White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was a lethal weapon. I knew it listening to him then, and it's confirmed now in his book. I won't spend the money to read his lilly-livered attempt to cover up his own complicity in misleading the American public about Iraq.
What should McClellan have done? Quit. He would, of course, have been replaced by another messenger. That one also should have quit. The logical conclusion is that after awhile, there would be no messengers left.
McClellan should have known what we knew at the time -- that it was all bosh.
Even before 2003, I was advising KSFR's news staff to be ultra cautious with so-called "news stories" about the need to invade Iraq. I did not want KSFR to be part of carrying messages that smelled of lies.
There was the UN nuclear weapons inspectors reports that they could find no WMD in Iraq. I read it and believed it then.
I had closely followed the revelation, debunked at the time but admitted to now, that Tony Blair had "sexed up" British intelligence with the claim that WMD from Iraq could strike England in 45 minutes. A BBC reporter and BBC leadership got the axe over revealing that.
Consider Former ambassador Joe Wilson and his debunking of one of the Bush administration's claims.
Terrorism advisor Richard Clarke was talking. Why hadn't McClellan listened? I did.
Of course, the media sucked it all up thanks to Scott McClellan and Ari Fleischer before him.
A little radio station in New Mexico chose not to listen to Scott McClellan. He was the messenger carrying sleazy messages.
We wanted no part in the whole, rotten thing.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
Big number, or small?
In an on-air interview with New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman recently, I asked about the $800 billion, 30-year carbon cap-and-trade program he and other senators were considering. If you believe the projections about climate change, I asked, was it enough money? He said, it was a lot of money. But, I asked, if you are in a sinking ship, do you worry about the cost of life jackets? He said, it depends on who's paying the bill.
My thinking: That $800 billion amounts to $27 billion a year. Combine New Mexico state government, the two national labs and the military in New Mexico, and you digest virtually that entire amount. That doesn't even count the other 49 states. Now, the number becomes pretty small.
Our conversation is about 12 minutes into this audio file.
My thinking: That $800 billion amounts to $27 billion a year. Combine New Mexico state government, the two national labs and the military in New Mexico, and you digest virtually that entire amount. That doesn't even count the other 49 states. Now, the number becomes pretty small.
Our conversation is about 12 minutes into this audio file.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Illegal propaganda
More about those Pentagon "generals" sucked up by TV nets as "analysts" and how it was illegal proganda under U.S. law.
This from a crusty reporter.
There's little doubt that this program violated the laws against covert propaganda operations mounted against the American public by their own government. But in this administration, there's no one left to enforce that law or any of the other laws the Bush operatives have been busy violating.
The real crime is that the scheme worked. The television network bosses swallowed the bait, the hook, the line and the sinker, and they have yet to answer for it.
This from a crusty reporter.
There's little doubt that this program violated the laws against covert propaganda operations mounted against the American public by their own government. But in this administration, there's no one left to enforce that law or any of the other laws the Bush operatives have been busy violating.
The real crime is that the scheme worked. The television network bosses swallowed the bait, the hook, the line and the sinker, and they have yet to answer for it.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Better news on Spanish TV
At least that appears to be the case in Los Angeles. Consider this:
Take a recent night, after a typical day of Los Angeles news. English-language TV led with the weather (it was raining, which is not as unusual as you might think during an L.A. winter), then moved into splashy reports with dramatic footage of a gang shootout and possible hostage situation in a city neighborhood. Less than eight minutes into the newscast, trivia took over. The CBS affiliate's third piece involved new questions about the death of Marilyn Monroe. The NBC affiliate dwelled on a hepatitis scare at a party for celebrities and swimsuit models, then attempted a brief consumer-oriented investigation about people's need to replace their tires more frequently. The ABC affiliate gave five minutes to movies and entertainment, from an Oscar preview to a sit-down interview with Jon Stewart.
In Spanish, viewers got fewer soft features and more deeply reported, longer pieces. KMEX mentioned the gang shootout but provided far more context, interviewing local residents about recent crime and about how local businesses and schools were affected by an hours-long neighborhood lockdown as police searched for a suspect. KMEX also aired a detailed report on a major beef recall from a local firm, a couple of pieces on local politics (including a roundup of what city and county leaders had done that day) and a four-minute examination of key policy issues in the presidential campaign. The Oscars went unmentioned. KVEA's half-hour newscast, " En Contexto" (which means what it sounds like), was even more substantive. It gave a thorough review of local political and government news, then delved deeply into nearly 20 minutes of explanation of rising home foreclosures and mortgage problems. (Yes, Spanish-language viewers were callously left to figure out that it was raining all by themselves.)
They get the best ratings, too: KMEX's 6 p.m. program has ranked either first or second for years among newscasts in the market in any language; its 11 p.m. newscast leads the ratings among nearly every adult demographic. KVEA lags behind, but its audience is increasing. "There's such a thirst for news," says Maelia Macin, vice president and general manager of Univision's Los Angeles stations.
More in the Washington Post.
Take a recent night, after a typical day of Los Angeles news. English-language TV led with the weather (it was raining, which is not as unusual as you might think during an L.A. winter), then moved into splashy reports with dramatic footage of a gang shootout and possible hostage situation in a city neighborhood. Less than eight minutes into the newscast, trivia took over. The CBS affiliate's third piece involved new questions about the death of Marilyn Monroe. The NBC affiliate dwelled on a hepatitis scare at a party for celebrities and swimsuit models, then attempted a brief consumer-oriented investigation about people's need to replace their tires more frequently. The ABC affiliate gave five minutes to movies and entertainment, from an Oscar preview to a sit-down interview with Jon Stewart.
In Spanish, viewers got fewer soft features and more deeply reported, longer pieces. KMEX mentioned the gang shootout but provided far more context, interviewing local residents about recent crime and about how local businesses and schools were affected by an hours-long neighborhood lockdown as police searched for a suspect. KMEX also aired a detailed report on a major beef recall from a local firm, a couple of pieces on local politics (including a roundup of what city and county leaders had done that day) and a four-minute examination of key policy issues in the presidential campaign. The Oscars went unmentioned. KVEA's half-hour newscast, " En Contexto" (which means what it sounds like), was even more substantive. It gave a thorough review of local political and government news, then delved deeply into nearly 20 minutes of explanation of rising home foreclosures and mortgage problems. (Yes, Spanish-language viewers were callously left to figure out that it was raining all by themselves.)
They get the best ratings, too: KMEX's 6 p.m. program has ranked either first or second for years among newscasts in the market in any language; its 11 p.m. newscast leads the ratings among nearly every adult demographic. KVEA lags behind, but its audience is increasing. "There's such a thirst for news," says Maelia Macin, vice president and general manager of Univision's Los Angeles stations.
More in the Washington Post.
Friday, May 9, 2008
The story TV "missed"
NYT reporter David Barstow’s investigation of the Pentagon’s military analyst program — whereby ex-military talking heads, often with direct ties to contractors, parroted Defense Department talking points on the air — has been noticeably absent from television airwaves since the story broke on April 20.
But, according to The Politico.Com, a possible congressional inquiry may force the story to be covered by television and could prompt stories on an investigation into themselves.
Here's the full list of documents the Pentagon released.
But, according to The Politico.Com, a possible congressional inquiry may force the story to be covered by television and could prompt stories on an investigation into themselves.
Here's the full list of documents the Pentagon released.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Domenici disclosure and newspaper copyright
I've long had a problem with newspapers like the Albuquerque Journal posting a copyright notice right under the headline and byline. After all, the entire publication is copyrighted. The only reason for doing that is as a marketing tool to show they have somethig no one else has.
Such was the case in March 2007 when Sen. Pete Domenici's office handed an exclusive story to the Albuquerque Journal, thus allowing the newspaper to post the copyright notice under the headline and the byline.
But this exclusive gift to the newspaper should not have been made. Instead, the news should have been disclosed to all New Mexico media, if not to all national media. There was no such press release until the next day.
It was the disclosure that Domenici in fact had placed that now-famous phone call to the now-former federal prosecutor for New Mexico, David Iglesias, about a fraud investigation into prominent New Mexico Democrats. Domenici has now since been admonished slightly by the Senate Ethics Committee. The April 26, 2008, Washington Post editorial critiques him for not apologizing for the phone call that started it all, saying, "Mr. Domenici suffers from health problems and is retiring at the end of this Congress after a distinguished Senate career. It's too bad he will depart on this unbecoming note."
But what got my goat in March 2007 was the selective disclosure, thus the gift of an exclusive story when it was a broad matter of public interest.
Why did they do it that way? I firmly believe it was to get the disclosure out in a way that could get the story a soft landing. Such a plan would carry the hope that words written by a friendly newspaper would be picked up by the wires and others, casting as good a light as possible on the news.
I complained loudly to Domenici's office and let other media know my feelings about the sequence of events. Not only is such action unfair to the rest of the media, it also begs the ethical question about a senior elected official ignoring his total constituency in favor of one media outlet. The newspaper carry the extra copyright banner, that marketing tool I presume is there to help enrich themselves.
Furious, I dashed off an email at the crack of dawn that Sunday morning to Domenici's office. They then released this statement that same day, hours after the Journal had gone to press.
(The Albuquerque Journal story appeared Sunday, March 4, 2007. It's no longer available in archive.)
Domenici's statement March 4, 2007(also no longer available on the senator's website but I found it in another blog)
I take this opportunity to comment directly on media statements by former U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico, David Iglesias.
Since my knowledge of his remarks stems only from a variety of media accounts, I have hesitated to respond. Nevertheless, in light of substantial public interest, I have decided to comment.
I called Mr. Iglesias late last year. My call had been preceded by months of extensive media reports about acknowledged investigations into courthouse construction, including public comments from the FBI that it had completed its work months earlier, and a growing number of inquiries from constituents. I asked Mr. Iglesias if he could tell me what was going on in that investigation and give me an idea of what timeframe we were looking at. It was a very brief conversation, which concluded when I was told that the courthouse investigation would be continuing for a lengthy period.
In retrospect, I regret making that call and I apologize. However, at no time in that conversation or any other conversation with Mr. Iglesias did I ever tell him what course of action I thought he should take on any legal matter. I have never pressured him nor threatened him in any way.
I was pleased to recommend to the President of the United States in early 2001 that he nominate Mr. Iglesias as U.S. Attorney for New Mexico. I knew from many discussions with federal law enforcement and judicial officials that the caseload had become extremely heavy within our state.
During the course of the last six years, that already heavy caseload in our state has been swamped by unresolved new federal cases, especially in the areas of immigration and illegal drugs. I have asked, and my staff has asked, on many occasions whether the federal prosecutors and federal judiciary within our state had enough resources. I have been repeatedly told that we needed more resources. As a result I have introduced a variety of legislative measures, including new courthouse construction monies, to help alleviate the situation.
My conversations with Mr. Iglesias over the years have been almost exclusively about this resource problem and complaints by constituents. He consistently told me that he needed more help, as have many other New Mexicans within the legal community.
My frustration with the U.S. Attorney’s office mounted as we tried to get more resources for it, but public accounts indicated an inability within the office to move more quickly on cases. Indeed, in 2004 and 2005 my staff and I expressed my frustration with the U.S. Attorney’s office to the Justice Department and asked the Department to see if the New Mexico U.S. Attorney’s office needed more help, including perhaps an infusion of professionals from other districts.
This ongoing dialogue and experience led me, several months before my call with Mr. Iglesias, to conclude and recommend to the Department of Justice that New Mexico needed a new United States Attorney.
Such was the case in March 2007 when Sen. Pete Domenici's office handed an exclusive story to the Albuquerque Journal, thus allowing the newspaper to post the copyright notice under the headline and the byline.
But this exclusive gift to the newspaper should not have been made. Instead, the news should have been disclosed to all New Mexico media, if not to all national media. There was no such press release until the next day.
It was the disclosure that Domenici in fact had placed that now-famous phone call to the now-former federal prosecutor for New Mexico, David Iglesias, about a fraud investigation into prominent New Mexico Democrats. Domenici has now since been admonished slightly by the Senate Ethics Committee. The April 26, 2008, Washington Post editorial critiques him for not apologizing for the phone call that started it all, saying, "Mr. Domenici suffers from health problems and is retiring at the end of this Congress after a distinguished Senate career. It's too bad he will depart on this unbecoming note."
But what got my goat in March 2007 was the selective disclosure, thus the gift of an exclusive story when it was a broad matter of public interest.
Why did they do it that way? I firmly believe it was to get the disclosure out in a way that could get the story a soft landing. Such a plan would carry the hope that words written by a friendly newspaper would be picked up by the wires and others, casting as good a light as possible on the news.
I complained loudly to Domenici's office and let other media know my feelings about the sequence of events. Not only is such action unfair to the rest of the media, it also begs the ethical question about a senior elected official ignoring his total constituency in favor of one media outlet. The newspaper carry the extra copyright banner, that marketing tool I presume is there to help enrich themselves.
Furious, I dashed off an email at the crack of dawn that Sunday morning to Domenici's office. They then released this statement that same day, hours after the Journal had gone to press.
(The Albuquerque Journal story appeared Sunday, March 4, 2007. It's no longer available in archive.)
Domenici's statement March 4, 2007(also no longer available on the senator's website but I found it in another blog)
I take this opportunity to comment directly on media statements by former U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico, David Iglesias.
Since my knowledge of his remarks stems only from a variety of media accounts, I have hesitated to respond. Nevertheless, in light of substantial public interest, I have decided to comment.
I called Mr. Iglesias late last year. My call had been preceded by months of extensive media reports about acknowledged investigations into courthouse construction, including public comments from the FBI that it had completed its work months earlier, and a growing number of inquiries from constituents. I asked Mr. Iglesias if he could tell me what was going on in that investigation and give me an idea of what timeframe we were looking at. It was a very brief conversation, which concluded when I was told that the courthouse investigation would be continuing for a lengthy period.
In retrospect, I regret making that call and I apologize. However, at no time in that conversation or any other conversation with Mr. Iglesias did I ever tell him what course of action I thought he should take on any legal matter. I have never pressured him nor threatened him in any way.
I was pleased to recommend to the President of the United States in early 2001 that he nominate Mr. Iglesias as U.S. Attorney for New Mexico. I knew from many discussions with federal law enforcement and judicial officials that the caseload had become extremely heavy within our state.
During the course of the last six years, that already heavy caseload in our state has been swamped by unresolved new federal cases, especially in the areas of immigration and illegal drugs. I have asked, and my staff has asked, on many occasions whether the federal prosecutors and federal judiciary within our state had enough resources. I have been repeatedly told that we needed more resources. As a result I have introduced a variety of legislative measures, including new courthouse construction monies, to help alleviate the situation.
My conversations with Mr. Iglesias over the years have been almost exclusively about this resource problem and complaints by constituents. He consistently told me that he needed more help, as have many other New Mexicans within the legal community.
My frustration with the U.S. Attorney’s office mounted as we tried to get more resources for it, but public accounts indicated an inability within the office to move more quickly on cases. Indeed, in 2004 and 2005 my staff and I expressed my frustration with the U.S. Attorney’s office to the Justice Department and asked the Department to see if the New Mexico U.S. Attorney’s office needed more help, including perhaps an infusion of professionals from other districts.
This ongoing dialogue and experience led me, several months before my call with Mr. Iglesias, to conclude and recommend to the Department of Justice that New Mexico needed a new United States Attorney.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Heresy from a newspaper guy?
Editor & Publisher is the trade journal of the newspaper industry and its editor and writers are not easy on their sbuscribers. For one, they've been screaming for years about the lack of real journalistic coverage of why Iraq.
Now, one of E&P's columnists writes that he's actually canceled his subscription to the print edition of his local, hometown newspaper.
Columnist Steve Outing writes: "A print edition is no longer as relevant to our lives. We're flooded with information -- most of it free -- from the Web, e-mail, RSS feeds, podcasts, phone alerts, TV and radio news. Most of the information that comes in the daily print edition is not new to me. To continue to support the Camera's print edition would just delay the inevitable."
I've wondered about this, too. Before my early morning trek to my broadcast job, I trudge up the driveway to find the local newspaper print edition in order to thrown it closer to the house for my wife to read when she wakes up later.
A strange thought has crossed my mind any number of times as I've done this: That is, what if I had drivers drop off a recording this morning of what my news team broadcast yesterday? The morning newspaper certainly has some new stuff. But much of it is material gleaned from government press releases, and other sources, that we've already broadcast. Sometimes we do it in full, sometimes in brief. But 85% of the time, all local media are operating with info from the same sources.
Better yet -- instead of physically throwing a CD or a tape of yesterday's fullest broadcast in everyone's driveway, we post our most relevant stuff on our website, where it's accessible yesterday, today and tomorrow -- even next week.
My point is a broad generalization, of course. Santa Fe is blessed to have not one but two morning newspapers. They do a fine job. But so does KSFR, with much more meager resources.
The essential difference are style (they are restricted by theirs, we by ours) and immediacy.
Now, one of E&P's columnists writes that he's actually canceled his subscription to the print edition of his local, hometown newspaper.
Columnist Steve Outing writes: "A print edition is no longer as relevant to our lives. We're flooded with information -- most of it free -- from the Web, e-mail, RSS feeds, podcasts, phone alerts, TV and radio news. Most of the information that comes in the daily print edition is not new to me. To continue to support the Camera's print edition would just delay the inevitable."
I've wondered about this, too. Before my early morning trek to my broadcast job, I trudge up the driveway to find the local newspaper print edition in order to thrown it closer to the house for my wife to read when she wakes up later.
A strange thought has crossed my mind any number of times as I've done this: That is, what if I had drivers drop off a recording this morning of what my news team broadcast yesterday? The morning newspaper certainly has some new stuff. But much of it is material gleaned from government press releases, and other sources, that we've already broadcast. Sometimes we do it in full, sometimes in brief. But 85% of the time, all local media are operating with info from the same sources.
Better yet -- instead of physically throwing a CD or a tape of yesterday's fullest broadcast in everyone's driveway, we post our most relevant stuff on our website, where it's accessible yesterday, today and tomorrow -- even next week.
My point is a broad generalization, of course. Santa Fe is blessed to have not one but two morning newspapers. They do a fine job. But so does KSFR, with much more meager resources.
The essential difference are style (they are restricted by theirs, we by ours) and immediacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
