We've been here before

 

Free speech doesn't mean people have to listen

Thor's day

How not to critique comics.

Bees and pesticides do not mix.

The problem with The Onion is that it is always too close to the truth;  take this one on Romney.  And now Romney has exposed what he really thinks and has pissed off the 47%....



West Wing. How we wish politics would be and how politicians would act ... as if they had our best interests at heart.  So here's an ad with the actors playing themselves, acting as we would have real politicians act, standing up for the good guys:



Speaking of good guys... you always need a bad guy for balance.  Darth Karl Rove.

Yum yum.  Monsanto's genetically modified corn causes tumors in rats.

Arctic thaw perhaps sped up by oil and shipping?

Facebook messages are protected speech.

We need a constitutional amendment

Declaring corporations are NOT people.



Go to Free Speech is for People and take back control of our elections and our country.

The amendment as it stands (and the site is welcoming ideas):

What will the Free Speech for People Amendment say and what will it do?

* Solution Q&A

The Free Speech for People Amendment will overrule the Citizens United v. FEC case and return the First Amendment to its longstanding purpose as a guarantee of the fullest rights of a free people and the press. The Free Speech for People Amendment will overrule the fabrication by activist judges of a “corporate rights doctrine” to defeat democratically enacted laws, and will restore the First Amendment to its meaning and intent for two centuries. The Amendment will ensure that all people have the most robust freedom of conscience, speech and debate and that a vibrant, diverse press remains free and unfettered, thus strengthening, rather than weakening, democracy.

The Free Speech for People Amendment Campaign will work with others to develop specific language for the Free Speech for People Amendment. Here is one example of language for the Free Speech for People Amendment:

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1 The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, no corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation shall enjoy the rights of free speech and expression protected for the people by the First Amendment.

Section 2 Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity in public election activity.

Section 3. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

h/t to Dusty Crickets in comments and Southern Beale.

Update: Greg Palast gives examples of what the Supreme Court has allowed to happen:

In today's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court ruled that corporations should be treated the same as "natural persons", i.e. humans. Well, in that case, expect the Supreme Court to next rule that Wal-Mart can run for President.

The ruling, which junks federal laws that now bar corporations from stuffing campaign coffers, will not, as progressives fear, cause an avalanche of corporate cash into politics. Sadly, that's already happened: we have been snowed under by tens of millions of dollars given through corporate PACs and "bundling" of individual contributions from corporate pay-rollers.

The Court's decision is far, far more dangerous to U.S. democracy. Think: Manchurian candidates.

Tell the FCC to protect net neutrality

A Credo petition:

Big telecoms would like to inspect and filter the Internet content you access, block Web sites and applications they don't like, and overcharge you for using the Web. But the net neutrality rules proposed by the Federal Communications Commission would prevent them from doing that.

The public comment period for these rules ends on Thursday, and the phone and cable companies and their phony front groups have already flooded the FCC with comments objecting to net neutrality.

Can you write a quick letter to the FCC in support of net neutrality before the Thursday deadline?

We need you to speak up because there has been an all-out lobbying effort by the telecommunications industry to kill net neutrality. Even before the FCC proposed their rules, 18 Senators (all Republicans) sent a letter to the FCC opposing net neutrality. One Republican senator even announced an effort to prevent the FCC from spending funds to enforce the new rules once they go into effect. Separately, 72 House Democrats sent their own letter to the FCC opposing net neutrality rules.

This type of pressure from Congress hasn't go unnoticed at the FCC, but personal comments from members of the public can provide a strong counterbalance to the efforts of the telecom industry. Now's the time for citizens like you to speak out and fight back.

Without strong net neutrality rules, we might have to rely upon the good will of large telecoms to protect our access to the diversity of political perspectives. We might have to trust companies like Comcast, which actively and secretly interfered with users' ability to access popular video, photo and music sharing applications; AT&T, which censored anti-Bush comments made by Pearl Jam's lead singer during a concert; and Verizon Wireless, which interfered with NARAL Pro-Choice America's ability to send text messages to its members.

We can't let the corporate lobbyists win. What good is free speech if powerful corporations have the power to stifle communications they find objectionable?

Tell the FCC: Save net neutrality. Submit your comment before the comment period closes on January 14.

Net neutrality means no discrimination: It prevents Internet service providers from speeding up, slowing down or blocking Web content based on its source, ownership or destination. It's time to make net neutrality the law once and for all.

With your help, we can make it happen!

O, for the days noone bloggers did liveth upon the earthe

And the journalists could send forthe their mighty words unchallenged and all were smote by the revelations therein.

Kagro X of Daily Kos speaketh to one such journalist:

Here's the trouble: "when the Internet was not yet a part of everyday life and bloggers did not exist."

Michael, there never was a time when bloggers did not exist.

There was a time, of course, when blogs did not exist. Because blogs are a specific kind of tool, an application of technology that once did not exist.

There was a time when the blogosphere did not exist. Because its existence, naturally, is dependent on the existence of blogs.

But there never was a time when bloggers did not exist. Because -- again -- bloggers are not an alien race who fell from the heavens on a meteorite. They are people. And in fact, they are the very people for whom journalists have always been writing, and for whom they always will write. We have always been here, and we have always been a vital part -- perhaps the most vital part -- of the journalistic equation. You just didn't count us because you couldn't hear us.

Can you hear us now?

Good.

We were always talking to you. Always talking about you. Always had the exact same things to say about you and your reporting that we're saying now. We just lacked the technology to make you aware of it. Maybe you liked it that way. Maybe you'd rather it had stayed that way. But it didn't, and no amount of elitist scorn is going to change that, just as it was never able to contain it in the past. The "blogger's" disdain for shoddy reporting (and truthfully, sometimes even for quality reporting -- I have to acknowledge that) has always existed and likely always will. Blogs are just the most effective tool we've yet found to plug that disdain into.

No journalist who fails to grasp this will ever be able to write insightfully about blogs, bloggers or the blogosphere. It can't be done. You can write, of course. No one can stop you. But you can't be right. You can't be right about bloggers until you acknowledge who they actually are.

Thus speaketh a mighty blogger!



Update: whig of Cannablog brought to my attention Josh Marshall's piece where he finds he is criticized in an article in the Los Angeles Times:

For a variety of reasons I try to stay out of the debates over blogs as such, what they're good or bad at and the rest. But this morning I was alerted to an opinion column in the Los Angeles Times by Michael Skube, a journalism professor at Elon University. The sum of the piece is that the blogosphere is as rife with disputation as it is thin on information, or more specifically, reporting, writing that demands "time, thorough fact-checking and verification and, most of all, perseverance."

Now, fair enough. There's certainly no end of blog pontificating fueled by puffed-up self-assertion rather than facts. But Skube's piece reads with a vagueness that suggests he has less than a passing familiarity with the topic at issue. And I will confess to you that what really caught my attention was that in a column bewailing how blogs don't do any real reporting one of the four bloggers he mentioned was me.

[snip]

Not long after I wrote I got a reply: "I didn't put your name into the piece and haven't spent any time on your site. So to that extent I'm happy to give you benefit of the doubt ..."

This seemed more than a little odd since, as I said, he certainly does use me as an example -- along with Sullivan, Matt Yglesias and Kos. So I followed up noting my surprise that he didn't seem to remember what he'd written in his own opinion column on the very day it appeared and that in any case it cut against his credibility somewhat that he wrote about sites he admits he'd never read.

To which I got this response: "I said I did not refer to you in the original. Your name was inserted late by an editor who perhaps thought I needed to cite more examples ... "

And this is from someone who teaches journalism?

Perhaps I'm naive. But it surprises me a great deal that a professor of journalism freely admits that he allows to appear under his own name claims about a publication he concedes he's never read.

Forsooth!

Update 8/20: whig reminds me that both bloggers here are reacting to the same article by Michael Skube.

More updatiness:
Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake talks more about the journalist's condescension involving bloggers:

When Ellen Goodman wrote a piece in the Boston Globe about the dearth of women in the liberal blogosphere, I contacted her to challenge that assertion. She said that her failure to mention or quote even one single successful woman blogger was due to her “word limit.” In her article she also cited a study of the “90 top political blogs” and concluded from looking this over that in the liberal blogosphere men are more likely to link to men, but the fact is that the 90 top political blogs aren’t all liberal and include a large number of conservative blogs. I asked to see the research because I had serious questions about the methodology and the conclusions she reached. She told me to contact her again after Labor Day and she’d check to see if the researcher was comfortable being contacted.

If I say in a post that 61% of Americans think Congress shouldn’t fund the war without timetables, I link to the source of my information because my “peer editors” know that there’s a difference between a Washington Post poll or a Rassmussen poll or a Quinnipiac poll and they want to be able to look at the way that questions are phrased, the sampling and the methodology. I’d have my ass summarily handed to me in a bold and public fashion if I tried to fob off statistics with some obvious flaws that I based my entire thesis upon and then refused to produce them when asked.

I guess our “peer editors” are a bit more exacting than those at the Boston Globe.

The blogs that have gained traction are the ones who report facts, do research, quote correctly, cite references, the very things people are hungry for. The mainstream media hasn't yet figured out that people are leaving their product in droves BECAUSE facts were incorrect, research was badly done, quotes were out of context, and no references were given. Catapulting Bush's propaganda makes the end result shit and no one in their right mind will buy it. It's strange how most Americans can tell.

One reason not to subscribe to Time nor Newsweek

The corporations muscle in on free speech and try to choke off independent media.

Josh Marshall:

The short and sweet of it is that Time Warner has proposed and postal regulators have accepted a proposal which is actually reducing postage costs for mega-mags like Time and Newsweek while dramatically raising them for small independent publishers. From small mags on the right and left I've been deluged in recent weeks by letters saying the new rates are tipping them into financial crisis.
[snip]
For two hundred years US postal rate has been geared to support independent media and political discourse. It's something small magazine publishes and press theory types understand very well but it's not that widely understood in the general public. If that comes to an end it will be a very big deal. Here's a link to where you can find out more.

Giuliani thinks he's Mussolini

And can arrest pesky reporters for asking the wrong questions.

Todd of Shakesville has the article and the video:

Apparently, at a recent press conference, Rudy Giuliani was asked a question about his prior knowledge of the collapse of the WTC towers - and the reporter was arrested at the orders of Giuliani’s press secretary. The reporter was taken to jail - in violation of the First Admendment - and is being charged with felony criminial trespass. Because the reporter was using a camera, state police are even considering charges of espionage.

Separated at birth?





Update 6/8, Giuliani just loves Bush and Cheney:


(found via Attaturk at Rising Hegemon.)