Well, the wait is finally over and Bungie has released the details of all three new maps that will be featured in the upcoming downloadable map pack on Xbox Live April 15th.
The Legendary Map Pack will consist of:
These maps will cost 800 Microsoft Points which is equivalent to $10.00 USD. Since then, the Heroic Map Pack has been offered as a free download. For more on the Heroic Map Pack, click here.
Apparently, Britney Spears is in the middle of another controversy.
Ever since Britney took off in an ambulance surrounded by police cars, motorcycles and a helicopter, Dennis Zine, a popular political figure has pushed for L.A. lawmakers to provide a “Safety Bubble” for celebrities.
This “Safety Bubble” basically states that the Paparazzi must keep a minimum of 20 yards away from celebrities deemed “paparazzi targets”. Some celebrities with this level of star power are Angelina & Brad, Tom & Katie, George Clooney and…Britney Spears.
The demand for private, personal or intimate photos of celebrities is in greater demand than ever before. The reason being, just one of these photos can rake in six figures or more.
There should be limitations placed on “overly-aggressive” paparazzi who endanger the safety of those involved but, one thing to remember is that when someone becomes a “high-profile” celebrity, they should have already realized that much of their private life would no longer be private and that they have to sacrifice much of what us “little people” take for granted.
The same news media that was all over the impeachment of Bill Clinton barely gives any space or time to impeachment against Cheney and possibly Bush. With Bill Clinton, it involved sex so it sold newspapers and brought in viewers and listeners.
But when it comes to much more serious charges leveled at Bush and Cheney, the backers of impeachment proceeedings have a hard time getting any coverage at all.
MEMORANDUM
To: Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
From: John C. Bonifaz
Date: May 22, 2005
RE: The President’s Impeachable OffensesThe recent release of the Downing Street Memo provides new and compelling evidence that the President of the United States has been actively engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq. If true, such conduct constitutes a High Crime under Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The following is about The Downing Street Memo;
The document reveals that, by the summer of 2002, President Bush had decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by launching a war which, Dearlove reports, would be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction].” Dearlove continues: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Dearlove also states that “[t]here was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw states that “[i]t seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided.” “But,” he continues, “the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, and Iran.”
British officials do not dispute the document’s authenticity, and, on May 6, 2005, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported that “[a] former senior U.S. official called [the document] ‘an absolutely accurate description of what transpired’ during the senior British intelligence officer’s visit to Washington.” “Memo: Bush made intel fit Iraq policy,” The State, Knight Ridder Newspapers, May 6, 2005.
The following are articles of impeachment that were drawn up while Donald H. Rumsfeld was still in office;
Articles of Impeachment
Of
George W. Bush, President of the United States,
Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States and
Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense of the United StatesPart of Article 1:
On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney initiated hostilities amounting to a declaration of war against Iraq without the informed consent of Congress.
The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included on or more of the following:
1. making, or causing to be made, false or misleading statements to the United States Congress;
2. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from the United States Congress;
3. misuse of the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;
4. misuse of the military of the United States;
5. making, or causing to be made, false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into supporting hostilities against the sovereign nation of Iraq, and continuing to make such misstatements.In all of this, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have acted in a manner contrary to their trust as President and Vice President of the United States, respectively, and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of United States.
WHEREFORE, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
This is a more recent and detailed explanation of charges against Bush;
George W. Bush has violated the U.N. Charter, Article 2, paragraph 4, by threatening the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Iran. Bush’s threat of force against Iran has included the possibility of nuclear force. Bush has secretly supported preliminary acts of war within Iran with neither approval from nor funding by Congress.
Bush has initiated the development of new nuclear weapons, in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Article VI of the United States Constitution makes the U.N. Charter and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty the law of the land.
George W. Bush also committed fraud against the United States by lying to and intentionally misleading Congress about the reasons for the Iraq war.
George W. Bush also misappropriated funds with which to conduct the preliminary stages of this war, prior to receiving any funding or any form of authorization from Congress.
George W. Bush, in violation of the United Nations Charter, which is the law of the land under the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, launched an aggressive war neither in self-defense nor under authorization of the UN Security Council.
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has allowed the U.S. military to violate treaties to which the United States is party and has failed to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for these abuse.
These violations include the targeting of civilians, journalists, and medical personnel, and the illegal use of a variety of weapons, including:
-Land mines, used in Afghanistan and Iraq in violation of Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Article 85, and Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons;
-Cluster bombs, used in Afghanistan and Iraq in violation of Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Article 85, and Protocol I of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons;
-Depleted uranium munitions, used in Afghanistan and Iraq in violation of Geneva Conventions Protocol 1, Articles 35.2, 35.3, 48 and 55.1;
-Napalm or Mark 77 Firebomb, used in Iraq in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Article II.1.b;
-White phosphorous, which Defense Department spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Venable confirmed on November 15, 2005 was deployed “as an incendiary weapon” in urban areas of Fallujah, Iraq, where there were high concentrations of civilians, during Operation Phantom Fury (November 2004-January 2005), making the said deployment of white phosphorous a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, Article II.1.b;
-BLU-82B/C-130 “daisy cutter” bombs, used in Afghanistan in violation of Geneva Conventions Protocol I, Articles 35, 48, 51 and 55.has directed or authorized the National Security Agency and various other agencies within the intelligence community to conduct electronic surveillance outside of the statutes Congress has prescribed as the exclusive means for such surveillance, and to use such information for purposes unknown but unrelated to any lawful function of his office; he has also concealed the existence of this unlawful program of electronic surveillance from Congress, the press, and the public.
In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has arrogated excessive power to the executive branch in violation of basic constitutional principles of the separation of powers.
George W. Bush has formally declared his intent to violate the laws enacted by Congress by appending a “signing statement” to legislation, asserting his right to carve out exceptions to legislation as he sees fit, thereby arrogating to himself powers reserved solely to Congress. George W. Bush has, in several instances, gone on to act on his self-declared right to violate these laws. Wherefore George W. Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.
George W. Bush has abused his power and failed to faithfully execute the laws of the United States by allowing his administration to condone torture, failing to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for torture, and officially refusing to accept the binding nature of a statutory ban on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
has allowed his administration to fire United States Attorneys in retaliation for the proper performance of their jobs when that performance conflicted with the partisan interests of the President, and has failed to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for this abuse.
has sought to mislead the people of the United States and the Congress by hiding information without justification, selectively releasing misleading pieces of information, funding misleading journalism, producing misleading video reports falsely presented as independent journalism, using the U.S. military to target journalists in Iraq, threatening officials with retribution should they reveal information, and exacting retribution against whistle blowers.
George W. Bush has abused his power and failed to faithfully execute the laws of the United States by allowing his administration to reveal the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency and the front-group she worked for, and by failing to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for this security breach.
The following are charges against Dick Cheney;
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic, has conspired to exceed his constitutional authority to wage war, in that:
Richard B. Cheney has violated the U.N. Charter, Article 2, paragraph 4, by threatening the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Iran. Richard B. Cheney’s threat of force against Iran has included the possibility of nuclear force. Article VI of the United States Constitution makes the U.N. Charter the law of the land.
These violations of the law pose a grave threat to the national security of the United States. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.
Richard B. Cheney has subverted the Constitution, its guarantee of a republican form of government, and the constitutional separation of powers by undermining the rightful authority of Congress to declare war, oversee foreign affairs, and make appropriations. He did so by justifying a war with false and misleading statements and deceived the people of the United States as well as Congress. He denied the electorate the right to make an informed choice and thereby undermined democracy.
Richard B. Cheney also committed fraud against the United States by lying to and intentionally misleading Congress about the reasons for the Iraq war. Cheney pressured intelligence services to produce false and misleading reports, and Cheney used those reports to mislead the Congress and the people of the United States.
Richard B. Cheney and his subordinates have advocated for a legal theory of the “unitary executive” aimed at placing the President above the rule of law.
has violated the rights of citizens and non-citizens by arbitrarily detaining them indefinitely inside and outside of the United States, without due process, without charges, and with limited, if any, access to counsel or courts.
Richard B. Cheney has condoned torture, failed to investigate and prosecute high-level officials responsible for torture, and officially refused to accept the binding nature of a statutory ban on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
Richard B. Cheney has offended our system of government by attempting to expand executive power at the expense of the other two branches of government.
has sought to mislead the people of the United States and the Congress by hiding information without justification, selectively releasing misleading pieces of information, threatening officials with retribution should they reveal information, and exacting retribution against whistle blowers.
Richard B. Cheney has abused his power by conspiring to reveal the identity of a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency and the front-group she worked for.
has maintained an improper and unethical relationship with his former employers at Halliburton and has promoted its agenda and interests over those of the American people.
Richard B. Cheney has allowed a small group of corporate executives to plan national policies in secret, and enacted policies that benefited a corporation from which the Vice President financially profited.
(1) In January 2001, the vice president did oversee a secret task force composed of corporate lobbyists and executives from the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear-energy sector, known collectively as the National Energy Policy Development Group, instructing them to meet regularly and develop the nation’s energy policy.
(2) By conducting these meetings in secret, the vice president did endeavor to impart influence to corporate interests without public knowledge, eclipsing not only the oversight function of Congress generally but the specific role of the energy committees in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
(3) During the course of these secret meetings, the vice president allowed lobbyists representing the oil, coal, gas, and nuclear-energy industries to compose, word-for-word, the national energy policy adopted by the Department of Energy, in gross violation of the public trust and all ethical norms.
On March 25, 2002, and thereafter, the Vice President did willfully disobey court orders to identify the members of the National Energy Policy Development Group. In September 2002, and prior thereto, the Vice President did also refuse requests by Representatives Henry Waxman and John Dingell, as well as the Government Accountability Office, to release transcripts and papers produced by the aforementioned group. Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial.
It doesn’t matter if you agree with these charges or not.
It doesn’t matter whether you think they can prove all or part of these charges.
They are serious charges. The charges are much more serious than those filed against Bill Clinton. If you supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton and do not support the impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney, then you are being hypocritical.
Approving of impeachment proceedings does not mean they will be impeached. They could also be exhonerated and found to be not guilty of the charges at all. This would just mean there would be an investigation and a hearing on the charges.
There are a lot of average citizens arrested on less evidence than there is here and they have to stand trial. They are assumed innocent until proven guilty just as Bush and Cheney should be assumed innocent until proven guilty.
Assumed innocent does not mean that it does not get tried however. There is enough evidence that there should be investigations and a trial or hearing. Impeachment is the process by which we do this with presidents and Vice Presidents.
If you believe Bush and Cheney are innocent of these charges then you should have no problem with there being a full investigation and hearing to clear them once and for all.
Ten Reasons to Impeach George Bush and Dick Cheney
I ask Congress to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney for the following reasons:
1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal “War of Aggression” against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization, and subjecting our military personnel to unnecessary harm, debilitating injuries, and deaths.2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.
4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.
6. Violating the Constitution by using “signing statements” to defy hundreds of laws passed by Congress.
7. Violating U.S. and state law by obstructing honest elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006.
8. Violating U.S. law by using paid propaganda and disinformation, selectively and misleadingly leaking classified information, and exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative working on sensitive WMD proliferation for political retribution.
9. Subverting the Constitution and abusing Presidential power by asserting a “Unitary Executive Theory” giving unlimited powers to the President, by obstructing efforts by Congress and the Courts to review and restrict Presidential actions, and by promoting and signing legislation negating the Bill of Rights and the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
10. Gross negligence in failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, in ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior to Sept. 11, 2001, and in increasing air pollution causing global warming.
You know it’s really sad how things have changed over the years so much. This country was founded on great principles. It was founded by people who were passionate about freedom and equality. Whether people want to agree or not, it was also founded on religious principles.
In the early days of America, landowners took turns holding public office. They did it to serve the public. When their turn was over, someone else stepped up to serve. They did it for the right reasons.
There were no “career politicians”. That wasn’t a profession. It was real public service. Now we have senators who serve for 30+ years who aren’t qualified to do much of anything else. If not for the connections they make, they likely would be asking someone if they wanted fries with that.
Remember Strom Thurmond? During the confirmation hearings on Clarence Thomas, he actually said to Thomas, “I can’t hear you, please speak into the machine.” Machine? It was a microphone. This is a guy who was expected to vote on Star Wars and things that were Internet Related along with other highly technical issues.
These guys get into office and basically serve for life if possible. It isn’t about public service. It’s about money and power. Now their sons and daughters get into office as if we had a monarchy and they were entitled to it because of who their parents were.
Now it comes down to who has the most money to spend gets elected. It doesn’t matter if they are qualified or not. The public goes out and votes for the candidate they are most familiar with which means the one that ran the most commercials on tv.
It’s become a popularity contest. The media has made it a “race”. People vote for who the media says is winning because people inherently want to be on the winning side. If the media says a specific candidate has no chance of being elected, many people don’t vote for them because they don’t want to “waste” their vote.
It’s not about being on the winning side. Your duty is to vote for who you believe would make the best public servant in that office. If you pick someone and you are the only person in the US who voted for them, you did not waste your vote. You exercized your duty as an American citizen and voted for who you thought was the best candidate.
We have a twofold problem now thanks to the FCC. The media has huge influence over who people vote for. Opinion shows like Hannity’s America and Lou Dobbs influence who people vote for. There are even people that listen to Bill O’Reilly although I cannot for the life of me understand why.
The FCC has now relaxed the rules about how many tv stations, newspapers, and radio stations can be owned by one corporation. That means these corporations can weild even more influence on who gets elected and who runs this country.
You may not be one of these people but I bet you know one. Someone who believes everything they hear or read in the news. You probably know someone that believes Rush Limbaugh is a political genius and should run for president himself. You may know someone that thinks Bill O’Reilly speaks for the average American.
That is what should scare you. Media influence over who gets elected is a serious problem. The fact that corporations with their own agendas are buying all of these news sources up so they can be the ones you listen to should scare everyone.
Soon, these corporations will be deciding who gets elected. All they have to do is have the people on their tv shows, radio programs, and newspapers say what they want them to say. Then millions of drones will listen, watch, and read and go to the polls to do what these corporations told them to do.
Many people will never believe they are one of these drones. They are so brainwashed that they don’t believe that Hannity, O’Reilly, Coombs, Dobbs, Limbaugh, and others can be told what to say. They believe these guys are sincere and honest and would never sway people one way or the other just to get paid.
Many will say they really make up their own minds, but they still follow the party line no matter what it is or if they truly believe it’s a good thing to do. They begin to believe in someone so much that even direct evidence that they committed a crime would not sway them into thinking of them as a bad person.
I just wish there was a way to get more people to think for themselves and quit following whatever one party or the other tells them to do. There are good democrats. There are good republicans. There are bad apples in each bunch.
But you have people who would never vote for a republican and people who would never vote for a democrat, even if the best person for the job is out there. Ignoring voting for the best person for the job in favor of voting for a party is pure ignorance and against the very duty you have as an American citizen to vote for the candidate you think would do the best job regardless of which party they affiliate themeselves with.
That brings up an issue for another post. The fact that we talk about these two parties instead of the many parties that should be involved in politics and elections.
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.
yes I used the words illegal immigrant rather than the politically correct undocumented worker. If you entered the US illegally, then illegal immigrant is the correct term.
I’m not going to change it because someone doesn’t like it. it is a statement of fact, whether we like it or not and nothing short of ignoring reality will change that.
There are laws on how to enter the US legally. There are laws in regards to becoming a US citizen. If you break those laws, then you have done something illegal.
It is not a racist term or remark. It is not an insult to anyone. It’s simply a fact. It doesn’t even matter whether or not you agree with the immigration laws in the US. The fact remains that they are laws and if you want them changed there is a democratic process in place to do so.
But until that happens, the law remains the same and if someone breaks it they have done something illegal. I’m just tired of the way people try to spin this issue into one of race, poilitics, poilitical correctness, etc. It is a matter of law plain and simple.
If I run a business I have to get a business license. I don’t have to like it. I don’t have to agree that the city has the right to tell me I have to have one. But it is the law and they can shut down my business if I do not get one.
You do not have to agree that a law is just and fair in order for it to really be a law. Disagreeing with a law does not mean that you can ignore the law.
The police officer in this story arrested people who broke laws.
Dream Turns Nightmare: Milwaukee Police Officer to Be Deported
By CATRIN EINHORNGrowing up here, Oscar Ayala-Cornejo recalls, he played chess and devoured comics, hung out at the mall and joined the Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps. After high school, he realized a childhood dream, joining the Milwaukee Police Department.
But when Mr. Ayala-Cornejo filled out recruitment papers, he used the name of a dead relative who had been a United States citizen. He had to, Mr. Ayala-Cornejo says, because ever since his parents brought him here from Mexico when he was 9, he has lived in the country illegally.
In other words, he broke the law. We had terrorists who got fake drivers licenses before 911 and everyone screams why didn’t anyone catch them and put them in jail before they hit the world trade center!
Yet, the media spins the immigration issue completely the other way when this poor “undocumented worker” lied to become a police officer.
The life that Mr. Ayala-Cornejo carefully built here, including more than five years with the police force, is to end at noon on Saturday, when, heeding a deportation order, he will board a plane bound for the country he left as a child.
In May, acting on an anonymous tip, immigration agents arrested him on charges of falsely representing himself as a citizen. He pleaded guilty, and is now permanently barred from the United States.
“I’m going to be saying goodbye to my family, my friends, my city — everything that I know,” Mr. Ayala-Cornejo, 25, said in an interview at the home he shares with his widowed mother and his brother, filled with family photos.
See how this is supposed to be a news report of the facts, but they want you to feel so bad because this happened? Yes, it was his parents choice to bring him here at the age of 9, not his. Yes he lived here all of his life.
But he is assumed to be capable of making his own decisions as an adult at age 18. It was then he chose not to apply for citizenship. it was years later that he chose to use a false name to apply to be a police officer.
His decisions led him to be deported, not the decision his parents made to bring him here at the age of 9. He chose to break the law and only got deported. In Mexico it is a felony to be an illegal immigrant and you can be put in prison for years.
Mr. Ayala-Cornejo’s case is familiar to many illegal immigrants. Brought here by their parents illegally as children, they grow up thinking of themselves as Americans, often speaking English without a trace of an accent. But their immigration status frequently catches up with them when they prepare to attend college or take a job.
Those who avoid detection, if only temporarily as Mr. Ayala-Cornejo did, can lead lives more appealing than work at the carwash or in restaurant kitchens. Although usually associated with low-income jobs, illegal immigrants work in every sector, said Oscar A. Chacón, executive director of the National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities.
“Think about it: 12 million people,” Mr. Chacón said of the estimated number of illegal immigrants. “Does it really mean they are all working in stockyards, as landscapers, in hotels? No, they are doing all the jobs you can think of.”
Gosh. All of those people that claim that illegal immigrants only take jobs that Americans are unwilling to do must be ignoring this purposely. The fact that illegal immigrants do actually take jobs away from American Citizens that they would want does not suit the purpose of those who want to declare amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I’m all for people immigrating to this country. This country was built on it. But becoming a legal citizen is part of the process. Eliminating that part of the process could only lead to chaos.
The news media needs to stop spinning illegal acts into sob stories. If they want to talk about how bad our immigration laws are, then they should write an opinion piece like I just did.
This has been my opinion. I’m not writing a news piece. If I had been writing a news piece I would have reported the facts rather than spinning it to meet some corporate agenda the owners of the newspaper have.
Write opinions and label them as opinions. When reporting the news, try sticking to the facts. CATRIN EINHORN, it’s called journalism.
I was reading a story today on Mashable.com that really shows how the mainstream media is scared of the new media. Their hypocracy knows no bounds.
Citizen Journalism: Dangerous and Irresponsible
Just a commnet on that headline first. That is the sentiment of the mainstream media toward bloggers of the new media. Picture Germany under Hitler for a moment. Doesn’t that look like a headline you would find in a german newspaper of that era?
story by Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins
I first noticed the sentiment growing last week, when Aunt B Helen Thomas gave an interview to the Huffington Post:
Q: Do you think technology is changing [journalism]? That a good reporter will always find a venue because there are so many media outlets now?
Thomas: No, but I do think it is kind of sad when everybody who owns a laptop thinks they’re a journalist and doesn’t understand the ethics. We do have to have some sense of what’s right and wrong in this job. Of how far we can go. We don’t make accusations without absolute proof. We’re not prosecutors. We don’t assume.
Q: So if there’s this amateur league of journalists out there, trying to do what you do…
Thomas: It’s dangerous.
Dangerous? Freedom of Speech is dangerous? People who read blogs know that much of the time the blogger is writing their own opinion about the news such as I am doing here.
However, most news blogers check and attribute the sources of their information so people have the chance to research and form their own opinions. This is the new media and it is here to stay and I think mainstream media just doesn’t know what to do about it.
But look at fox news, or Faux news as many like to call it. The slant put on the topics discussed on fox news is apparent to all but the few who still believe it is fair and balances.
Fox news is nothing more than a right wing podcast you can pick up on your television. They have the hannity and Coombs blog, the bill o’reilly blog, etc. etc. Most news bloggers are at least as qualified as hannity or o’reilly to spout their opinions.
The most compelling points the Old Media seems to be making these days is that no one in the blogging community has the scruples to adhere to the “unwritten ethical principals” of the mainstream media.
I’ll give you a minute to compose yourself while you laugh out loud.
Then you can read 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.
The RIAA doesn’t get the whole Internet thing yet. The Movie Industry doesn’t get the whole Internet Thing yet. So I guess the CEO of AP, Associated Press shouldn’t feel bad that he doesn’t understand it either.
AP CEO Declares War On Internet
Submitted by David A. Utter to WebProNews on Fri, 12/07/2007 - 06:26“If you want our content, we expect to be paid for it … this nonsense that you can just take the first paragraph or use the picture small doesn’t really fly with us. People die trying to take those pictures,” Curley said in the report.
Soldiers die in wars and the AP makes money on the pictures they take and the money they make from that as well. When they cover a murder, they sell that news to organizations and don’t compensate the family of the person that died.
Fair use remains the topic that never seems to come up in the discussion of using content others have created. Doctrines of fair use allow for “any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and ‘transformative’ purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work,” according to Stanford University’s Copyright & Fair Use Center.
Just as I am doing in this blog post. It’s legal and it’s fair use.
This leaves the issue open for people like Curley and a deep-pocketed organization to force a definition of fair use by litigating against anyone who tries to reuse their content.
Exactly. The CEO of AP says “people die to take those pictures”. That is not what this is about. It’s about a greedy corporation trying to litigate against smaller entities to force them from doing what is legal.
It’s no different than when the RIAA tries to say they are suing people to protect the artists. It’s to help big record companies continue to profit on the backs of the artists so they can continue to be the only ones allowed to screw the artists over.
Maybe the AP should just merge with the RIAA.
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.
