Free Press my tomato

Here is a great summary of the media in the last few years from Chris of Inside-Out the Beltway.

what I saw pouring from the news stations every single day in 2002 and 2003 was a painfully adolescent, almost crazed, lustful craving for domination and glory. I saw not necessarily an inherent "conservative" bias, but an intense, sweaty worshipping of a government that was promising simple answers, straightforward solutions, and unmitigated displays of strength to salve the deep wounds of a great national tragedy.

Then, the media's naked groveling at the shined shoes of nationalism and military might were smoothly coaxed into a more sustained deference to the party that controlled the government and the message....

Currently the media displays a strong conservative bias. This may flip when the sitting President is not a conservative. While in some ways that would be a welcome change, I'd much prefer a media that stood up to the government when the government is full of crap, regardless of whether it's my kind of crap or yours. An administration that doesn't reward sycophancy would help with this, but the TV networks need to put reporters on the air, not a bunch of suck-ups.

Motorcycle Babe

Papa has given Evelyn the ultimate present: a motorcycle. And knee pads and elbow pads and a helmet. Check it out!

Free Press my potato

Today, Glenn Greenwald has an excellent post laying out evidence of how the mainstream media (especially television) has given up on investigative journalism. The coverage of the Iraq War, from inception to today, has been worthless. Some highlights:

• The military analysts the networks present are all in collusion with the Pentagon. The Pentagon and White House created a special program of briefings and information flow, accessible only to former generals who were friendly and passed on the message the Pentagon wanted the public to hear. Then the TV networks presented these guys as "independent military analysts."
  
• Corporate executives at news agencies pressured their reporters to cover only Bush-friendly stories. Stick to the patriotic line, they said.
  
• News these days is all about passing on statements made by government officials or candidates. Leading newspeople actually state that it is not their job to start a debate, just to report what was said.
  
• Two conservatives for every liberal. Or only conservatives. That's been the rule.
  
• Reporters were fired for revealing to the public that they were pressured to favor the government.
  

What influence does TV news have? Well, in Brazil, people changed their entire family structure because of soap operas. TV has a profound influence on people's opinions, especially people who don't read much.

While it's infuriating to hear about the travesties that passed for reporting while the administration was making its case for war, it is not a big surprise. What is alarming is that they haven't changed. The New York Times broke the story about the heavily biased "independent" military analysts weeks ago, and there hasn't been a peep about it on the TV networks. They continue to pass off these government mouthpieces as balanced commentators. They continue to race to be the first to report a White House or candidate statement.

We need to demand better from our media.

Those FLDS children

Today the news says a Texas appellate judge has ruled that the state had no business removing over 400 children from their homes. Sanity! Of the women originally called underage mothers, half were fully adults, and one was 27. And there's more...

"The sect children were removed en masse during a raid that began April 3 after someone called a domestic abuse hot line claiming to be a pregnant abused teenage wife. The girl has not been found and authorities are investigating whether the calls were a hoax."

What kind of tragedy is this? Over four hundred children, half of them babies, were wrenched from their homes, taken away from their parents, and scattered among various foster homes... for a possible hoax? Not only did nobody demonstrate the children were "in immediate danger of physical harm" (the legal basis for taking them without a court hearing) but nobody even verified the original phone call! Some cowboys took it upon themselves to "rescue" all these babies from parents who (God forbid) have different religious beliefs.

Those poor children! I hope they get home soon. I hope God heals their emotional scars.

As for me, I'm signing up here: http://www.parentalrights.org

Which path leads to peace, talk or war?

An anonymous Israeli reports that an unnamed Bush official stated that Bush and Cheney want to attack Iran before they leave office. As nauseating as that possibility is, at least the statement is hearsay. We can hope it's blatantly false.
Unfortunately, the administration's response to that rumor is a matter of record. While they denounce the Israeli's quote, they say instead:

As the President has said, no president of the United States should ever take options off the table...

Um, what about the option of talking to Iran directly? Why is that off the table? Bush and McCain claim that Obama is weak for putting that option back on the table. Yet, the White House statement continues:

... but our preference and our actions for dealing with this matter remain through peaceful diplomatic means.

That would be a lot more believable coming from someone like Obama, instead of from the people who ridicule Obama for suggesting diplomacy. The Bush/McCain policy of refusing to meet with Iran is like a gradeschooler: "Give me that! No? Fine. I'm not speaking to you anymore."
Instead, the White House ominously warns:

Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

So, it might be unforgivable if we don't start a war? The way to peace is not through war. Just look at Iraq. Now that is a betrayal of this and future generations.
Back in the 80s, Reagan was criticized by hawks for talking to Gorbachev. Like Obama, he was compared to Neville Chamberlain and labeled an "appeaser." What did that get us? It got us peace. That wasn't appeasement -- it was diplomacy. It seems to me we ought to try that again.

Shopping

This morning, on the way to her last day of preschool, we stopped at Borders Cafe to pick out presents for her teachers. Evelyn picked out fancy pens with a poofball and sparkly butterfly on the end. "It's a pen, but it's also a wand!"
While we waited for my coffee, she checked out the magazine rack. She saw this cover:

and pointed to the scary face on the left, third circle down. "What's that?" I didn't know, so she asked the person behind the counter, "What's that scary face?" but she didn't know either. It might be a zombie, because it has scary eyes "and scary tooths."

Politicians and the media

I hope you've all heard about the Pentagon's big scheme to keep Iraq war coverage entirely positive -- how all the networks hired former generals handpicked by the Pentagon, and continually briefed by the Pentagon with the propaganda the Bush administration and military wanted spouted on TV. The networks passed these off as "independent military analysts." If a journalist or analyst publishes anything critical of the administration, their access to information is cut off. They were (and are) denied access to people with knowledge, press secretaries won't answer their questions, etc. This isn't really news, is it?

Yesterday I read that McCain's campaign is denying access to journalists whose publications write pieces favorable of Obama. This demonstrates that McCain is already doing some things the same deplorable way Bush does them, denying the media the right to cover both sides.

Aunt Bunny's homework

Happy Mother's Day to Me

I can post from my phone at jessitron.vox.com
check that out.