I have my doubts about Grayson, but he does a good job outing real issues. Here we have the outing of NPR's mainstay Cokie Roberts and a great, big global corporate media person.

WHEN WE ALLOW OUR PUBLIC MEDIA TO BE TAKEN CORPORATE----WE HAVE ONLY CORPORATE STATE-SPONSORED MEDIA JUST LIKE CHINA OR NORTH KOREA. This is why the US is now ranked with Romania for free press.


Dear Cindy:

Recently, ABC infohack Cokie Roberts, doyenne of the D.C. Establishment, attacked me in her nationally syndicated column. Why? Because I dared to speak the truth about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a so-called "free trade agreement" that has lobbyists and Washington insiders alike clamoring to stuff their pockets with corrupt corporate cash. And because I dared to speak the truth about "Fast Track," legislation whose sole purpose is to cram TPP and other corporate rip-offs down our throats.

By attacking me, Cokie Roberts unintentionally has provided a fascinating case study in how Washington, D.C. really works. Her attack on me was really an attack on the American middle class. Her attack on me was an attack on you.

Let's look at the facts. Our corporatized "free trade" policy has been an abject failure. It began with NAFTA, which impoverished workers in both the United States and abroad, solely for the benefit of wealthy corporate special interests. So has every "free trade" deal since. For the past dozen years, every year, the United States has run the largest trade deficits of any country, anywhere in the world, at any time in history. Since NAFTA went into effect, our trade deficits total $10,000,000,000,000.00, or one-sixth of our national net worth. We are buying foreign goods and assets, putting foreigners to work. Instead of buying our goods and services, they are buying our assets, driving us deeper and deeper into debt. We lose - twice.

For five years now, our so-called "Trade Representative" has conspired in secret with multinational corporations to give away our sovereignty, refusing even our elected representatives access to negotiations. "Fast Track" legislation simply is a ploy to jam the resulting surrender to multinational corporations through Congress, without hearings, without mark-ups, without amendments and even without significant debate. The real problem today is our towering trade deficit, and both "Fast Track" and TPP would make that worse.

But that's not how Cokie Roberts, the daughter of two Members of Congress and a consummate Washington insider, sees it. She quoted some of what I've said, and then she said: "Liberal ideologues like Grayson are flat-out wrong."

Let's take a look at the evidence that Cokie Roberts offers to try to prove that she's right and I'm wrong. She touts the fact that the United States exports $2 trillion in goods and services each year. While she ignores the fact that the United States has been importing nearly $3 trillion in goods and services each year. (Note to Cokie: three is more than two.) She touts the "fact" that trade supposedly "supports" almost 10 million jobs in the United States. While she ignores the fact that imports cost us even more jobs; in fact, we've lost five million manufacturing jobs to "free trade" during the past two decades.

Are you disgusted by this crooked and underhanded attack by Cokie Roberts? Do you oppose "free trade" giveaways? If so, please pledge $10 per month to our campaign now, to "honor" of the "almost 10 million jobs" that Cokie Roberts claims "free trade agreements" support in the imaginary world that she lives in.

To top it all off, Cokie Roberts then quoted this vapid and inane remark by the U.S. Trade Representative: "Trade is critical to America's prosperity." It would be far more accurate to say that trade is critical to the prosperity of America's lobbyists. Lobbyists like Cokie Roberts's brother, for instance.

And now we get to the heart of the matter, today's lesson in how Washington, D.C. works - for people like Cokie Roberts. And her brother.

Why is Cokie Roberts ignoring the trade deficit, that 800-billion-pound gorilla in the room? Could it possibly be because her brother's law firm represents a slew of multinational corporations and foreign governments who stand to benefit from the TPP? In just the Middle East, that firm's client list includes Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and Kuwait. That was good enough for Cokie's brother's firm to take in a whopping $40 million in lobbying fees in 2013 alone.

Cokie's brother's firm has represented scads of multinational corporations who just can't get enough of "free trade agreements." Last year alone, Goldman Sachs poured $480,000 into the coffers of that firm. Citigroup tossed in another $300,000. And Halliburton and Exxon Mobil shelled out tens of thousands of dollars, too.

(If you question whether Cokie Roberts would bend over backwards to help her brother's lobbying firm, then consider this: Dianna Ortiz is an American nun who was tortured and raped by the Guatemalan junta. Cokie Roberts's brother's law firm represented the Guatemalan junta. Cokie Roberts claimed on the air, with no basis whatsoever, that Ortiz had fabricated her story. Ortiz then proved it in court, and won a $5 million judgment.)

Cokie Roberts's attack against me is designed to discredit not only me, but also to discredit the concerns of ordinary Americans -- like you -- in order to protect the Washington elite: corporate lobbyists, corrupt insiders, millionaires and billionaires, multinational corporations, big banks, the Halliburtons and Exxon Mobils of the world, and other economic aristocrats who would benefit from these "free trade" giveaways. In short, the people who think that they own us.

The D.C. Establishment doesn't know what to do about me, because I am unbossed and unbought. Lobbyists don't like me, because I stand against their "free trade" giveaways, their bailouts, their no-bid contracts and their tax breaks. Billionaires fund my opponents' campaigns. Not mine.

If you don't like the TPP and other "free trade" giveaways, then invest in our campaign right now. If you don't like multinational corporations who try to buy laws that benefit them, then invest in our campaign now.

Washington's corporate elite relies on people like Cokie Robert to attack people like me, because I'm speaking for people like you. If you think that Cokie Roberts is wrong, that the way that the Washington, D.C. elite do business is wrong, then invest in our campaign now. With only $10 or $25 or $50 from you, every month, I can afford to keep standing up for us.

Monday marks our Federal Election Commission report cut-off date. We are under attack. And when I say "we," I don't just mean "me." I mean that the American middle class is under attack. I mean that you're under attack. When I say "we," I mean you and me.

We are fighting for justice, equality, and peace. We are paying attention, we are working hard, and we are getting things done. And because of that, I am under attack. I need your help, and I need it today. Every dollar counts. Our deadline is midnight on Monday. Please contribute today. If you have saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, you can click an "Express Donate" link for one-click donating. Because you've saved your payment information, your donation will go through immediately:



__________________________________________________________________
NPR has always been controlled by liberals, but in 2010 it was handed to corporations and is now neo-liberal/neo-con.....global corporate media.  The interesting piece was listening to what was good coverage between 2008-2010 by NPR of the economic crash, the fraud and corruption, and finally the 2010 election in which NPR reporters openly stated they were being forced to report 'SPIN' and not being allowed to do investigative reporting.  Right after this 2010 election NPR was made world Chamber of Commerce---a corporate state media outlet.  Now NPR let's us know that the 99% is only found on ALTERNATIVE  media outlets.

Now, NPR/APM and its local affiliates are required to support their operations by a majority of individual donors to qualify for public funding.  If you notice, NPR/APM is now simply running corporate/private non-profit advertising just as if it was corporate, which it is.  If people would act locally to take these local affiliates to court for receiving public funding while not meeting these majority individual donation requirements.....

WE COULD STOP THE CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF OUR PUBLIC MEDIA.  JUST GO TO COURT AND OUT THESE CORPORATE AFFILIATES FOR FRAUD.


Reviewing "The Watchdog That Didn't Bark: The Financial Crisis and the Disappearance of Investigative Journalism"

Saturday, 29 March 2014 11:40 By Robert Jensen, Texas Observer | Book Review

The fundamental failure of Dean Starkman’s The Watchdog That Didn’t Bark: The Financial Crisis and the Disappearance of Investigative Journalism—and of mainstream journalism more generally—is hidden in plain sight in the title’s metaphor. Starkman explains why journalists often aren’t alert watchdogs, but he can’t see why limiting the profession to the role of a barking dog is, quite literally, a dead-end.

To explain that rather harsh judgment, allow me to mix metaphors: The best the journalistic watchdog can do these days is bark at people rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, and meanwhile the train has left the station.

That’s not clear? Let me throw in a few clichés: Because Starkman is committed to “dance with the one that brung ya,” he can’t see the forest for the trees, and as a result he takes his eye off the prize(s).

Still not clear? Here’s some help decoding: The prizes we should be after are social justice and ecological sustainability in a meaningfully democratic society. The trees are the crimes and misdemeanors of various evil and/or incompetent executives and politicians. The forest is our vaunted corporate-capitalist system, the predatory essence of which makes those crimes—and worse—inevitable. The dance is the implicit bargain with powerful people and institutions struck by journalists, who agree not to point out that the whole system is morally indefensible, politically incoherent, and ecologically destructive.

Representative democracy yoked to a capitalist system driven by hyperconsumption is no longer sustainable (that’s the train that has left the station), and if we refuse to grapple with these realities the system is going to go down (that’s the Titanic).

In such a world, do we want journalists who only know how to bark at, or even nip the backsides of, the crooked and corrupt? Or should journalists take a more proactive role in critiquing not just the abuses of officials but the deeper crises of our social, political, economic systems?

The Watchdog That Didn’t Bark analyzes the banking crisis and the broader economic meltdown of the 2000s without ever delving far below the surface, and on the few occasions that it does acknowledge a deeper critique, evading the implications. The book is an excellent account of mainstream journalistic failures, as those failures are understood by mainstream journalists, but such an account leaves us splashing in the shallow end of the pool.

OK, enough with the metaphors. Stated plainly, Starkman’s approach is the best mainstream journalism has to offer, and it’s not enough. A former Wall Street Journal reporter and current editor at the Columbia Journalism Review, Starkman has written a book that is engaging and informative when describing the few successes and many failures of mainstream journalism in covering the financial crisis, but that fails to offer prescriptions or a theory to guide journalism into the future.

The "Great Story"

If Starkman’s reliance on the conventional watchdog metaphor sends him down the wrong track, the book derails on his “Great Story” theory of journalism. Promising to rebut “facile criticisms” from the right, left, and digital-news advocates, he sets for himself the task of writing “the story of the Great Story.” The model for this kind of journalism is the early 20th century muckrakers:

Their strength was a certain journalistic purity: They had no political axes to grind; they were after the Great Story and were, in fact, master storytellers. They had a journalistic ambition that was sweeping by today’s standards. They combined the Victorian era’s faith in science—a scrupulous fidelity to true facts—with its unabashed moralism. As moralists, the muckrakers recognized the importance of human agency and didn’t shrink from holding power to account—by name. And they crafted what can be called American journalism’s only true ideology.

This valorizing of a journalism that pretends to transcend political judgments is at the heart of the book’s problem, and we’ll come back to that. But for now, let’s stay focused on greatness.

Starkman explains that while not every story journalists write needs to be “Great,” the core mission of journalism is built around the Great Story “that holds power to account and explains complex problems to a mass audience, connects one segment of society to another.” This kind of journalism, he writes, “is also the one reliable, indispensable barometer for the health of the news, the great bullshit detector.”

Holding power to account and detecting bullshit are certainly admirable goals, and Starkman correctly points out that journalists who practice what he calls “access journalism” are unlikely to achieve them. Access journalists, as the label suggests, play the insider game and cultivate access to powerful sources. At best, access journalism can give ordinary people a glimpse of what happens behind closed doors, but on terms set by those who close the doors.

Starkman makes the case for the necessity of “accountability journalism” in the muckraking mode that is confrontational and accusatory, and that “provokes the enmity of the rich and powerful as a matter of course.” The access and accountability schools, he writes, “represent radically [emphasis added] different understandings of what journalism is [emphasis in the text] and whom it should serve.”

The book’s thesis, simply put, is that the news media’s poor performance during the financial crisis can be explained by the prominence of access journalism and the lack of hard-hitting accountability journalism. Here’s Starkman’s summary of these two styles:

Access reporting tends to talk to elites; accountability, to dissidents. Access writes about specialized topics for a niche audience. Accountability writes about general topics for a mass audience. Access tends to transmit orthodox views; accountability tends to transmit heterodox views. Access reporting is functional; accountability reporting is moralistic. In business news, access reporting focuses on investor interests; accountability, on the public interest.

Starkman is correct to point out the limitations of access journalism and the greater value of accountability journalism. But are those our only choices? Let’s hope not, because both approaches fall short of the demands of our historical moment, in which we struggle to understand not only the specific malfunctions of our social, political, and economic systems, but the cascading collapse of those systems.

Journalists should report on abuses by the powerful, of course, but within what underlying analysis of the larger system? Are illustrations of these failures used to deepen our understanding of the unjust and unsustainable nature of a capitalist system? Starkman doesn’t take up the question, but his answer seems to be “no,” since he expresses faith in “effective journalism and uncompromised regulation,” which “operate independently but together create a dynamic that generates information, public awareness, and, ultimately, reform.” That seems to be where the process stops for Starkman: fine-tuning reforms.

If we look closely at accountability reporting, we see that such journalists do talk to dissidents, but dissidents who almost always accept the basic structure of the existing social, political, and economic systems. Journalists transmit heterodox views, so long as those views accept the assumptions of the existing systems. Journalists can be moralistic without ever questioning whether the existing systems are moral or can produce truly moral outcomes. That leaves an obvious questions: Just how “radically different” are these two approaches? And if accountability reporting cannot or will not challenge existing systems, then how exactly does it serve the long-term public interest?

Like virtually all mainstream journalists, Starkman doesn’t step back from the crisis of the moment to examine the deeper crises of consumer society, representative democracy, and capitalism. He exhorts journalists to look at “systemic problems” within the financial system, but takes the existing social, political, and economic systems as a given. Journalists’ task, by this measure, is to police abuses of the existing rules without ever asking if the system itself is sane, just, or sustainable.

Starkman points out that journalism cannot change the world by itself, that “without effective regulation, journalism can have all the resonance of one hand clapping.” But if journalism never challenges the assumptions of the system, and accepts the efficacy of regulatory agencies that are creatures of the system, we might as well ask about the resonance of dogs barking on a sinking ship.

The Inevitability of Politics


Readers who have turned on their bullshit detectors have no doubt discerned that there is a left/anti-capitalist politics behind my argument. That assessment is correct, but anyone tempted to reject my argument out of hand on the basis that it’s politicized and therefore somehow inappropriate should think about what kind of bullshit needs detecting. If my critique of Starkman can be dismissed as political, then so can Starkman’s own argument—along with every other possible position on this question.

There is no escape from political judgment, and mainstream journalism’s claim to be non-ideological and apolitical simply means the profession has absorbed the political assumptions of the dominant culture. That’s not rising above politics; it’s sinking more deeply into an unreflective politics. The appropriate question isn’t, “Is there a politics to your approach to journalism?” but “Can you defend the politics of your approach to journalism?”

I do not believe there is a decent human future possible within capitalism, which is inhuman, anti-democratic and unsustainable (more on this here). Most of mainstream journalism assumes such a future is possible. Whichever position proves to be most prescient, both points of view—an overt challenge to capitalism or the belief that capitalism is stable and/or just—are political to the same degree. The main difference is that an anti-capitalist position challenges the position held by powerful people/institutions and appears politicized, while a pro-capitalist position lines up with power and hides behind the illusory claim to not be political but simply working within the way things are.

This is not a contest between journalism based on facts and journalism based on values; all journalism should struggle to describe the world accurately and all journalism comes with value judgments. Nor is it about neutrality versus advocacy. Starkman supports a journalism that assumes regulation can solve problems in the financial system, and I support a journalism that questions the assumptions inherent to the financial system. The real questions are: Which kind of journalism does a better job of fitting the facts about the world into a coherent picture of how the world works, allowing us to imagine a better world? Readers can disagree with any particular position, but no position can be eliminated from the discussion simply on the claim that it is “politicized.”

Journalism's Stunted Political Imagination


To be clear about a couple of things: First, Starkman is an excellent journalist within the rules of the profession. My concern is not with the quality of his reporting and writing but with the stunted political imagination of the profession.

Second, I’m not arguing that every news story should be an anti-capitalist polemic. But all stories are based on claims about how the world works, reflecting a moral/political viewpoint, and those claims should be discussed openly rather than buried under the conventional wisdom. Like all humans, journalists tell stories within a certain framework, and even when recounting simple facts, the frameworks come with assumptions about how the world works and visions of how to change it.

Starkman is not unaware of this kind of critique, but he evades its implications. Citing Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky’s book Manufacturing Consent, he notes, “Many of the media’s severest critics reject the notion that conventional newspapers could be an effective check on established power.” He offers a concise summary of their model but then dismisses its relevance:

Whatever the validity of the critique (and there’s a lot to it), more reporters, I think, would argue that what happens on the margins isn’t trivial since that is where accountability reporting usually operates. And what Herman and Chomsky don’t take into account is that the margins, over time, move; they expand and contract. Indeed, the short history of the U.S. business press shows that the boundaries can move a considerable distance and that their expansion has provided considerable benefits for the chicken workers, day laborers, and slum dwellers who appear in the stories or, at least, for the curious middle-class readers who, for a few moments, were connected to them. Indeed, the expansion of the boundaries made a democratization of business news possible. Where to draw the lines becomes a source of fierce newsroom debate, with some journalists, depending on their own values, defending the boundaries and even seeking to narrow them; others push against them. Looking over recent investigative journalism, it is surprising to see how far the boundaries of what could be covered were stretched in American journalism, business news very much included.

Herman and Chomsky don’t discount the importance of stories that uncover abuses and improve people’s lives, and they recognize that the space for critique opens and closes, typically depending on the success of social-justice movements’ challenge to power. But the boundaries in mainstream journalism have never stretched far enough for conventional newsrooms to embrace—or even take seriously—a fundamental critique of capitalism.

So, Starkman “refutes” the Herman/Chomsky propaganda model without explaining how it fails and ascribing to it a hard determinism that the model rejects. Apparently in the quest to offer some scholarly heft to his argument, Starkman says he prefers the “field theory” of the French sociologist Pierre Bordieu, conceptualizing journalism as one of the semi-autonomous fields operating in larger political field. Starkman explains:

Society, then, is an ensemble of relatively autonomous spheres of play that can’t be collapsed under any overall societal logic, like capitalism, postmodernism, or some larger theoretical model. Altering the distribution and relative weight of different forms of capital within a field is tantamount to modifying the structure of the field. Therefore, fields have a historical dynamism about them; they have a malleability that avoids the determinism of the classical structures, such as class-based models. Fields change over time.

I am not sure whether I agree with Starkman here, because I am not sure I understand what that means, or if it means much of anything. But in a quarter-century in academic life, I have observed that when people want to ignore difficult questions about basic power systems—such as capitalism, white supremacy, or patriarchy—they often create or invoke such arcane theories. But academic word-salad doesn’t eliminate the question: Is capitalism consistent with our moral principles, commitment to democracy, and the ecological sustainability required for a large-scale human presence on the planet?

I am not arguing that unless Starkman accepts my political views, his account of journalism has no value. But when that account is so limited as to either ignore obvious questions or dance around the views of those trying to raise them, we should be skeptical.

I’m also not arguing that within a free press, every journalist and every story would raise these critiques. But when such critiques are effectively off limits, we have to question what “free” means, which leads to a troubling question: How great can the Great Story be when the Great Storytellers operate in a semi-autonomous zone that is only semi-free?

Great Stories, Great Men and the Distortion of History 

In the Great Story theory of journalism it’s difficult not to hear echoes of the Great Man theory of history attributed to the 19th century Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle, who argued that “universal history, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at bottom the history of the great men who have worked here.”

Starkman isn’t naively imposing Carlyle onto journalism; although he spends considerable time recounting the accomplishments of Great Journalists, Starkman is arguing for accountability reporting to be deployed by more than just a few heroic reporters. Starkman wants that ethos to saturate reporting at all levels, extending the Great Man idea to Great Institutions such as journalism and regulatory agencies.

But both these theories, Great Man and Great Story alike, downplay the political agency of ordinary people working through popular social movements. This distortion of history is at the core of Starkman’s myopia, evident even when he chastises journalists. Reflecting on journalism’s failure to cover mounting problems in the financial system adequately, he writes:

…when the public is caught this off-guard about something this big, journalism needs to wonder if there was something, somewhere that it did wrong, something it didn’t do. In this case, what wasn’t done was accountability reporting. What journalism had done for more than a century, it could not muster when it was needed most.

What exactly did journalism do for more than a century? Many good things, of course, but accountability reporting didn’t put journalism at the forefront of any progressive change or any serious challenge to concentrated power. At best, journalism has given publicity to some popular movements—typically once those movements have won enough political battles that ignoring or maligning them has become impossible—but just as often journalism has played it safe by subordinating itself to power.

Consider the 20th century that Starkman references. Were mainstream journalists championing the rights of the early labor organizers who faced intense and often violent resistance from corporations? Were mainstream journalists leading the challenge to white supremacy posed not only by radical black-nationalist movements but even by the more moderate civil rights movement? Were mainstream journalists out in front supporting the dissidents who questioned U.S. wars of aggression? Were mainstream journalists honestly self-reflecting on the pathology of patriarchy that feminists highlighted?

In all these cases we can find an occasional journalist from the mainstream who stands out, but the profession as a whole—including practitioners of accountability journalism—were unwilling to take, or incapable of taking, the risk of challenging concentrated power or reactionary public opinion.

But wait, the defenders of journalism will say: It’s not the job of journalism to participate in political movements. I agree—journalists should not be active participants. The question is, what are the moral and political assumptions on which journalists base their work? If journalists can’t step back to identify, let alone critically examine, the ideological claims of capitalism, their reporting will be pro-capitalist, not neutral. If journalists can’t question the United States’ claim to be a benevolent force for freedom and democracy in the world, coverage of foreign policy inevitably will bolster U.S. imperialism. If journalists can report on the activities of anti-racist and feminist organizers but not reflect on how white supremacy and patriarchy shape the larger society and the institution of journalism, coverage of these issues will be inadequate.

Many people will disagree with these political judgments and reject the implications for journalism. But everyone has to defend their political judgments, and no one can claim to transcend politics and work from a neutral position. The sooner we recognize that, the sooner we can ask what we really need from journalism at this moment in history.

What Is the Right Metaphor?


The search for a metaphor beyond the barking dog should start with an uncompromising understanding of the state of the larger society, which brings us back to the Titanic. Although often dismissed as alarmist or hysterical, serious concern about the viability of contemporary systems is supported by evidence that is piling up faster than we can avert our eyes. Let’s start with the question of ecological sustainability.

All crucial measures of the health of the ecosphere in which we live—groundwater depletion, topsoil loss, chemical contamination, toxicity in our own bodies, the number and size of “dead zones” in the oceans, accelerating extinction of species and reduction of biodiversity—suggest that our high-energy/high-technology society is unsustainable. Because we live in an oil-based society and are rapidly depleting the cheapest and most easily accessible oil reserves, we face a huge reconfiguration of the infrastructure that undergirds our lives. Desperation to avoid that reconfiguration has brought us to the era of “extreme energy” in which even more dangerous and destructive technologies are employed (hydrofracturing, deep-water drilling, mountaintop removal, tar sands extraction). Additionally, of course, there is the undeniable trajectory of climate disruption.

Scientists these days are talking about tipping points and planetary boundaries, about human activity pushing the planet beyond its limits. In a recent study, 22 leading scientists warned that humans likely are forcing a planetary-scale transition “with the potential to transform Earth rapidly and irreversibly into a state unknown in human experience.” That means that “the biological resources we take for granted at present may be subject to rapid and unpredictable transformations within a few human generations.”

That means we’re in trouble. And that trouble plays out in a world structured by the inequalities that flow from deeply entrenched hierarchies, both within individual countries and between the so-called developed and developing worlds. Because ecological crises exacerbate existing problems rooted in the unjust distribution of wealth and power, our troubles are likely to grow more troubling.

Is it realistic to pursue business as usual? If not, then journalism as usual is, again, a dead-end.

What is the role of journalists today? In a society that is in deep denial about the impediments to achieving social justice and ecological sustainability—denial that is especially deep in the relatively privileged sectors where affluence insulates from the immediate consequences—perhaps journalists should not be barking at people who break the rules of existing systems, but sounding an unpleasantly loud alarm that we have to change our existing systems in profound ways.

To alert society to such threats, journalists have to face—and tell—the truth about how our social, political, and economic systems operate.

To do that, journalism first has to face—and tell—the truth about itself.

_________________________________________
OpEdNews Op Eds 5/28/2013 at 21:46:59

NPR's "Weakened Edition" -- and What We Can Do Anyway By Steve Bhaerman (about the author)   
 opednews.com

"If a speech falls freely in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it -- is it still free speech?" -- Swami Beyondananda

I was visiting a friend last week who was tuned in to NPR's Weekend Edition, and it brought back nostalgic memories. I used to love listening to NPR, and feeling smarter than the yo-yos and yahoos tuning in to Fox. 

All that changed during the Bush era, as I began noticing what NPR didn't report -- anything significant about the war machine and corporate state -- and I decided I could do without the luxury of intellectual superiority.

Now of course we are finding that NPR is as dependent on corporate funds as any daily newspaper or mainstream media outlet -- so consequently it joined the rest of the corporate media in ignoring the worldwide March Against Monsanto this past weekend.

This is simply an expression of the "kinder and gentler" form of totalitarianism where anything that challenges the authority of the corporate state (i.e., the coercive power of government in the service of big money) is simply ignored, and therefore dies from marginalization. Yes, totalitarianism ... or if you prefer a more creative term, "neo-feudalism". We are quickly headed to a world where there is one big Company Store, and with top-down control of what we eat, collectively see and hear, and what we think. 
Unless we wake up, wise up, grow up, and show up as one powerful movement, that is.


_________________________________________________________________
THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIRD WAY PHILOSOPHY AND PROGRESSIVE PHILOSOPHY AS REGARDS FISCAL MATTERS.  THE MEDIA WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN TEA PARTY AND CONSERVATIVES, BUT HAS NOT MENTIONED ONCE THE FAR GREATER DIVIDE OF PROGRESSIVES AND THIRD WAY.   THE TEA PARTY AREN'T KILLING THE CONSERVATIVES......THE THIRD WAY ARE KILLING PROGRESSIVES.

WHEN YOU HAVE A REPUBLICAN PUNDIT AND A THIRD WAY PUNDIT......YOU HAVE THE SAME FREE-MARKET/PRO-WEALTH/WALL STREET PHILOSOPHY.  THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE AND YET YOU TRY TO PORTRAY THESE TWO AS COMPETING.  WE ALL KNOW THAT FISCAL ISSUES DOMINATE THE DAY AS WE HAVE A SYSTEMICALLY CRIMINAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM THAT HAS STOLEN TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN HUMAN HISTORY.  WHETHER IT IS ASPEN OR BROOKINGS INSTITUTES.......THESE ARE CORPORATE POLICY INSTITUTES.


WE DEMAND THAT A PUBLIC MEDIA OUTLET MAKE THAT THE ISSUE OF THE DAY.  IT IS INSULTING TO HEAR YOU GO ON AND ON ABOUT ROMNEY'S TAXES  OR OBAMACARE AND NEVER TALK ABOUT THE ISSUES FOR THE PEOPLE!  CHECK MY WEBSITE IF YOU NEED TO REFRESH YOURSELVES OF THE ISSUES!


CINDY WALSH

CITIZENSOVERSIGHTMARYLAND

THIRD WAY THINK TANKS CALL THEMSELVES PROGRESSIVE BUT THEY ARE REALLY FISCAL CONSERVATIVES WHO WORK FOR GLOBALIZATION AND WEALTH ACCUMULATION.  FORGET THAT THEY SUPPORT ABORTION OR THE ENVIRONMENT.....THEY ARE KILLING SOCIAL SAFETY NETS, LABOR PROTECTIONS, AND GIVING CORPORATIONS ALL OF OUR TAX BASE, MAKING US SUBJECTS NOT CITIZENS.

YOU'LL SEE ASPEN INSTITUTE IS STAFFED WITH HARD CORE NEO-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONSERVATIVES.  WHEN I SPOKE TO A MEMBER AFTER A TALK I SAID THE PEOPLE WANT THE FRAUDULENT GAINS CLAWED BACK BEFORE ANYONE SPEAKS OF ENTITLEMENT CUTS.  NO ONE IS THINKING OF THAT I WAS TOLD......WE ARE GOING TO CUT SERVICES AND BENEFITS.  THESE GUYS ARE PUSHING CUTS AS HARD AS THEY CAN.  I SAID WE NEED TO STOP BERNANKE FROM HOLDING THE ECONOMY HOSTAGE BY POLICIES THAT STAGNATE THE ECONOMY.   THESE GUYS SUPPORT THESE FED POLICIES.   THESE GUYS ARE THE PUSH BEHIND CHARTER SCHOOLS, TEACH FOR AMERICA, AND THE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY BUBBLE, ALL EDUCATION PRIVATIZATION POLICIES. THEY ARE A FAVORITE OF OBAMA.

REMEMBER BILL MOYERS AS THE LEAD IN PBS NEWS BEFORE THE CRASH?........LOOK BELOW AT WHO IS DOMINATING THE PUBLIC TV AIRWAVES JUST AS MARKETPLACE MONEY IS NPR WITH THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTE

The Aspen Institute is proud to announce its first-ever broadcast venture The Aspen Institute Presents. This 10-part series features the most compelling conversations and interviews from the 2012 Aspen Ideas Festival. Now in its eighth year, the Ideas Festival is the Institute’s flagship public event, which brings together exceptional thought leaders to discuss key issues of the day, from the coming Presidential election and parenting in the 21st century to the faltering US economy and the latest advances in technology and education.

PBS NewsHour’s Hari Sreenivasan hosts the show airing 8 PM, Tuesdays on WORLD Channel.


Walter Isaacson
President and CEOContact: Pat Zindulka, pat.zindulka@aspeninstitute.org

Walter Isaacson is the president and CEO of the Aspen Institute, a nonpartisan educational and policy studies institute based in Washington, DC. He has been the chairman and CEO of CNN and the editor of TIME magazine.

He is the author of Steve Jobs (2011), Einstein: His Life and Universe (2007), Benjamin Franklin: An American Life (2003), and Kissinger: A Biography (1992), and coauthor of The Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made (1986).

Isaacson was born on May 20, 1952, in New Orleans. He is a graduate of Harvard College and of Pembroke College of Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar. He began his career at The Sunday Times of London and then the New Orleans Times-Picayune/States-Item.  He joined TIME in 1978 and served as a political correspondent, national editor, and editor of new media before becoming the magazine’s 14th editor in 1996. He became chairman and CEO of CNN in 2001, and then president and CEO of the Aspen Institute in 2003.

He is the chairman of the board of Teach for America, which recruits recent college graduates to teach in underserved communities. He was appointed by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate to serve as the chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and other international broadcasts of the United States, a position he held until 2012. He is vice-chair of Partners for a New Beginning, a public-private group tasked with forging ties between the United States and the Muslim world.  He is on the board of United Airlines, Tulane University, and the Overseers of Harvard University.  From 2005-2007, after Hurricane Katrina, he was the vice-chair of the Louisiana Recovery Authority.

He lives with his wife and daughter in Washington, DC.



____________________________________________________________________
SADLY THIS ARTICLE BELOW IS TRUE.  NPR LEAD US OUT OF THIS FINANCIAL CRISIS WITH DEEP ANALYSIS THAT IDENTIFIED THE BREADTH OF THE BAN CRIMES AND GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT....THEY REPORTED ON ALL OF THE ACTIVISM.  SINCE THE THREAT OF FUNDING CUTS AND A CORPORATE CEO AT THE TOP.....IT IS PRO-WALL STREET ALL THE TIME.  THIS CORPORATE TAKEOVER HAS HAPPENED AT LOCAL LEVELS AS WELL.  WYPR SIMPLY HAS BUSINESSES ADVERTIZE ON THEIR PUBLIC STATION AND DON'T FUND-RAISE ANYMORE.


At NPR, You Can Take Money From Banks–Just Don't Protest Them
Posted on 08/17/2012 by Peter Hart 73   FAIR

Even if you're not be an expert in media ethics, you'd probably agree that a show about finance and business exclusively sponsored by one giant bank has an obvious conflict. The fact that the show is on public radio might make such an arrangement all the more curious. And the fact that the host of the show also makes money giving speeches to the financial institutions he covers…. Well, now, that's not how things are supposed to work.

But that's precisely how things work for Adam Davidson, the host of NPR's Planet Money. His program's exclusive underwriter is Ally Bank, a subsidiary of the company formerly known as GMAC, which was a major player in the mortgage fraud scandals. Davidson's ethical problems have been documented by a journalistic group called the SHAME Project, which wondered how NPR squares these conflicts with its own ethical standards. NPR eventually issued a statement (New York Observer, 8/9/12) saying that Davidson's speaking gigs are discussed with his editors.

The thing about ethics policies is that they're supposed to be, at the very least, consistent. Which is why it might make sense to compare the Davidson case to that of journalist Lisa Simeone. After discovering that she participated in some Occupy DC activism, she was removed as the host of the public radio show Soundprint. NPR says it had nothing to do with that decision; the show said it was applying the NPR ethics code.

Simeone also hosted a public radio opera program; the station that produced it decided that her political activities would not inhibit her ability to impartially tell listeners what music they were about to hear. NPR then promptly stopped distributing the program.


Or consider freelance producer Caitlin Currin, who lost a job at station WNYC and the Public Radio International show The Takeaway after she was photographed holding up a sign denouncing Wall Street mortgage shenanigans.

So protesting Wall Street is definitely not OK. But getting big bucks for giving speeches to the bankers you cover on a show paid for by a big bank–well, that's apparently just fine in big-time public radio.

The NPR ombud's website is here.

_____________________________________________________________________
I'm listening to Marketplace on NPR treating their listeners as though we were a Rush Limbaugh audience as they give the step - by -step  process of avoiding a bank run, attributing it to Roosevelt at the time of the Great Depression.  The general public in both the US and Europe want the bankers, not taxpayers to pay down this debt, so a bank run would cripple these mega-banks and force restructuring..........just what we want.  It would bring a recession no doubt, but our economies will flounder for years anyway as these fraudsters try to take all public assets and pay down the debt through regressive public cuts.  So, we want these southern European nations to throw the naked capitalists out and thank Social Democrat Hollande of France for taking steps that move in that direction.  We'll cross our fingers that he is committed and not just placating.

Here in Baltimore we listen to WYPR political commentators offering nothing in the way of information useful to the genereal public.  They pretend not to know what the 'New Economy' is about or why Mayor Rawlings-Blake has shuffled her staffing...........all critical information.  Today I'm listening to the fight over the 'Bottle Tax'.  Yes, Frazer, it is regressive as the lower - class are the primary buyers of bottled soda............BETTER TO TAX BOTTLED WATER AND LATTES FOR SCHOOL BUILDING!  But, seriously, the point is that none of this is necessary because all the city's tax revenue is being routed, often fraudulently, to the wrong projects.  THAT IS THE DIRECTION A PUBLIC MEDIA STATION WOULD TAKE IF IT WERE NOT CAPTURED BY THE 'NEW ECONOMY'. 

THIS IS WHAT NPR'S MARKETPLACE FAILS TO TELL YOU OF ROOSEVELT.............REINSTATE GLASS-STEAGALL TO AVOID BANK RUNS!  THESE POOR JOURNALISTS ARE BEING FORCED TO LIVE IN WHAT IS BASICALLY THE SAME MEDIA ENVIRONMENT AS 'MCCARTHYISM'!  KILL SOCIAL DEMOCRACY BY PROPAGANDA.
 
Glass - Steagall and Roosevelt
1933 extraordinary session of Congress [edit] Glass bills President Roosevelt called both Houses of Congress into “extraordinary session” on March 9, 1933, to enact the Emergency Banking Act that ratified Roosevelt’s emergency closing of all banks on March 6, 1933. On March 11, 1933, Senator Glass reintroduced (as S. 245) his Glass bill revised to require banks to eliminate securities affiliates within 2 years rather than the 5 years permitted by the compromised version of the Glass bill the Senate had passed in January.[61] Roosevelt told Glass he approved most of the bill, including the separation of commercial and investment banking, that he shared Glass’s desire for a “unified banking system” with state and national banks regulated by a single authority, but that he only approved countywide, not statewide, branch banking, and that he opposed deposit insurance.[62]

On March 7, 1933, National City Bank (predecessor to Citibank) had announced it would liquidate its security affiliate. The next day, Winthrop Aldrich, the newly named chairman and president of Chase National Bank, announced Chase would do the same and that Chase supported prohibiting banks from having securities affiliates.[63] Aldrich also called for prohibiting securities firms from taking deposits.[64] According to Aldrich and his biographer, Aldrich (a lawyer) drafted new language for Glass’s bill that became Section 21 of the Glass-Steall Act.[65] Contemporary observers suggested Aldrich’s proposal was aimed at J.P. Morgan & Co.[66] A later Glass-Steagall critic cited Aldrich’s involvement as evidence the Rockefellers (who controlled Chase) had used Section 21 to keep J.P. Morgan & Co. (a deposit taking private partnership best known for underwriting securities) from competing with Chase in the commercial banking business.[67]

After Glass introduced S. 245, he chaired a subcommittee that considered the bill and prepared a revised version while negotiating at length with the Roosevelt Administration to gain its support for the bill.[68] By April 13, 1933, the subcommittee had prepared a revised Glass bill, but delayed submitting the bill to the full Senate Committee on Banking and Currency to continue negotiations with the Roosevelt Administration.[69] President Roosevelt had declared on March 8, 1933, in his first press conference, that he opposed a guarantee of bank deposits for making the government responsible for the “mistakes and errors of individual banks” and for putting “a premium on unsound banking.”[70] Glass had reluctantly accepted that no banking reform would pass Congress without deposit insurance, but President Roosevelt and Treasury Secretary William Woodin continued to resist such insurance during their negotiations with the Senate subcommittee.[71]

On April 25, 1933, Roosevelt asked for two weeks to consider the deposit insurance issue.[72] In early May, Roosevelt announced with Glass and Steagall that they had agreed “in principle” on a bill.[73]

On May 10, 1933, Glass introduced his revised bill (S. 1631) in the Senate. The most important change was a new provision for deposit insurance. As Roosevelt demanded, deposit insurance was based on a sliding scale. Deposit balances above $10,000 would only be partially insured. As Roosevelt had suggested, deposit insurance would not begin for one year.[74] Glass limited the deposit insurance to Federal Reserve System member banks in the hope this would indirectly lead to a “unified banking system” as the attraction of deposit insurance would lead banks to become Federal Reserve members.[75]

Aside from the new federal deposit insurance system, S. 1631 added provisions based on earlier versions of the Glass bill that became Sections 21 (prohibiting securities firms from taking deposits) and 32 (prohibiting common directors or employees for securities firms and banks) of the Glass–Steagall Act.[76]

[edit] Steagall bill On May 16, 1933, Representative Steagall introduced H.R. 5661, which became the vehicle through which the 1933 Banking Act became law. This bill largely adopted provisions of the new Glass bill. Reflecting Steagall’s support for the “dual banking system”, however, H.R. 5661 permitted state chartered banks to receive federal deposit insurance without joining the Federal Reserve System.[77]

On May 23, 1933, the House passed H.R. 5661 in a 262-19 vote. On May 25, 1933, the Senate approved H.R. 5661 (in a voice vote) after substituting the language of S. 1631 (amended to shorten to one year the time within which banks needed to eliminate securities affiliates) and requested a House and Senate conference to reconcile differences between the two versions of H.R. 5661.[78]

[edit] Banking Act of 1933 The final Senate version of H.R. 5661 included Senator Arthur Vandenberg’s (R-MI) amendment providing for an immediate temporary fund to insure fully deposits up to $2,500 before the FDIC began operating on July 1, 1934. The “Vandenberg Amendment” was added to the Senate bill through a procedural maneuver supported by Vice President John Nance Garner, who was presiding over the Senate in a judicial impeachment proceeding. This highlighted the differences between Garner and Roosevelt on the controversial issue of deposit insurance.[79]

Roosevelt threatened to veto any bill that included the Vandenberg Amendment’s provision for immediate deposit insurance.[80] On June 7, however, Roosevelt indicated to Glass he would accept a compromise in which permanent FDIC insurance would not begin until July 1934, the limited temporary plan would begin on January 1, 1934, and state banks could be insured so long as they joined the Federal Reserve System by 1936.[81] Roosevelt, like Glass, saw redeeming value in deposit insurance if its requirement for Federal Reserve System membership led to “unifying the banking system.”[82]

The Roosevelt Administration had wanted Congress to adjourn its “extraordinary session” on June 10, 1933, but the Senate blocked the planned adjournment.[83] This provided more time for the House and Senate Conference Committee to reconcile differences between the two versions of H.R. 5661. In the House, nearly one-third of the Representatives signed a pledge not to adjourn without passing a bill providing federal deposit insurance.[84]

After Steagall and other House members met with Roosevelt on June 12, 1933, the Conference Committee filed its final report for H.R. 5661. Closely tracking the principles Roosevelt had described to Glass on June 7, the Conference Report provided that permanent deposit insurance would begin July 1, 1934, temporary insurance would begin January 1, 1934, unless the President proclaimed an earlier start date, and state non-member banks could be insured, but after July 1, 1936, would only remain insured if they had applied for Federal Reserve System membership[85]

Although opponents of H.R. 5661 hoped Roosevelt would veto the final bill, he called Senator Glass with congratulations after the bill passed the Senate.[86] Roosevelt signed H.R. 5661 into law on June 16, 1933, as the Banking Act of 1933. Roosevelt called the new law “the most important” banking legislation since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.[87]



_______________________________________________________
BELOW IS A LETTER I SENT TO ALL BALTIMORE MEDIA OUTLETS WHO ACROSS THE BOARD FAILED TO TAKE ON THIS MAJOR PROBLEM IN THE CITY.  PUBLIC MEDIA IS MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS LAPSE BECAUSE WE ARE FOR WHOM THEY WORK........OR ARE WE?  WE WILL CHANGE THAT!

I AM GLAD TO HEAR MORE BALTIMORE POLITICIANS COMING OUT IN SUPPORT OF AUDITING BALTIMORE AGENCIES AND IN TWO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, STOKES AND YOUNG, SHOUTING LOUDLY AND STRONGLY THAT THE EAST BALTIMORE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NOT BE FUNDED BECAUSE IT FAILS TO MEET MANY OF THE CONTRACTED AGREEMENTS!  IT TOOK CITIZENS TO INVESTIGATE AND MAKE VERY PUBLIC THE FACT THAT FRAUD DOES INDEED EXIST.  WONDER WHY THE MAYOR'S STAFF IS DESERTING IN DROVES? 

GOVERNOR O'MALLEY WAS OF COURSE APART OF THIS WHEN HE WAS MAYOR.  NOW AS GOVERNOR, HE IS TRYING HIS BEST TO APPEAR AS THOUGH HE IS DOING SOMETHING.  WE SAW WITH THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT AUDIT IT IS ANYTHING BUT ACCOUNTABILITY.  WHAT OF THE STATE'S ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE WITH GANSLER AT THE HEAD THESE 6 YEARS......AN AUDIT OF BALTIMORE GOVERNMENT UNCOVERING NOTHING....  REALLY?

I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT THESE POLITICIANS, BY REFUSING TO ENFORCE LAWS OR REFUSING TO MAKE LAWS EVERYONE KNOWS TO BE NECESSARY FOR BASIC PUBLIC PROTECTION ARE GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY.  THESE POLITICIANS KNOW THIS AND THAT IS WHY THEY ARE MOVING NOW.  WE WILL HOLD THEM TO AUDITING AS WE START THESE AUDITS OURSELVES!  BELOW IS MY COMMUNICATION WITH O'MALLEY'S 'TRANSPARENCY - OPEN GOVERNMENT' OFFICE.  THEY HAVE A SMALL BUSINESS DEPARTMENT WITHIN THAT OPEN GOVERNMENT OFFICE.  SO I ASK WHAT WOULD BE THE MOST OBVIOUS QUESTION FOR SOMEONE INTERESTED IN FAIR SMALL BUSINESS PRACTICES IN MARYLAND:  WHO ARE THE SUBCONTRACTORS THAT TAKE ALL THE BUSINESS IN MARYLAND?  WHO ARE THE SUBCONTRACTORS?  O'MALLEY DOESN'T MONITOR THAT IT SEEMS.  THE ANSWER AS WE KNOW ARE BUSINESSES NOT FROM THE AREA AND/OR NOT HIRING UNDER BALTIMORE/MARYLAND RESTRICTIONS....OR SIMPLY NOT SMALL BUSINESSES AT ALL.

A BALTIMORE POLITICIAN GIVES AN EXCUSE OF 'NOT ENOUGH MONEY' TO AUDIT OR PAY CITY EMPLOYEES A SIMPLE LIVING WAGE OF LESS THAN $10/HOUR.  IT WOULD TAKE AN EXTRA $1 MILLION FOR THE SIMPLEST OF AUDITS.


___________________________________________________
Everyone has known for over a year that this Facebook scam on the public was to occur.  Regulators handling the financial reform bill deliberately left out the legislation in the bill addressing just these IPO rules protections for the public.  Journalists knew this, your elected official knew this, and now we will hear that the financial markets did nothing wrong because the laws weren't there.  The media again failed to report all this and as such are complicit in the fleecing of the public.  Your public station did not warn you of the failure of Congress to implement written laws to protect you from just such an IPO scam!
____________________________________________________________________________
MY NPR STATION IN BALTIMORE, WYPR HAS ANNOUNCED THAT IT NO LONGER HAS TO FUNDRAISE....IT IS GETTING ITS FUNDING IN BIG CHUNKS.  AT THE SAME TIME, I AM LISTENING TO ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE GOLDSEYKER FOUNDATION TELL ME THE 'NEW ECONOMY' IS GOOD AND THAT WE NEED TO BRING THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST FROM AROUND THE WORLD TO THE REGION SO WE CAN BE THE BEST.  GOLDSEYKER FOUNDATION IS FUNDING THE SOCIAL ENGINEERING HAPPENING IN BALTIMORE AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPMENT AROUND GLOBAL UNIVERSITIES, PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS, ETC.  WHETHER RURAL CONSERVATIVE OR URBAN PROGRESSIVE, A FULL MAJORITY OF CITIZENS WANT TO INVEST IN THE CITIZENS HERE, MAKING THEM THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST AFTER 3 DECADES OF PUBLIC SCHOOL DECLINE.  AS WE KNOW ALL THESE PROJECTS THIS FOUNDATION IS PUSHING IS TAKING OUR TAX MONEY FOR SCHOOLS, SERVICES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND HEALTHCARE AND PENSIONS. 
LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT CHICAGO'S RAHM EMMANUEL'S VISION OF BUILDING WITH PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AS THE CITIZENS WAGES ARE CUT, REGRESSIVE TAXES FILL THE COFFERS,  AND TOLLS AND USER'S FEES PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION AND PRIVATE PROFIT.....SEE PROGRESSIVE ISSUES......JUSTICE.
_________________________________________________
AS THIS ARTICLE SHOWS, WE MUST MAKE ACTIONS FREQUENT AND STRONG IN ORDER FOR THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA TO FIND IT HARD TO IGNORE.  THE MEDIA ARE THE KEY TO MAKING THE CHANGES! 

Extra! May 2012  Fair and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)

Bored With Occupy—and Inequality
Class issues fade along with protest coverage

By John Knefel

Occupy Wall Street is rightly credited with helping to shift the economic debate in America from a fixation on deficits to issues of income inequality, corporate greed and the centralization of wealth among the richest 1 percent. The movement has chalked up other victories as well, from altering New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s tax plan (New York Times, 12/5/11) to re-energizing activists and unions, but bringing some discussion of class into the mainstream dialogue has been one of its crowning achievements.

As Occupy slowed down for the winter, though, would corporate media continue to talk about our increasingly stratified society without a vibrant protest movement forcing their hand? The answer, unsurprisingly, is no.

As mentions of “Occupy Wall Street” or “Occupy movement” waned in early 2012, so too have mentions of “income inequality” and, to an even greater extent, “corporate greed.” The trend is true for four leading papers (New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, L.A. Times), news programs on the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC), cable (MSNBC, CNN, Fox News) and NPR, according to searches of the Nexis news media database. Google Trends data also indicates that from January to March, the phrases “income inequality” and “corporate greed” declined in volume of both news stories and searches.

_________________________________________________________________
AS A LIFELONG LISTENER TO NPR I SEE THE CHANGE IN FORMAT FROM PROGRESSIVE TO CORPORATE AS THIRD WAY LEADERSHIP IN THE SENATE JOINED WITH REPUBLICANS IN REQUIRING THE TRANSITION IF GOVERNMENT FUNDING WAS TO CONTINUE.  NOW, MORNING EDITION AND ALL THINGS CONSIDERED AS DOMINATED BY MARKETPLACE MONEY DURING PEAK LISTENING TIMES.

If you listen, they are letting you know what changes you are going to make with this 'new economy'.....multigenerational homes because poverty will limit housing options; taking care of elderly at home because you can't afford the co-pay or you lost your retirement to fraud.  We need to be vigilant in demanding that public broadcasting be about the people....that is their mission and we will call them on it every time.  I have the Baltimore WYPR meeting times just for that reason.  They are failing to meet public media guidelines and we want to voice a change in format.  I wrote the NPR ombudsman last month over the Gates Foundation funding the education segment on Marketplace....an obvious conflict of interest given his involvement in privatizing education....and I have heard less about Gates education issues on the program, so it does work to send a complaint!  COMPLAIN OFTEN!
  
Activism Update ......FAIR

PBS Responds on Dow-Funded Series

5/1/12

PBS ombud Michael Getler (4/27/12) agrees that the Dow Chemical Corporation's sponsorship of a PBS series violates PBS underwriting guidelines. PBS, unfortunately, stands by its show.

A FAIR Action Alert (4/23/12) pointed out that the decision to allow Dow to sponsor the series America Revealed, which deals with issues that closely track Dow's business interests, flies in the face of PBS funding guidelines. Noting that he had received some 500 messages inspired by the alert, Getler agreed, saying that "the points raised by FAIR were fair ones, in my view, and many of the letters were quite comprehensive in their criticisms."

The main problem with the funding arrangement, as Getler sees it, is that it fails the PBS "perception test," which warns against allowing underwriting if viewers might "perceive that the underwriter has exercised editorial control." As PBS puts it:

When there exists a clear and direct connection between the interests or products or services of a proposed funder and the subject matter of the program, the proposed funding will be deemed unacceptable regardless of the funder's actual compliance with the editorial control provisions of this policy.

Actual editorial involvement in the program is a separate test; in this scenario, the perception of a connection is enough.

Getler wrote that

it would indeed be surprising if "a significant portion" of viewers, whether they write to me or not, or subscribe to FAIR or not, would not make some connection with Dow, its full range of operations, and the plus-side of this series. It took about 30 seconds for that to pop into my head as a viewer.

PBS, which has given corporate underwriters a pass several times over the years (FAIR Press Release, 4/3/02), does not think so. In response to several questions from Getler, PBS defended Dow's sponsorship. They pointed out that the company has sponsored other programming, including An Evening With Smokey Robinson. They also revealed that Dow was approached by station WGBH to sponsor the show. And PBS argued that it "did not consider that Dow's business interests were so close to the actual content of the program as to make it an unacceptable funder."

As FAIR pointed out in the alert--and Getler agreed in his column--it would not be hard for an alert viewer to make a connection between Dow's interests and the program it was sponsoring. One segment touted genetically modified corn, a controversial product made by Dow, as a "game changer" for agriculture; the four parts of the series (agriculture, transportation, energy and manufacturing) perfectly matched the four areas of business Dow touts on its website.

PBS stressed that Dow was not involved editorially in the program. That may indeed be the case. It is also irrelevant, in that their perception test does not require such a direct link.

As the PBS guidelines make clear:

Should a significant number of reasonable viewers conclude that PBS has sold its professionalism and independence to its program funders, whether or not their conclusions are justified, then the entire program service of public television will be suspect and the goal of serving the public will be unachievable.

If those words mean something to PBS, then the only logical conclusion to draw is that it believes the significant number of viewers who are troubled by Dow's sponsorship are unreasonable.

FAIR thanks the hundreds of activists who wrote to PBS, and Michael Getler for taking their concerns seriously.
 
________________________________________________________________________________
MY LETTER TO WYPR REGARDING ITS COMMENT POLICY.  I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY COMMENTS POSTED  ON THEIR WEBPAGE.  I MUST GO TO THEIR FACEBOOK PAGE TO COMMENT.  Here in Baltimore there is a great need to have a counterpoint to the media that we receive because all we hear is what the powers-that-be say.  All media here in Baltimore have that policy of filtered comments, but public media is the first to fight that trend!


Mr. Brandon,

When you go to WYPR website you see a list of topics covered each day for that week.  At the bottom of that list is a comment icon that allows you to write a comment to the above articles.  You do not allow those comments to appear on that webpage....I never see a comment printed there.  I don't see them on the Facebook page either, unless I write the comment through Facebook.

The point is, most people will not go to Facebook and certainly will not comment on Facebook because of future liability.  I am an activist and care not about future liabilities, but I know that I am not reaching a large part of the audience for which I direct the comment.  Your comment page should show comments under each section of the webpage without having to go to Facebook.

Thank you for considering my request!

Cindy Walsh

From: Tony Brandon <tbrandon@wypr.org>
To: citizensoversight@ymail.com
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2012 11:25 AM
Subject: FW: policy regarding public comment

Dear Cindy -

Thank you for this email and for your interest in our open and balanced WYPR community.  I want to make sure that I fully understand what you are referring to in your note here.  You mention that your comments have been "pending" - where, exactly, on the WYPR sites have you attempted to share these comments?  I want to ensure that I am responding adequately to your concerns here so just need a little further clarification. 

Thanks so much in advance.  I am happy to discuss this.

Best,

Tony

From: Citizen's Oversight [mailto:citizensoversight@ymail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 11:28 AM
To: Tony Brandon
Subject: policy regarding public comment

Mr Brandon,

As we work to make Baltimore a growing and vibrant city, the key lies with moving it from being a closed and controlled society to one that is open and engaging.  That is the mission of public media....has been and we want it to remain so.

This closed and controlled system can be witnessed best in the way that mainstream media in the city allows public comment.  As an activist I have plenty of comments to make publically.  As an academic, my comments are mostly accurate.  As someone wanting to have my comments published, I keep them moderate.  ACCURATE, MODERATE, AND RELEVANT are the requirements for public comment in media of all kinds.

I am asking media outlets in Baltimore to adhere to these guidelines and publish comments, whether they agree with your philosophy or that of your sponsors or not.  That is fair and balanced journalism for which public media was created.  I have watched this year as my comments remain permanently 'pending'.  We are all forced to go online to Facebook to comment more freely....but are we really free to comment in Facebook, given that the government, employers, and future personal endeavors are watching.  I say that is the point of public commenting on Facebook.

Open WYPR's public comment guidelines on your website so people are free to share information that is critical for an educated civic minded society.

Cindy Walsh

Citizens Oversight