Journalism in a fake democracy

Pat Williams said something true in 1997.
Pat Williams said something true in 1997.

I can tell you from my viewpoint that spinning Montana’s newspapers was as easy as spinning a top. There’s precious little congressional news that is actually broken by a Montana newspaper. That works to the advantage of the politician. Absolutely. When you are free from a burrowing press, you pretty much have clear sailing. (Former Montana Representative Pat Williams, on leaving Congress in 1997)

I was watching episodes of the Daily Show last night, the American version of the court jester. The back-and-forth between the Comedy Central outlet and FOX News leaves one with the impression that we have a rich and full dialogue among factions, and that our democracy is in good shape. In fact, looking over the whole of the landscape, we have vigorous tests of wit between Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals. These exchanges are lively and intense. It appears that ours is a fully functioning system of public debate.

That illusion is very important to those who really run the country. That’s the only reason Daily Show has its perch. Imagine if all we were allowed were FOX, NBC and ABC etc., and the other government mouthpiece outlets. People would begin to suspect that we really aren’t as free as we imagine. The important lesson is that all that noise is ” … a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.*

To those paying attention, this week supplied some important evidence regarding the true nature of American “democracy.” It started when Montana Senator Jon Tester appeared on Montana Public Radio and told a bold-faced lie.

“Unfortunately, every logging sale in Montana right now is under litigation. Every one of them.”

We don’t know the inner workings of his office or his mind, but the lie, so obvious and easily exposed, could have been the result of the man’s own ignorance, a signal that he’s being kept in the dark by his handlers. That was certainly the case with his predecessor, former Montana Senator Conrad Burns. Absent any other evidence, I think that a safe resting spot. He had no clue his statement was false. That would make him a mere sock puppet.

He’s just a man occupying a slot. More important here is the reaction of the Montana media when the lie was exposed. In a fully functioning democracy, Tester’s words would have immediately been challenged by a burrowing journalist fully on top of the issue of logging of our commons. Men like Tester would sweat bullets before appearing in public, knowing they would not be coddled. They would stay on top of issues, facts and figures. They would not lie easily and then stroll away.

But no, it was listeners who pointed out the lie, which is all I can call it, given it is so far from the truth. Tester was allowed a full leash with no challenge on the Montana Public Radio program.

Here is the reaction of Montana Public Radio, given to me in a comment by a reader of this blog:

Based on what I know, MTPR did actually attempt to fact-check Senator Tester’s lies, and literally did so within minutes of being informed of the[m], but it was tough because Senator Tester just issued more incorrect statements and then the USFS dragged its feet….then the weekend hit. Then there was more total silence from Sen Tester and the USFS. Finally the WaPost Fact-Checker article appeared on Wednesday AM. I’m not sure if MTPR has done anything on-air with the WaPost fact-checker story, but again, in my opinion MTPR’s newsroom did a good job trying to uncover the truth, especially when up against a US Senator and USFS that clearly just wanted to sweep all this under the rug.

There’s not much content there, but the reader did link me to an official reaction of MTPR, as follows:

Yesterday, in a story about attempts to boost revenue for Montana counties that are mostly federal land, Montana Senator Jon Tester made the following statement:

“Unfortunately, every logging sale in Montana right now is under litigation. Every one of them.”

Several listeners questioned that statement, so we asked Senator Tester to respond.

His communications director Marnee Banks said he is unavailable this week.

Banks says Tester’s staff checked with the Forest Service, and now says, less than half “of the awarded timber volume in Fiscal 2014 is currently under litigation.”

“I apologize for the error,” Banks said via email.

In the story, Senator Tester also referenced Matthew Koehler, with the Missoula-based environmental group Wildwest Institute. Tester said Koehler “is part of the problem” of litigation costs taking money away from timber management.

Koehler responded that the Wildwest Institute has not litigated a logging sale in at least seven years.

Koehler has asked Senator Tester for an apology, and also takes issue with Tester’s clarification.

“He has now gone from claiming that ‘every logging sale in Montana right now is under litigation,’ and has switched to talking about ‘awarded timber VOLUME,’ Koehler wrote to us.

“As expected, Tester’s response is just total subterfuge and he entirely failed to own up to the fact that he lied to the people of Montana on your news program.”

That sounds like MTPR is following up, doing the burrowing duties, but they are not. They are doing “he-said-she-said.” They have devoted exactly zero resources towards holding Tester accountable.

The next part surprised me, as I don’t expect fact-checking and accountability from any mainstream outlet in this country. The Washington Post Fact Checker got hold of the story, dug deep into it, and came up with facts and figures enough to award Tester “Four Pinocchios,” its highest honor for deviation from truth.

Dennison: Earns four Pinnochios of his own
Dennison: Earns four Pinnochios of his own
At this point, the story had legs, and it is hard for the Montana media to continue its other-way-gazing. Enter the Missoulian, and Mike Dennison. Here are the first two paragraphs of Dennison’s story:

The Washington Post “fact checker” column Wednesday chastised U.S. Sen. Jon Tester for misstating facts last week about the impact of lawsuits on timber harvests in Montana.

Tester, D-Mont., corrected his initial statement within 24 hours of making it last week and apologized, his spokeswoman said.

The whole story is longer, but all of these “journalists” know that readers of news generally read headline and first paragraph, possibly second, so that the body of the intended message is going to be in the words above: Tester “misstated” facts and corrected the misstatement. Dennison did not link (!) to the WaPo story. He made no reference to the extensive research done there. His work was either lazy, or protective of Tester. (They also ran a flattering picture of Tester above the story.)

Fortunately, in the comments below the Dennison piece, Matt Koehler did Dennison’s job by citing the story and its important facts and providing a link. However, his comment, 717 words, was probably not read by the same readers who knew only to read the headline and first graph or two of Dennison’s work. So the public mind is not troubled by a Senator who either is wildly uninformed or deliberately dishonest in his public utterances.

Thanks, Montana media. Truth is, however, this is your real job.

That, to my knowledge this Saturday morning, is the extent of Montana’s burrowing press into the lies and misadventures of its Senator, Jon Tester. They are guilty of gross misconduct, in my view, protecting the man. But remember, this is a fake democracy, and Tester’s job, like Burns before him, has nothing to do with campaign utterances. The media’s job has nothing to do with searching for truth or reporting on the activities of powerful people. These media people routinely lay high praise and awards on one another for doing essentially nothing, and doing it badly.

But then again, their job is to protect those with real power from the public scrutiny. With that in mind, they do a good job, and earn those statues, plaques, and citations collecting dust as they peck away on keyboards, oblivious to the role of real journalism in a real democracy.
______________
*Thank you, Mrs. Hudson, for forcing this young inattentive student to memorize MacBeth’s Tomorrow speech. I still recite it when I want to sound well-educated.

Too much time on my hands here …

Still trying to shake this New Zealand bug, a persistent little bastard.

My wife says that the last line of this email to William Marcus of Montana Public Radio is uncalled for. I responded that genuflection at the door is not in my nature, that Mr. Marcus would not be in his position had he not already made the necessary compromises required to advance in the journalism profession. As Chomsky once told a British editor who was proclaiming his professional courage, “If you sit in that chair, you buy in.”

Maybe it was better said by the late Alexander Cockburn, describing Obama, and I roughly quote, that any time bombs that existed in the man were long defused before he ever got the nod to be president. The “buying in” process precedes advancement in both politics and journalism. People gotta have their mind right, or they become UPS drivers rather than MTPR director.

Maybe that’s why I like these UPS guys that come to our house so much. They are making an honest living.

To: William Marcus
Director, Media Broadcast Center
Montana Public Radio

Dear sir: Senator Tester was caught telling a huge lie on your network. After a thorough working over by the Washington Post fact-checker, even the Missoulian was forced to report Tester’s remark that all timber sales in Montana were blocked by litigation.

This is Timber Lobby talk, of course, and Tester is but a mouthpiece. Because lawsuits are effective in curtailing government agency abuse in our commons, the Lobby would like to see lawsuits, and not abuse, curtailed. Ergo the meme: Lawsuits are the problem, and not agency and industry abuse.

The forum to correct the lie is the one on which it was told. This means that MTPR is now morally obligated to call out Tester on the same platform on which he lied. Otherwise, you are an enabler. No doubt if you do, he will punish you by shutting off access to his office.

Are you going to call him out, sir? Do you have moral courage? Do ya, punk?

Sincerely,
Mark Tokarski
Morrison, CO

One person’s experience with DMT

I found the following story intriguing. I picked up the book in New Zealand and read it over the interminable flight across the Pacific, twelve hours.

…listening to people describe their drug experiences tends to be tiresome. …But I have one story from my own misadventures that I feel is worth sharing.

Sitting on a beach in Devon in August, 2003, I contemplated grumpily the sprinkling reflection of the swirling ocean that I would return home in three days to Toronto. University, a relentless bar gig, newspaper job, and the usual routine of five hours sleep a night, massive endocrinology textbooks and painfully dry statistics modules. And the upcoming, demoralizing Canadian winter. I wasn’t excited.

“I think I have a solution to the way you feel”, said a friend. I’ve got some DMT: it’s pretty much the world’s strongest hallucinogen.

After pondering, I agreed to try it. Why not? Just this once.

I followed his instructions, smoked three tiny grains from a pipe , and fell to the round in a retching fit, vomiting profusely into the sweet English grass. I emptied the contents of my stomach unceasingly, internally cursing myself for my gullibility. (It felt like hours, but my friends all concurred: the wretching lasted no more than 20 seconds. Such is the nature of psychedelic delusion.)

Once the sickness subsided, I lay back with my eyes closed, gasping for breath, and tried to breathe deeply. Opening my eyes, I looked down at my prostrate body. Every inch of me was covered in grasshoppers. They waved their antennae at me casually, and looked at me with bright compound eyes.

I looked behind me at my friends, and though I had been rendered non-verbal, the look in my eyes clearly communicated what was on my mind … really? Surely this was the spectacular illusion of one of the world’s strongest drugs.

“You are NOT hallucinating,” said one friend. “You are actually covered in grasshoppers.”

“They love you!” another enthused.

Is Dr [Rick] Strassman right? Does DMT wind through all living things – from grass to grasshoppers, hippies, hippos and humans – and is it the key to all spiritual experience?

There’s no hard evidence to back up Dr. Strassman’s beliefs that DMT has some kind of magical property, binding all living things together – and I’m dubious about his claims.

All I can say is that I smoked three grains of his favourite chemical, and found myself covered with grasshoppers. Needless to say, I don’t have a peer-reviewed study to validate the experience with statistical significance. But I do have four friends who saw it with their own sober eyes.

I have been offered DMT many times since – and have never taken it. Once was enough.

Most stories about other people’s drug experiences are boring. I hope this wasn’t.

(Zoe Cormier, Sex, Drugs and Rock n Roll: The Science of Hedonism and the Hedonism of Science, p182)

When normal kids need to be drugged

Ed_imagetablets_540_347626aThe following is from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) and is a description of the symptoms used in diagnosing ADD and ADHD, two made-up diseases whereby children who are bored in school are drugged to get them out of teacher’s hair. Please note how any of these symptoms can easily be seen to be normal if a child is merely bored. It can only mean that teachers, school counselors, psychiatrists and psychologists got together and brainstormed to find a way of placing the failure of our schools and education system on kids.

What brain malfunction causes a kid to lose focus, not stay in-tune as teacher does a monologue on a matter of no importance, or fail to expend mental effort in things that are boring? What possible brain malfunction affects four million American school children, but only eight thousand in the whole of France?

Kids are almost all born bright. It takes thirteen years of American schooling to get them slowed down enough to live in our society and not go crazy.
__________________________________

    Inattention: Six or more symptoms of inattention for children up to age 16, or five or more for adolescents 17 and older and adults; symptoms of inattention have been present for at least 6 months, and they are inappropriate for developmental level:

  • Often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, at work, or with other activities.
  • Often has trouble holding attention on tasks or play activities.
  • Often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly.
  • Often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace (e.g., loses focus, side-tracked).
  • Often has trouble organizing tasks and activities.
  • Often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to do tasks that require mental effort over a long period of time (such as schoolwork or homework).
  • Often loses things necessary for tasks and activities (e.g. school materials, pencils, books, tools, wallets, keys, paperwork, eyeglasses, mobile telephones).
  • Is often easily distracted.
  • Is often forgetful in daily activities.
    Hyperactivity and Impulsivity: Six or more symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity for children up to age 16, or five or more for adolescents 17 and older and adults; symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity have been present for at least 6 months to an extent that is disruptive and inappropriate for the person’s developmental level:

  • Often fidgets with or taps hands or feet, or squirms in seat.
  • Often leaves seat in situations when remaining seated is expected.
  • Often runs about or climbs in situations where it is not appropriate (adolescents or adults may be limited to feeling restless).
  • Often unable to play or take part in leisure activities quietly.
  • Is often “on the go” acting as if “driven by a motor”.
  • Often talks excessively.
  • Often blurts out an answer before a question has been completed.
  • Often has trouble waiting his/her turn.
  • Often interrupts or intrudes on others (e.g., butts into conversations or games)
    In addition, the following conditions must be met:

  • Several inattentive or hyperactive-impulsive symptoms were present before age 12 years.
  • Several symptoms are present in two or more setting, (e.g., at home, school or work; with friends or relatives; in other activities).
  • There is clear evidence that the symptoms interfere with, or reduce the quality of, social, school, or work functioning.
  • The symptoms do not happen only during the course of schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder.
  • The symptoms are not better explained by another mental disorder (e.g. Mood Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Dissociative Disorder, or a Personality Disorder).

GMO’s and vaccinations – how the PR industry manages public debates

A while back, due to my children residing in Portland and being on Facebook, I was aware of a ballot issue out there to label GMO foods. It failed. What struck me was how the issue was being framed. Posts were appearing excoriating those people so stupid as to believe that GMO foods cause cancer. I immediately spotted public relations at work.

GMO foods do not cause cancer. But that was one “side” of the debate they were having. The other side was that GMO foods are OK. The real issues, capitalist enclosure of the food system and over-reliance on a few strains of seeds for our food supply, were never discussed. Monsanto no doubt wanted it that way. That made the subject win-win. They could point out the stupidity of the debate without ever having the real issue discussed.

That’s how public relations works – an outfit like Monsanto does not cast its fate to the wind and hope for the best. When there is a debate, it wants to own all sides, to “frame” it so that real issues are not discussed.
____________

Jenny-McCarthy-11This came to mind last night as I reluctantly listened to a podcast about the vaccinations debate and the Playboy bunny Jenny McCarthy. That issue too has been framed for our benefit. How many of us, me included, have automatically sided with the drug companies rather than a silly model who poses nude? I was surprised to learn that McCarthy is not anti-vaccination, and does not claim to know that there is a link between that and autism. Something much more interesting is going on, and the arrows point at the usual culprits – not Monsanto this time, but the drug cartel, PhRMA. It is managing the debate by cashing in on public fear of disease.

All I can say at this point is that the podcast opened my eyes a little, so that I have to pay more attention to the issue and stop judging based on stereotypes. McCarthy and others who have taken on the drug giants want to know why the regimen of childhood vaccinations in the United States was expanded from ten of to 36 around 1989 or so. Most other industrialized countries, with reliable public health systems, stuck with the basic ten, including measles, mumps, diphtheria, etc.

McCarthy is suggesting the PhRMA seized the initiative. Because we are a business-run society, decisions about U.S. public health are not made with public health in mind, but rather corporate bottom lines. McCarthy said that it was a $13 billion industry now. She claims that most of the additional 26 vaccinations that have been added to the regime since 1989 are expensive, unnecessary, and not even known to be safe. Research, double-blind studies, have been done on only one, maybe two of the 36, which is the sole “science” behind industry and the AMA’s claim that all vaccinations are safe.

Jenny McCarthy’s entrance into the debate, especially during a time she was dating Jim Carrey, walked us right into a PR trap. Such people can be automatically discredited. I make no claims about McCarthy’s intelligence or sincerity, but rather the public image of a Playboy bunny in a serious debate. It’s born to lose.

Just as Monsanto took control of the Oregon GMO debate by having stupid people appear on public forums claiming that GMO foods cause cancer, so too has PhRMA taken control of the vaccination debate by having Jenny McCarthy as the spokesperson for the opposition. She may be just an unwitting tool, most likely, but the debate needs to get above and beyond her.

Net neutrality: What is really at stake?

I am on an email list that sends out updates on “net neutrality.” Today I got one saying that various forces in congress are trying to undo the FCC’s classification of the Internet as a public utility, which it obviously is. As such, it comes under regulation not just by FCC but by every state in the union. They asked me to send $5 to help them in their battle. That’s a bit like putting in fluorescent bulbs to fight global warming, a feel-good but otherwise pointless exercise.

The whole of the neutrality battle leaves me confused, so I hope others can clarify it for me. There was a time when we all used dial-up for Internet, and people were buying second phone numbers. The nation’s phone infrastructure was stressed, but the problem soon righted itself as we all strung cables out of the wall for high-speed dedicated Internet service. And now it’s a wi-fi/4G world and will continually improve.

The assumption with the neutrality battle is that we are dealing with a limited commodity, band width, but I don’t think we are. It will expand, and what we use today will seem dial-up by comparison ten years from now.

Something else is going on. The band width cartel that has naturally formed is openly threatening to slow down web sites that do not pony up extra dough. That would effectively shut down web sites like this one and tens of millions of others. I doubt the driving force is naked greed. The Internet giants have already cordoned off the market and can print money as they please.

So I am thinking a little more in line with my general sense that we live in a totalitarian society, an iron fist barely concealed beneath a velvet glove. The objective of elimination of net neutrality would have nothing to do with available band width or constraints on corporate greed. Rather, its effect would be its objective – to silence all of those voices that have so changed the landscape, tiny to mid-sized Internet sites that nag nag nag at the heels of power. Mine is nothing, and I suffer no illusions.

I can access information from all over the globe that would have been relegated to the “alternative media” just twenty years ago. Alex Jones, for instance, is a potent force with millions of patrons (I am not one). Assuming he is the genuine article, a real voice of dissent (I do not suffer that illusion either), his traffic would slow to a crawl, and he’d effectively be silenced. There are thousands of other sites of far more value that would also be quashed by this corporate attack on band width freedom.

The object, then, of elimination of net neutrality would be to return us to the good old days when the bulk of the population was relegated to a few heavily censored sources for news, like NBC and New York Times, for instance. For that reason, I expect the pressure on FCC to return Internet to its unnatural designation as a non-utility to grow to hysterical screaming. It is indeed a monumental struggle, and $5 from a few concerned citizens ain’t gonna get it done. Is DemandProgress.org, the source of that $5 request, a blind alley used to distract real concern, make sure it all goes nowhere? That’s all I can make of such a pointless gesture.

This is just the beginning. The object, as I see it, is to quash real first amendment freedom before it gets out of hand.

Back in Colorado

imageThe long journey home was made even longer by a storm in Denver that saddled us at LAX, forcing us to return to the terminal even as the plane was set to take off. We were only delayed a couple of hours, but at DIA we passed a line of people forced to reschedule that went on for blocks. We were tired but felt the pain of all those people who are delayed by a full day in getting to their destinations by a storm that shut down DIA for a mere one hour. Our national transportation system is a complex interdependent web, and I marvel at its efficiency.

At home we were under a foot of snow, so digging out was hard work. We had a guy come in and plow while we were gone, but he left a pile of snow blocking access to our back yard. I’ve carried back a traveler’s’ bug that has been nagging for over a week, and fatigue is one of its symptoms, so running the snow thrower and hacking away at a pile of ice chunks blocking access was a mighty chore.

New Zealand is a beautiful place. My brief exposure to its news media left me with the impression it is heavily censored, like ours. What coverage of world events I saw in newspapers was the London viewpoint, and their TV news was heavily focused on sports and local crimes and accidents, which are few. So passive observers in that place will know very little of the world, just like here.

People are nice everywhere, very nice. Food is bland (but my point of view is tainted by my gastrointestinal baggage – nothing had any appeal). At LAX I had chicken quesadilla and a glass of Chardonnay and my taste buds were awakened … spices! Hispanic flavors! I’m home! Fleeting are the joys of life, however, as the bug allows only brief periods to savor such pleasure.

My overall impression … New Zealand is like the Swiss Alps, beautiful, and like Switzerland, a land mostly unaffected by passage of violence in world events. This leaves a soft people not used to troubles. There are 4.5 million people there, and 28 million sheep (not double-counting). The World Cricket Tournament is going on there now, and that, like our Super Bowl, dominates the public mind. It’s a silly place.

But so beautiful. Two days before leaving I was going through photos on my camera, getting rid of duds. One photo was taking a long time to be erased, and I suddenly shrieked a Homer Simpson shriek – I was erasing the entire trip! I quickly removed the battery, but too late. Every photo gone. I don’t take great photos, just point and shoot, so no great loss. On Milford Track it was too wet, so I left the camera in the pack. We bought ninety photos of that Shangri-La and others have emailed us some of theirs. And we have a few stored on the iPad and iPhones. And as my wife says, it only means we have to go back.

Fine, but I am going to smuggle in some spices. Those people do not know food.

Travel day

We are traveling today. We leave New Zealand at 6:30 PM Monday and arrive in Denver at 9:00 PM, Monday. It will take about 21 hours in total. We’ve gotten good at it over time, making sure devices are loaded with podcasts and having on hand books and sleeping pills. We play a lot of Scrabble when awake, and are both on an equal competitive level with one another so that winning is never easy. Such are the things that make a happy marriage.

The above video reminds me how much Noam Chomsky has aged since I first encountered him. He’d be 63 64 or 65 here in 1993, combative, assertive and confrontational. I remember listening to him in 1988, a speech at American University broadcast on CSPAN where he talked like this. As a right-wing Christian conservative reflecting my upbringing and education, everything he said flew in my face. It was outrageous. Nobody talked like that. Nobody.

And it would not have even registered with me, just as it will not register with those who watch but two or three minutes here and turn away. But I was gripped at that time with a burning question – who the fuck killed JFK? – that was causing me to look at things I’d never looked at before, opening a few doors, allowing curiosity to overcome the thought control system.

Chomsky, of course, pooh-poohs any curiosity about Dallas or 9/11, but I hold out that such events, if one lets go of the indoctrination system and looks at them in a questioning manner, are portals that will lead to sea changes in outlook. They disrobe the world before our youthful eyes, and begin the path towards intellectual maturity.

Photographic evidence of Russians in Ukraine, U.S. style

image

Tha above images are, according to Geoffrey Pyatt, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, satellite photos proving there are Russian artillery systems stationed near the town of Lomuvatka, about 20 kilometers northeast of Debaltsevo. (See link.)

Take a close look and see if you see what I see … splotches. See now how our propaganda system functions. The image becomes what authority figures say it is. According to Pyatt, “we are confident these are Russian military, not separatist, systems.” Take special note of his word, “confident,” as in “confidence game.”

On the right-hand side of the photo, next to the “N” indicator, if you look closely, you will also see the Brooklyn Bridge, currently for sale.

The Russians play tit for tat.

“These materials were posted to Twitter not by accident, as their authenticity is impossible to prove – due to the absence of the attribution to the exact area, and an extremely low resolution. Let alone using them as ‘photographic evidence'” according to Major General Igor Konashenkov, spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry.

But it’s a confidence game, and those Americans who believe what they are told with complete lack of guile and utter simple trust in authority will believe that the gray splotches are exactly what Pyatt claims they are. His job is far too easy.

“It’s no secret to anyone that fakes like this are made by a group of US counselors staying in the Kiev building of the Security Council, led by General Randy Kee,” says Konashenkov, showing that two sides can play the same game.

Reporter gets complaints from both sides of a story, assumes he did a good job

Well, it happened again last night. We were watching a TV show on famous hotels, and they were talking one in Belfast where reporters stayed during the IRA uprising if the 1970’s. They reviewed some of the tragedies of that time and put on old footage of a pompous BBC correspondent who said, and I am not quoting exactly but it is part of the journalist’s handbook so look it up:

“Well, I recall during that time that I would get letters of protest from republicans on my reporting, and also letters protesting my reporting from loyalists, so I knew I was doing a good job.

Loyalists and republicans were both complaining that he was biased. Since those two sides of the story need to be told, and both were complaining, they could well both be right, that he was not getting the story right. (Reporters usually don’t.) There’s no justification in his arrogant self-adulation in receiving those complaints. He could be just a shitty journalist.

Other possibilities: loyalist complaints are spot on, republicans not, or visa versa. Or both sides are wrong. That he might be doing some solid reporting is only one possibility of many. I deem it unlikely, as from his words of self-congratulation, it is plain his critical thinking skills are lacking.

Which reminds me: I listened to Senator Diane Feinstein stumble all over her tongue trying to explain who can be a “journalist” for a shield law she was proposing. If she would have just spit it out, it would have been so much easier. What she was trying to say was that they only wanted to protect “safe” or trained journalists, as they present no threat to power. For that reason, anyone not in the pay of a company that produces news officially was not to be protected. Those people, our legions of sleuths and blowhards, are as worthy of protection under our tattered first amendment as any of the paid shills if the industry, but are harder to control. Ergo, no protection.

That’s all she wanted to say, but she had such a hard time.