SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Bush Administration's Media Manipulation--MediaGate? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (7335)6/13/2006 12:27:50 PM
From: Proud_Infidel  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 9838
 
Move the UN to Haiti, and see how many delegates go there or go home.....

Annan hits at US use of ‘the power of the purse’ at UN
Financial Times ^ | June 12 2006 | Mark Turner

The US use of “the power of the purse” to force through reforms at the United Nations is lessening the chance of those reforms succeeding, secretary-general Kofi Annan warns in Monday’s Financial Times.

At the same time, however, he calls on all countries, including the developing world, to “turn down their rhetoric” and take a constructive attitude towards this month’s UN budget negotiations, which threaten to pit rich against poor in a battle with potentially damaging consequences.

“The UN faces a moment of truth,” writes Mr Annan. He notes that the main contributors of UN funds, led by the US, linked the disbursement of cash after June 30 to significant progress on UN reform.

“We are now perilously near the deadline, and it is far from clear that enough reform to satisfy them has been achieved,” says the UN chief. “Neither side has found a way of engaging with the other to agree on further reforms.”

His comments follow last week’s high-profile dispute between John Bolton, the US ambassador, and Mark Malloch Brown, the UN deputy secretary-general, after the British official called for better US engagement with the world body.

Mr Bolton demanded a retraction, and on Friday said: “You have to ask what possible benefit the secretary-general and the deputy SG thought they were going to get from attacking the most important member of their organisation.

“The way this works in New York is that member governments give directions to the secretariat, not the other way round. He’s not a feudal lord and we’re not serfs.”

But Mr Annan writes on Monday that Mr Malloch Brown’s appeal was “absolutely right”. At the same time, he added that “the same message needs to be heard in many other countries besides the US”.

The developing world’s quarrel, he wrote, was “much less with the detail of proposed reforms, than with what they see as the overwhelming influence of a few rich countries”.

Dumisani Kumalo, the South African ambassador who leads the G77 group of developing countries, last week described the budget cap as a “poison” that needed to be removed. He said Mr Malloch Brown’s comments were “indicative of the feelings throughout the system”.

But the US State Department stood by Mr Bolton, and hinted that funding was at stake.



To: American Spirit who wrote (7335)6/14/2006 1:28:34 PM
From: Glenn Petersen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 9838
 
There is no sealed indictment. Rove told the truth to the FBI. Truthout, or whatever that site is named, had bad information. Why don't you move on to the next talking point on your list.

''The ability of this White House to stiff the press is probably better than any previous administration,'' said presidential scholar Stephen Hess, a former speechwriter for President Eisenhower and an adviser to Presidents Ford and Carter. ''Clearly if there are no leaks, there's no damage.''

Rove misled public; saved by telling FBI truth

June 14, 2006

BY PETE YOST

WASHINGTON -- The decision not to charge Karl Rove shows there often are no consequences for misleading the public.

In 2003, while Rove allowed the White House to tell the news media that he had no role in leaking Valerie Plame's CIA identity, the presidential aide was secretly telling the FBI the truth.

It's now known that Rove had discussed Plame's CIA employment with Chicago Sun-Times syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who exposed her identity less than a week later, citing two unidentified senior administration officials.

Rove's truth-telling to the FBI saved him from indictment.

And by misleading reporters, the White House saved itself from a political liability during the 2004 presidential campaign.

White House refused to talk

While the president and the vice president underwent questioning by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in 2004, Rove's role never surfaced. The lone blip on the radar screen was a one-day flurry of news stories the month before Election Day when Rove was brought before a federal grand jury.

The extent of Rove's involvement didn't become official until Oct. 28 of last year, when Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, was indicted on charges of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about how he learned of Plame's CIA identity and what he told reporters about it.

The indictment recounted Rove's conversation with Novak about the CIA officer, as Rove later related it to Libby.

For nearly three years, the White House has refused to discuss the Plame investigation, citing the fact that it is still under way.

''The ability of this White House to stiff the press is probably better than any previous administration,'' said presidential scholar Stephen Hess, a former speechwriter for President Eisenhower and an adviser to Presidents Ford and Carter. ''Clearly if there are no leaks, there's no damage.''

'Not quite a deal with the devil'

Hess said Tuesday the Plame case is an example of the news media being complicit in the White House's conduct.

''I'm saying that there was a handshake and Bob Novak was honorable to the handshake'' by refusing to publicly identify his sources, said Hess. ''It's not quite a deal with the devil because these people are our elected and appointed officials, but it's a question of how much you want to let them off the hook.''

Lee Edwards, a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said other administrations have ''flinched or blinked or said 'we've got to do more in response to this or that crisis.'''

''Rove and everyone else has been under enormous pressure and yet they have been able to stick to it and that's remarkable,'' said Edwards.

AP

suntimes.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (7335)6/18/2006 5:40:04 PM
From: Glenn Petersen  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 9838
 
Just in case you might be holding your breath waiting for the Rove indictment promised by Jason Leopold on truthout.com (or sortofthetruth.com, as it should be called), you might want to read this piece that appeared in today's Washington Post.

My Unwitting Role in the Rove 'Scoop'

By Joe Lauria

Sunday, June 18, 2006; B02

The May 13 story on the Web site Truthout.org was explosive: Presidential adviser Karl Rove had been indicted by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald in connection with his role in leaking CIA officer Valerie Plame's name to the media, it blared. The report set off hysteria on the Internet, and the mainstream media scrambled to nail it down. Only . . . it wasn't true.

As we learned last week, Rove isn't being indicted, and the supposed Truthout scoop by reporter Jason Leopold was wildly off the mark. It was but the latest installment in the tale of a troubled young reporter with a history of drug addiction whose aggressive disregard for the rules ended up embroiling me in a bizarre escapade -- and raised serious questions about journalistic ethics.

In his nine-year reporting career, Leopold has managed, despite his drug abuse and a run-in with the law, to work with such big-time news organizations as the Los Angeles Times, Dow Jones Newswire and Salon. He broke some bona fide stories on the Enron scandal and the CIA leak investigation. But in every job, something always went wrong, and he got the sack. Finally, he landed at Truthout, a left-leaning Web site.

I met Leopold once, three days before his Rove story ran, to discuss his recently published memoir, "News Junkie." It seems to be an honest record of neglect and abuse by his parents, felony conviction, cocaine addiction -- and deception in the practice of journalism.

Leopold says he gets the same rush from breaking a news story that he did from snorting cocaine. To get coke, he lied, cheated and stole. To get his scoops, he has done much the same. As long as it isn't illegal, he told me, he'll do whatever it takes to get a story, especially to nail a corrupt politician or businessman. "A scoop is a scoop," he trumpets in his memoir. "Other journalists all whine about ethics, but that's a load of crap."

I disagree, but I felt some sympathy for the affable, seemingly vulnerable 36-year-old. Before we parted, I told him a bit about myself -- that I freelance for numerous newspapers, including the Sunday Times of London. His publicist had earlier given him my cellphone number.

Three days later, Leopold's Rove story appeared. I wrote him a congratulatory e-mail, wondering how long it would be before the establishment media caught up.

But by Monday there was no announcement. No one else published the story. The blogosphere went wild. Leopold said on the radio that he would out his unnamed sources if it turned out that they were wrong or had misled him. I trawled the Internet looking for a clue to the truth. I found a blog called Talk Left, run by Jeralyn Merritt, a Colorado defense lawyer.

Merritt had called Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department spokesman who is now privately employed by Rove. She reported that Corallo said he had "never spoken with someone identifying himself as 'Jason Leopold.' He did have conversations Saturday and Sunday . . . but the caller identified himself as Joel something or other from the Londay [sic] Sunday Times. . . . At one point . . . he offered to call Joel back, and was given a cell phone number that began with 917. When he called the number back, it turned out not to be a number for Joel."

A chill went down my back. I freelance for the Sunday Times. My first name is often mistaken for Joel. My cellphone number starts with area code 917.

I called Corallo. He confirmed that my name was the one the caller had used. Moreover, the return number the caller had given him was off from mine by one digit. Corallo had never been able to reach me to find out it wasn't I who had called. He said he knew who Leopold was but had never talked to him.

I called Leopold. He gave me a profanity-filled earful, saying that he'd spoken to Corallo four times and that Corallo had called him to denounce the story after it appeared.

When he was done, I asked: "How would Corallo have gotten my phone number, one digit off?"

"Joe, I would never, ever have done something like that," Leopold said defiantly.

Except that he has done things like that. His memoir is full of examples. He did break big stories, but he lied to get many of them. He admits lying to the lawyers for Enron executives Jeffrey Skilling and Andrew Fastow, making up stories to get them to spill more beans. "I was hoping to get both sides so paranoid that one was going to implicate the other," he wrote.

I don't really know why Leopold may have pretended to be me to Corallo. I can only speculate that he either was trying to get a reaction and thought Corallo would be more likely to respond to a conservative-leaning mainstream paper, or he was trying to get Corallo to acknowledge that Rove had been indicted by bluffing that the Sunday Times had confirmed the story. In fact, Corallo told me that "Joel" told him that he had Fitzgerald's spokesman on the record about the indictment. He has also said he believes Leopold made up the whole story.

Leopold still stubbornly stands by the story, claiming that something happened behind the scenes to overturn the indictment. Marc Ash, Truthout's executive director, said last week that his site will "defer to the nation's leading publications" on the Rove story, but he declared his continuing faith in Leopold.

We may never know what really happened. Most mainstream news organizations have dismissed the Leopold story as egregiously wrong. But even if he had gotten it right and scooped the world on a major story, his methods would still raise a huge question: What value does journalism have if it exposes unethical behavior unethically? Leopold seems to assume, as does much of the public, that all journalists practice deception to land a story. But that's not true. I know dozens of reporters, but Leopold is only the second one I've known (the first did it privately) to admit to doing something illegal or unethical on the job.

After reading his memoir -- and watching other journalists, such as Jayson Blair at the New York Times and Jack Kelley at USA Today, crash and burn for making up stories or breaking other rules of newsgathering -- I think there's something else at play here. Leopold is in too many ways a man of his times. These days it is about the reporter, not the story; the actor, not the play; the athlete, not the game. Leopold is a product of a narcissistic culture that has not stopped at journalism's door, a culture facilitated and expanded by the Internet.

In the end, whatever Jason Leopold's future, he got what he appears to be crying out for: attention.

unjoe@aol.com

Joe Lauria is a New York-based freelance writer

whose work appears in the Boston Globe, the

Sunday Times of London and other publications.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

washingtonpost.com