theOneRepublic - tOR Blog

[Mediacrity] 9:01 am [permalink]
Bravo! Bolton Aide Smacks Down Payola Pundit One potentially hopeful sign at the UN -- John Bolton is not going to take UN correspondent sleaziness lying down.

The Payola Pundit, UN consultant-correspondent Ian Williams, reveals in a column in Maximsnews today that he was given a well-deserved tongue-lashing by Bolton's press secretary for a disgusting performance at the famous Kofi Annan year-end press conference on Dec. 21. That's the one in which Annan skewered Times of London correspondent James Bone. As noted in a recent item, the "journalists" in attendance reacted to the tantrum with a combination of cowardice and butt-kissing of Annan.

The worst, predictably, was Williams -- whose columns for left-wing rags such as The Nation have consisted largely of knee-jerk defences of Kofi Annan. So not long after Annan went beserk, Williams took over the microphone and launched a lengthy rant over a red herring having nothing to do with the UN -- the alleged misappropriation of funds by U.S. officers in Iraq.

This was nauseating even by Williams standards -- which are pretty low. As memorably revealed by Accuracy in Media and FrontPage Magazine, Williams is the gold standard of UN-hack sleaze. He has served as a media-trainer and booklet-writer for the UN at the same time as he covered the UN for various publications. He also wangled a cushy UN correspondent association gig for his wife Anora Mahmudova, even though she cannot legally work in the U.S. She is now happily employed by the UN, as a "correspondent" churning out fake "dispatches" such as this for UNICEF. Cozy!

According to the press conference transcript (the video, also online, shows the speaker as Williams), the Payola Pundit gave the following little speech to put his wife's boss at ease:

Since you brought it up, I hope you won’t mind me resurrecting the ghost of the oil-for-food programme again. It’s a ghost that seems to have been haunting very, how should I say, discreetly. The oil-for-food website says that the currently -- $10 billion had been handed over to the Iraq Development Fund. And I saw last week newspaper reports that American military officers were taking $200,000 a month in bribes for disposition of those funds to contractors. And I was wondering, in view of the fact that the international monitoring board that was tasked by the Security Council with examining the disposition of those funds, and the US Government inspector who failed to find out what had happened to them, whether there’s been any recent information on what happened to the $10 billion from the oil-for-food that no one seems to care about.

What has that got to do with the UN? Nothing, of course. The purpose was to give Kofi some moral support, by changing the subject from the unpleasantness broached by Bone by knocking the dastardly United States.

But the long-winded hack wasn't finished -- he concluded his remarks with some standard rump-kissing and a softball "question":

But secondly, last year also, perhaps your biggest achievement that no one also mentioned was the “responsibility to protect” being smuggled through, without the delegates being aware of what they were doing, perhaps. But people are still dying in Darfur. Will you -- do you expect to see, before you finish, any sort of ratification or codification of the responsibility to protect, beyond a vague declaration that we will be nice in future, and put some teeth into it in, for example, Darfur.

Annan was visibly relieved by his pal's performance. Will there be more UN work in store for Williams or the missus?

Williams' disgraceful little riff did not go unnoticed. He says in Maximsnews (in an article that, naturally, says nothing about the Kofi tantrum) that he was "later berated by John Bolton's press officer as an 'apologist for the UN,' as he questioned my journalistic integrity."

Good for him! Still, berating of correspondent-polemicists -- while welcome -- is not enough.

It's time to find out how much the UN has been paying journalists and "consultants" and "media trainers" like Williams over the years -- with exact figures, and names, disclosed in detail. Accuracy in Media asked -- and, according to the AIM stories, was stonewalled by UN flacks.

When a hack makes a fool of himself at a press conference, the people who pay the tab at the UN have a right to know if he is just being a fool -- or if he is bought and paid for. [go to Mediacrity blog]

[Jim Kouri - columnist] - 12:05 am [permalink]
New York Times Accused of Toying with Treason From our chutzpah file comes this story: Wednesday's New York Times reports that defense lawyers in some of the country's biggest terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda.

In an article written by James Risen, who wrote the original NSA spy article, the lawyers said in interviews that they wanted to learn whether the men were monitored by the agency and, if so, whether the government withheld critical information or misled judges and defense lawyers about how and why the men were singled out. So Risen's article may actually help known terrorists -- including the one who planned to blowup the Brooklyn Bridge -- avoid prosecution. He should be proud.

It's been a long time coming, but finally someone from the mainstream news media had the wherewithal to use the words "New York Times" and "treason" in the same sentence. Although I thought the New York Post -- part of Ruppert Murdock's News Corp conglomerate -- didn't go far enough and may have hedged their accusations a bit, the editorial writers were the bold in their assertions. After the Times articles on top secret counterterrorism operations -- the NSA and FBI operations -- there remained little doubt that reporters at the Gray Lady had an agenda.

Here's the opening of their December 27 editorial titled, "Gray Lady Toys with Treason":

"Has The New York Times declared itself to be on the front line in the war against the War on Terror? The self-styled paper of record seems to be trying to reclaim the loyalty of those radical lefties who ludicrously accused it of uncritically reporting on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

"Yet the paper has done more than merely try to embarrass the Bush administration these last few months.

"It has published classified information -- and thereby knowingly blown the covers of secret programs and agencies engaged in combating the terrorist threat."

While the New York Post stopped short of calling the New York Times' actions treasonous, I for one won't. I believe that the Times should be investigated, prosecuted and suffer the consequences of their actions in a time of war. Whether they believe we are fighting a war or not, isn't the point. The point is they committed an act far worse than those accused leakers in the Valerie Plame investigation; an investigation that the NY Times championed. How many times during the course of the Plame investigation did the Times sanctimoniously fret over our national security? Does the word hypocrisy come to mind?

For too long, the so-called "newspaper of record" has played loose and fancy-free with the truth. Columnist and author Michelle Malkin caught them in a number of lies for which the Times editors offered tepid excuses and apologies. In her December 27 column she wrote:

" The Times crusaded tirelessly this year for the cut-and-run, troop-undermining, Bush-bashing, reality-denying cause. Let's review:

"On July 6, Army reserve officer Phillip Carter authored a freelance op-ed for the Times calling on President Bush to promote military recruitment efforts. The next day, the paper was forced to admit that one of its editors had inserted misleading language into the piece against Carter's wishes. The "correction":

"Carter told Times ombudsman Byron Calame: "Those were not words I would have said. It left the impression that I was conscripted" when, in fact, Carter volunteered for active duty."

Even more troubling is what isn't caught as untruthful in the pages of the New York Times. While many of the nation's news organizations are attempting to limit the use of "unnamed sources" or "anonymous sources," the Times will build an entire news story based on these nameless, faceless newsmakers. The Gray Lady has become the Kitty Kelly of the news business.

The problem is that most news organizations, including Fox News Channel, use the New York Times coverage as a template for what will be covered by their news people. Some editors, according the former CBS reporter and author Bernard Goldberg, will not cover a story unless it's already been covered by the New York Times. Why is so much respect lavished on this newspaper?

It's similar to the situation in academia where institutions such as Harvard and Yale are still held in the highest esteem, while the quality of their education has been in decline since the 1960s, when radical left-wing ideologues took over their campuses.

But the Times always had a left-leaning agenda. They were the primary apologists for the Soviet Union's brutal murderer and dictator Joseph Stalin. In fact, most of the left in the US were against entering World War II until Hitler attacked the USSR. Then the liberal-left began to call for action against the Nazis.

The left-wingers in politics, the media, academia and activism have turned the idea of treason on its head. Today, no one dares to voice their concerns about someone's patriotism or dare to use the term treasonous to describe the words or conduct of these America haters. They assert that they are patriots. And even conservative politicians and pundits fail to laugh in their faces when they utter such nonsense.

During a recent Fox News Channel debate between talk show host Mike Gallagher and left-wing columnist from The Nation, David Corn, something interesting occurred which went unnoticed. Usually, it's the liberal-left debater who resorts to name calling (i.e. racist, xenophobe, jingoist, etc.). After Corn's diatribe against the war and the Commander-in-Chief, Gallagher simply replied that Corn believed what he was saying because he's Un-American. For the rest of the debate all David Corn could do is protest that he indeed was not Un-American. And Gallagher laughed for the rest of the time he and Corn were on the air. A wise man once told me that most leftists are cowards, but hell hath no fury like that of a leftist uncovered.

Someday, hopefully soon, conservatives will stop pussy-footing around and call a traitor a traitor and treasonous behavor treason. Let's uncover them. Let the fury begin.

[Mediacrity] 12:01 am [permalink]
More Middle East Double Standard at the Times Yesterday we had an excellent example of two methods by which the New York Times skews its coverage of the Israel-Palestinian dispute: Road Map Schizophrenia, and Oslo Agreement Amnesia. Both are essential elements of Times policy, the aim of which is to demonize Israel and minimize Palestinian obligations and violations of its treaty obligations.

Toward the end of an article on Sharon's health, the Times's Greg Myre mentions plans "for 228 new housing units in the large Gush Etzion settlement bloc in the West Bank a few miles south of Jerusalem." He immediately notes that "the stalled Middle East peace plan calls for a freeze on building settlements, but Israel continues to build houses and apartments in existing settlements."

Contrast this kneejerk mention of the Road Map with the Times's stubborn refusal to mention this "stalled peace plan" when it comes to Palestinian obligations to crack down on terrorist groups -- a deliberate pattern of coverage that I have noted several times, such as here and here.

Myre goes on to mention Israeli opposition to Hamas fielding candidates for office, ignoring that Hamas is prohibited from participating by Article III of the Oslo accords.

I'm sending a copy of this item to the Empty Suit, New York Times spokesman (a/k/a "public editor") Barney Calame. Since he came on board nearly seven months ago, this train wreck of a newspaper ombudsman hasn't said so much as one word about the Times's Middle Eastern coverage. Instead he has preferred to shill for management and focus on trivia and "process."

Come on, Barney! I can't wait for you to devote a padded column to describing the Times "process" of covering the Middle East -- along with your usual conclusions that all is well and that any problems are being addressed. [go to Mediacrity blog]

[Mediacrity] 12:01 am [permalink]
UN Hacks Display Their Yellow Streak The UN has released a transcript of the press conference at which Kofi Annan threw a tantrum and attacked Times of London correspondent James Bone. What's interesting, and missing from the news accounts, is the totally craven reaction of the other reporters in attendance.

In contrast to the tenacious follow-ups Annan would have received if actual journalists were present at the press conference, the cowed UN hacks obediently dropped the line of questioning raised by Bone. (He was probing Kofi's son's tax-free shipment of a Mercedes to Ghana, using his dad's name to avoid paying the taxes.)

After Annan finished his tantrum, another reporter piped in, "James, are you finished?" and procceded to ask a long-winded softball question about Kosovo, preceding it with the excuse, "I was waiting for this question. I believe that I was even before James Bone."

So it went for the rest of the press conference. The spirit of master-slave conviviality, and solidarity with Annan against Bone, continued unabated.
Instead of hammering away at Mercedesgate, as would any self-respecting reporters, these these hacks tossed their usual softball questions and showed off their ideological bias. One reporter chimed in helpfully about "Ambassador Bolton’s rhetoric on a number of issues" and asked if that contributed to an "atmosphere of intimidation and fear" -- ironic, considering the weak-kneed response of the assembled "journalists" to the bullying of one of their own.

" Mr. Secretary-General, happy holidays," gushed another reporter. "And we know you have made a great effort on the United Nations reform in the 60-year celebration of the United Nations."

After that came a couple of oh-so-gentle references to the tirade against Bone, but they hardly caused a ripple in the room. One correspondent made a meek reference to the tantrum, shyly saying that Bone was a "hard-working journalist trying to get to the bottom of issues of transparency within the Organization."

Annan, still fuming, snidely snapped, "I think James would be happy to know he has a lawyer in the room. Unfortunately, he’s gone, but I’m sure others will tell him."

At the end of the press conference, UN Correspondent Assn. president Jim Varner served up a weak-kneed defense of Bone, but only after obsequiously apologizing: "Sir, I’m sorry. I really have to do this for the record, Sir."

The cowardice shown by the UN media on Tuesday was only the latest example of what has long been very clear: The UN press corps is little more than a craven extension of the UN p.r. apparatus. [go to Mediacrity blog]

[Jim Kouri - columnist] - 12:05 am [permalink]
Bill and Hillary Clinton's Latest Scandal? Watch How the Media Cover It Journalist Sher Zieve recently reported on a brand new scandal involving the Clintons and slowly the story is gaining traction on the internet and talk radio thanks to Fox News Channel's Tony Snow and columnist Robert Novak.

While talk show host Scott Hennen substituted for the vacationing Sean Hannity, Novak and Snow advised the audience that the Barrett Report, which has been suppressed for years, could expose the Clinton presidency as having perpetrated some of the worst presidential abuses of power in history.

They also suggested that Senator Hillary Clinton’s run for president in 2008 could be determined by whether or not congressional Democrats are able to continue to keep the report concealed, which isn't all that difficult considering how congressional Republicans usually rollover for them or worse, turn on one another.

The 1994 Barrett Report originally centered on former Clinton Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros, but broadened into investigating claims that President Bill Clinton had used the clout of the IRS to persecute his political enemies. Novak and Snow said that of the original 400 page Barrett Report, over 100 pages have been redacted.

NewsMax reports that Novak said, "An IRS whistleblower told Barrett of an unprecedented coverup. The informant said a regional IRS official had formulated a new rule enabling him to transfer an investigation of Cisneros to Washington to be buried by the [Janet Reno] Justice Department. Barrett's investigators found Lee Radek, head of Justice's public integrity office, determined to protect President Bill Clinton."

Some of those targeted by the IRS for audits were women who had accused President Clinton of unwanted sexual advances and even rape. These include Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broddrick and Elizabeth Ward Gracen.

Also reported is that the primary reason for Hillary’s vulnerability is that her college friend, Margaret Milner Richardson, headed the IRS at the time the alleged abuses occurred.

With the media still harping on the latested cooked-up scandal involving the Bush Administration -- the so-called illegal NSA spying operation -- and with the next big story to hit the media being the Judge Alito hearings, which will once again unite the Democrats and their pals in the news media in order to "Bork" Alito, don't expect too much coverage of the latest Clinton crime story.

1) The media will interview Democrats galore so they can denounce the report as a distraction to take the heat off President Bush and the Republicans.

2) The Sunday morning talkfest crowd such as Tim Russert, George Stephanopolous and their usual media cronies will make light of the situation saying it's old news.

3) You might see one or two stories on page 10 or 23 in the New York Times and Washington Post quoting anyone they can find to denigrate the report and make negative comments about Tony Snow, Robert Novak, Fox News Channel and the internet journalists who are actually investigating the Clintons involvement in harassment of Americans by the Internal Revenue Service.

4) Conservatives such as Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, Cal Thomas and other old-timers will attempt to take the moral high ground and pooh-pooh the story.

5) The Clinton lackies will flood the media with soundbites and quotes to drown out the truth about these allegations. Even Fox News Channel will have Wesley Clarke, Susan Estrich, Bob Beckel, Lanny Davis, David Corn, Ellis Henican, Eleanor Clift, Ellen Ratner and other liberal-left blowhards who are on Fox's payroll as either political analysts or Fox News contributers all denigrating the "vast right-wing conspiracy" who refuse to give up on going after the Clintons.

6) Even Fox has a habit of bringing on liberal-left people such as former journalist Marvin Kalb or General Wesley Clark who spout their talking points without rebuttal. But when they have a conservative guest they always feel they need to balance it out with a liberal guest to interrupt and distort what the conservative guest is attempting to say. This is what the mainstream media always do. Actually, the mainstream media pick Republicans like David Gergen knowing full well he's no conservative. Or they'll bring in Senator John McCain a liberal Republican bore.

In other words there is no such thing as "fair and balanced" in the mainstream media. There is however: "how can we get over on these people -- or as newsman Sam Donaldson calls us, Yahoos -- and not get caught doing it" in the mainstream news media.

George Bush attempts to save American lives by spying on terrorists and their cohorts who just might be American citizens and he's portrayed as evil and a criminal. Bill and Hillary Clinton send out the attack dogs of the one government agency that totally disregards constitutional protections in order to silence critics and whistleblowers, and the media establishment and many Americans love them. Sometimes one wonders if this country is even worth protecting.

[Mediacrity] 12:01 am [permalink]
The Times Votes for Hamas Triple-header in the New York Times Thursday: An article and editorial on the upcoming Palestinian elections, and a front-page Steve Erlanger piece on the horrible, unjustified, mean and rotten "separation barrier." The three predictable expenditures of wood pulp can be summed up thusly: "Israel -- bad! Why don't you leave those poor, innocent Palestinians alone?"

The Erlanger piece was... well, it was a Steve Erlanger piece. What more can I say? This is the man who feels that Yasir Arafat had a "heroic history." I can just see Erlanger's story memo: "Say [foreign editor] Susan Chira, we haven't done a piece in a few days on how terribly the poor, innocent Palestinians are being treated by Israel. Let's do a nice long story quoting mainly opponents of that awful apartheid wall, with a few underplayed 'flicks' at why it was built in the first place?"

Hey, a story like that sells itself at the daily edition of Counterpunch!

The elections piece focuses on bad, mean, undemocratic Israel objecting to the poor, innocent, democratic Palestinians letting Hamas run in the Palestinian elections. Note the following carefully worded paragraph:

Israel says it will not allow voting in [East Jerusalem] on the ground that the Palestinian Authority is violating the interim peace agreement by allowing the
participation of Hamas, which is committed to Israel's destruction.

The above is classic Times-speak: characterizing an established fact as a "position" of Israel or the U.S. government.

In fact, it is not an "Israeli position" but a fact that Hamas is prohibited from participating in the election by Article III of the Oslo accords, which says:

"The nomination of any candidates, parties or coalitions will be refused, and such nomination or registration once made will be canceled, if such candidates, parties or coalitions:(1) commit or advocate racism; or(2) pursue the implementation of their aims by unlawful or nondemocratic means."

Honestreporting commented, when the issue first arose a few months ago, that "Hamas clearly falls under both categories — its official charter (calling for jihad against all Israelis and universal conversion to Islam) is as racist as they come, and its terrorist means are certainly 'unlawful and nondemocratic'. "

That point is covered with vaseline in the article and missed entirely by the editorial. Instead, the typically clueless Times sermonette makes Hamas seem like a dissident co-op board faction instead of a murderous terrorist group. And we get this real gem: "To be sure, the other option, letting Hamas run, is hard to stomach. But it is the lesser evil because any movement, once in power, is compelled to supplement its bluster with deeds."

True. The Nazis certainly "supplemented their bluster with deeds," didn't they? [go to Mediacrity blog]