Posts tagged reporters
The Crony Media Protection Bill: Senator Cornyn says Schumer “Shield Law” is actually licensing of journalism1
The Crony Media Protection Bill: Senator Cornyn says Schumer “Shield Law” is actually licensing of journalism
It should be noted that the number 1 contributor to Senator Schumer’s most recent campaign was law firm Paul Weiss which just happens to represent a large swathe of the old media industry. I wonder why the clients of Paul Weiss (who are clients largely because of Paul Weiss’s coziness with politicians) might want reporters to be de facto licensed?
|American Society of Composers,
Authors and PublishersApollo Global ManagementAlibaba GroupAlonzo MourningBarry WhiteBlue Man GroupCablevision Systems CorporationCirque du SoleilCitigroupDiscovery CommunicationsDreamWorks AnimationEndgame Entertainment
Home Box Office
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Ina Garten (“The Barefoot Contessa”)
King World Productions
Lincoln Center Theater
Leiber & Stoller
Lincoln Center Theater
Major League Baseball
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia
National Football League
|National Music Publishers’ AssociationNelvana StudiosNews CorporationNew York City OperaNew York YankeesThe Nielsen CompanyOprah WinfreyParamount PicturesRobert RubinRockstar GamesThe Roundabout Theatre
Shanghai Shendi Group
Time Warner Cable
The Weinstein Company
William Morris Endeavor Entertainment
World Wrestling Entertainment
Draw you own conclusions but let’s just say that many of the clients above are in the information brokering business and they (along with establishment politicians) would love to shut down the new media. It’s a fundraising match made in heaven.
The government (and its partners) do not like the rise of new media. One hears over and over from folks in Washington about the “good old days” when we had more or less official gatekeepers of information and how much better things were then. When the “wise” establishment would tell Americans and the world the official version of events. When Walter Cronkite would literally sign off each newscast with “And that’s the way it is,” and people bought it. It was a time when consumers of news were unsophisticated and easily manipulated. That’s why the politicians (and many old media companies) long for this past time.
Let’s not forget that Diane Feinstein recently said that free speech is a PRIVILEGE not a right. That 1st Amendment thing? Really more of a guideline.
We must fight this effort to restrict speech and the press at every turn. we must never let what Schumer and Feinstein and their cronies want come to pass. Not in this country.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill-
“We shall fight in the Senate. We shall fight in the blogs and on Reddit. We will fight with growing confidence and growing strength in cyberspace. We will defend our Internet. We shall fight in Twitter and on Facebook, in Instagram and Tumblr. We shall fight in the old media. We shall never surrender.”
“Now, you know, you start to put the dots together and the FCC’s recent discussion about placing monitors in newsrooms, you begin to see that this administration wants to control the information that people get and particularly any information that might be critical of them – which is, as you pointed out in the first instance… the function of a free press: to give people unbiased and factual information they can use to make their own decisions, not to collaborate with government in squashing speech that people find unfavorable,”
Image credit: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org
About Nick Sorrentino
Nick Sorrentino is the co-founder and editor of AgainstCronyCapitalism.org. A political and communications consultant with clients across the political spectrum, he lives just outside of Washington DC where he can keep an eye on Leviathan.
Senator Dick Durbin: “It’s Time to Say Who’s a Real Reporter”
If you study the American criminal class long enough, it becomes quite easy to anticipate its next move in almost any serious situation. This is precisely what I did last week in my piece: It’s Acts of Journalism that Matter Not People Called “Journalists.” By watching the mainstream media’s reaction to Edward Snowden’s leaks, it became pretty obvious that what the power structure would attempt to do is pass a federal law that would ostensibly protect free speech and journalism, but in reality would allow the “authorities” to define who is and who isn’t a journalist. That way they can create distinct groups of people with distinct rights. One group would be permitted to share valuable information with the public, and the other would not. Of course, only compliant lapdogs to the state would be granted such privileges and we will end up rather quickly with no free press in America. Such a law should be resisted at all costs. Specific groups of people should not be carved out and granted specific rights, specific actions must be protected. Such as the act of journalism, not so called “journalists.”
Last week, the Senatorial spokesperson for the Ministry of Information, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, wrote the following fascist op-ed in the Chicago Sun Times. Some key excerpts:
Is each of Twitter’s 141 million users in the United States a journalist? How about the 164 million Facebook users? What about bloggers, people posting on Instagram, or users of online message boards like Reddit?
But who should be considered to be a journalist?
Everyone, regardless of the mode of expression, has a constitutionally protected right to free speech. But when it comes to freedom of the press, I believe we must define a journalist and the constitutional and statutory protections those journalists should receive.
I’m confused. We’ve survived as a country without making such definitions just fine for the past 223 years under The Constitution. Seems to me you and your crony friends are just concerned you are losing your grip on power.
Image added to original post.
Obama’s Dirty War on Journalism
Image credit: http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org
The information genie is out of the bottle and many leaders see this as a threat to their power, which it is.
Governments, even democratic governments, have long operated in the shadows. Now however with powerful information technologies this is less the case. With the Internet, sunlight sometimes shines onto underbelly of leviathan. Leviathan does not like this.
(From In These Times)
As New York Times media correspondent David Carr put it: “If you add up the pulling of news organization phone records (The Associated Press), the tracking of individual reporters (Fox News), and the effort by the current administration to go after sources (seven instances and counting in which a government official has been criminally charged with leaking classified information to the news media), suggesting that there is a war on the press is less hyperbole than simple math.”
Obama being Sworn in as President in Private and Secret without Press on Sunday January 20th. Why no Press allowed?7
This is something that is absolutely bizarre.
It seems that Obama will be sworn in as President in private (secret) without the Press being allowed to view to video it. They will release photos that the White House Press photographer will take, after it is done.
WHY? Seriously… how come the secrecy? Why won’t they allow it to be videoed?
Excuse me BUT…. this is our country and Obama is suppose to work for us! Also he supposedly was going to be the most transparent President….
I know that is a laugh, just like all those empty 2008 promises that were out the window…
Besides all his Bull**** things he had said he would do for the people, yet out Bushed Bush and since has been the most self centered non-producing nor liberty President in our history. In fact he will be going down as the worst President ever and taking the U.S. down into the gutters with debt and lies…
He is now going to be sworn in to what amounts as secrecy due to no outside press or disclosure of the swearing in?
What type of swearing in will be done? The normal? If it was the normal why can’t there be press there?
So if there is no allowing of public disclosure of the swearing in, that then begs the question and leaves to the imagination…. what type of swearing in will it actually be? A swearing in of a dictatorship? A swearing in using something other than the Bible? A swearing in without saying he will follow the “constitution” of the United States? A swearing in of an abnormal ceremony?
Yes a lot of things are left to the imagination of how Obama will be sworn in as the President of our country.
Considering it is our country and we the people are who make the country great, not the politicians. We have a right to see the swearing in of the person that was placed as President.
Obama has no right to have this in private nor secret of what is said and how it is done.
“Mindful of the historic nature of this occasion, we expect the White House will continue the long tradition of opening the President’s official swearing-in to full press access, and we as an organization are looking forward to working with the administration to make that happen,” Ed Henry, the Fox News correspondent and president of the White House Correspondents Association, said in a statement.
In early meetings with the inaugural committee, officials privately indicated to reporters that the Jan. 20 event could be closed to reporters and cameras, with an official photograph supplied to press by White House photographer Pete Souza,
The White House press corps acknowledges that nothing is set in stone. But even the possibility of a closed-press inauguration has stirred up immense frustration among the White House press corps, who note that past Sunday inaugurations were open to press.
“Call me shell-shocked. I’m stunned that this is even an issue; it boggles the mind,” NBC News White House correspondent Chuck Todd told POLITICO. “This is not their oath, this is the constitutional oath. It’s not for them. It’s for the public, the citizens of the United Sates. It just boggles the mind — How is this even a debate?”
So….. what are we to think that this President is wanting to be sworn in secretly/privately? It sure does make the imagination run wild with all those “conspiracies” out there about him not really having the United States best interest in his heart and mind.
We the People of these United States of which this country was founded on the Constitution of the United States have a right to see the person who is going to be leading the United States as President for the next four years… Sworn in to do that duty for the Citizens of these United States! He is our employee and he is suppose to do the bidding of the people who live by the constitution of these United States! We demand to have a fully publicly viewed Swearing in of Obama to confirm he will stand by the Constitution of which this country was founded!
Unreal, but no longer unbelievable anymore. If this happens and does not outrage the people I feel we live in a nation of zombies. Remember 2009 when Obama had to be sworn in twice, the second time in the Map Room of the White House.
By Steve Watson
Congressman says he has “theories” that foul play may be involved
In a conversation with reporters in Missouri this weekend, GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul said that he and his supporters were suspicious about the outcomes of several caucuses because the crowds and volumes of support have been much bigger for him than for any other candidate.
“Quite frankly I don’t think the other candidates get crowds like this, and we get them constantly” Paul said, after he had spoken to yet another crowd of over 2500 supporters in Missouri.
“You would get the perception that we would be getting a lot more votes.” He added.
“Sometimes we get thousands of people like this and we’ll take them to the polling booth, yet we won’t win the caucus.” Paul said, adding “A lot of our supporters are very suspicious about it.”
When informed that Santorum had won the Kansas caucuses, Paul admitted that he had not seen the numbers on it at that point but again reiterated his point, stating:
“That reminds me of a picture I just looked at. I had four thousand people and he had a hundred and fifty. So who knows.”
The picture, below, shows a huge turn out at a Kansas town hall meeting for Paul this weekend, compared to virtually nobody showing at Santorum’s event.
The Congressman admitted he could not elaborate on his suspicions but commented “It’s just instinct and hearsay stories, verbal stories that you hear and the kind of things that we heard about up in Maine.”
“They said we can’t have a recount because they just write these numbers down on pieces of paper and then throw them away afterwards. So it’s that kind of stuff that makes you suspicious.” Paul urged.
As we previously reported, evidence of possible vote fraud has been uncovered in Maine, where several towns and counties that Ron Paul won were omitted from the final state count for no identifiable reason.
Watch the video:
Thom Hartmann: Why Fox News has the Right to Lie to Us
Ever wonder why it is that Fox News can lie over and over again – yet continue to call itself “News”? It’s because Fox News is a corporation – and ever since that 1886 Supreme Court case of Southern Pacific Railroad versus Santa Clara County when a rogue court reporter named JC Bancroft Davis slipped corporate personhood into the legal record – the courts have ruled time and time again that corporations – since they have all the rights that actual people have – could also lie just like people can.
Except for one time. Back in 1998 – a political activist named Mark Kasky sued Nike alleging that Nike was lying to its customers by publishing in the San Francisco Examiner a letter assuring everyone that the corporation’s workers around the world enjoy basic labor rights like a minimum wage – health and safety regulations – and equal opportunity employment. Kasky knew this claim wasn’t true. A 1996 audit of the Nike revealed that workers in Vietnam were routinely exposed to cancer-causing chemicals that were illegal in the United States. And a Mothers Jones article later cited a Nike-funded study that found, “evidence of physical and verbal abuse and sexual harassment at nine of its contract factories in Indonesia.” After realizing he and thousands of other Nike customers were lied to and were buying Nike products under false assumptions – Kasky took the corporation to court. And in 2002 – Kasky won his case before the California Supreme Court which ruled that Nike did indeed break laws against unfair competition and false advertising…