When I suggested that he link to the article in question, he had already linked to the article in question.
I missed it.
I am a complete pratt.
Category: Journalism
Apologies to Declan McCullagh
In an earlier post, regarding an article where a quote:
“Don’t be silly,” McLaughlin responds. “No one’s backed away from anything. . . . Isn’t . . . the author of the article, an anti [net neutrality] zealot?”
I put 2 and 2 together, and got 5. I said that it was clearly CNET reporter Declan McCullagh.
Well, it was not Mr. McCullagh.
It was someone else, and here is (my best guess) his article.
It sounded as if was something that came from Mr. McCullagh, who is a somewhat-saner-than-Rand-Paul libertarian, but I was wrong.
I had an exchange with the author, Roger Parloff, who told me who the author was, and that he felt that naming the author would require space for a response, which would have crowded out other information in an article with a limited length.
Perhaps the solution here is for online articles from dead tree publications, Fortune Magazine in this case, would be better served by providing links under such circumstances.
It’s bloggy, but I’ve always been a fan of hyperlinks, or their old school predecessor, the footnote.
In any case, I was wrong, and I apologize to my reader(s) and Mr. McCullagh.
Journalists Protecting Their Own
In an otherwise ordinary article about how former Googlers in the Obama White House continue to talk with current Googlers, we have the following exchange:
In January, for instance, Google’s vice president and “chief Internet evangelist” Vint Cerf anxiously wrote to McLaughlin about the worsening chances for net neutrality — the notion that Internet Service Providers should be barred from favoring their own content or from offering “fast-lane” services to premium-paying customers. “Has there been so much flack from the Hill that you guys feel a need to back away” from a commitment?, asked Cerf, attaching a CNET article by a well-credentialed business consultant who was advancing that thesis.
“Don’t be silly,” McLaughlin responds. “No one’s backed away from anything. . . . Isn’t . . . the author of the article, an anti [net neutrality] zealot?”
“Yes, he is,” Cerf wrote. “Just wanted to confirm he’s full of biased baloney.”
“Absolutely,” McLaughlin replied.
If you go through the article, you will never see that name of the journalist in question, Declan McCullagh, who was best described as a “Draw by crayon libertarian,” by the inestimable Andrew Orlowski of The Register.
I deduce it from the Clues, “CNET,” “anti [net neutrality] zealot,” and “Biased Baloney,” if you are familiar with McCullagh’s oeuvre.
What is almost certain is that if the principals in this story were talking about a statement by a lawyer given to over-the-top statements, (Geoff Feiger, for example) you would have seen the name in the story.
It’s not in this story, because it is seen as inappropriate for a journalist to call out another journalist by name, even in the context of a quote someone else.
This attitude is corrosive to journalism.
Wikileaks Founder Has Passport Confiscated in Australia
Julian Assange had his passport confiscated briefly when he visited Australia, and Australian authorities told him that it would be canceled shortly because it was “worn”:
The Australian founder of the whistleblower website Wikileaks had his passport confiscated by police when he arrived in Melbourne last week.
Julian Assange, who does not have an official home base and travels every six weeks, told the Australian current affairs program Dateline that immigration officials had said his passport was going to be cancelled because it was looking worn.
However he then received a letter from the Australian Communication Minister Steven Conroy’s office stating that the recent disclosure on Wikileaks of a blacklist of websites the Australian government is preparing to ban had been referred to the Australian Federal Police (AFP).
So, apparently in Australia, letting people know that the authorities are censoring is grounds for official harassment.
Who do they Australians think that they are? The Obama White House?
We Have to Rely on Jon Stewart for Real Financial Journalism?
Here he notes that the big banks made their obscene profits, which justified their obscene bonuses, made their profits by taking their TARP money by lending it back to the government.
They borrowed at an interest rate lower than that of US treasurys, and then bought treasuries, and pocketed the difference.
Why do I have to listen to a comedian to get real financial news.
I love me that Jon Stewart, particularly his comment that, “Our government is the worst loan shark in history,” but I am really pissed off that he is the only one out in cable teevee land who is explaining this in the mass media.
Taibbi’s latest on Goldman
He is a national treasure.
Jon Stewart:12 – Steve Jobs:0
Brutal!
The interesting thing here is that it’s actually pretty clear that Jon Stewart is a big fan huge fanboi of Apple® Computer and its products, and his take-down of Apple’s actions in the Gismodo iPhone prototype case is even more brutal because of it:
It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Microsoft was supposed to be the evil one. But now you guys are busting down doors in Palo Alto, while commandant Gates is ridding the world of mosquitoes. What the f**k is going on? It is all mixed up. I don’t know which end is up anymore. Black is white. Cats are dogs.
His point is that a large part of the appeal of products from Apple® is that it is, in some manner, sticking it to the man, and that now they are the man.
He also notes that in its corporate paranoia, Apple® ignores the real threats to its products:
I mean, if you wanna break down someone’s door, why don’t you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone! I mean, seriously! How do you drop four calls in a one-mile stretch of the West Side Highway! There’re no buildings around! What, does the open space confuse AT&T’s signal?!
Brutal, particularly when he invokes Apple®‘s iconic 1984 ad.
Good Politics, Good Policy
Click for full size
Even the right-wing Belo Corporation journalism cancer known as the Dallas Morning News
And the Mooney Times
Media Matters has a large selection of newspaper front pages, and it looks like Mitch McConnell’s ploy to kill financial reform is not playing in Peoria.
The lede is all about the filibuster, and how the ‘Phants are doing their best to kill and slow-walk the process, even in reliably right wing newspapers.
Here’s hoping that the Dems notice, and double down on making the Republicans do this again, and again, and again, and again.
Keep up the good work.
Do not compromise on financial reform, you already have, make them crawl to you, and scatter some broken glass in their path.
If the Supreme Court Says that They are People
Can we throw Assurant Health in jail for attempted murder:
In May, 2002, Jerome Mitchell, a 17-year old college freshman from rural South Carolina, learned he had contracted HIV. The news, of course, was devastating, but Mitchell believed that he had one thing going for him: On his own initiative, in anticipation of his first year in college, he had purchased his own health insurance.
Shortly after his diagnosis, however, his insurance company, Fortis, [now Assurant] revoked his policy. Mitchell was told that without further treatment his HIV would become full-blown AIDS within a year or two and he would most likely die within two years after that.
…………
Previously undisclosed records from Mitchell’s case reveal that Fortis had a company policy of targeting policyholders with HIV. A computer program and algorithm targeted every policyholder recently diagnosed with HIV for an automatic fraud investigation, as the company searched for any pretext to revoke their policy. As was the case with Mitchell, their insurance policies often were canceled on erroneous information, the flimsiest of evidence, or for no good reason at all, according to the court documents and interviews with state and federal investigators.
…………
In the motions, [presiding judge, Michael G. ] Nettles not only strongly denied Fortis‘ claims but condemned the corporation’s conduct.
“There was evidence that Fortis‘ general counsel insisted years ago that members of the rescission committee not record the identity of the persons present and involved in the process of making a decision to rescind a Fortis health insurance policy,” Nettles wrote.
Elsewhere in his order, Nettles noted that there were no “minutes of actions, votes, or any business conducted during the rescission committee’s meeting.”
The South Carolina Supreme Court, in upholding the jury’s verdict in the case in a unanimous 5-0 opinion, said that it agreed with the lower court’s finding that Fortis destroyed records to hide the corporation’s misconduct. Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal wrote: “The lack of written rescission policies, the lack of information available regarding appealing rights or procedures, the separate policies for rescission documents” as well as the “omission” of other records regarding the decision to revoke Mitchell’s insurance, constituted “evidence that Fortis tried to conceal the actions it took in rescinding his policy.”
They were engaging in actions in which they knew that they were defrauding their customers, a felony, and they knew that there was a significant livelihood of death resulting, which makes this felony murder, and perhaps 1st degree murder .
It’s nice that Mr. Mitchell got his money, but the company and its agents need to go to jail.
BTW, this is Murray Waas reporting this, and I would argue that he is one of the 5 best investigative reporters out there.
Just Read This
Dan Froomkin completely destroys Rahm Emanuel and the Washington Post writers who do his bidding, and deservedly so:
Rahm was simply their chief of staff. And now, this hypercompetitive bantam rooster is attempting to blame others for what went wrong. That’s evidently so important to him that he’s trying to take a victory lap around the wreckage of what was once such a promising presidency.
Go read the rest.
It’s brutal, in a good way.
Why Do Need to Rely on the F%$#ing Daily Show for Real News?
Jon Stewart tells us by how the banks are going to f%$# us on credit cards. (10:33)
How Bank of America is f%$#ing us all, but it applies to all the banks.
H/t Calculated Risk.
Iceland May Have Found Its Economic Salvation
With banking having left the nation dunned by creditors demanding something more than $20,000 from every man woman and child in the tiny island nation, Iceland may have found a replacement, and this one may actually produce something of real value.
Specifically, they are looking at “passing the strongest combination of source protection, freedom of speech, and libel-tourism prevention laws in the world“: (see also here and here)
On Tuesday, [Feb 16] the Icelandic parliament is expected to introduce a measure aimed at making the country an international center for investigative journalism publishing, by passing the strongest combination of source protection, freedom of speech, and libel-tourism prevention laws in the world.
Supporters of the proposal say the move would make Iceland an “offshore publishing center” for free speech, analogous to the offshore financial havens that allow corporations to hide capital from authorities. Could global news organizations with a home office in Reykjavík soon be as common as Delaware corporations or Cayman Islands assets?
“This is a legislative package to create a haven for freedom of expression,” Icelandic member of parliament Birgitta Jónsdóttir confirmed to me, saying that a proposal for comprehensive media law reform will be filed in parliament on Tuesday, and that whistle-blowing specialists Wikileaks has been involved in drafting it. There have been persistent hints of an Icelandic media move in recent weeks, including tweets from Wikileaks and a cryptic message from the newly created @icelandmedia Twitter account.
It might not be a big market, but with a population of 320,000, it does not need to be, and we all win.
I think that the libel tourism laws might be the most significant, if it can be structured in a way that has meaning; Too many times, the UK’s draconian libel laws are used as a cudgel against free speech.
It’s one of the questions I’ve always wondered about regarding the internet: Why haven’t countries used this to their advantage, rather than just knuckling to the US acting as laptog to the RIAA, MPAA, and other acronyms.
H/t Murray Waas.
Taibbi On Wall Street (Again)
I really cannot do justice to it.
He pens another gem, titled, “Wall Street’s Bailout Hustle,” where he juxtaposes Wall Street and street bunco games, and finds startling similarities:
The only reason such apathy exists, however, is because there’s still a widespread misunderstanding of how exactly Wall Street “earns” its money, with emphasis on the quotation marks around “earns.” The question everyone should be asking, as one bailout recipient after another posts massive profits — Goldman reported $13.4 billion in profits last year, after paying out that $16.2 billion in bonuses and compensation — is this: In an economy as horrible as ours, with every factory town between New York and Los Angeles looking like those hollowed-out ghost ships we see on History Channel documentaries like Shipwrecks of the Great Lakes, where in the hell did Wall Street’s eye-popping profits come from, exactly? Did Goldman go from bailout city to $13.4 billion in the black because, as Blankfein suggests, its “performance” was just that awesome? A year and a half after they were minutes away from bankruptcy, how are these assholes not only back on their feet again, but hauling in bonuses at the same rate they were during the bubble?
The answer to that question is basically twofold: They raped the taxpayer, and they raped their clients.
Just go read it.
Signs of the Apocalypse
The National Enquirer has had its coverage of of the John Edwards sex scandal accepted by the Pulitzer committee:
The Pulitzer Prize Board has officially accepted The National Enquirer’s submissions for breaking the John Edwards scandal, according to sources close to the Board. In a historic move, the Pulitzer Board conceded that the self-proclaimed tabloid is qualified to compete with mainstream news outlets for journalism’s most prestigious prize. The Enquirer is in the running for the Pulitzer in two categories: “Investigative Reporting” and “National News Reporting” for The National Enquirer staff.
I agree that they should be considered for the prize, but it’s still weird.
I wouldn’t bet on them winning though.
As Atrios Would Say, “Time for a Blogger Ethics Panel”
New York Times reporter Zachery Kouwe has been fired* for repeated plagiarism.
*Technically, it’s a resignation, but it’s a termination.
If You Have Extra Cash…………
You might want to give it to Wikileaks, which has suspended their operations because they have run out of cash:
Wikileaks, which has published anonymously contributed information that is both confidential and controversial, has one thing in common with many more-traditional media outlets: financial troubles.
The site has posted confidential 9/11 pager messages, tangled with banks and the Church of Scientology, revealed inner workings of the U.S. military base in Guantanamo, Cuba, and shared snippets of e-mail from vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
Now, though, Wikileaks has shut the site down at least temporarily.
“To concentrate on raising the funds necessary to keep us alive into 2010, we have reluctantly suspended all other operations, but will be back soon,” a note on the Wikileaks site said Monday. “We have raised just over $130,000 for this year but can not meaningfully continue operations until costs are covered. These amount to just under $200,000 PA [per annum]. If staff are paid, our yearly budget is $600,000.”
These guys do very good work, whether it’s uncovering things like money laundering, providing secret draft agreements on an “IP reign of terror” treaty, and torture manuals US military manuals for maltreating detainees.
Previous Wikileaks posts here, they have been a source for my scribblings not infrequently.
On Paywalls and Newspapers
Newsday got bought out by the Dolan family, the folks who own Cable Vision, and they promptly put the website behind a subscription wall.
Do you know how many people are willing to buy a $5 a week subscription to the Long Island newspaper?
Well, after 3 months, they have 35 subscribers, so I think that their newsroom outnumbers the web page subscribers.
I think that the folks at the New York Times are in for a world of hurt.
Their pay wall is a bit different, you get a few stories before having to pay, but what it will mean to folks like me is that I won’t link to them unless they have a big exclusive. It’s just not worth it to me.
As it currently stands, I do link to them frequently as a paper of record.
Now, I’m sure that the loss of the eyeballs of my reader(s) does not mean much in the scheme of things, but when their OP/EDs were behind a pay wall, they completely fell off the screen on the internet.
Olbermann vs. Stewart
Jon Stewart called out Keith Olbermann, complete with a Special Comment style rant, and to his credit, Keith Olbermann included the whole bit in his broadcast, and replied, “You’re right, I’ve been a little over the top lately………Sorry.“
I count it as manning up, though his one complaint, that he wants to be interviewed by Stewart, is completely legitimate. It would be a lot of fun.
(8:18)
Rupert Murdochology
One of the things that was interesting in the New York Times profile of Roger Ailes, at least it is if one tries to follow the comings and goings of Rupert Murdoch, his family, and News Corp, is the fact that a member of the Murdoch family, Matthew Freud.
Well, one Murdochologist, Michael Wolff, says that this is the beginning of a process that will have Ailes out in the next 12 months or so:
When Tim Arango, the New York Times reporter who got the statement from Freud, called and said he was doing a story on Ailes’ rising power, Freud would have consulted with the rest of the family. James Murdoch would have said to his father something along the lines of, “this is untenable, this idea that Roger is the center of the company.”
Murdoch, who protects nothing so much as his own primacy at News Corp., and who always likes somebody else to do his dirty work, would likely have said, in his particular patois, “umm…goddamn…grump…son-of-a-bitch…they’re gonna say that? Who put ‘em up to it? Okay, okay, do what you want to do.” By which he would have meant: “Blow a rocket up his ass.”
The process of losing your job at News Corp. takes about a year. They talk about you, and isolate you, and then you understand that you’ve been exiled from the tribe.
I’m hoping that it is true, Ailes is an evil man who has hurt the country more than most, but I’m inclined to believe that it’s not: Particularly during this downturn, Fox News is Murdoch’s money cow, and he can’t kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
Jon Stewart is a F%$#ing Genius
When he says the following about the underoos bomber™, “Even If The Bomb Works, There’s Gonna Be 72 Very Disappointed Virgins,” I nearly plotzed.