The Future of News - Live Broadcast

The Center for Information Technology Policy is hosting what promises to be a provocative conference May 14-15 on the Future of News.

The conference features a distinguished roster of panelists who will be discussing the sweeping technologically-driven transformation of the news business. Of special interest is a panel on the new journalistic frontiers of data mining, interactivity, and visualization.

Among the panelists: Gordon Crovitz, former publisher of the Wall Street Journal; author Eric Alterman; Kevin Anderson of the Guardian; Matthew Hurst of Microsoft Live Labs; technology writer Dan Gillmor; machine learning expert (Princeton’s own) David Blei; Mark Davis of the San Diego Union-Tribune, and Reihan Salam of The Atlantic.

The conference is free for those who can make it to Princeton; for those who can’t, plan on attending the live broadcast.

The director of CITP is maverick computer scientist and freedom-to-tinker blogger Ed Felten, whom you may have seen recently on Rocketboom being interviewed by WhyTuesday’s Jacob Soboroff about electronic voting machines. Also check out reports by Wired, Techdirt, and the Huffington Post.

 

It would be a dangerous thing for the American people to lose trust

For me, it all comes down to trust and credibility. And it would be a dangerous thing for the American people to lose trust in the Pentagon, in our retired officer corps, and in the press, each of which has a critical role to play in preserving our nation’s freedoms.

April 24th, 2008 by Jesse Lee

Rep. Ike Skelton, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, speaks on the House floor on recent revelations from the New York Times. The story, “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,” explained how the Pentagon set up private briefings for a network of “military experts,” who often held financial stakes dependent on continued Pentagon access, in order to achieve “information dominance” in the American media.

Chairman Skelton: “Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, the front page of the New York Times included a story about the efforts of the Pentagon’s public affairs operation to influence retired military officers now working as military analysts for some of our nation’s largest media organizations.

“I am very angry about the issues raised by the New York Times’ story, as are many of my colleagues who have called me aside to discuss it. The story does not reflect well on the Pentagon, on the military analysts in question, or on the media organizations that employ them.

“Mr. Speaker, maybe I am too idealistic, but this story is appalling to me on a number of levels. For me, it all comes down to trust and credibility. And it would be a dangerous thing for the American people to lose trust in the Pentagon, in our retired officer corps, and in the press, each of which has a critical role to play in preserving our nation’s freedoms.

“Through the years, I have frequently urged our military services to improve their efforts to tell America about the good work that is being done by our country’s sons and daughters in uniform. Our military services have an important story to tell, and public affairs offices are critical to that task. But credibility is paramount. Once lost, it is difficult or impossible to regain.

“There is nothing inherently wrong with providing information to the public and the press. But there is a problem if the Pentagon is providing special access to retired officers and then basically using them as pawns to spout the Administration’s talking points of the day. There are allegations that analysts who failed to deliver the message required by the Administration mysteriously lost access to future briefings and information. I find this deeply troubling. We deserve to be able to trust the actions of the Pentagon.

“We also deserve a retired officer corps that is worthy of the respect it receives from the American people, who place great faith in their judgment and loyalty to our nation. Americans trust our active duty and retired military, and rightly so.

“I know a number of the retired officers employed by the media as military analysts to be honorable people. But the special access they are alleged to have received and the circumstances of their employment, without proper disclosure of their outside interests or biases, raise a number of uncomfortable questions that deserve serious answers.

“Which master do these analysts serve?

“The United States Government, which supplies their retirement pay?

“The Pentagon, which may reduce the amount of analysis they actually need to do by providing detailed talking points promoting the current administration’s message agenda?

“The defense contractors, who pay them for serving on boards or for their defense expertise, and perhaps more to the point, for their Pentagon connections?

“Will their analysis, either by design or just by lucky coincidence, result in contracts or other advantages for the companies from which they take home a paycheck?

“It hurts me to my core to think that there are those from the ranks of our retired officers who have decided to cash in and essentially prostitute themselves on the basis of their previous positions within the Department of Defense. I would hate to think that because a few people have blurred ethical boundaries and cashed in on their former positions that we might tarnish the military’s hard won reputation for professionalism and objectivity and love of country first and foremost.

“Finally, I think our media have a serious responsibility to disclose potential conflicts of interest when they do their reporting. This applies to all of their stories, of course, and not just those that include retired officer military analysts. I understand that different organizations have different rules, but perhaps it would not be out of order for our journalism schools and professional journalism organizations to develop ethical guidelines for dealing with such issues.

“Mr. Speaker, our nation’s military exists to protect America’s freedoms for citizens today and for future generations. The First Amendment guarantees the right of all Americans, including retired service members and members of the press, to speak freely and without restraint. But with our rights come responsibilities to act honestly and ethically. I have no doubt we will continue to discuss these matters in the days ahead.

“Thank you, Mr. Speaker.”

 

Gasoline prices: despite rising prices and growing demand, refineries are again cutting back their capacity-building plans.

Gasoline prices

What impacts U.S. consumers and voters most directly is the price of gasoline and diesel fuel, not only because of what they pay at the pump but also because higher fuel costs raise the price of many consumer goods. Fuel price hikes can be a major drag on the whole economy.

Gas prices are most politically relevant because they are a sharp pain that voters will be feeling this summer and fall, before they vote. All three candidates (and even President Bush) seem to “get” this. But the summer holiday for the 18.4-cent federal excise tax on gasoline proposed by Clinton and McCain will not, in the view of the experts and the media, do much more than slightly numb the voters before their wallets are amputated. [For stories, here’s one from NPR; one from the New York Times, and one from Newsweek.]

With Democrats and Republicans both split on the gas tax holiday, the chances of it passing a narrowly-divided Congress in an election year seem close to nil. The biggest danger, from all three candidates’ perspective, is that the public may conclude that they have proposed nothing serious or substantial to address gas prices. During the time since McCain proposed the gas-tax holiday, the price of gasoline has actually risen more than the 18.4 cents worth of tax relief it would offer, according to the Energy Information Administration.

That it will do nothing to solve the problem is a given that even McCain admits. The danger to candidates is that it will do nothing to get them elected. If Congress passed a tax holiday and the price of gas stayed flat (because of a rise in the underlying commodity price) or went up, the tactic could boomerang.

The price of gasoline at the end of April 2008, averaged over the whole U.S., was about $3.60 — up about $0.63 from a year earlier. Even worse was the price of diesel, $4.17 — up $1.36 from a year earlier.

As for crude oil prices, experts estimate that the cost of crude oil accounts for anywhere from 46 percent of the retail price of refined gasoline to 72 percent. Obviously, the numbers are fuzzy. The looseness of the linkage between wholesale oil and retail gasoline prices raises questions. Journalists might well ask whether oil companies, refiners, distributors, and retailers are taking advantage of the situation. But they rarely do ask.

While crude prices are a factor, most experts would agree that tightly limited U.S. refinery capacity is also a big factor in pushing domestic gasoline prices higher.

Less easy to answer: why is refinery capacity limited and what can be done about it?

Environmentalists and consumer advocates tend to argue that companies are colluding and dragging their feet on purpose — since high gas and diesel prices help profits. Companies blame government regulations.

There are grounds for skepticism. Utility and gas transmission companies first blamed the California “energy crisis” of 2001 on clean air and market regulation, too. Few news media questioned this explanation. But it turned out to be totally untrue, and a cover for billions of dollars worth illegal market manipulation by companies like Enron.

The Nieman Watchdog has previously raised the question of whether there may be manipulation or collusion in the U.S. gasoline market. [Click here and here.]

Some numbers: In 1981, there were 324 refineries with a total capacity of 18.6 million barrels per day, according to the EIA. As of 2007, there were 149, with a capacity of 17.4 bpd.

It is no secret that the industry deliberately shut refineries to improve profits in recent decades. Industry says it is now building new capacity at existing plants – but despite rising prices and growing demand, refineries are again cutting back their capacity-building plans.

Joseph A. Davis has been writing about the environment, energy, and natural resources for 30 years. READ THE WHOLE DOWN AND DIRTY HERE.

 

Hiroshima, reason Iran should not have bombs?

I stumbled over this not so amusing blog article today. I was astounded that the Hiroshima bombing is used as a reason “IRAN” should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. I mean really, the US is the country that actually has used nuclear weapons….not once, but twice. No other country in the world has. We are the ones more likely to use these weapons in the future, since we showed no remorse the “second” time around, killing thousands and thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

Here is the blog post:

Atomic Devastation in Hiroshima

These never before published photos of the aftermath of the Hiroshima bomb are a stark reminder of why the civilized world MUST keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Iran and other terrorist nations.

Many will say that it shortened the war, that using the bombs saved lives. In a twisted way, sure it did. But, the killing of “innocent” lives should not be the “goal” of any war. Innocents have no say in what a government does, wars should be fought by military leaving the civilians out of it.

The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.

Atomic Tragedy summary says:

The ultimate aim of Atomic Tragedy is not only to contribute to a greater historical understanding of the first use of nuclear weapons but also to offer lessons from the decision-making process during the years 1940-1945 that are applicable to the current world environment. As the United States mobilizes scientists and engineers to build new and supposedly more “usable” nuclear weapons and as nations in Asia and the Middle East are replicating the feat of the Manhattan Project physicists at Los Alamos, it is more important than ever that policymakers and analysts recognize the chain of failures surrounding the first use of those weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

People should be allowed to sell their kidneys?

Novel way of attacking the problem of organ donations.  I can see poor people falling for this, “hey whats one kidney, I need $50,000 dollars now!”  Once again, the poor of the world will be the true victims.  What price will other organs bring?  Got an extra eye ya’ want to sell?  How about that second lung, you might not need that too much, just don’t do too much labor and you should be able to breath fine with just one.

As an aside, maybe the medical profession should be looking into why 40 Aussies a day are dying of “kidney failure” rather than applying a fix at the expense of people motivated by the gain of $50,000 per organ.

By medical reporter Sophie Scott

Posted Mon May 5, 2008 6:43pm AEST

A leading medical specialist says young healthy people should be allowed to sell their kidneys to help reduce the transplant waiting list.

More than 40 Australians die from kidney failure every day, and many are waiting for a new organ.

It is a radical idea but some health experts say the situation with organ donation is so desperate it is warranted.

Canberra doctor Gavin Carney believes healthy young people should be allowed to sell one of their kidneys for up to $50,000.

“Patients need a kidney and the Government will recruit those kidneys in an ethical and proper good fashion, pay and compensate young Australians to donate their kidneys to other Australians,” he said.

Despite countless public awareness campaigns Australia still has one of the lowest rates of organ donation in the world.

“If one compensated healthy Australians to donate their kidneys then you would have a ready pool of kidneys for kidney patients, you would get the best possible matches, it’s a win-win situation for everyone concerned,” he said.

One person dies every week because they can not get a kidney transplant.

Patients like Matthew Fitzsimmons can wait four years for an an organ to become available.

Despite that, he is opposed to people selling their organs, saying such a system is open to abuse.

 

Will our table food be any safer now?

Last week the (meat) industry agreed to a downer ban, pointing to
concerns over consumer confidence and strained international trade
relations. The American Meat Institute, The National Meat Association
and The National Milk Producers Federation, which together represent
most of the nation’s meat producers, filed a petition seeking an
absolute ban prohibiting any downers from entering the food supply.

Animal-rights groups, lawmakers and California meat producers all
hailed the move.

Wonder why it took the “rocket scientists” so long to figure out that people absolutely should NOT be eating sick and downed cows?

Oh Yeah! Their “concerns” over consumer confidence and their bottom line…may have fuddled the thinking on that issue in the past. Perhaps even they have seen now that this issue regarding downed cattle is one that can affect even themselves and their bottom line when it makes people sick!

“One in 4 Americans are sickened by food-borne illness each year;
that’s 76 million people,” Jeffrey Levi, executive director of Trust
for America’s Health, said during a morning teleconference Wednesday
[30 Apr 2008].

…the federal government has devoted very limited
resources to the problem, despite a presidential directive and recent
serious outbreaks of food-borne illnesses. Not enough money is spent
on fighting bacterial threats such as salmonella and _E. coli_. About
85 percent of food-borne illness outbreaks occur among foods
regulated by the FDA.

See our previous articles on this issue here:

Clinton and 2007 Food Safety Plan

Warning, You WILL think about this next time you eat Beef!

How safe is our food supply? Things you need to know!

 

Do you McCain? Do you Believe in Hagee?

Reporting on a New Orleans campaign event at which Sen. John McCain was interrupted by a voter’s question about Pastor John Hagee,” CNN’s Dana Bash aired a clip of Hagee — who has endorsed McCain — saying of Hurricane Katrina, “What happened in New Orleans looked like the curse of God.” But Bash did not air the portion of Hagee’s comments in which he reaffirmed his previous assertion that Hurricane Katrina was at least in part the result of “sin” that Hagee identified as “a massive homosexual rally.” CNN’s John Roberts and Kyra Phillips similarly noted that Hagee said that “Katrina was God’s punishment for sinful behavior in New Orleans” .

September 18, 2006, edition of National Public Radio’s Fresh Air

HAGEE: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are — were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.

(If it’s God doing this, I think we should send a gay pride parade to those very dry area’s in Africa so some FOOD will grow there again!   Think of it, God and the Gay Pride Parade save the starving children in Africa!  What say you Hagee?  You can still say its God sending the flooding, but this time it will be a good thing!)

Okay, God was punishing New Orleans for planning to have a gay pride parade, what on earth did Illinois do last week to deserve that 5.2 earthquake? I read…According to Anagram Commodity Research Crude oil rebounded due to concern that a 5.2-magnitude earthquake in Illinois affected refinery operations. So, I guess God is in favor of oil and “BIG OIL” being sold “sky” high and all us little sinners getting the short end of a dry “dipstick”…har, funny man that God.

How about Virginia what did they do to have God sling down three tornadoes, punishing over 200 with injuries and leaving many more homeless? (not really a hurricane, but since God controls the heavens…)

The governor has declared Bremer, Blackhawk and Louisa Counties in eastern Iowa state disaster areas due to flooding this week. What horrible sins did Iowa commit? (flooding? doesn’t that come from rain from the heavens…)

(I think I know………..those areas are conservative strongholds, lol.  Keep your eyes on the skys Repubs!)

Well Mr Hagee…Mr. McCain, who welcomes the endorsement of Mr. Hagee, what say you both?

Natural disasters or God’s wrath? Don’t be coy, tell us what you really think!

Consider the following pronouncements by Hagee, the man who McCain has proudly introduced as an ally and who has endorsed McCain.

On Jews:

It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God’s chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day.

And:

How utterly repulsive, insulting, and heartbreaking to God for his chosen people to credit idols with bringing blessings he had showered upon the chosen people. Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.

On gays:

All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are — were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.

Hagee, of course, is also a virulent anti-Catholic, who has suggested that the pope is the anti-Christ, and that Adolf Hitler’s anti-Semitism was the result of being educated at a Catholic school.

But last week, once McCain assured reporters that, just because Hagee was endorsing him, it didn’t mean he agreed with everything Hagee said, the mainstream media essentially let the matter drop.

No? Really? Wonder why? They sure didn’t drop it in Obama’s case did they?

McCain has not rejected the support of Hagee, and has said nothing about Hagee’s claims that American foreign policy towards Palestine is causing God to attack the United States with terrorists.

Hagee called the Catholic religion ‘The Great Whore,’ the ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ’ and a ‘false cult system’? McCain cannot ignore Hagee’s lies any more than he can tolerate his bigotry.

Of course, being a former Baptist, I understand where ole Hagee is coming from.  Hellfire and brimstone, and the Apocalypse are what people like Hagee long for and lust after.

I’m certain though, that people that believe as Hagee does…hell in fact if they believe even a little of what Hagee does….I don’t want them running our country.

Do you McCain?  Do you Believe in Hagee?

 

Life in Jail for Food Poisoning the Public

Reuters reports that China is considering a food safety law that provides for penalties of up to life imprisonment for people responsible for the production of substandard food. Lesser violations of the law could incur fines, confiscation of income from sales of substandard products, or revocation of licenses. See full article - China food safety law to allow for life in jail.

Now if we did that here, just think of what the corporate world would do to improve the safety of the food they sold the public!!!

 

Media’s Worst Debate Questions EVER

Well fellow citizens we don’t have much time left for this election and these bozo’s in the media once again could not commit even one lousy minute to a real issue, like the cost of gas, or Iraq, Afaganistan, or Iran, or our economy. Instead they pondered over lapel pins, and the candidates associations with other people among other NON ISSUES. These are not the things that Americans want to know about, we need to know what these candidates think and will do about Americas real issues.

Im disgusted with the media, if you are too write to ABC and let them know how you feel!

Journalists Slam ABC Debate Tactics

by _NONE

[posted online on April 18, 2008]

In an open letter to ABC, journalists and media analysts condemn the network’s poor handling of the April 16 Democratic presidential debate.

We, the undersigned, deplore the conduct of ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson at the Democratic Presidential debate on April 16. The debate was a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world. This is not the first Democratic or Republican presidential debate to emphasize gotcha questions over real discussion. However, it is, so far, the worst.

For 53 minutes, we heard no question about public policy from either moderator. ABC seemed less interested in provoking serious discussion than in trying to generate cheap shot sound-bites for later rebroadcast. The questions asked by Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Gibson were a disgrace, and the subsequent attempts to justify them by claiming that they reflect citizens’ interest are an insult to the intelligence of those citizens and ABC’s viewers. Many thousands of those viewers have already written to ABC to express their outrage.

The moderators’ occasional later forays into substance were nearly as bad. Mr. Gibson’s claim that the government can raise revenues by cutting capital gains tax is grossly at odds with what taxation experts believe. Both candidates tried, repeatedly, to bring debate back to the real problems faced by ordinary Americans. Neither moderator allowed them to do this.

We’re at a crucial moment in our country’s history, facing war, a terrorism threat, recession, and a range of big domestic challenges. Large majorities of our fellow Americans tell pollsters they’re deeply worried about the country’s direction. In such a context, journalists moderating a debate–who are, after all, entrusted with free public airwaves–have a particular responsibility to push and engage the candidates in serious debate about these matters. Tough, probing questions on these issues clearly serve the public interest. Demands that candidates make pledges about a future no one can predict or excessive emphasis on tangential “character” issues do not. This applies to candidates of both parties.

Neither Mr. Gibson nor Mr. Stephanopoulos lived up to these responsibilities. In the words of Tom Shales of the Washington Post, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos turned in “shoddy, despicable performances.” As Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher describes it, the debate was a “travesty.” We hope that the public uproar over ABC’s miserable showing will encourage a return to serious journalism in debates between the Democratic and Republican nominees this fall. Anything less would be a betrayal of the basic responsibilities that journalists owe to their public.

Spencer Ackerman, The Washington Independent
Eric Alterman, City University of New York
Dean Baker, The American Prospect Online
Steven Benen, The Carpetbagger Report
Julie Bergman Sender, Balcony Films
Ari Berman, The Nation
Brian Beutler, The Media Consortium
Michael Berube, Crooked Timber, the University of Pennsylvania
Joel Bleifuss, In These Times
Sam Boyd, The American Prospect
Lakshmi Chaudry, In These Times
Joe Conason, Journalist and Author
Brad DeLong, Brad DeLong’s Semi-Daily Journal and UC Berkeley
Kevin Drum, The Washington Monthly
Henry Farrell, Crooked Timber, George Washington University
James Galbraith, University of Texas at Austin
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University, TPM Cafe
Merrill Goozner (formerly Chicago Tribune)
Ilan Goldenberg, The National Security Network
Robert Greenwald, Brave New Films
Christopher Hayes, The Nation
Don Hazen, Alternet
Michael Kazin, Georgetown University
Ed Kilgore, The Democratic Strategist
Richard Kim, The Nation
Ezra Klein, The American Prospect
Mark Kleiman, UCLA/The Reality Based Community
Scott McLemee, Inside Higher Ed
Ari Melber, The Nation
Rick Perlstein, Campaign for America’s Future
Katha Pollitt, The Nation
David Roberts, Grist
Thomas Schaller, Columnist, The Baltimore Sun
Mark Schmitt, The New America Foundation
Adele Stan, The Media Consortium
Jonathan Stein, Mother Jones Magazine
Mark Thoma, The Economist’s View
Michael Tomasky, The Guardian
Cenk Uygur, The Young Turks
Tracy Van Slyke, The Media Consortium
Kai Wright, The Root

 

Repub accused of Rape

All Muck is Local: Sex and Lots and Lots of Videotape

By Lila Shapiro - April 13, 2008, 12:07PM

For days, Bruce Barclay’s political career hung in the balance. The Republican commissioner of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, had been accused of rape — by a man, no less — and the police were bearing down. Barclay’s lawyer issued a strong denial (”This accusation of rape is ludicrous It will be defended forever and is wrong.”). But it was clear things were looking pretty dicey. Until… vindication! Well, sort of.

On March 31st, police, investigating the allegation of rape by the 20-year old Marshall McCurdy, obtained a warrant to search Barclay’s home. They didn’t find evidence of rape. But they did find videotapes of hundreds of sexual encounters with men that Barclay had filmed on high-tech surveillance cameras. The cameras were hidden inside AM/FM radios, motion detectors and intercom speaker systems, among other places. There was also one at his business office.

The rest of the story.