any ambiguity when she continued, clarifying with: <<< What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq. They target and kill journalists… >>> Pretty straight forward, Ms. Johnson. Either you see it as clearly stated and are attempting full revision or you are the most linguistically incompetent spokesperson in Washington, DC. The latter is highly unlikely. Bray continues: <<< But does Foley really believe that soldiers, sailors and Marines are under orders to whack reporters? Johnson replied, "That’s not ever been said by anybody." >>> Here we go again with the “US Military is not The Troops” non-argument. That dog won’t hunt. <<< Johnson replied that she didn't interpret Foley's words as I did. "I interpret it as a call for the investigation of the deaths of journalists," Johnson said. >>> How can one be left with that impression? It is not a call for an investigation. That’s what her letter to the White House was. Her words at the Conference for Media Reform remain crystal clear and unambiguous. <<< ...the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq. They target and kill journalists. >>> Ms. Johnson, you are a spokesperson. You know better than most: Words Mean Things. Surely many are growing tired of hearing Candice Johnson speak for Linda Foley. Does Linda Foley lack the courage to stand firmly behind her words? Whatever the reason, her continued silence on the matter is deafening. Linda Foley, where are you? Come out, come out, wherever you are. Ms. Foley, you name the forum for a debate. Pick your favorite place, your favorite host, your favorite audience. Line them all up as you wish. Anderson Cooper in a Harvard auditorium? Dan Rather at the ACLU Headquarters? Name it. Bring all of your certificates, diplomas, degrees and credentials. Bring all of your notes and bullet points. I will bring my empty pockets. Let's just drop the charade and get it on already. I will walk away from that stage, set or table with my empty pockets and your ‘credentials’, leaving you holding merely paper. And that's what 'The Silence' is really all about. Even toward TNG union member Hiawatha Bray. Or Thomas Lipscomb. Or John Leo. Or the Editors of Investors Business Daily. Or Jim Pinkerton. Or Jack Kelly. Or Mark Yost. Or our own Kevin Craver. That's why Linda Foley will never sit directly across from me or any other member of Media Slander. radiobs.net choosehonor.blogspot.com choosehonor.blogspot.com choosehonor.blogspot.com cwa-union.org radiobs.net

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	6/5/2005 9:50:57 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Message 21341637

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	6/6/2005 10:36:39 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

FOLEYGATE FILES By Michelle Malkin June 06, 2005 07:19 AM Are you keeping up with Foleygate? If not, catch up on all the latest here (http://foleygate.com/). Journalist Hiawatha Bray is doing something about the military-slandering head of the Newspaper Guild. He's running against her. Bray e-mails: <<< Newspaper Guild president Linda Foley still refuses to tell the truth about her claim that the US military is deliberately murdering reporters in Iraq. As a working journalist and Guild member, I believe her comments undercut the credibility of my profession. Her words may also spawn ill feeling among military personnel, thus making it harder for my colleagues covering the war to do their jobs. That's why I'm now running a write-in campaign to become a member of my union's executive committee. I'm pretty much a single-issue guy. I want Foley to set the record straight, and I hope my campaign can alert other union members to her comments and the threat her behavior represents to our reputation for balance and integrity. >>> Bravo! Check out Bray's blog here. choosehonor.blogspot.com John Leo breaks the MSM silence with an excellent column on "stories not told." usnews.com Thomas Lipscomb's column on the media "dog that didn't bark" is here. theconservativevoice.com Round-ups/summaries here, here, and here. junkyardblog.net blogcritics.org lashawnbarber.com michellemalkin.com

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	6/14/2005 3:14:14 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Video: Newt Gingrich Interview Part 4 - Linda Foley Posted by Trey Jackson Jackson's Junction "How can she be covering the news if she's that out of touch with reality?" "You ask whoever has employed her to fire her" In this segment, I asked Speaker Gingrich about Linda Foley's statement that the American military was targeting journalist in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think you'll like Newt's answer! Watch for yourself HERE! treyjackson.net Transcript: Trey Jackson: Are you familiar with Linda Foley's comment about a month back at the National Conference for Media Reform? Linda Foley is the President of the Newspaper Guild and she said: "Journalists, by the way, are not just being targeted verbally or … ah, or … ah, politically. They are also being targeted for real, um … in places like Iraq. What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq." What I wonder is, Eason Jordan apparently made a similar statement but there was no video of that statement or transcript... Newt Gingrich: There's a pathology of being anti-American which runs through the American left. It shows up in journalism. It shows up in the academic community. It's a pathology. It's not something you can argue about. These people are out of touch with reality. You just have to say it. First of all, if she honestly believes the American military targets journalists, how come so many of them were embedded? How come so many of them survived everyday covering the war? Trey Jackson: How do we, as citizens, hold her accountable for a statement that lacks any proof or evidence? Newt Gingrich: I think you go straight at it and you ask whoever has employed her to fire her. You say this is a person who is clearly out of touch with reality. How can she be covering the news if she's that out of touch with reality? Miss a segment? Go watch them! Segment 1- "A day in the life of Newt Gingrich" treyjackson.typepad.com Segment 2 - "John McCain's moral obligation" redstaterant.com Segment 3 - "You Don't want to corrupt the military" treyjackson.typepad.com You can see Newt Gingrich's new book "Never Call Retreat" Here and you can visit his website Here. amazon.com newt.org treyjackson.typepad.com

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	6/22/2005 3:23:29 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

THE NEWSPAPER GUILD SNEERS By Michelle Malkin June 21, 2005 11:13 PM Remember Foleygate? Boston journalist Hiawatha Bray, who launched a write-in campaign to unseat Newspaper Guild president Linda Foley over her reckless smears against the U.S. military, sends along this propaganda piece from the Guild attacking Foley's critics. It's titled "Right-wing attack-dogs savage TNG president for comments on Iraq deaths" and sneers at Fox News, Sinclair Broadcasting, and "[r]ight-wing bloggers with quaint populist names (“Ankle Biting Pundits,” “Tennessee Rant,” “My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”). Foley's defenders liken her to the beleaguered Ward Churchill. Yes, just another martyr for the America-bashing cause. Hiawatha Bray promises more on his blog. Stay tuned. * Update: Read Bray's response. An excerpt: For me, the most worrisome aspect of this entire affair is the realization that few of my colleagues are troubled by this in the least. They seem to believe there’s nothing at all to fret about when a prominent voice in American journalism feels free to slander American soldiers. Of course, there’s a great deal to fret over, if you care about the state of our profession and the good name of our fellow citizens. Or, for that matter, if you care about how journalists will be treated by soldiers in future conflicts. Will these guys ever trust us again? Why in heaven’s name should they, when we lie about them, without shame? Update II: The "quaintly named" Ankle Biting Pundits bite back: "The fact that the Newspaper Guild would favorably compare Linda Foley to Ward Churchill and label them "victims" tells you about all you need to know about the ideology of this group." * Previous: Foleygate files michellemalkin.com The new Eason michellemalkin.com michellemalkin.com foleygate.com newsguild.org choosehonor.blogspot.com anklebitingpundits.com

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	6/23/2005 3:09:40 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

"For me, the most worrisome aspect of this entire affair is the realization that few of my colleagues are troubled by this in the least. They seem to believe there’s nothing at all to fret about when a prominent voice in American journalism feels free to slander American soldiers. Of course, there’s a great deal to fret over, if you care about the state of our profession and the good name of our fellow citizens. Or, for that matter, if you care about how journalists will be treated by soldiers in future conflicts. Will these guys ever trust us again? Why in heaven’s name should they, when we lie about them, without shame?" Foleygate continues: fisking the Guild’s screed Rathergate.com As you read here and elsewhere late last night, the Newspaper Guild has gone on the attack against President Linda Foley’s critics, defending her unproven comments that U.S. troops are intentionally targeting journalists in Iraq for death. The Guild’s bulletin, “Right-wing attack-dogs savage TNG president for comments on Iraq deaths,” contains enough baloney to take care of a year of school lunches. As you read here yesterday, Andy Zipser, editor of The Guild Reporter, equated the media’s very reporting of Foley’s comments as an orchestrated effort to topple her. And what’s really interesting about this? While Zipser defends Foley, he calls the World Trade Center victims “money changers.” Let the fisking begin: <<< Brief as they were, those comments uncorked a torrent of bile—once the right took notice. Four days after the panel, Sinclair started calling TNG-CWA headquarters with requests to interview Foley. The next day, Tony Snow from the Fox network followed suit. Although both were rebuffed, Fox and Sinclair commentaries May 18 triggered hundreds of e-mails to Foley and the Guild office. >>> Uh, Mr. Zipser, maybe you should turn off the union apparatchik in you for a moment and think like a newsman. Isn’t phoning a source for her side of the story called “journalism”? And since when do journalists spike a story because someone won’t comment? Zipser then regurgitates some of the hate mail the Guild received, some of it quite mean-spirited. For the record, wishing that the military was really shooting reporters is not cool at all. But Zipser uses these comments to paint the numerous people offended by Foley’s remarks with the same brush. Now comes the obligatory part where I ask Zipser to back up Foley’s remarks with evidence. Zipser writes: <<< The attempt to obscure discomfiting truths with a smokescreen of allegations about the truth purveyor — challenging his or her motives, techniques or basic character—is not new, but in recent years the volume has been ratcheted way up. >>> “Discomfiting truths” spoken by a “truth purveyor”? So by saying that Foley’s comments are true, Zipser is ready to back them up with evidence? This is what Foley said: <<< “Journalists, by the way, are not just being targeted verbally or … ah, or … ah, politically. They are also being targeted for real, um … in places like Iraq. What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there’s not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq.” Foley continued, “They target and kill journalists … uh, from other countries, particularly Arab countries like Al -, like Arab news services like al-Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios with impunity....” >>> “Targeted.” That means intentional, as in troops putting journalists in their crosshairs and squeezing the trigger. I could guess that the Guild is clinging to the journalistic fantasy that the Palestine Hotel incident in Baghdad was an intentional targeting. Click here to read the Pentagon’s investigation and conclusion that the unit was under fire and did not mean to kill two journalists with a tank round. globalsecurity.org Zipser continues to write, finding an ally in … University of Colorado professor Ward “Little Eichmanns” Churchill: <<< This past January, the extreme right wing stumbled across an essay Churchill had written—more than three years earlier—in which he argued that the money changers at the World Trade Center [blogger’s emphasis] had suffered the consequences of U.S. military aggression and unjust foreign policies. >>> “Money changers,” Mr. Zipser? How about you tell us how you really feel about the 3,000 people who died in the Towers? Notice that Zipser avoids the “little Eichmanns” comment in a vain effort to clean up what Churchill said, making him look like an intelligent dissenter rather than a man who took great glee in the attacks and the people who died. In the same article, he lionizes the two journalists who died in the Palestine Hotel during the fall of Baghdad, but 3,000 innocent people are “money changers.” From here on out, maybe we should start calling the two journalists “fragged liars who got what was coming to them,” and see how much he likes it. Zipser moves on to re-hash how the evil right-wing noise machine unjustly destroyed Dan Rather, Newsweek, etc. etc., but I won’t dignify that with a response. Zipser also reveals the thinking of the Guild’s leadership in slamming Boston journalist, blogger and dues-paying Guild member Hiawatha Bray, who has called for Foley to come clean. Bray launched a write-in campaign to get a seat on his local’s executive council to attempt to get Foley to clarify or retract her remarks: <<< Piling on also has been Boston-based writer Hiawatha Bray, who made his bones with the right wing last fall in a sclerotic attack on John Kerry and now has taken to the blogosphere to go after Foley… … Bray’s response? The launching of a write-in campaign to win a seat on his local’s executive council—a move he explains was inspired by watching Jack Nicholson in the movie “Hoffa.” He ended up getting five votes, of more than 400 cast. >>> Two things jump out at the journalist in me. Bray “made his bones with the right wing last fall in a sclerotic attack against John Kerry” translates to “if you look into Democrats, you’re not a journalist.” And Zipser can barely contain his gloating over Bray’s vote total. Translation: “You don’t pay your dues to have an opinion — we do the thinking for you.” Zipser ends on an interesting note from International Federation of Journalists General Secretary Aidan White: <<< “Foley deserves the support of all journalists for speaking out,” he added. “Certainly, she has the unanimous backing of the world journalists’ movement.” >>> Not this journalist. Not Hiawatha Bray. Not Thomas Lipscomb or Jack Kelly or Mark Yost. Certainly not others who obviously are scared into silence after reading Zipser’s editorial and knowing what will happen to Guild members identified by Foley as troublemakers. Let’s be clear. I’m glad that the Guild newspaper published this. Given Foley’s comments, the MSM’s burying of them, and the silence we have heard from Guild members, I think it’s safe to say that 99 percent of the 35,000 American and Canadian journalists who carry Guild cards think this way. Zipser’s screed is Exhibit A in the charge that this mindset is systemic, and not just limited to elected leadership. As I said yesterday, if you subscribe to a Guild newspaper, maybe it’s time to drop it and get your information from non-Guild newspapers and blogs. This is not a blanket indictment — writers for The Chicago Sun-Times, Toledo Blade, Twin Cities (MN) Pioneer Press and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette have publicly denounced Foley’s remarks. But if you have loved ones in the War on Terror, this is what your annual subscription subsidizes. Mr. Zipser, this journalist does not stand with you. I wear my awards from 14 years in the Army with pride. I still get a bit choked up when people stop me on the street and just say “thank you” for what I volunteered to do. Despite what you, Foley or any other lying snake says, I have my honor, forged by outstanding drill sergeants in basic training, honed by spectacular NCOs as a private, and sharpened to a keen edge as a leader of men today. I stand tall as a soldier, but as a journalist, your Guild makes me hang my head in shame. No, that’s an understatement. You people make me want to vomit. It’s a shame similar to that felt when a black sheep relative keeps getting in trouble with the law. If journalists wore uniforms, what would people stop them to say? I’m sure it wouldn’t be “thank you.” You people make me sick. From around the Web: Ankle Biting Pundits, which was mentioned by name in Zipser’s e-mail, responds: <<< The fact that the Newspaper Guild would favorably compare Linda Foley to Ward Churchill and label them “victims” tells you about all you need to know about the ideology of this group. >>> Hiawatha Bray responds at his blog, Choose Honor, which he created after Foley’s remarks: <<< For me, the most worrisome aspect of this entire affair is the realization that few of my colleagues are troubled by this in the least. They seem to believe there’s nothing at all to fret about when a prominent voice in American journalism feels free to slander American soldiers. Of course, there’s a great deal to fret over, if you care about the state of our profession and the good name of our fellow citizens. Or, for that matter, if you care about how journalists will be treated by soldiers in future conflicts. Will these guys ever trust us again? Why in heaven’s name should they, when we lie about them, without shame? >>> UPDATES: Further chatter on the Web from JunkYardBlog: <<< LINDA FOLEY=WARD CHURCHILL? I wouldn’t have thought so, though I can see parallels between a fake Indian America hater and a pseudo journalist America hater. Both Foley and Churchill are living examples that among the leftish professions, actual qualifications for employment matter a great deal less than having the politically correct set of talking points at the ready. >>> From Daly Thoughts: <<< How clueless does one have to be to decide that the best way to defend someone or something from criticism is to decide to wrap the target with Ward Churchill? Then again, while the criticism is coming from the outside, his writing was for his union, and perhaps he knows his audience. >>> rathergate.com radiobs.net rathergate.com michellemalkin.com rathergate.com newsguild.org worldnetdaily.com cpj.org globalsecurity.org choosehonor.blogspot.com rathergate.com choosehonor.blogspot.com radiobs.net toledoblade.com twincities.com anklebitingpundits.com choosehonor.blogspot.com junkyardblog.net dalythoughts.com

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	6/23/2005 4:35:58 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Linda Foley speaks Media Slander Guild President Linda Foley speaks out in a press release regarding her re-election, entitled "Confronting right-wing hysteria." I won't get into it, but with the constant "right-wing" this, "right-wing" that, "you damned righty right-wing right-of-center righties" babbling, remember Foley's victory speech the next time the media talks about how balanced and fair it is. Thank you, Ms. Foley, for showing us how bought and paid for the unionized media is by the American left. Your press release is an early Christmas gift for this media bias blogger. Foley does "clarify" her remarks: <<< In other words, the essence of my message is: Don’t kill the messenger. I should have said it that way in St. Louis. Instead, I decided to draw a parallel between the assault on journalists for their work and the assault on journalists covering Iraq. I used strong words and said it rather clumsily, but the St. Louis crowd got the point. If I made a mistake, it was in trying to cover the issues surrounding safety for journalists in Iraq in an off-the-cuff way. I regret that my in-artful phraseology, and the storm it incited on the right, may detract from a critically important issue for journalists, especially those who cover war. So at the risk of repeating what we’ve reported for months in The Guild Reporter and elsewhere, here’s a better way of saying what I was trying to communicate in St. Louis: An unacceptable number of journalists are being killed in Iraq, most of them by insurgents, many of them brutally. Fourteen of those deaths, involving U.S. forces, have been inadequately explained or investigated by the U.S. military. One, the April 8, 2003, bombing of the Al-Jazeera studios in Baghdad, never has been explained at all. As a result, many journalists around the world wonder if the U.S. military is targeting journalists. >>> You wonder about the "inadequately explained or investigated" deaths, and I wonder about the inadequately explained or investigated number of left-wing journalists and liberally-biased "news" stories they produce. Seems we all have questions. What should the military do? It investigated the Palestine Hotel incident, in which an M1 Abrams tank fired into the hotel during the fight for Baghdad and killed two journalists and wounded three. The military concluded the unit was under fire and did not intentionally target non-combatants. But that answer wasn't good enough for the Guild. The truth is, why should the military look into any such incident when the Guild will accept no answer besides "Yes, we ordered our boys to kill those damned lib journalists and we're all resigning today"? But again, Ms. Foley, thanks for your press release, and I'm glad to see that you're irritated. I don't defend death threats or similar unpleasantness leveled against you, but your letter was a godsend for those of us trying to get more people to read mainstream news with a few grains of salt. On a more serious note, seeing as how The San Francisco Chroncile is on the verge of a strike, and the Providence Journal is also having contract problems, maybe you should quit rubbing noses with Babs and George Soros and justify that union dues-funded paycheck. I don't know, maybe it's just me. radiobs.net newsguild.org

To: Sully- who wrote (10577)	6/26/2005 7:01:26 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Fisking Foley...Again...Gloves Off (Part I) In Foley, Linda Media Slander Linda Foley has written a column (July 17th) for The Newspaper Guild website. Some are accepting it as some sort of backing off or backing down. Some reject that interpretation. While Hiawatha Bray and Glenn Reynolds both note the many "if's" and the all-important "maybe", somehow through it all they seem to disregard the tone of the column to arrive at the misguided conclusion that Foley has backed down. I cannot. Nor will I attempt to. Let's just move right past the title ("Confronting right-wing hysteria") and jump head first into the opening paragraph where the [backing off] tone is [not] set: Note to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (or whatever you’re calling yourselves these days): I was just re- elected president of The Newspaper Guild-CWA, and I’m not resigning. Why go any further? Apology accepted, Ms. Foley. With an opening like that, let's just take the gloves off. I call myself an eight year veteran of the United States Marine Corps, Honorably Discharged twice, having served from 1985 through 1993, including the Gulf War. I do not much give a damn what you choose to call me, because what you fail to recognize in your dripping arrogance is that this is not about me. It's not even about you, you condescending self-righteous fool. It's about the men and women in the United States Military whom you have accused of murder. Get that through your head. I would congratulate you on your re-election, but you have already done so yourself. Your re-election signals that the majority of voting TNG members apparently agree with your slanderous statements. For if they did not, surely they would have elected a more responsible union leader. Of course you're not resigning. Personally, I don't think I have ever seriously entertained the possibility. I had hoped that the union voters would take care of business and clean their own house. So much for that. So congratulate yourself. You win, right? What you and the voting members aparently cannot see is that statements like those spoken and written by you only hasten the already free-falling level of confidence the news consuming public has in the established media in general and greater metropolitan newspapers specifically. You can't blame the rapid decline in newspaper subscriptions solely on the internet. There is a glaring confidence issue. Newspapers have always been around. So has radio. Why is radio growing? It's no harder to pick up a newspaper than it is to turn on a radio. It's confidence. The level of confidence news consumers rapidly lose in print media is inversely proportionate to the level of confidence you have in yourself. And that's a problem. Not for you, of course, but for your industry and those who are employed within it. Congratulations. Party on. In three years, let's revisit the newspaper industry numbers and see precisely what they look like compared to today. Let's attempt then to analyze just what your contribution was in that time to saving an industry who's primary employees you lead. To where, Linda? The Hague? That said, let me address the rest of this column to the people who really matter: the members of The Newspaper Guild. Finally. You're going to talk about the journalists you lead and how you are going to address pressing labor issues important to them. In case you missed it, for about a month I have been subjected to what I would characterize as a right-wing screed over some comments I made at the National Media Reform Conference in St. Louis on May 13. Ooops. My error. We're still talking about you, aren't we? Your choice. I have no problem with that. Let's have a go. You were subjected. I get it now. The 150,000+ soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines weren't subjected to accustaions of murder. How did we all miss that? You would characterize it as a 'Right-Wing screed'. Yes, I am conservative. I am also white. Can we call it a 'White-Wing Screed'? You see, Right has no more to do with 'the screed' than White does. It's not about politics. Yes, you are liberal. However, I could fairly give a damn. You see, it's not about Right or Left, Conservative or Liberal, or Me or You. It's about the men and women of the US Military whose honor you recklessly sullied. But you'll never understand that. The comments (which I won’t repeat here) were about journalists getting killed in Iraq and criticized how the U.S. military has dealt with those deaths. Of course you don't want to repeat them in your column. They're damning and justify my very presence here. I will repeat them here. ”Journalists, by the way, are not just being targeted verbally or … ah, or … ah, politically. They are also being targeted for real, um…in places like Iraq. What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq. They target and kill journalists…uh, from other countries, particularly Arab countries like Al -, like Arab news services like Al-Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios with impunity..." Did you catch that, TNG voting members? "They target and kill journalists." Apparently, you either agree with this fantasy or simply can't be bothered to disagree publicly. Thanks. The proud and honorable men and women of the US Military appreciate how you 'Support the Troops'. If this is how you 'Support the Troops', please...stop, already. "They target and kill journalists." As a matter of strategic operations, right? Folks, that's murder. 'They' are the men and women of the US Military. The men and women of the US military are troops. It was not a brick that defied physics and dislodged itself from a military facility and targeted journalists. It was the troops. They sighted journalists in the crosshairs and took them out? Show me the proof. Surely there is one disgruntled soldier who is not comfortable with murder that you can dig up as proof, no? Ask Marine Lt. Ilario Pantano how that works. You'll get your day in court. But you haven't found one have you? For all your resources and investigative reporters and the vast pool of 150,000+ prospective 'witnesses', you have uncovered precisely ZERO. And that, Linda Foley, is the 800-pound Gorilla that you consistently walk around. You paint yourself selfishly as some sort of victim. Not one shred of supporting evidence. Not even cheap hearsay beyond you and your groups. Nothing. But you applaud yourself in your re-election. You blame the 'Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy' or whatever you call us these days. You conveniently and very lawyerly avoid direct language in your 'back track' or whatever that was you wrote. You avoid the very direct kind of language you embraced when you originally and passionately stated that the men and women (or bricks?) of the US Military murder journalists. Keep patting yourself on the back...and members of the media...keep being silent...while Linda Foley and those like her continue to drive media credibility so far that the downward spiral will be virtually unrecoverable. Keep patting each other on the back. Party on. You don't even get it. This post will definitely be continued... (Since this is all on behalf of the troops, we welcome them from The Mudville Gazette.) radiobs.net newsguild.org choosehonor.blogspot.com instapundit.com antimedia.us mudvillegazette.com