Sarah Palin doesn’t have a clue what the First Amendment means. In her mind the Amendment was written to protect politicians running for office, government employees, and high profile public servants from the criticism of news and media organizations. And I thought it was to protect individual citizens from the abuses of authority by government agents who might try to censor them.

According to ABC News, Palin made the remark in an interview that reporters criticizing her criticizing Obama were infringing upon her Constitutional right to criticize. Here’s a snippet:

“If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations,” Palin told host Chris Plante, “then I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”

So the Constitution is there to protect elected officials from media criticism. That’s your (potentially) future vice president speaking.

I love Salon.com’s analysis.

Oh, and just in case you think Salon.com, ABC News, and I have colluded to make this up, here’s the audio. You can hear it straight from the moose’s mouth.

Do you really want to vote for somebody that belligerent?

United Business Media, the specialist publishing and events group, is abandoning the UK after 90 years to take advantage of the more favourable tax regime in Ireland.

The move by the company is the second snub to the UK’s tax regime in a month following the decision of drugs group Shire said to move its parent company to Ireland. Other companies including GlaxoSmithKline have also warned that the UK’s business environment may not be conducive to their staying registered here.

Rest of the Story

Democracies struggle to come into their own in the middle east as we know all too well. It is good to see that citizens and journalists are being allowed to protest in Pakistan over freedom of the press.

Journalists condemn curbs on media

They gathered in front of the Rawalpindi-Islamabad Press Club on the call of the Rawalpindi-Islamabad Union of Journalists (RIUJ). The journalists shouted anti-government slogans and criticised media gags. Students and members of civil society also joined the protest to express solidarity with journalists.

The protestors held placards inscribed with slogans ‘free press’, ‘stop violation against journalists’, ‘freedom of expression is people’s right’. They said the government could not prevent them from performing their professional duties and that they were committed to factual reporting, through which the government was held accountable to the public. The journalists said the government’s claims of freedom of press were false since it had targeted journalists because they were exposing its misdeeds and anti-public policies. Free media, they said, was an important pillar of the state.

Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) General Secretary Mazhar Abbass said journalists were a peaceful community and they were only performing their duties.

Civil disobedience is the path to freedom and democracy. It has been for the US and it is now in countries like Pakistan. The news media and citizens of countries in the middle east are the ones that have to stand up and fight for their freedoms and for democracy if they want it.

George Bush believes he can force these countries to become democratic. It is an uninformed and uneducated opinion some others in the republican party share. This country got it’s freedom and became a democracy because citizens stood up to tyranny. Because they wanted freedom and democracy.

They risked their lives for it. They knew that english soldiers would kill dissenters for speaking out against the crown, but they did it anyway. Many lost their lives doing so. Many soldiers have died defending our freedom since then.

In Iraq, the people did not stand up against saddam hussein, against tyranny. A few obviously did and died but their was no mass rebellion to say the least. So bush took it upon himself to stand up for them even without being asked to do so. He told us they would welcome us with open arms. They did, but they also had bombs strapped to their waists.

You cannot tell people they should be free. You cannot force people to be free or to stand up for their rights. They have to want it so bad they are willing to risk their lives for it just as our forefathers did.

If the people of a country cannot stand up and fight for their own freedoms and to have a democracy, then they will never be able to keep it, defend it, or maintain it. You cannot give people freedom. They have to earn it.

This is an important issue and hasn’t gotten enough attention in my opinion. Here is what another blogger had to say about the new FCC cross-ownership rules.

The Recorder’s Opinion

Right now you are able to read your local newspapers, particularly the small-town papers, because of a newspaper-broadcast rule adopted in 1975 that bans ownership of a daily newspaper and a television or radio station in the same market. There are a few exceptions to this rule that were “grandfathered” in because they were in place when the rule was adopted.

On Tuesday, Dec. 18, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) effectively changed this rule that has served to protect local news markets for over three decades. In effect, the FCC will now allow the national and international conglomerates to buy or absorb many of the smaller news businesses that cannot afford to compete. In spite of warnings by a bipartisan group of 25 senators on both sides of the aisle that they would fight such a ruling, the FCC voted in a 3-to-2 party-line vote to eliminate the ban on what is known as the “newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership” rules.

Does that mean anything to the general public? We think it does. How would you like to receive only the information or news that just a few multi-million-dollar corporations felt like sharing with the public? Or, to take it only one small step further, would we like to join the countries that are “fed” just exactly what the government and the wealthy few want you to have?

Ironically, the FCC justified their decision by claiming that the Internet has made it easier to get information so the old ruling just wasn’t up-to-date enough.

This is one issue where your voice should be heard. it goes to the basic principless that this country was founded on. Freedom of the Press relies on rules that make sure you have many different sources for your news. As these corporations take over more and more of your news sources, then those corporations merge and buy each other out, it is not far-fetched to see a time where all of your news comes from corporations who have their own agenda.

Here is an easy way to write your congressman and say what you think.

The Rest of The Story here

Maybe Barack Obama isn’t so bad. At least he takes a stand on things without dodging them the way Hillary Clinton does.

Just hours after FCC Chairman Kevin Martin rammed through a vote to remove a longstanding newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban–thereby ignoring the public will, undermining democratic diversity and bowing to the corrupting campaign contributions and high-powered lobbyists of the largest media companies, Barack Obama slammed the decision. “Today the FCC failed to further the important goal of promoting diversity in the media and instead chose to put big corporate interests ahead of the peoples’ interests,” he said in a statement.

Hillary will likely keep quiet on the issue to make sure she doesn’t make any of the media companies who might support her mad.

Continuing to open the door for news media corporations to “own” the news is not in the public’s best interest. The republican administration favors anything that benefits large corporations and the FCC is complying with their wishes. This is an agency that is supposed to look out for the public’s best interest, not as a puppet for companies to control.

From CNN.com
FCC adopts media ownership rules
Proposal passed by party-line vote allows networks to reach 45% of national audience.

The Federal Communications Commission narrowly approved new media ownership rules Monday, allowing television broadcasters to expand their reach, despite fears the move may reduce the variety of viewpoints available to consumers.

The Republican-led government agency voted 3-2 to allow the broadcast networks to own television stations that reach a combined 45 percent of the national audience, up from 35 percent.

Next will come 50%, 55%, 60%, etc. Give an inch they will take a country.

Citing a need to update the decades-old rules to reflect new sources of entertainment, information and news, the FCC also voted to lift a ban that prevents a company from owning both a newspaper and a television or radio station — except in the smallest markets.

But the two Democrats on the FCC opposed easing the regulations, arguing that the changes would concentrate ownership in the hands of a few, reduce the diversity of viewpoints and stifle reporting of local news.

“Today the Federal Communications Commission empowers America’s new media elite with unacceptable levels of influence over the ideas and information upon which our society and our democracy depend,” said Commissioner Michael Copps.

The fewer number of sources we have for news, the more chance for news to be manipulated as Bush did when he paid reporters to talk good about his failed education plan.

Click to view the FCC meeting

The Rest of The CNN Story here

The FCC is supposed to represent citizens and safeguard rules that stop anyone from being the only source of news that the public receives. Too bad that the FCC does not feel it represents the public interest as they are supposed to.

Instead the FCC is just a puppet that will do whatever the large corporations want them to do. The FCC is a sham and a shame.

From the NYTimes
By STEPHEN LABATON

The head of the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday announced the details of his plan to relax the longstanding rule that had prevented a company from owning both a newspaper and a radio or television station in the same city.

One of the very rules that is meant to protect the public and assure that US citizens receive news from manby different sources. This rule prevented one corporation from becoming your only news source.

Why is that important? Because it eliminates objectivity. If that corporation owns all the news sources and a story comes along that they do not want you to hear, then they can choose not to report it.

Say they back a specific presidetial candidate and something comes up about their candidate that will hurt their chances of being elected. The corporation can just not report it.

Without any competing newspapers, tv stations, and radio stations who might have reported the story even when one of them did not, the public has a chance to hear all the news, not just what one company wants you to hear.

For 32 years, supporters of the restriction have maintained that it prevents the growth of ever- larger media conglomerates and helps to keep diverse voices on the airwaves.

These critics denounced Mr. Martin’s proposal for containing what they said were loopholes that could lead to widespread consolidation.

While they did leave in some rules that are supposed to leave diversity in the news, this is the first crack in the wall.

In a memo to employees on Tuesday, the head of Tribune suggested that he was dissatisfied, regarding Mr. Martin’s plan as not going far enough. He also said he would seek to have it expanded.

Therein lies the problem. Give an inch and they want a mile. The FCC has shown it is going to open the door for them to do so. In the past, even without this change, the FCC has been allowing corporations to break the rules anyway by giving them an exemption and using grandfather clauses.

This rule change is just the beginning and should not be allowed at all. It will be exploited and expanded and that will harm smaller newspapers and independent tv stations in favor of allowing mega corporations to BUY the news.

The Rest of The Story here

You know that blogging has been determined as being legitimate news media in several court decisions, but are we as bloggers considered the legitimate press?

According to wikipedia.com;

The news media refers to the section of the mass media that focuses on presenting current news to the public. These include print media (newspapers, magazines); broadcast media (radio stations, television stations, television networks), and increasingly Internet-based media (World Wide Web pages, weblogs).

Thats all good, but does that mean that event coordinators will give you a press pass because you run a news and media blog?

Well according to a report on the way the law views media and how it affects the Freedom of Information Act says that online media and freelance journalists do qualify and they attribute it to the definition of news media but the CIA.

GovernmentExecutive.com is reporting that the CIA has adopted a new definition of “news media” that could significantly reduce the fees and costs for citizen journalists who request documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

The new rule, which became effective on July 18, 2007, adopts the definition of “news media” contained in a 1987 Office of Management and Budget FOIA guidebook that includes “alternative media” that are disseminated electronically “through telecommunications.” The CIA’s final rule states:

***”Representative of the News Media refers to any person actively gathering news for an entity that is organized and operated to publish or broadcast news to the public. The term “news” means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public. Examples of news media entities include television or radio stations broadcasting to the public at large, and publishers of periodicals (but only in those instances when they can qualify as disseminators of “news”) who make their products available for purchase or subscription by the general public. These examples are not intended to be all-inclusive. Moreover, as traditional methods of news delivery evolve (e.g., electronic dissemination of newspapers through telecommunications services), such alternative media would be included in this category. In the case of “freelance” journalists, they may be regarded as working for a news organization if they can demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through that organization, even though not actually employed by it. A publication contract would be the clearest proof, but agencies may also look to the past publication record of a requestor in making this determination: * * *

What this new definition means is that citizen journalists would likely be on the same footing as members of traditional news media who, along with educational, noncommercial, and scientific groups, have a special status under FOIA because they do not have to pay fees for the agency to search and review requested documents and are only charged for duplication costs after the first 100 pages. See 32 CFR sec. 1900.13. Morever, if a citizen journalist can show that the disclosure of the documents is in the public interest, he or she can have the duplication costs waived as well.

So a note to those who coordinate events and have been refusing press credentials to bloggers who distribute the news on the web; You’ll soon have to give out a few more press passes.

The Rest of The Story about that new law here

If this doesn’t lay to rest any suspicions that the U.S. is an empire run amok then I don’t know what will:

The CIA released hundreds of pages of long-kept secret documents yesterday detailing illegal actions that include domestic spying on Americans, infiltrating war protest movements and recruiting a mobster to assassinate Cuban President Fidel Castro.

Nearly 700 pages of records were released in response to a 15-year-old Freedom of Information Act request from the National Security Archive, a public research library at George Washington University.

It took 15 years to get this information? It has already been reported by journalists from an earlier time yet the government was still trying to cover up its secrets. We really haven’t changed much. The Bush Administration would have us all believe that we live in a fabulous utopia filled with spiritual perfection. If you believe this then there is more hope for the ostrich than for you.

Here’s a short list of some of the abuses detailed by the documents:

(more…)