Saturday, June 14, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Sorry about not having this story up last week:
Search For RMS Titanic Was a Cover Story |
| from the just-like-in-the-spy-who-loved-me dept. |
| posted by timothy on Tuesday June 03, @12:33 (The Military) |
| http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/03/1621249 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
wiredog writes "According to National Geographic, Robert Ballard's
[0]search for the RMS Titanic in 1985 was a cover operation for the real
search: They were looking for the USS Thresher and USS Scorpion, two US
nuclear submarines that sank during the Cold War." [1]ABC News also has a
story on this two-fer undersea search.
Discuss this story at:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=08/06/03/1621249
Links:
0. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080602-titanic-secret.html
1. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4978391&page=1
Search For RMS Titanic Was a Cover Story |
| from the just-like-in-the-spy-who-loved-me dept. |
| posted by timothy on Tuesday June 03, @12:33 (The Military) |
| http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/03/1621249 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
wiredog writes "According to National Geographic, Robert Ballard's
[0]search for the RMS Titanic in 1985 was a cover operation for the real
search: They were looking for the USS Thresher and USS Scorpion, two US
nuclear submarines that sank during the Cold War." [1]ABC News also has a
story on this two-fer undersea search.
Discuss this story at:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=08/06/03/1621249
Links:
0. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080602-titanic-secret.html
1. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4978391&page=1
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Here is another paper with a short and a long quote in text:
Tomoko Asakawa
Mr.Richardson
WritingⅢ
June 10, 2008
671words
Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte
Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte both typify English literature. They deal with the same topic, which is love. We can especially see their view toward love and the society they lived in by reading their books. Jane Austen’s masterpieces are Pride and Prejudice and Ema, and Charlotte Bronte’s is Jane Eyre. We can see how different those works are, though both authors are from England, and are almost contemporary with each other, and what is more, both fathers were a priest.
The first comparison between Bronte and Austen is about their different views of the ideal woman. Bronte doesn’t make a thing of looks and elegance peculiar to woman. In her novel, Jane Eyre, about the beauty, the heroine says “I should have said that beauty doesn’t matter, or something like that.” (P#32) She thinks the most important thing for woman is the growth of their spirit. According to English literature Institute, the reason why Bronte writes at the length about the heroine’s childhood is because she emphasis the heroin’s growth as part of an educational novel. On the other hands, Austen makes a thing of their looks, elegance and in addition calmness. She seems to think that the ideal of woman must be beautiful and intellectual. In her novels, all of the heroines are beautiful and intellectual, though all of them have different character.
The second comparison between Bronte and Austen is their difference of view toward love. Bronte seems to have more passionate love than Austen, and wants romance. In Jane Eyre, the heroin named Jane meets the hero in an incredible situation. When she is on the way going back to her master’s estate, she encounters an accident and happens to meet the hero. By contrast, Austen regards love as more common and realistic than Bronte. Almost all the heroines meet the hero at a party or have an introduction from acquaintances. She seems to be more concerned about success resulting in the marriage rather than a romance, because in her novels when giving a description of the hero, she always adds his income and status.
The third comparison between Bronte and Austen is about the difference of their style. Bronte describes characters and also landscapes vividly. Her ability of description is celebrated. Many specialists on English literature say her novels are like pictures. On the other hand, though we can also see particular description of characters in Austen’s novels, it is more decent and minute than vivid and passionate. Bronte in referring to Austen states that she has a wise sense and approach to reality. However, she does not have a feeling. Austen’s writings are full of elegance.
The final comparison between Bronte and Austen is a look at the degree of concerns for feminism. Bronte is known as a feminist. According to Jane Eyre, the heroine says,
Do you think I am a machine, without feelings? Do you think, because I’m small and poor and plain, that I have no soul and
no heart? Well, you are wrong! I have as much soul and heart as you. We are equal in the sight of god. (P#59)
She thinks that woman who has a wonderful ability should be given an equal opportunity as well as a man and also insists on an improvement of statue of woman. In this respect, Austen seems, in contrast, to feel not much interest in it. Though she seems to worry about the life of women, and regard it as social problem, but in her case it doesn’t connect with women’s liberty.
Bronte and Austen, both are great novelists. However they have different opinions, both have works which have made a deep impression on their readers. Both have many highlights, and teach us important things. Even if the period that those books were written is now considered old, there still remains the powerful basis of people’s behaviors, for example sadness, happiness, anger and love are universal and eternal, so the books will continue to be enjoyed and read.
Work cited
Bronte, Charlotte. Jane Eyre. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Kazuhiko, Ousima. Jane Austen. Tokyo:Tyoushinsya, 1997.
English literature Institute. English Literature. Tokyo: Arakawa Express, 1997.
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. New: Penguin, 1997.
Tomoko Asakawa
Mr.Richardson
WritingⅢ
June 10, 2008
671words
Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte
Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte both typify English literature. They deal with the same topic, which is love. We can especially see their view toward love and the society they lived in by reading their books. Jane Austen’s masterpieces are Pride and Prejudice and Ema, and Charlotte Bronte’s is Jane Eyre. We can see how different those works are, though both authors are from England, and are almost contemporary with each other, and what is more, both fathers were a priest.
The first comparison between Bronte and Austen is about their different views of the ideal woman. Bronte doesn’t make a thing of looks and elegance peculiar to woman. In her novel, Jane Eyre, about the beauty, the heroine says “I should have said that beauty doesn’t matter, or something like that.” (P#32) She thinks the most important thing for woman is the growth of their spirit. According to English literature Institute, the reason why Bronte writes at the length about the heroine’s childhood is because she emphasis the heroin’s growth as part of an educational novel. On the other hands, Austen makes a thing of their looks, elegance and in addition calmness. She seems to think that the ideal of woman must be beautiful and intellectual. In her novels, all of the heroines are beautiful and intellectual, though all of them have different character.
The second comparison between Bronte and Austen is their difference of view toward love. Bronte seems to have more passionate love than Austen, and wants romance. In Jane Eyre, the heroin named Jane meets the hero in an incredible situation. When she is on the way going back to her master’s estate, she encounters an accident and happens to meet the hero. By contrast, Austen regards love as more common and realistic than Bronte. Almost all the heroines meet the hero at a party or have an introduction from acquaintances. She seems to be more concerned about success resulting in the marriage rather than a romance, because in her novels when giving a description of the hero, she always adds his income and status.
The third comparison between Bronte and Austen is about the difference of their style. Bronte describes characters and also landscapes vividly. Her ability of description is celebrated. Many specialists on English literature say her novels are like pictures. On the other hand, though we can also see particular description of characters in Austen’s novels, it is more decent and minute than vivid and passionate. Bronte in referring to Austen states that she has a wise sense and approach to reality. However, she does not have a feeling. Austen’s writings are full of elegance.
The final comparison between Bronte and Austen is a look at the degree of concerns for feminism. Bronte is known as a feminist. According to Jane Eyre, the heroine says,
Do you think I am a machine, without feelings? Do you think, because I’m small and poor and plain, that I have no soul and
no heart? Well, you are wrong! I have as much soul and heart as you. We are equal in the sight of god. (P#59)
She thinks that woman who has a wonderful ability should be given an equal opportunity as well as a man and also insists on an improvement of statue of woman. In this respect, Austen seems, in contrast, to feel not much interest in it. Though she seems to worry about the life of women, and regard it as social problem, but in her case it doesn’t connect with women’s liberty.
Bronte and Austen, both are great novelists. However they have different opinions, both have works which have made a deep impression on their readers. Both have many highlights, and teach us important things. Even if the period that those books were written is now considered old, there still remains the powerful basis of people’s behaviors, for example sadness, happiness, anger and love are universal and eternal, so the books will continue to be enjoyed and read.
Work cited
Bronte, Charlotte. Jane Eyre. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Kazuhiko, Ousima. Jane Austen. Tokyo:Tyoushinsya, 1997.
English literature Institute. English Literature. Tokyo: Arakawa Express, 1997.
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. New: Penguin, 1997.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Your assignment for this week is a hot news story. Don't just copy from a newspaper source. Hot news is a fire, bank robbery, murder etc. Dig up your own info. If that is to difficult go out and walk around and use your news nose to find an interesting story about anything you want. Remember, look around and ask your self what is that? Why is that? See you next week. Story is due by 8 o'clock p.m. Sunday
Friday, May 30, 2008
Sorry about not sending you all this as an e-mail this week, I couldn't find the e-mail address on time. And it looks like you can't connect to this blog through my website as it is also down. See you next week. Clark
The Weekly Spin, May 28, 2008
Blog Postings
Congress Orders Investigation into Pentagon Pundit Scandal
by Sheldon Rampton
"I believe it is absolutely critical that a public investigation happen that is transparent to this body as well as to the American people," said Rep. Paul Hodes, explaining his decision to sponsor the amendment. "Congress cannot allow an Administration to manipulate the public on false propaganda on matters of war and national security."
By a voice vote, the U.S. Congress passed an amendment last week to the Defense Authorization Act for FY2009, forbidding the U.S. Department of Defense to engage in "propaganda purposes within the United States not otherwise specifically authorized by law."
Probably more important is that the amendment requires an investigation by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study and report back to Congress on "the extent to which the Department of Defense has violated the prohibition on propaganda" already established in previous laws passed by Congress.
The amendment was prompted by an April 20 report in the New York Times exposing the Pentagon military analyst program through which the Pentagon lobbied for war by cultivating former military officers who became regulars on Fox News, CNN and the broadcast networks. As Diane Farsetta and Sheldon Rampton have argued previously, the Pentagon pundit program broke existing laws which forbid government officials from engaging in "publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress."
Read the rest of this item
Product Placements vs. VNRs
by Sheldon Rampton
We recently received an email from someone who asked, "What is the difference between a 'product placement' and a 'video news release' (VNR)? Is a VNR a type of product placement?" Since other people might have the same question, I thought I'd post my answer here.
On SourceWatch, we have articles about both topics. As our article about video news releases explains, a VNR is a piece of video that is created (typically by a public relations firm on behalf of a paying client) and designed to look like a news segment for broadcast by TV news programs. It deceives audiences by creating the impression that the "news" they see on TV was produced by independent reporters, when in fact VNRs are promotional pieces designed to sell something for a client whose identity is not always disclosed. TV news shows often deny that they use VNRs, but Diane Farsetta, our senior researcher, has done extensive research in which she found numerous examples of the practice.
"Product placement" is a separate but similarly sneaky practice of getting television programs and movies to display a company's product within their program.
Read the rest of this item
Weekly Radio Spin: Dick's Army of Angry Renters
by Judith Siers-Poisson
Listen to this week's edition of the "Weekly Radio Spin," the Center for Media and Democracy's audio report on the stories behind the news. This week, we look at an award only money could buy, how a Pentagon investigation isn't bad for business, and who thinks struggling homeowners are whiny. In "Six Degrees of Spin and Fakin'," we look at the checkered career of Dick Armey. The Weekly Radio Spin is freely available for personal and broadcast use. Podcasters can subscribe to the XML feed on www.prwatch.org/audio or via iTunes. If you air the Weekly Radio Spin on your radio station, please email us at editor@prwatch.org to let us know. Thanks!
Read the rest of this item
Be A Citizen Journalist
Featured Participatory Project: ID the Candidates Supporting the "Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq"
Source: Congresspedia, May 27, 2008
On March 27, a coalition of Democratic House candidates and military experts unveiled the "Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq." As one of the more solid commitments to end the war, it has generated a lot of buzz lately as more than 50 candidates have endorsed it. With the Iraq War as the foremost issue this season, an endorsement of the plan is a critical piece of information about a U.S. congressional candidate, so we need your help to add it to the profiles of candidates that make up Congresspedia's Wiki-the-Vote project. (If they haven't endorsed the plan, you can call attention to that as well.) No experience is necessary and full instructions for helping out can be found here. It's your democracy - participate!
Spin Of The Day Postings
Tiger Woods Caddies for Chevron
Source: The Nation, May 22, 2008
In early April, the global oil company Chevron announced that it has entered into a five-year deal with the foundation created by the professional golfer, Tiger Woods. Woods proclaimed that "Chevron has a track record and a commitment to bettering the communities where they operate." Chevron's record, such as its partnership with the Burmese military dictatorship on the Yandana gas pipeline is "certainly nothing with which Woods should want his name attached," writes Dave Zirin in The Nation. Asked about Chevron's record, the president of the Tiger Woods Foundation, Greg McLaughlin, stated that its partners share its mission to help young people. "President McLaughlin should think more seriously about what Chevron is and what they do: they pollute, they destroy, they conspire with dictators, and heaven help anyone who gets in their way. Now they want to burnish their 'brand' by partnering with Tiger Woods," Zirin concluded.
Coal Front Group Feels the Heat
Source: Facing South, May 22, 2008
Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC) -- a coal and power industry front group -- is busy organizing opposition to America's Climate Security Act of 2007 proposed by Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner. The Institute for Southern Studies (ISS) reports that Pete MacDowell, an activist with the NC (North Carolina) Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, received a phone call from ABEC asking if he would put his name to a fax to Lieberman and Warner opposing the bill. Asked whether ABEC was an environmental group, the caller said "yes" and denied it had any links to power utilities. In response to ISS's revelation, Steve Gates from ABEC's parent group, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, stated that "one new staff member -- who is no longer working on this project -- decided to 'wing it' when asked some questions that were off her script. This staff person clearly should have answered 'Yes' when asked if ABEC was related to the utility industry."
Healthcare Privacy Laws Quietly Assist Fundraising
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, May 27, 2008
When a patient checks into a hospital or goes to see a doctor, they are typically handed a booklet called "Notice of Privacy Practices" and are asked to sign a document acknowledging that they received the information. Patients assume that these "privacy practices" are in place to protect their personal information and that doctors and hospitals will keep their information in strictest confidence. In reality, patients usually overlook fine print contained in these documents that say that hospitals can share their personal information and use it for fundraising purposes. Thus someone who checks into the hospital for a heart ailment can later be solicited to help pay for expensive new hospital equipment or a new diagnostic wing. Fundraising professionals call this "high touch direct mail," but others think gathering marketing information this way is disrespectful to patients. Dr. Steven Fugaro, an internist and president of the San Francisco Medical Society, says the practice raises ethical concerns. "When you go to Macy's or Wal-Mart or buy a car, it has come to be expected that your name will be used for commercial purposes. But ... people come to us because they are sick. They have an expectation that their names will be kept private, even the fact that they were treated by the doctor or a hospital." Most patients are unaware that health care privacy laws are being used to harvest marketing data.
Duck and Cover
Source: Calgary Herald, May 25, 2008
Oilsands mining in Canada (Source: Sierra Club of Canada)
The Alberta government has hired crisis management guru Peter Sandman to help it defuse concerns over the environmental impact of the oilsands mining industry. In April, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach sought to defend the discovery of 500 dead ducks found in a tailings pond. At a cost of C$35,000, Sandman spent two days advising Alberta Environment officials on how to "handle regular public meetings and controversies" over oil extraction. "It's not a secret that when you mine bitumen, it's pretty ugly. ... It's not shocking that tailings ponds occasionally kill ducks," Sandman said. Lindsay Telfer from the Sierra Club of Canada told the Calgary Herald that she wondered how Sandman's advice affects the government's "very specific attempts to greenwash the oilsands."
McCain's Pastor Problems Deepen, Widen
Source: Huffington Post, May 21, 2008
Pastor John Hagee endorses John McCain for President in March 2008
Pastor John Hagee, the controversial Christian televangelist who last March endorsed Senator John McCain's nomination for Republican candidate for U.S. President, argued in a late 1990s sermon that the Nazis were doing God's will when they chased the Jews out of Europe in order to herd them into Israel, where they could establish a Jewish state. In an audio tape of the sermon revealed by Huffington Post, Hagee went in and out of biblical verse as he preached, "'And they the hunters should hunt them, that will be the Jews. From every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks. If that doesn't describe what Hitler did in the holocaust you can't see that." A Hagee spokesman confirmed the authenticity of the remarks, which can be found at around the 1:08 mark of his sermon titled "Battle for Jerusalem." Hagee later apologized for the remarks. But McCain, who had earlier sought Hagee's endorsement to improve his standing within the evangelical community, quickly distanced himself from the pastor, describing his comments as "crazy and unacceptable."
Big Fat Lies
Source: Scripps Howard, May 22, 2008
"Dishes targeted to health-conscious consumers at popular chains such as Chili's, Taco Bell and Applebee's contained as much as twice the calories and eight times the grams of fat than the restaurants claimed in their published nutrition information," reports Isaac Wolf, citing research done in eight cities by television stations affiliated with the Scripps media chain. The worst offender was the Macaroni Grill, a restaurant chain owned by Brinker International. Its "Pollo Margo Skinny Chicken" was supposed to have 500 calories but actually had 1,022, with 49 grams of fat rather than the promised 6. "People have a right to know what's in their food," said Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "How can you exercise personal responsibility and make an informed choice if you don't have basic information?"
Thanks for the Mercury
Source: Times Union (Albany, NY), May 21, 2008
It isn't every day that a state's largest polluter is honored. It helps when the polluter -- and its buddies -- helped found and advise the group giving the award. The Maryland-based Wildlife Habitat Council gave biodiversity conservation awards to 21 companies, including the Lafarge cement plant in Ravena, New York. The award was for Lafarge's 150-acre Deer Mountain Nature Preserve. The honor was not publicized until the company came under fire for mercury contamination near a local high school. Federal reports show that the plant in question was New York state's largest mercury emitter for three years running. Environmentalists smell a case of greenwashing. "At first I thought it was a joke. Then I was astonished and horrified," said an analyst with the New York Public Interest Research Group. Joining Lafarge on the Wildlife Habitat Council's board of directors are representatives from Monsanto, Exxon Mobil, DuPont, ConocoPhillips and Waste Management. The conservation group Ducks Unlimited, which is funded by Exxon Mobil and Anheuser-Busch, also holds a seat. The Council gave "Signatures of Sustainability" awards to DuPont and Anheuser-Busch, both of which had a role in founding the group.
America Supports Its Friend's PR Firm
Source: O'Dwyer's PR Daily (sub req'd), May 22, 2008
PR firm Susan Davis International (SDI) has retained its contract with the U.S. Department of Defense's America Supports You campaign. The one year contract is good for up to $3 million. "The long-running campaign aims to communicate public support of the military to service members and their families. Among SDI's assignments are developing a national media strategy, partnerships with businesses, celebrities and other entities, PSAs, internal communications, events, and a 'robust' web and interactive campaign." Some claim the bid process heavily favored SDI, but that's not the only controversy. As CMD reported previously, the Pentagon is investigating SDI's work on America Supports You, including unusual financial arrangements with the military newspaper Stars & Stripes. The paper recently reported that "a former attorney for the Pentagon's news bureau, the American Forces Information Service, has alleged 'serious misconduct' by Pentagon and S&S officials," including Allison Barber, who "is a friend of Susan Davis, and awarded the six-figure PR pact without a competitive process."
Virginia Commonweath University's Secret Research for Philip Morris
Source: New York Times, May 22, 2008
As CMD previously reported, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) operates a School of Medicine and a School of Public Health while enjoying a cozy relationship with the tobacco industry, especially cigarette maker Philip Morris (PM). Now the New York Times reports that in 2006, VCU entered into a secret and extraordinarily restrictive research contract with PM that bars researchers from publishing, or even talking about, study results without first getting approval from PM. If news organizations ask about the contract, university officials are supposed to decline to comment and tell PM about the inquiry. All patents and other intellectual property created under the contract go to PM. The contract violates VCU guidelines for industry-sponsored research, which state "University faculty and students must be free to publish their results." David Rosner, a professor of public health and history at Columbia University in New York, says VCU's contract is "counter to the entire purpose and rationale of a university." VCU President Eugene Trani, who refused to be interviewed for the Times article, owns 6,250 shares of common stock in the Universal Leaf Corporation and sits on their Board of Directors.
Less Isn't Always More
Source: Contra Costa Times, May 21, 2008
Comprehensive information about what chemicals are sprayed on food crops just got much harder to come by. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently announced that they will no longer conduct and publish annual national surveys of "which states apply the most pesticides and where bug and weed killers are most heavily sprayed to help cotton, grapes and oranges grow." The report is used extensively by farmers, environmental advocates, chemical companies and even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Don Lipton, a spokesman for the American Farm Bureau, said "farmers will be subjected to conjecture and allegations about their use of chemicals and fertilizer. Given the historic concern about chemical use by consumers, regulators, activist groups and farmers, it's probably not an area where lack of data is a good idea." One fear is that information will only be available after there's been a problem. Steve Scholl-Buckwald of the Pesticide Action Network explained, "What we'll end up doing is understanding pesticide use through getting accident reports. And that's a lousy way to protect public health."
Yucca's Not Quite Dead Yet, but What's Plan B?
Source: Las Vegas Sun (Nevada), May 21, 2008
Aerial view of Yucca Mountain
Increasingly, people are coming to the conclusion that the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada might never open. Former Louisiana Senator J. Bennett Johnston, "the lawmaker perhaps most responsible" for advancing the plan for a permanent waste repository at Yucca, now says the "project should never have been billed as a place to hold waste indefinitely," reports Lisa Mascaro. Johnston admitted, "You can't absolutely prove with certainty what's going to happen in 10,000 or 100,000 years." The U.S. Department of Energy will soon "deliver its long-awaited application to license the site." The department currently projects "that Yucca could start accepting waste by 2020." Meanwhile, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) industry group "has been quietly chatting with small, primarily rural communities to gauge their interest in hosting a temporary waste facility." Neither NEI nor Johnston "will admit that Yucca Mountain is dead ... but they would like to have a backup plan." For more on NEI, see CMD senior researcher Diane Farsetta's article in the June 2008 issue of The Progressive magazine, "Meet the Nuclear Power Lobby."
Terrorists Recruited on YouTube?
Source: O'Dwyer's PR Daily (sub req'd), May 20, 2008
Senator Joe Lieberman has penned a letter to Google, asking them to ban content on YouTube that is produced by organizations considered to be terrorist, such as Al Qaeda. Lieberman asserts that Islamic terrorist groups are using YouTube to "'disseminate their propaganda, enlist followers and provide weapons training.' His Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has found Al-Qaeda branded videos on YouTube documenting 'horrific attacks on American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.'" Lieberman adds that the videos play a "significant role in the process of radicalization, the end point of which is the planning and execution of a terrorist attack." Google responded that while it understands Lieberman's concerns and has removed some egregious videos, they seek a balance that "encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view."
Armey's Angry Renters
Source: Wall Street Journal, May 16, 2008
"AngryRenter.com looks a bit like a digital ransom note, with irregular fonts, exclamation points and big red arrows -- all emphasizing prudent renters' outrage over a proposed government bailout for irresponsible homeowners," writes Michael M. Phillips. In fact, however, "the people behind AngryRenter.com are certainly not renters. Though it purports to be a spontaneous uprising, AngryRenter.com is actually a product of an inside-the-Beltway conservative advocacy organization led by Dick Armey, the former House majority leader, and publishing magnate Steve Forbes, a fellow Republican. It's a fake grass-roots effort -- what politicos call an AstroTurf campaign -- that provides a window into the sleight-of-hand ways of Washington."
The Weekly Spin, May 28, 2008
Blog Postings
Congress Orders Investigation into Pentagon Pundit Scandal
by Sheldon Rampton
"I believe it is absolutely critical that a public investigation happen that is transparent to this body as well as to the American people," said Rep. Paul Hodes, explaining his decision to sponsor the amendment. "Congress cannot allow an Administration to manipulate the public on false propaganda on matters of war and national security."
By a voice vote, the U.S. Congress passed an amendment last week to the Defense Authorization Act for FY2009, forbidding the U.S. Department of Defense to engage in "propaganda purposes within the United States not otherwise specifically authorized by law."
Probably more important is that the amendment requires an investigation by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study and report back to Congress on "the extent to which the Department of Defense has violated the prohibition on propaganda" already established in previous laws passed by Congress.
The amendment was prompted by an April 20 report in the New York Times exposing the Pentagon military analyst program through which the Pentagon lobbied for war by cultivating former military officers who became regulars on Fox News, CNN and the broadcast networks. As Diane Farsetta and Sheldon Rampton have argued previously, the Pentagon pundit program broke existing laws which forbid government officials from engaging in "publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress."
Read the rest of this item
Product Placements vs. VNRs
by Sheldon Rampton
We recently received an email from someone who asked, "What is the difference between a 'product placement' and a 'video news release' (VNR)? Is a VNR a type of product placement?" Since other people might have the same question, I thought I'd post my answer here.
On SourceWatch, we have articles about both topics. As our article about video news releases explains, a VNR is a piece of video that is created (typically by a public relations firm on behalf of a paying client) and designed to look like a news segment for broadcast by TV news programs. It deceives audiences by creating the impression that the "news" they see on TV was produced by independent reporters, when in fact VNRs are promotional pieces designed to sell something for a client whose identity is not always disclosed. TV news shows often deny that they use VNRs, but Diane Farsetta, our senior researcher, has done extensive research in which she found numerous examples of the practice.
"Product placement" is a separate but similarly sneaky practice of getting television programs and movies to display a company's product within their program.
Read the rest of this item
Weekly Radio Spin: Dick's Army of Angry Renters
by Judith Siers-Poisson
Listen to this week's edition of the "Weekly Radio Spin," the Center for Media and Democracy's audio report on the stories behind the news. This week, we look at an award only money could buy, how a Pentagon investigation isn't bad for business, and who thinks struggling homeowners are whiny. In "Six Degrees of Spin and Fakin'," we look at the checkered career of Dick Armey. The Weekly Radio Spin is freely available for personal and broadcast use. Podcasters can subscribe to the XML feed on www.prwatch.org/audio or via iTunes. If you air the Weekly Radio Spin on your radio station, please email us at editor@prwatch.org to let us know. Thanks!
Read the rest of this item
Be A Citizen Journalist
Featured Participatory Project: ID the Candidates Supporting the "Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq"
Source: Congresspedia, May 27, 2008
On March 27, a coalition of Democratic House candidates and military experts unveiled the "Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq." As one of the more solid commitments to end the war, it has generated a lot of buzz lately as more than 50 candidates have endorsed it. With the Iraq War as the foremost issue this season, an endorsement of the plan is a critical piece of information about a U.S. congressional candidate, so we need your help to add it to the profiles of candidates that make up Congresspedia's Wiki-the-Vote project. (If they haven't endorsed the plan, you can call attention to that as well.) No experience is necessary and full instructions for helping out can be found here. It's your democracy - participate!
Spin Of The Day Postings
Tiger Woods Caddies for Chevron
Source: The Nation, May 22, 2008
In early April, the global oil company Chevron announced that it has entered into a five-year deal with the foundation created by the professional golfer, Tiger Woods. Woods proclaimed that "Chevron has a track record and a commitment to bettering the communities where they operate." Chevron's record, such as its partnership with the Burmese military dictatorship on the Yandana gas pipeline is "certainly nothing with which Woods should want his name attached," writes Dave Zirin in The Nation. Asked about Chevron's record, the president of the Tiger Woods Foundation, Greg McLaughlin, stated that its partners share its mission to help young people. "President McLaughlin should think more seriously about what Chevron is and what they do: they pollute, they destroy, they conspire with dictators, and heaven help anyone who gets in their way. Now they want to burnish their 'brand' by partnering with Tiger Woods," Zirin concluded.
Coal Front Group Feels the Heat
Source: Facing South, May 22, 2008
Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC) -- a coal and power industry front group -- is busy organizing opposition to America's Climate Security Act of 2007 proposed by Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner. The Institute for Southern Studies (ISS) reports that Pete MacDowell, an activist with the NC (North Carolina) Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, received a phone call from ABEC asking if he would put his name to a fax to Lieberman and Warner opposing the bill. Asked whether ABEC was an environmental group, the caller said "yes" and denied it had any links to power utilities. In response to ISS's revelation, Steve Gates from ABEC's parent group, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, stated that "one new staff member -- who is no longer working on this project -- decided to 'wing it' when asked some questions that were off her script. This staff person clearly should have answered 'Yes' when asked if ABEC was related to the utility industry."
Healthcare Privacy Laws Quietly Assist Fundraising
Source: San Francisco Chronicle, May 27, 2008
When a patient checks into a hospital or goes to see a doctor, they are typically handed a booklet called "Notice of Privacy Practices" and are asked to sign a document acknowledging that they received the information. Patients assume that these "privacy practices" are in place to protect their personal information and that doctors and hospitals will keep their information in strictest confidence. In reality, patients usually overlook fine print contained in these documents that say that hospitals can share their personal information and use it for fundraising purposes. Thus someone who checks into the hospital for a heart ailment can later be solicited to help pay for expensive new hospital equipment or a new diagnostic wing. Fundraising professionals call this "high touch direct mail," but others think gathering marketing information this way is disrespectful to patients. Dr. Steven Fugaro, an internist and president of the San Francisco Medical Society, says the practice raises ethical concerns. "When you go to Macy's or Wal-Mart or buy a car, it has come to be expected that your name will be used for commercial purposes. But ... people come to us because they are sick. They have an expectation that their names will be kept private, even the fact that they were treated by the doctor or a hospital." Most patients are unaware that health care privacy laws are being used to harvest marketing data.
Duck and Cover
Source: Calgary Herald, May 25, 2008
Oilsands mining in Canada (Source: Sierra Club of Canada)
The Alberta government has hired crisis management guru Peter Sandman to help it defuse concerns over the environmental impact of the oilsands mining industry. In April, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach sought to defend the discovery of 500 dead ducks found in a tailings pond. At a cost of C$35,000, Sandman spent two days advising Alberta Environment officials on how to "handle regular public meetings and controversies" over oil extraction. "It's not a secret that when you mine bitumen, it's pretty ugly. ... It's not shocking that tailings ponds occasionally kill ducks," Sandman said. Lindsay Telfer from the Sierra Club of Canada told the Calgary Herald that she wondered how Sandman's advice affects the government's "very specific attempts to greenwash the oilsands."
McCain's Pastor Problems Deepen, Widen
Source: Huffington Post, May 21, 2008
Pastor John Hagee endorses John McCain for President in March 2008
Pastor John Hagee, the controversial Christian televangelist who last March endorsed Senator John McCain's nomination for Republican candidate for U.S. President, argued in a late 1990s sermon that the Nazis were doing God's will when they chased the Jews out of Europe in order to herd them into Israel, where they could establish a Jewish state. In an audio tape of the sermon revealed by Huffington Post, Hagee went in and out of biblical verse as he preached, "'And they the hunters should hunt them, that will be the Jews. From every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks. If that doesn't describe what Hitler did in the holocaust you can't see that." A Hagee spokesman confirmed the authenticity of the remarks, which can be found at around the 1:08 mark of his sermon titled "Battle for Jerusalem." Hagee later apologized for the remarks. But McCain, who had earlier sought Hagee's endorsement to improve his standing within the evangelical community, quickly distanced himself from the pastor, describing his comments as "crazy and unacceptable."
Big Fat Lies
Source: Scripps Howard, May 22, 2008
"Dishes targeted to health-conscious consumers at popular chains such as Chili's, Taco Bell and Applebee's contained as much as twice the calories and eight times the grams of fat than the restaurants claimed in their published nutrition information," reports Isaac Wolf, citing research done in eight cities by television stations affiliated with the Scripps media chain. The worst offender was the Macaroni Grill, a restaurant chain owned by Brinker International. Its "Pollo Margo Skinny Chicken" was supposed to have 500 calories but actually had 1,022, with 49 grams of fat rather than the promised 6. "People have a right to know what's in their food," said Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "How can you exercise personal responsibility and make an informed choice if you don't have basic information?"
Thanks for the Mercury
Source: Times Union (Albany, NY), May 21, 2008
It isn't every day that a state's largest polluter is honored. It helps when the polluter -- and its buddies -- helped found and advise the group giving the award. The Maryland-based Wildlife Habitat Council gave biodiversity conservation awards to 21 companies, including the Lafarge cement plant in Ravena, New York. The award was for Lafarge's 150-acre Deer Mountain Nature Preserve. The honor was not publicized until the company came under fire for mercury contamination near a local high school. Federal reports show that the plant in question was New York state's largest mercury emitter for three years running. Environmentalists smell a case of greenwashing. "At first I thought it was a joke. Then I was astonished and horrified," said an analyst with the New York Public Interest Research Group. Joining Lafarge on the Wildlife Habitat Council's board of directors are representatives from Monsanto, Exxon Mobil, DuPont, ConocoPhillips and Waste Management. The conservation group Ducks Unlimited, which is funded by Exxon Mobil and Anheuser-Busch, also holds a seat. The Council gave "Signatures of Sustainability" awards to DuPont and Anheuser-Busch, both of which had a role in founding the group.
America Supports Its Friend's PR Firm
Source: O'Dwyer's PR Daily (sub req'd), May 22, 2008
PR firm Susan Davis International (SDI) has retained its contract with the U.S. Department of Defense's America Supports You campaign. The one year contract is good for up to $3 million. "The long-running campaign aims to communicate public support of the military to service members and their families. Among SDI's assignments are developing a national media strategy, partnerships with businesses, celebrities and other entities, PSAs, internal communications, events, and a 'robust' web and interactive campaign." Some claim the bid process heavily favored SDI, but that's not the only controversy. As CMD reported previously, the Pentagon is investigating SDI's work on America Supports You, including unusual financial arrangements with the military newspaper Stars & Stripes. The paper recently reported that "a former attorney for the Pentagon's news bureau, the American Forces Information Service, has alleged 'serious misconduct' by Pentagon and S&S officials," including Allison Barber, who "is a friend of Susan Davis, and awarded the six-figure PR pact without a competitive process."
Virginia Commonweath University's Secret Research for Philip Morris
Source: New York Times, May 22, 2008
As CMD previously reported, Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) operates a School of Medicine and a School of Public Health while enjoying a cozy relationship with the tobacco industry, especially cigarette maker Philip Morris (PM). Now the New York Times reports that in 2006, VCU entered into a secret and extraordinarily restrictive research contract with PM that bars researchers from publishing, or even talking about, study results without first getting approval from PM. If news organizations ask about the contract, university officials are supposed to decline to comment and tell PM about the inquiry. All patents and other intellectual property created under the contract go to PM. The contract violates VCU guidelines for industry-sponsored research, which state "University faculty and students must be free to publish their results." David Rosner, a professor of public health and history at Columbia University in New York, says VCU's contract is "counter to the entire purpose and rationale of a university." VCU President Eugene Trani, who refused to be interviewed for the Times article, owns 6,250 shares of common stock in the Universal Leaf Corporation and sits on their Board of Directors.
Less Isn't Always More
Source: Contra Costa Times, May 21, 2008
Comprehensive information about what chemicals are sprayed on food crops just got much harder to come by. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently announced that they will no longer conduct and publish annual national surveys of "which states apply the most pesticides and where bug and weed killers are most heavily sprayed to help cotton, grapes and oranges grow." The report is used extensively by farmers, environmental advocates, chemical companies and even the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Don Lipton, a spokesman for the American Farm Bureau, said "farmers will be subjected to conjecture and allegations about their use of chemicals and fertilizer. Given the historic concern about chemical use by consumers, regulators, activist groups and farmers, it's probably not an area where lack of data is a good idea." One fear is that information will only be available after there's been a problem. Steve Scholl-Buckwald of the Pesticide Action Network explained, "What we'll end up doing is understanding pesticide use through getting accident reports. And that's a lousy way to protect public health."
Yucca's Not Quite Dead Yet, but What's Plan B?
Source: Las Vegas Sun (Nevada), May 21, 2008
Aerial view of Yucca Mountain
Increasingly, people are coming to the conclusion that the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada might never open. Former Louisiana Senator J. Bennett Johnston, "the lawmaker perhaps most responsible" for advancing the plan for a permanent waste repository at Yucca, now says the "project should never have been billed as a place to hold waste indefinitely," reports Lisa Mascaro. Johnston admitted, "You can't absolutely prove with certainty what's going to happen in 10,000 or 100,000 years." The U.S. Department of Energy will soon "deliver its long-awaited application to license the site." The department currently projects "that Yucca could start accepting waste by 2020." Meanwhile, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) industry group "has been quietly chatting with small, primarily rural communities to gauge their interest in hosting a temporary waste facility." Neither NEI nor Johnston "will admit that Yucca Mountain is dead ... but they would like to have a backup plan." For more on NEI, see CMD senior researcher Diane Farsetta's article in the June 2008 issue of The Progressive magazine, "Meet the Nuclear Power Lobby."
Terrorists Recruited on YouTube?
Source: O'Dwyer's PR Daily (sub req'd), May 20, 2008
Senator Joe Lieberman has penned a letter to Google, asking them to ban content on YouTube that is produced by organizations considered to be terrorist, such as Al Qaeda. Lieberman asserts that Islamic terrorist groups are using YouTube to "'disseminate their propaganda, enlist followers and provide weapons training.' His Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has found Al-Qaeda branded videos on YouTube documenting 'horrific attacks on American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan.'" Lieberman adds that the videos play a "significant role in the process of radicalization, the end point of which is the planning and execution of a terrorist attack." Google responded that while it understands Lieberman's concerns and has removed some egregious videos, they seek a balance that "encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view."
Armey's Angry Renters
Source: Wall Street Journal, May 16, 2008
"AngryRenter.com looks a bit like a digital ransom note, with irregular fonts, exclamation points and big red arrows -- all emphasizing prudent renters' outrage over a proposed government bailout for irresponsible homeowners," writes Michael M. Phillips. In fact, however, "the people behind AngryRenter.com are certainly not renters. Though it purports to be a spontaneous uprising, AngryRenter.com is actually a product of an inside-the-Beltway conservative advocacy organization led by Dick Armey, the former House majority leader, and publishing magnate Steve Forbes, a fellow Republican. It's a fake grass-roots effort -- what politicos call an AstroTurf campaign -- that provides a window into the sleight-of-hand ways of Washington."
Thursday, May 22, 2008
I finally downloaded the obituaries from last weeks assignment. Some of them are really great. I also wanted to check and see if all of you gave me a computer e-mail address (rather then a cell-phone one) as I would like to send you a couple of long e-mails. Will talk with you about that next week. This weeks assignment is longer then most as it is an opinion article, one were you review something and tell your readers what you really feel about the subject. Here anger is good and of course love and joy are also acceptable. See you next week. The assignment is due Sun. evening.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Thursday, May 01, 2008
It's your holiday but thought you might be interested in this great free film festival which you can watch on your computer. Heres was David Pogue at the New York times has to say about it:
You know how people in one country or culture tend to see
the people in *other* countries or cultures as stereotypes?
After 9/11, many Americans saw every Middle Easterner as a
terrorist (just the way terrorists see all Americans as The
Enemy). Whenever someone starts a sentence with "The French
always..." or "The trouble with Muslims is...", this kind of
generalizing and dehumanizing is under way.
Anyway, as the organization puts it: "Pangea Day endeavors
to bring the world together and promote understanding and
tolerance through film." Over 2,500 movies were submitted
from 102 countries; the Pangea committee winnowed them down
to 24 short movies, which will all be shown on May 10 in a
four-hour marathon.
So where is this film festival taking place? All over the
world, simultaneously -- at 1,500 sites, and counting.
Live broadcasts will take place simultaneously in Cairo (at
the Pyramids), Kigali, London, Los Angeles (at Sony
Pictures Studios), Mumbai and Rio de Janeiro. At these
big-ticket venues, big names like Christiane Amanpour of
CNN will serve as presenters. Selected movie theaters all
over the world will participate.
You may also be able to watch the broadcast on TV; in this
country, Current TV will air it on cable.
But the majority of the festival sites will be less formal.
The whole thing will be streamed live over the Internet,
available in seven languages. So anyone can invite a few
friends over and become an impromptu festival site. Or you
can just sit there by yourself and watch it on your
computer.
What makes the whole thing so cool is that it's so global
and so wired. In fact, its the wiredness that makes it
possible; it never could have happened 10 years ago. The
movies were submitted digitally; the broadcast will
incorporate hosts and musicians from multiple sites; even a
cellphone stream is available for viewing.
Sure, people of all nations have been joined by Internet
video before, thanks to a little thing called YouTube. But
YouTube joins people without them realizing it; there's not
much sense of community (unless you count the juvenile,
raunchy comments), and zero sense of mission or purpose.
It's very unlikely that, after watching some YouTube video
of someone putting Mentos into a Coke bottle, you'll stand
up and announce, "I'm a changed person."
Pangea Day, I suspect, will be different.
To watch the broadcast, find out which TV channels are
showing it, watch some celebrity endorsements, see amazing
music videos of different countries singing *each other's*
national anthems, or to organize your own viewing party,
visit www.pangeaday.org.
WHEN YOU GO TO THE WEBSITE ABOVE CLICK ON TRAILER TO GET THE IDEA. THEN ALL YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO IF YOU WANTED TO WATCH IT IS GET UP AT 3 A.M. ON SUNDAY MAY 11 AND GO TO THIS SAME WEB SITE AND WATCH IT. HOPE YOU'LL JOIN ME THERE.
I'll be one of the millions in that very, very big audience.
You know how people in one country or culture tend to see
the people in *other* countries or cultures as stereotypes?
After 9/11, many Americans saw every Middle Easterner as a
terrorist (just the way terrorists see all Americans as The
Enemy). Whenever someone starts a sentence with "The French
always..." or "The trouble with Muslims is...", this kind of
generalizing and dehumanizing is under way.
Anyway, as the organization puts it: "Pangea Day endeavors
to bring the world together and promote understanding and
tolerance through film." Over 2,500 movies were submitted
from 102 countries; the Pangea committee winnowed them down
to 24 short movies, which will all be shown on May 10 in a
four-hour marathon.
So where is this film festival taking place? All over the
world, simultaneously -- at 1,500 sites, and counting.
Live broadcasts will take place simultaneously in Cairo (at
the Pyramids), Kigali, London, Los Angeles (at Sony
Pictures Studios), Mumbai and Rio de Janeiro. At these
big-ticket venues, big names like Christiane Amanpour of
CNN will serve as presenters. Selected movie theaters all
over the world will participate.
You may also be able to watch the broadcast on TV; in this
country, Current TV will air it on cable.
But the majority of the festival sites will be less formal.
The whole thing will be streamed live over the Internet,
available in seven languages. So anyone can invite a few
friends over and become an impromptu festival site. Or you
can just sit there by yourself and watch it on your
computer.
What makes the whole thing so cool is that it's so global
and so wired. In fact, its the wiredness that makes it
possible; it never could have happened 10 years ago. The
movies were submitted digitally; the broadcast will
incorporate hosts and musicians from multiple sites; even a
cellphone stream is available for viewing.
Sure, people of all nations have been joined by Internet
video before, thanks to a little thing called YouTube. But
YouTube joins people without them realizing it; there's not
much sense of community (unless you count the juvenile,
raunchy comments), and zero sense of mission or purpose.
It's very unlikely that, after watching some YouTube video
of someone putting Mentos into a Coke bottle, you'll stand
up and announce, "I'm a changed person."
Pangea Day, I suspect, will be different.
To watch the broadcast, find out which TV channels are
showing it, watch some celebrity endorsements, see amazing
music videos of different countries singing *each other's*
national anthems, or to organize your own viewing party,
visit www.pangeaday.org.
WHEN YOU GO TO THE WEBSITE ABOVE CLICK ON TRAILER TO GET THE IDEA. THEN ALL YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO IF YOU WANTED TO WATCH IT IS GET UP AT 3 A.M. ON SUNDAY MAY 11 AND GO TO THIS SAME WEB SITE AND WATCH IT. HOPE YOU'LL JOIN ME THERE.
I'll be one of the millions in that very, very big audience.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
How do you feel about large international companies controlling domestic news sources?
From the New York times:
Murdoch Moving to Buy Newsday for $580 Million
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA and TIM ARANGO
A tentative deal to buy his third New York newspaper would
tighten Rupert Murdoch's grip on American news media.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/business/media/23paper.html?th&emc=th
Murdoch Taking On F.C.C. Media Rule
By STEPHEN LABATON
Rupert Murdoch appears likely to pose the first significant
challenge to the media ownership rule that the Federal
Communications Commission recently adopted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/business/media/23ownership.html?th&emc=th
From the New York times:
Murdoch Moving to Buy Newsday for $580 Million
By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA and TIM ARANGO
A tentative deal to buy his third New York newspaper would
tighten Rupert Murdoch's grip on American news media.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/business/media/23paper.html?th&emc=th
Murdoch Taking On F.C.C. Media Rule
By STEPHEN LABATON
Rupert Murdoch appears likely to pose the first significant
challenge to the media ownership rule that the Federal
Communications Commission recently adopted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/business/media/23ownership.html?th&emc=th
Here is an example of government-military manipulation of the news, which is what we were discussing in the last class. This is from the Geeky, Nerdy, news letter from Slashdot.com:
| Pentagon Manipulating TV Analysts |
| from the media-trojan-horse dept. |
| posted by kdawson on Tuesday April 22, @17:31 (The Military) |
| http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/22/2010243 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
[0]gollum123 notes an extensive article from the NYTimes on the evidence
that the military, since the time of the buildup to the Iraq war, has
been manipulating the military analysts that are ubiquitous on TV and
radio news programs, in a [1]protracted campaign to generate favorable
news coverage of the administration's war efforts. "Hidden behind that
appearance of objectivity of military analysts on the major networks, is
a Pentagon information apparatus... The effort... has sought to exploit
ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial
dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in
the very war policies they are asked to assess on air. Several dozen of
the military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either
as lobbyists, senior executives, board members, or consultants. Records
and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over
access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind
of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism
coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks. ...[M]embers of
this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when
they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts
acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their
access."
| Pentagon Manipulating TV Analysts |
| from the media-trojan-horse dept. |
| posted by kdawson on Tuesday April 22, @17:31 (The Military) |
| http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/22/2010243 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
[0]gollum123 notes an extensive article from the NYTimes on the evidence
that the military, since the time of the buildup to the Iraq war, has
been manipulating the military analysts that are ubiquitous on TV and
radio news programs, in a [1]protracted campaign to generate favorable
news coverage of the administration's war efforts. "Hidden behind that
appearance of objectivity of military analysts on the major networks, is
a Pentagon information apparatus... The effort... has sought to exploit
ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial
dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in
the very war policies they are asked to assess on air. Several dozen of
the military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either
as lobbyists, senior executives, board members, or consultants. Records
and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over
access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind
of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism
coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks. ...[M]embers of
this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when
they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts
acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their
access."
Sunday, April 20, 2008
This article is from ButterflysandWheels.com:
Apologetics and the Surrender of the Fourth Estate
Click here if you want to print, or adjust the appearance, of this article
By Gil Gaudia
It has been debated whether the term “the Fourth Estate” which refers to journalism or a “free press” was originated by Edmund Burke, who once pointed to the gallery of reporters in the British Parliament and declared them to be the fourth, and most important, element overseeing a triumvirate of governmental power. In my opinion, this was one of the most perceptive descriptions of democracy and its processes, applying equally well to the British Parliament and the Estates General of France (from which the term was derived); the constituents were supposed to be representatives of the society’s main elements— the nobility, the middle class and the clergy. Burke was saying that the influence of a free press was, and should be, greater than any of the other three because the “word,” written and spoken, was the key to power.
(Incidentally, the “debate” arises because a guy named Thomas Carlyle is the one who actually put the following statement in writing: “Burke said that there were three Estates in Parliament but in the reporter’s gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.”)
Who said it first? Was it Burke? Was it Carlyle? Does it matter?
What does matter is that the uncertainty of Burke vs. Carlyle symbolizes the dilemma of whom or what we believe. In this country today, if we substitute the terms “United States Senate” for the “nobility” (makes you want to vomit doesn’t it?) the “House of Representatives” for the “middle class” (not very appetizing either) and “fundamentalist Christians” for the “clergy,” (Well, that’s not too bad) it is apparent that little has changed, with one glaring exception. The Fourth Estate has sold out to the combined forces of its previous antagonists and we now have the deplorable situation where the people have lost the protection of the “more important far than they all.”
Where is today’s Fourth Estate? Nowhere to be found, because sadly, with the exception of only a small minority of courageous and perceptive people, whom the other three estates have managed to portray as unpatriotic troublemakers, the American press has surrendered its role in the “reporter’s gallery,” and is no longer fulfilling Burke’s/Carlyle’s indispensable obligation. This is a devastating loss. It is devastating because access to the truth about governmental matters, of which the press has been the guardian, has been abandoned.
Apologetics and the Surrender of the Fourth Estate
Click here if you want to print, or adjust the appearance, of this article
By Gil Gaudia
It has been debated whether the term “the Fourth Estate” which refers to journalism or a “free press” was originated by Edmund Burke, who once pointed to the gallery of reporters in the British Parliament and declared them to be the fourth, and most important, element overseeing a triumvirate of governmental power. In my opinion, this was one of the most perceptive descriptions of democracy and its processes, applying equally well to the British Parliament and the Estates General of France (from which the term was derived); the constituents were supposed to be representatives of the society’s main elements— the nobility, the middle class and the clergy. Burke was saying that the influence of a free press was, and should be, greater than any of the other three because the “word,” written and spoken, was the key to power.
(Incidentally, the “debate” arises because a guy named Thomas Carlyle is the one who actually put the following statement in writing: “Burke said that there were three Estates in Parliament but in the reporter’s gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.”)
Who said it first? Was it Burke? Was it Carlyle? Does it matter?
What does matter is that the uncertainty of Burke vs. Carlyle symbolizes the dilemma of whom or what we believe. In this country today, if we substitute the terms “United States Senate” for the “nobility” (makes you want to vomit doesn’t it?) the “House of Representatives” for the “middle class” (not very appetizing either) and “fundamentalist Christians” for the “clergy,” (Well, that’s not too bad) it is apparent that little has changed, with one glaring exception. The Fourth Estate has sold out to the combined forces of its previous antagonists and we now have the deplorable situation where the people have lost the protection of the “more important far than they all.”
Where is today’s Fourth Estate? Nowhere to be found, because sadly, with the exception of only a small minority of courageous and perceptive people, whom the other three estates have managed to portray as unpatriotic troublemakers, the American press has surrendered its role in the “reporter’s gallery,” and is no longer fulfilling Burke’s/Carlyle’s indispensable obligation. This is a devastating loss. It is devastating because access to the truth about governmental matters, of which the press has been the guardian, has been abandoned.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
I talked a little bit about how paper newspapers were in trouble and here is how some are reacting:
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Papers tailor online content to increase audience, ad sales
By Associated Press (AP)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- With classified revenue dwindling, the news industry must get better at tailoring articles and display advertising to online readers, several newspaper executives said Tuesday.
Papers must more aggressively ''slice and dice'' content to readers' particular interests, Leon Levitt, vice president of digital media for Cox Newspapers Inc., said during a panel discussion at the annual conference of the Newspaper Association of America.
''We're at the early stages of doing that,'' said Levitt, whose company, a unit of privately held Cox Enterprises Inc., owns 17 daily and 26 non-daily newspapers, including the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Palm Beach Post in Florida and the Austin American-Statesman in Texas.
Newspapers faced with dwindling print advertising are turning more to the Internet to make up for lost revenue. Overall newspaper advertising revenue last year fell 7.9 percent, including a 9.4 percent dip in print advertising that was offset partially by an 18.8 percent hike in online advertising, according to the newspaper association.
Levitt said newspapers are leaning most heavily on online display advertising, which is growing at a faster clip than classified advertising.
Other newspaper executives on the panel said the industry must first become more familiar with readers' online behavior before they can deliver personalized content and advertising.
Several executives said they're developing multiple Web sites, blogs and other products to reach distinctive audiences.
Vivian Schiller, senior vice president and general manager of NYTimes.com, said The New York Times is a ''strong believer'' in creating multiple brands.
She said its DealBook blog, which provides financial news, started as an e-mail newsletter service in 2001 and then also became a Web site two years ago. The company also has a Great Homes and Destinations Web site that provides information about the luxury real estate sector.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Papers tailor online content to increase audience, ad sales
By Associated Press (AP)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- With classified revenue dwindling, the news industry must get better at tailoring articles and display advertising to online readers, several newspaper executives said Tuesday.
Papers must more aggressively ''slice and dice'' content to readers' particular interests, Leon Levitt, vice president of digital media for Cox Newspapers Inc., said during a panel discussion at the annual conference of the Newspaper Association of America.
''We're at the early stages of doing that,'' said Levitt, whose company, a unit of privately held Cox Enterprises Inc., owns 17 daily and 26 non-daily newspapers, including the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Palm Beach Post in Florida and the Austin American-Statesman in Texas.
Newspapers faced with dwindling print advertising are turning more to the Internet to make up for lost revenue. Overall newspaper advertising revenue last year fell 7.9 percent, including a 9.4 percent dip in print advertising that was offset partially by an 18.8 percent hike in online advertising, according to the newspaper association.
Levitt said newspapers are leaning most heavily on online display advertising, which is growing at a faster clip than classified advertising.
Other newspaper executives on the panel said the industry must first become more familiar with readers' online behavior before they can deliver personalized content and advertising.
Several executives said they're developing multiple Web sites, blogs and other products to reach distinctive audiences.
Vivian Schiller, senior vice president and general manager of NYTimes.com, said The New York Times is a ''strong believer'' in creating multiple brands.
She said its DealBook blog, which provides financial news, started as an e-mail newsletter service in 2001 and then also became a Web site two years ago. The company also has a Great Homes and Destinations Web site that provides information about the luxury real estate sector.
Monday, March 31, 2008
On Newspapers for Slashdot.com:
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Newspapers Are Dying, Blog At 11 |
| from the news-that-fits dept. |
| posted by kdawson on Sunday March 30, @14:36 (The Media) |
| http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/30/1828252 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
The New Yorker is running a long and thoughtful piece by Eric Alterman on
the [0]death and life of the American newspaper. It's not news that
newspapers are dying, but the acceleration of the process in the last few
years is startling: "Independent, publicly traded American newspapers
have lost forty-two per cent of their market value in the past three
years... The columnist Molly Ivins complained, shortly before her death,
that the newspaper companies' solution to their problem was to make 'our
product smaller and less helpful and less interesting.'" The article goes
on to profile The Huffington Post as exemplar of what is replacing paper
and ink. "The Huffington Post's editorial processes are based on what
Peretti has named the 'mullet strategy.' ('Business up front, party in
the back' is how his trend-spotting site BuzzFeed glosses it.)
'User-generated content is all the rage, but most of it totally sucks,'
Peretti says. The mullet strategy invites users to 'argue and vent on the
secondary pages, but professional editors keep the front page looking
sharp.
Discuss this story at:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=08/03/30/1828252
Links:
0. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/31/080331fa_fact_alterman?currentPage=all
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Newspapers Are Dying, Blog At 11 |
| from the news-that-fits dept. |
| posted by kdawson on Sunday March 30, @14:36 (The Media) |
| http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/30/1828252 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
The New Yorker is running a long and thoughtful piece by Eric Alterman on
the [0]death and life of the American newspaper. It's not news that
newspapers are dying, but the acceleration of the process in the last few
years is startling: "Independent, publicly traded American newspapers
have lost forty-two per cent of their market value in the past three
years... The columnist Molly Ivins complained, shortly before her death,
that the newspaper companies' solution to their problem was to make 'our
product smaller and less helpful and less interesting.'" The article goes
on to profile The Huffington Post as exemplar of what is replacing paper
and ink. "The Huffington Post's editorial processes are based on what
Peretti has named the 'mullet strategy.' ('Business up front, party in
the back' is how his trend-spotting site BuzzFeed glosses it.)
'User-generated content is all the rage, but most of it totally sucks,'
Peretti says. The mullet strategy invites users to 'argue and vent on the
secondary pages, but professional editors keep the front page looking
sharp.
Discuss this story at:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=08/03/30/1828252
Links:
0. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03/31/080331fa_fact_alterman?currentPage=all
Saturday, March 29, 2008
| Mainstream Media Finally Catching On To How News Propagates |
| from the whole-new-idea-of-trusted-networks dept. |
| posted by ScuttleMonkey on Friday March 28, @13:17 (The Media) |
| http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/28/1532237 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Techdirt is reporting that the mainstream press may finally be "getting
it" when it comes to how the next generation of news readers [0]consumes
and shares news. One student summed it up very succinctly by saying "If
the news is that important, it will find me." "According to interviews
and recent surveys, younger voters tend to be not just consumers of news
and current events but conduits as well -- sending out e-mailed links and
videos to friends and their social networks. And in turn, they rely on
friends and online connections for news to come to them. In essence, they
are replacing the professional filter -- reading The Washington Post,
clicking on CNN.com -- with a social one."
Discuss this story at:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=08/03/28/1532237
Links:
0. http://techdirt.com/articles/20080327/152312670.shtml
| from the whole-new-idea-of-trusted-networks dept. |
| posted by ScuttleMonkey on Friday March 28, @13:17 (The Media) |
| http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/28/1532237 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Techdirt is reporting that the mainstream press may finally be "getting
it" when it comes to how the next generation of news readers [0]consumes
and shares news. One student summed it up very succinctly by saying "If
the news is that important, it will find me." "According to interviews
and recent surveys, younger voters tend to be not just consumers of news
and current events but conduits as well -- sending out e-mailed links and
videos to friends and their social networks. And in turn, they rely on
friends and online connections for news to come to them. In essence, they
are replacing the professional filter -- reading The Washington Post,
clicking on CNN.com -- with a social one."
Discuss this story at:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=08/03/28/1532237
Links:
0. http://techdirt.com/articles/20080327/152312670.shtml
Monday, March 17, 2008
Web Has Unexpected Effect on Journalism
By DAVID BAUDER
NEW YORK (AP) -- The Internet has profoundly changed journalism, but not necessarily in ways that were predicted even a few years ago, a study on the industry released Sunday found.
It was believed at one point that the Net would democratize the media, offering many new voices, stories and perspectives. Yet the news agenda actually seems to be narrowing, with many Web sites primarily packaging news that is produced elsewhere, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism's annual State of the News Media report.
Two stories - the war in Iraq and the 2008 presidential election campaign - represented more than a quarter of the stories in newspapers, on television and online last year, the project found.
Take away Iraq, Iran and Pakistan, and news from all of the other countries in the world combined filled up less than 6 percent of the American news hole, the project said.
The news side of the business is dynamic, but the growing ability of news consumers to find what they want without being distracted by advertising is what's making the industry go through some tough times.
"Although the audience for traditional news is maintaining itself, the staff for many of these news organizations tend to be shrinking," said Tom Rosenstiel, the project's director.
NBC News' recent decision to name make David Gregory host of a nightly program on MSNBC, while keep his job as White House correspondent is an example of how people are being asked to do much more, he said.
News is less a product, like the day's newspaper or a nightly newscast, than a service that is constantly being updated, he said. Last week, for instance, The New York Times posted its first report linking New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer to a prostitution ring in the early afternoon, and it quickly became the day's dominant story.
Only a few years ago, newspaper Web sites were primarily considered an online morgue for that day's newspaper, Rosenstield said.
"The afternoon newspaper is in a sense being reborn online," he said.
A separate survey found journalists are, to a large degree, embracing the changes being thrust upon them. A majority say they like doing blogs and that they appreciate reader feedback on their stories. When they're asked to do multimedia projects, most journalists find the experience enriching instead of feeling overworked, he said. The newsroom is increasingly being seen as the most experimental place in the business, the report found.
Most news Web sites are no longer final destinations. The report found that many users insist that the sites, and even individual pages, offer plenty of options to navigate elsewhere for more information, the project found. Rosenstiel said he's even able to reach Washington Post stories through the New York Times' Web site.
In another unexpected finding, citizen-created Web sites and blogs are actually far less welcoming to outside commentary than the so-called mainstream media, the report said.
© 2008 The Associated Press.
By DAVID BAUDER
NEW YORK (AP) -- The Internet has profoundly changed journalism, but not necessarily in ways that were predicted even a few years ago, a study on the industry released Sunday found.
It was believed at one point that the Net would democratize the media, offering many new voices, stories and perspectives. Yet the news agenda actually seems to be narrowing, with many Web sites primarily packaging news that is produced elsewhere, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism's annual State of the News Media report.
Two stories - the war in Iraq and the 2008 presidential election campaign - represented more than a quarter of the stories in newspapers, on television and online last year, the project found.
Take away Iraq, Iran and Pakistan, and news from all of the other countries in the world combined filled up less than 6 percent of the American news hole, the project said.
The news side of the business is dynamic, but the growing ability of news consumers to find what they want without being distracted by advertising is what's making the industry go through some tough times.
"Although the audience for traditional news is maintaining itself, the staff for many of these news organizations tend to be shrinking," said Tom Rosenstiel, the project's director.
NBC News' recent decision to name make David Gregory host of a nightly program on MSNBC, while keep his job as White House correspondent is an example of how people are being asked to do much more, he said.
News is less a product, like the day's newspaper or a nightly newscast, than a service that is constantly being updated, he said. Last week, for instance, The New York Times posted its first report linking New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer to a prostitution ring in the early afternoon, and it quickly became the day's dominant story.
Only a few years ago, newspaper Web sites were primarily considered an online morgue for that day's newspaper, Rosenstield said.
"The afternoon newspaper is in a sense being reborn online," he said.
A separate survey found journalists are, to a large degree, embracing the changes being thrust upon them. A majority say they like doing blogs and that they appreciate reader feedback on their stories. When they're asked to do multimedia projects, most journalists find the experience enriching instead of feeling overworked, he said. The newsroom is increasingly being seen as the most experimental place in the business, the report found.
Most news Web sites are no longer final destinations. The report found that many users insist that the sites, and even individual pages, offer plenty of options to navigate elsewhere for more information, the project found. Rosenstiel said he's even able to reach Washington Post stories through the New York Times' Web site.
In another unexpected finding, citizen-created Web sites and blogs are actually far less welcoming to outside commentary than the so-called mainstream media, the report said.
© 2008 The Associated Press.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Interviews are not easy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOOK AT THIS:
Facebook founder heckled at web conference 12:18PM, Monday 10th March 2008
A keynote talk with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg descended into chaos as the audience heckled the interviewer for failing to get to the point.
Zuckerberg, the 23-year-old billionaire, was the keynote speaker at the SXSW Interactive Festival in Austin, Texas. Business Week journalist Sarah Lacy took the stage to question Zuckerberg, but the audience quickly grew tired of the topics she focused on, claiming that the real issues were being ignored.
"Never, ever have I seen such a train wreck of an interview," claimed audience member, Jason Pontin, via Twitter.
Lacy finally allowed the crowd to take over, and Zuckerberg was subjected to an enthusiastic barrage of questions about the real issues facing the social networking site, such as privacy and data portability.
"The audience is asking Zuckerburg better questions than Lacy did," said former Microsoft blogger, Robert Scoble, via his Twitter feed.
Facebook founder heckled at web conference 12:18PM, Monday 10th March 2008
A keynote talk with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg descended into chaos as the audience heckled the interviewer for failing to get to the point.
Zuckerberg, the 23-year-old billionaire, was the keynote speaker at the SXSW Interactive Festival in Austin, Texas. Business Week journalist Sarah Lacy took the stage to question Zuckerberg, but the audience quickly grew tired of the topics she focused on, claiming that the real issues were being ignored.
"Never, ever have I seen such a train wreck of an interview," claimed audience member, Jason Pontin, via Twitter.
Lacy finally allowed the crowd to take over, and Zuckerberg was subjected to an enthusiastic barrage of questions about the real issues facing the social networking site, such as privacy and data portability.
"The audience is asking Zuckerburg better questions than Lacy did," said former Microsoft blogger, Robert Scoble, via his Twitter feed.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Flux of facts - the fate of news in a wired world
Here's one from the people at Futurismic.com that will give you something to think about:
written by Paul Raven | February 19th, 2008
Steve Rubel points us to an article at American Journalism Review that discusses the hazards of newsrooms relying on Wikipedia for research and citations. [Image by rabbleradio]
This is hardly a new story (though usually we hear about the horrors of students rather than journalists citing the online encyclopedia), but it’s not going away any time soon - in the always-on 24/7 culture of the web, the only constant is change. As Rubel puts it:
“The big question in my mind is this: when journalists cite Wikipedia articles, what happens when the facts they reference from the wiki entries change (assuming they do)? Do the reporters go back and update their articles? The news reports call more attention to the articles, potentially opening up a can of worms each time they source Wikipedia.
Seems like a big vicious cycle. Perhaps in the future these stories will carry some of the same disclaimers that Wikipedia lists.”
And if you think that’s a symptom of postmodernism running wild, what about CNN handing over the reins of iReport to the community of citizen-journalists who contribute to it? [Via SlashDot]
Are the definitions of “truth” and “consensus” converging? Were they ever really different?
Here's one from the people at Futurismic.com that will give you something to think about:
written by Paul Raven | February 19th, 2008
Steve Rubel points us to an article at American Journalism Review that discusses the hazards of newsrooms relying on Wikipedia for research and citations. [Image by rabbleradio]
This is hardly a new story (though usually we hear about the horrors of students rather than journalists citing the online encyclopedia), but it’s not going away any time soon - in the always-on 24/7 culture of the web, the only constant is change. As Rubel puts it:
“The big question in my mind is this: when journalists cite Wikipedia articles, what happens when the facts they reference from the wiki entries change (assuming they do)? Do the reporters go back and update their articles? The news reports call more attention to the articles, potentially opening up a can of worms each time they source Wikipedia.
Seems like a big vicious cycle. Perhaps in the future these stories will carry some of the same disclaimers that Wikipedia lists.”
And if you think that’s a symptom of postmodernism running wild, what about CNN handing over the reins of iReport to the community of citizen-journalists who contribute to it? [Via SlashDot]
Are the definitions of “truth” and “consensus” converging? Were they ever really different?
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The following is a good example of investigative journalism on a controversial issue:
STEPHEN STRAUSS: SCIENCE FRICTION
The vitamin D debate
Feb. 13, 2008
It’s been cold and remarkably un-sunny in my neck of Canada recently — climatic conditions which I have been repeatedly told in the past year should lead me to start scarfing down vitamin D pills, and do it in amounts which likely exceed Health Canada’s daily recommended dosage.
And even more importantly, I've been told I should also counsel you to ignore the existing suggestions and strike out on a vitamin D health path of your own, one which might see you taking up to five times today’s suggested dose. (That’s what one advocate announces he is doing).
And if I don’t, it is my fault — well "my" as in all the media — if you readers get cancer, multiple sclerosis, flu, autism, depression, diabetes, loose teeth, stroke, heart disease, osteoporosis, fractures and God knows what else.
I know that, because last year 15 scientists from around the world scolded journalists in an American Journal of Clinical Nutrition editorial for effectively condoning ill health.
"We do not think that the public media present the vitamin D story in a complete and accurate manner," they said.
"Reports about vitamin D inadequacies are presented straightforwardly, but when it comes to discussing the intake of vitamin D needed to correct the situation, outdated official recommendations for vitamin D are propagated by the public media. This probably occurs because of restrictive editorial policies driven by concern about possible litigation if media were to advise a 'toxic' intake greater than the [present upper intake level]," they — including Reinhold Vieth of the University of Toronto — wrote.
Well, one should take this kind of criticism to heart. I have, in the last little while, specifically been looking at a paper that came out last year in the AJCN. I did this because it made many people’s top 10 science stories of 2007 and because the finding was described in various Canadian media as strongly influencing the Canadian Cancer Society’s decision to recommend that people in this country take much more — upwards of two-and-a-half times today’s recommended 400 International Units — vitamin D on a daily basis.
The study compared over a lengthy period — four years — the cancer rates in women taking vitamin D, taking calcium without vitamin D, or taking nothing. Researchers at Creighton University in Nebraska then reported a 60 per cent decrease in collective cancer rates for the vitamin D takers when they took what was something more than twice the currently recommended dosage.
While the cancer numbers were small — only 50 cases in toto — the CCS decision meant there was lots of coverage of the research. I found upwards of 50 reports in magazines, newspapers, radio and television, but absolutely zero coverage of the criticism of the paper that appeared in the journal in recent months.
In one letter, three scientists in Texas pointed out a number of issues, not the least of which being an Iowa study which suggested that when breast cancer was looked at there was indeed a fall in cancer numbers for the first five years when a vitamin D supplement was taken. But this balanced out at 10 years and there actually seemed to be more breast cancers among women taking vitamin D after 15 years.
It is precisely these sorts of yes/no/maybe results that make science and medical writers very, very, very, very cautious about blithely recommending dose rate increases.
Then there were the questions raised by Manish Sood of the Toronto General Hospital and Amy Sood of the University of Toronto faculty of pharmacy. They pointed out that some had suggested the incidence heart disease might grow as a result of increasing the vitamin D dosages and recommending, as the CCS did, that supplements be taken year round or during fall and winter months depending on skin colour and other factors.
In light of the CCS recommendation and a possible heart disease side-effect, they concluded their letter saying: "As Canadians, we ask the question — have we just traded one problem for another?"
Sounds reasonable, but their concern was brushed back by paper authors Robert Heaney and Joan Lappe of Creighton, who responded that there is no evidence of heart problems with vitamin D doses up to 10 times what they had given people. They added, "the issue of vitamin D toxicity was exhaustively reviewed in this Journal just a few months ago and Sood and Sood may find some reassurance in that report."
Given this disagreement I, too, needed reassurance and so I went to the review where I found something very non-reassuring. Heaney and Vieth had co-authored the toxicity study with two employees of the Council For Responsible Nutrition, a Washington D.C.-based lobby group and trade association for ingredient suppliers and manufacturers in the dietary supplement industry — that is to say, the official representatives of the people who would make vitamin D.
And their roles were anything but minor. One applied "risk assessment methodology" to the results and the other "searched literature and summarized relevant findings." Ultimately what the four wrote looks extremely authoritative, and might well be so, but to my mind this collaboration represents not an apparent conflict of interest, but a genuine conflict of interest.
And let me explain it with a simple equation. Let us assume that one-third of the people in North America decide, based on the CCS recommendation, to more than double their vitamin D dosage and this costs a bare $20 per person a year. That translates into an extra $2 billion going to vitamin D manufacturers and sellers.
All of this made me go back to the original Creighton paper and look to see if there was any indication of specific conflicts of interest among the researchers in it. The paper says no, with resounding vehemence: "None of the authors was affiliated in any way with an entity involved in the manufacture or marketing of vitamin D."
Then it goes on to mention that one author, Robert Recker, was on the scientific advisory boards of Roche and Proctor & Gamble, and Heaney was on the scientific advisory board for the International Dairy Food Association and the speaker’s bureau for P & G.
It’s true that Roche doesn’t make vitamins today — but it sold the business in 2003, a time that the Creighton experiment was ongoing. The sale, by the way, was announced at the same time Roche said it had resolved lawsuits growing out of its involvement in vitamin price fixing.
But Proctor remains in the business, in that it has licensed its Olay name to another company to produce Olay vitamins, which include vitamin D in a multivitamin supplement. Not to mention the fact that Heaney reported in 2006 that he had a "financial relationship with SmithKlineGlaxo" — a company which directly produces vitamin D.
And oh, yes, it seems almost everyone doing vitamin D research — Vieth included — gets money from dairy farmers associations in either Canada or the U.S.
So I sent Recker and Heaney an e-mail asking for an explanation and Recker responded: "Neither Dr. Heaney nor I have any affiliation with the company that supplied the vitamin D for the study. We have not had affiliation with the vitamin D work for the companies you mention. I have been a scientific adviser to Roche, P & G and Smith-Kline-Glaxo, but not in their vitamin D work."
Interestingly finely parsed, but when I Google "Recker and Glaxo" I find him quoted in a company press release endorsing an osteoporosis website the company supports — a site that advocates taking vitamin D and which points out that if you have problems getting it naturally, you can buy supplements that will fill in the gap.
Recker responded in his e-mail to me that, "I do not include the statement in the press release as a potential conflict of interest since I was not making the statement out of any affiliation with GSK. I have not participated in any of the studies nor in any advisory capacity to GSK regarding any vitamin D product. There is often some confusion about what constitutes a potential conflict of interest, as might be the case here. My institution does not require that I list this as a potential conflict of interest in its management of faculty relations with industry."
Parsing a parse, if you ask me.
I then had a lengthy discussion with Vieth who quite candidly said he had been delighted to join up with the manufacturers’ association employees in the toxicity review paper because he had long admired them for being good scientists. "I was honoured when they asked," he told me.
As to money conflicts he doesn’t think that was a big issue because vitamin D is a generic product and can be made for very little. He said the pure form of the substance costs about $3,000 a kilogram to make, a figure that translates into the dose each of the women in Nebraska took to ward off cancer costing about 3.5 cents a year to make.
Then he told me he had been angered when his name had been taken off some scientific papers after he, in complete openness, told agencies and journals that he and his wife have set up a vitamin D company in Toronto called Ddrops Inc. She is now the company’s president and it sells a year’s supply of 1,000 IU liquid vitamin D for about $20. "I was told my name was being taken off papers because of my wife’s occupation. That is something I find infuriating and upsetting," he said.
A little additional research found that Elaine Vieth has told the Hamilton Spectator that pharmacies initially had little interest in selling her product, which can be sprinkled on food or in drinks, but that after the Creighton cancer study appeared she sold 30,000 bottles within two days.
I am not often struck speechless by life’s contradictions, but here I am. Who would have thought that the research pertaining to what Ddrops markets as "the sunshine vitamin in just one drop" could be so conflicted?
Nonetheless, let me be absolutely clear. I cannot say that any of the findings of any of the researchers I cite — particularly when it comes to vitamin D’s cancer preventative effects — are erroneous because of the scientists’ commercial connections. Vitamin D may indeed turn out to be the next best thing since free e-mail and ballpoint pens, but I will say that a careful journalist, a prudent journalist, a wise journalist would look at this tangled mess of conflicted interests and results and proceed exceedingly carefully in promoting a massive change in vitamin D dosage levels.
I will say that Health Canada should not be stampeded into doing anything reflexive when it comes to raising vitamin D dosage levels.
And I might also suggest that if university scientists are looking for a less conspiratorial explanation for their perception that media has been loath to join a crusade to raise the dosage levels, they would do well to consider how it looks to outside observers when researchers blithely associate with those who benefit financially from these changes.
And that advice is good on both the sunniest and the cloudiest of days.
Related link:
Take vitamin D to reduce cancer risk, Canadian Cancer Society advises
External links:
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition editorial on vitamin D recommendations
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition article on vitamin D toxicity
Creighton University backgrounder on cancer/vitamin D
(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external sites - links will open in new window)
Biography
Stephen Strauss wrote articles, columns and editorials about science and technology for the Globe and Mail for more than 20 years. He has also authored three books, several book chapters, and for his efforts received numerous awards. Through all his time in journalism, he still remains smitten by the enduring wisdom of the motto of Austrian writer Karl Kraus. Say what is.
STEPHEN STRAUSS: SCIENCE FRICTION
The vitamin D debate
Feb. 13, 2008
It’s been cold and remarkably un-sunny in my neck of Canada recently — climatic conditions which I have been repeatedly told in the past year should lead me to start scarfing down vitamin D pills, and do it in amounts which likely exceed Health Canada’s daily recommended dosage.
And even more importantly, I've been told I should also counsel you to ignore the existing suggestions and strike out on a vitamin D health path of your own, one which might see you taking up to five times today’s suggested dose. (That’s what one advocate announces he is doing).
And if I don’t, it is my fault — well "my" as in all the media — if you readers get cancer, multiple sclerosis, flu, autism, depression, diabetes, loose teeth, stroke, heart disease, osteoporosis, fractures and God knows what else.
I know that, because last year 15 scientists from around the world scolded journalists in an American Journal of Clinical Nutrition editorial for effectively condoning ill health.
"We do not think that the public media present the vitamin D story in a complete and accurate manner," they said.
"Reports about vitamin D inadequacies are presented straightforwardly, but when it comes to discussing the intake of vitamin D needed to correct the situation, outdated official recommendations for vitamin D are propagated by the public media. This probably occurs because of restrictive editorial policies driven by concern about possible litigation if media were to advise a 'toxic' intake greater than the [present upper intake level]," they — including Reinhold Vieth of the University of Toronto — wrote.
Well, one should take this kind of criticism to heart. I have, in the last little while, specifically been looking at a paper that came out last year in the AJCN. I did this because it made many people’s top 10 science stories of 2007 and because the finding was described in various Canadian media as strongly influencing the Canadian Cancer Society’s decision to recommend that people in this country take much more — upwards of two-and-a-half times today’s recommended 400 International Units — vitamin D on a daily basis.
The study compared over a lengthy period — four years — the cancer rates in women taking vitamin D, taking calcium without vitamin D, or taking nothing. Researchers at Creighton University in Nebraska then reported a 60 per cent decrease in collective cancer rates for the vitamin D takers when they took what was something more than twice the currently recommended dosage.
While the cancer numbers were small — only 50 cases in toto — the CCS decision meant there was lots of coverage of the research. I found upwards of 50 reports in magazines, newspapers, radio and television, but absolutely zero coverage of the criticism of the paper that appeared in the journal in recent months.
In one letter, three scientists in Texas pointed out a number of issues, not the least of which being an Iowa study which suggested that when breast cancer was looked at there was indeed a fall in cancer numbers for the first five years when a vitamin D supplement was taken. But this balanced out at 10 years and there actually seemed to be more breast cancers among women taking vitamin D after 15 years.
It is precisely these sorts of yes/no/maybe results that make science and medical writers very, very, very, very cautious about blithely recommending dose rate increases.
Then there were the questions raised by Manish Sood of the Toronto General Hospital and Amy Sood of the University of Toronto faculty of pharmacy. They pointed out that some had suggested the incidence heart disease might grow as a result of increasing the vitamin D dosages and recommending, as the CCS did, that supplements be taken year round or during fall and winter months depending on skin colour and other factors.
In light of the CCS recommendation and a possible heart disease side-effect, they concluded their letter saying: "As Canadians, we ask the question — have we just traded one problem for another?"
Sounds reasonable, but their concern was brushed back by paper authors Robert Heaney and Joan Lappe of Creighton, who responded that there is no evidence of heart problems with vitamin D doses up to 10 times what they had given people. They added, "the issue of vitamin D toxicity was exhaustively reviewed in this Journal just a few months ago and Sood and Sood may find some reassurance in that report."
Given this disagreement I, too, needed reassurance and so I went to the review where I found something very non-reassuring. Heaney and Vieth had co-authored the toxicity study with two employees of the Council For Responsible Nutrition, a Washington D.C.-based lobby group and trade association for ingredient suppliers and manufacturers in the dietary supplement industry — that is to say, the official representatives of the people who would make vitamin D.
And their roles were anything but minor. One applied "risk assessment methodology" to the results and the other "searched literature and summarized relevant findings." Ultimately what the four wrote looks extremely authoritative, and might well be so, but to my mind this collaboration represents not an apparent conflict of interest, but a genuine conflict of interest.
And let me explain it with a simple equation. Let us assume that one-third of the people in North America decide, based on the CCS recommendation, to more than double their vitamin D dosage and this costs a bare $20 per person a year. That translates into an extra $2 billion going to vitamin D manufacturers and sellers.
All of this made me go back to the original Creighton paper and look to see if there was any indication of specific conflicts of interest among the researchers in it. The paper says no, with resounding vehemence: "None of the authors was affiliated in any way with an entity involved in the manufacture or marketing of vitamin D."
Then it goes on to mention that one author, Robert Recker, was on the scientific advisory boards of Roche and Proctor & Gamble, and Heaney was on the scientific advisory board for the International Dairy Food Association and the speaker’s bureau for P & G.
It’s true that Roche doesn’t make vitamins today — but it sold the business in 2003, a time that the Creighton experiment was ongoing. The sale, by the way, was announced at the same time Roche said it had resolved lawsuits growing out of its involvement in vitamin price fixing.
But Proctor remains in the business, in that it has licensed its Olay name to another company to produce Olay vitamins, which include vitamin D in a multivitamin supplement. Not to mention the fact that Heaney reported in 2006 that he had a "financial relationship with SmithKlineGlaxo" — a company which directly produces vitamin D.
And oh, yes, it seems almost everyone doing vitamin D research — Vieth included — gets money from dairy farmers associations in either Canada or the U.S.
So I sent Recker and Heaney an e-mail asking for an explanation and Recker responded: "Neither Dr. Heaney nor I have any affiliation with the company that supplied the vitamin D for the study. We have not had affiliation with the vitamin D work for the companies you mention. I have been a scientific adviser to Roche, P & G and Smith-Kline-Glaxo, but not in their vitamin D work."
Interestingly finely parsed, but when I Google "Recker and Glaxo" I find him quoted in a company press release endorsing an osteoporosis website the company supports — a site that advocates taking vitamin D and which points out that if you have problems getting it naturally, you can buy supplements that will fill in the gap.
Recker responded in his e-mail to me that, "I do not include the statement in the press release as a potential conflict of interest since I was not making the statement out of any affiliation with GSK. I have not participated in any of the studies nor in any advisory capacity to GSK regarding any vitamin D product. There is often some confusion about what constitutes a potential conflict of interest, as might be the case here. My institution does not require that I list this as a potential conflict of interest in its management of faculty relations with industry."
Parsing a parse, if you ask me.
I then had a lengthy discussion with Vieth who quite candidly said he had been delighted to join up with the manufacturers’ association employees in the toxicity review paper because he had long admired them for being good scientists. "I was honoured when they asked," he told me.
As to money conflicts he doesn’t think that was a big issue because vitamin D is a generic product and can be made for very little. He said the pure form of the substance costs about $3,000 a kilogram to make, a figure that translates into the dose each of the women in Nebraska took to ward off cancer costing about 3.5 cents a year to make.
Then he told me he had been angered when his name had been taken off some scientific papers after he, in complete openness, told agencies and journals that he and his wife have set up a vitamin D company in Toronto called Ddrops Inc. She is now the company’s president and it sells a year’s supply of 1,000 IU liquid vitamin D for about $20. "I was told my name was being taken off papers because of my wife’s occupation. That is something I find infuriating and upsetting," he said.
A little additional research found that Elaine Vieth has told the Hamilton Spectator that pharmacies initially had little interest in selling her product, which can be sprinkled on food or in drinks, but that after the Creighton cancer study appeared she sold 30,000 bottles within two days.
I am not often struck speechless by life’s contradictions, but here I am. Who would have thought that the research pertaining to what Ddrops markets as "the sunshine vitamin in just one drop" could be so conflicted?
Nonetheless, let me be absolutely clear. I cannot say that any of the findings of any of the researchers I cite — particularly when it comes to vitamin D’s cancer preventative effects — are erroneous because of the scientists’ commercial connections. Vitamin D may indeed turn out to be the next best thing since free e-mail and ballpoint pens, but I will say that a careful journalist, a prudent journalist, a wise journalist would look at this tangled mess of conflicted interests and results and proceed exceedingly carefully in promoting a massive change in vitamin D dosage levels.
I will say that Health Canada should not be stampeded into doing anything reflexive when it comes to raising vitamin D dosage levels.
And I might also suggest that if university scientists are looking for a less conspiratorial explanation for their perception that media has been loath to join a crusade to raise the dosage levels, they would do well to consider how it looks to outside observers when researchers blithely associate with those who benefit financially from these changes.
And that advice is good on both the sunniest and the cloudiest of days.
Related link:
Take vitamin D to reduce cancer risk, Canadian Cancer Society advises
External links:
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition editorial on vitamin D recommendations
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition article on vitamin D toxicity
Creighton University backgrounder on cancer/vitamin D
(Note: CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external sites - links will open in new window)
Biography
Stephen Strauss wrote articles, columns and editorials about science and technology for the Globe and Mail for more than 20 years. He has also authored three books, several book chapters, and for his efforts received numerous awards. Through all his time in journalism, he still remains smitten by the enduring wisdom of the motto of Austrian writer Karl Kraus. Say what is.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Here is a good summary via our good friends at Mantex:
Neologism Ahoy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet
Would you know a sockpuppet if you saw one?
And even more, what would it have to do
with astroturfing - if anything?
I came across a whole slew of new terms
recently - all to do with creating bogus
identities and fake opinions on line.
A sockpuppet is a false identity used for
purposes of deception in an Internet
community. The sock sets up stupid Aunt
Sally comments which the puppeteer (in real
persona) then demolishes to gain credit.
Astroturfing gets its name from the fact
that it is pretending to be 'grassroots'
support for something - but in fact it's
a fake construction by stealth marketeers
and public relation wonks. Read it all here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet
Neologism Ahoy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet
Would you know a sockpuppet if you saw one?
And even more, what would it have to do
with astroturfing - if anything?
I came across a whole slew of new terms
recently - all to do with creating bogus
identities and fake opinions on line.
A sockpuppet is a false identity used for
purposes of deception in an Internet
community. The sock sets up stupid Aunt
Sally comments which the puppeteer (in real
persona) then demolishes to gain credit.
Astroturfing gets its name from the fact
that it is pretending to be 'grassroots'
support for something - but in fact it's
a fake construction by stealth marketeers
and public relation wonks. Read it all here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_sock_puppet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
