Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts

Wednesday, 1 October 2008

USA: Two Cuban journalists with UN accreditation denied visas to reenter the United States

Reporters sans frontières - Cuba
"Reporters Without Borders calls on the office of the UN secretary-general to intercede on behalf of husband-and-wife journalists Tomás Granados Jiménez and Ilsa Rodríguez Santana - both UN correspondents for the Cuban news agency Prensa Latina - who were refused visas to reenter the United States after a short holiday in Cuba.

Based in New York for the past three years, the couple were not given any explanation by the US authorities for the refusal, which Reporters Without Borders regards as arbitrary. They were, however, given a form suggesting they are regarded as a threat to the United States."

USA: Drudge Report, Free Speech, and the Election: Is the "Marketplace of Ideas" Working Efficiently?

FindLaw's Writ - Hilden: The Drudge Report, Free Speech, and the Election: Is the "Marketplace of Ideas" Working Efficiently?

"--snip--

In this column, I'll discuss the unique role that The Drudge Report plays in the context of how it affects the "marketplace of ideas" that the Supreme Court has stressed as a central component of the First Amendment. In particular, I'll focus on the Court's ideal that readers and viewers must be able to exercise free, well-informed choice as to which of many ideas and viewpoints they will embrace - and consider whether it is well-served by The Drudge Report and by traditional media, both online and off.

Prioritizing Stories: Drudge Versus More Traditional Media

In one sense, Drudge is extremely open about his editorial judgment regarding which stories to include and emphasize - to the point of using red type and larger lettering for the ones upon which he wants readers to focus, and even employing his famous icon of a police siren for stories he thinks are truly major. His decision to include this kind of metadata is one reason that the reader can get the gist of his site very quickly, but then also read much more if she chooses.

--snip--

Inevitably, though, there's some important prioritization on CNN.com as well. When a story "breaks" is, in part, a matter of judgment, and so is how closely to follow that story, with how many reports. Thus, CNN.com's supposedly objective news categories are disguising its editorial judgment, not eliminating it.

In contrast, Drudge's more open prioritization of the stories he does include at least admits that some judgment is being exercised. CNN.com perpetrates the illusion of media objectivity whereas it is quite plain that The Drudge Report is subjective, selective, and authored.

--snip--

In sum, from a "marketplace of ideas" viewpoint, The Drudge Report compares surprisingly well to traditional media - by wearing its subjectivity proudly. A separate site devoted to major stories Drudge chose not to cover, and to some of the metadata regarding coverage that I advocated above, would better complete the picture. But such a site would be a welcome addition to CNN.com, as well. And if Drudge and CNN.com were brave, they would invite such meta-sites to share a prominent corner of their screens - enhancing transparency, admitting subjectivity, and fully informing the reader."

Monday, 29 September 2008

USA: Automated Data Feeds Make Smart Freedom of Information possible

W. David Stephenson: Automated Data Feeds Make Smart Regulation Possible Now
"The District of Columbia, long plagued by corruption, began a transparency initiative under former Mayor Anthony Williams. It shifted into high gear under Mayor Adrian Fenty, and CTO Vivek Kundra. They now publish, on a real-time basis, more than 260 different data streams of statistics as varied as violent crime, building starts, and even requests to fill potholes. All of those statistics are available for anyone to analyze and interpret, and current uses range from tracking development around the new Nationals Park to showing crime reports on a Google Map.

Equally important, District agencies use the same data feeds internally to deploy their workforces more effectively, and break down barriers to cooperation between agencies.

If the same system was applied to banking, critical statistics could flow automatically to federal regulators, while also being available to the banks' own staff -- many of whom have never had real-time data access in the past. Combined with innovative web-based tools to turn obscure data into easy-to-understand visualizations, for the first time the workforce, as well as regulators, would have the kind of real-time information that's essential in today's global economy, whether to regulate businesses or to run them.

Furthermore, if the data were automatically "scrubbed" of identifiers and any kind of information that might be a legitimately competitive concern, it might also be possible to aggregate and publish the data externally, so that the general public, media, and scholars could also subscribe to, analyze, and scrutinize the information on a real-time basis."

Saturday, 27 September 2008

USA: Banned Books Week

UInfo: Banned Books Week
According to the American Library Association, more than 400 books were challenged in 2007. The 10 most challenged titles were:

1. And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell
2. The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
3. Olive’s Ocean by Kevin Henkes
4. The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman
5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
6. The Color Purple by Alice Walker
7. TTYL by Lauren Myracle
8. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
9. It’s Perfectly Normal by Robie Harris
10. The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky
(Click here to see why these books were challenged.)

Friday, 26 September 2008

UK: Finally, the Story of the Whistleblower Who Tried to Prevent the Iraq War

Finally, the Story of the Whistleblower Who Tried to Prevent the Iraq War | CommonDreams.org

Finally, the Story of the Whistleblower Who Tried to Prevent the Iraq War <http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/09/25>
by Norman Solomon

Of course Katharine Gun was free to have a conscience, as long as it didn't interfere with her work at a British intelligence agency. To the authorities, practically speaking, a conscience was apt to be less tangible than a pixel on a computer screen. But suddenly -- one routine morning, while she was scrolling through e-mail at her desk -- conscience struck. It changed Katharine Gun's life, and it changed history.

Despite the nationality of this young Englishwoman, her story is profoundly American -- all the more so because it has remained largely hidden from the public in the United States. When Katharine Gun chose, at great personal risk, to reveal an illicit spying operation at the United Nations in which the U.S. government was the senior partner, she brought out of the transatlantic shadows a special relationship that could not stand the light of day.

By then, in early 2003, the president of the United States -- with dogged assists from the British prime minister following close behind -- had long since become transparently determined to launch an invasion of Iraq. Gun's moral concerns were not unusual; she shared, with countless other Brits and Americans, strong opposition to the impending launch of war. Yet, thanks to a simple and intricate twist of fate, she abruptly found herself in a rare position to throw a roadblock in the way of the political march to war from Washington and London. Far more extraordinary, though, was her decision to put herself in serious jeopardy on behalf of revealing salient truths to the world.

--snip--

The import of the NSA memo was such that it shook the government of Tony Blair and caused uproars on several continents. But for the media in the United States, it was a minor story. For the New York Times, it was no story at all.

At last, a new book tells this story. "The Spy Who Tried to Stop a War" packs a powerful wallop.

--snip--

She and her colleagues at the Government Communications Headquarters were, as she later put it, "being asked to participate in an illegal process with the ultimate aim of achieving an invasion in violation of international law."

--snip--

Overall, to the editors of American mass media, the actions and revelations of Katharine Gun merited little or no reporting -- especially when they mattered most. My search of the comprehensive LexisNexis database found that for nearly three months after her name was first reported in the British media, U.S. news stories mentioning her scarcely existed.

When the prosecution of Katharine Gun finally concluded its journey through the British court system, the authors note, a surge of American news reports on the closing case "had people wondering why they hadn't heard about the NSA spy operation at the beginning." This book includes an account of journalistic evasion that is a grim counterpoint to the story of conscience and courage that just might inspire us to activate more of our own.
This article was adapted from Norman Solomon's foreword to the new book by Marcia and Thomas Mitchell, "The Spy Who Tried to Stop a War: Katharine Gun and the Secret Plot to Sanction the Iraq Invasion."


Thursday, 25 September 2008

USA: Political lies forced on electorate

Truth in Advertising? Not for Political Ads - TIME
"Mendacity in commercial advertising can also carry a steep financial price. In 2007, the FTC fined four diet-pill manufacturers $25 million for making false claims about their products.

Candidates are not held to the same commercial standard, and the reason is simple: their statements and advertisements are considered "political speech," which falls under the protection of the First Amendment. The noble idea undergirding what otherwise seems like a political loophole is the belief that voters have a right to uncensored information on which to base their decisions. Too often, however, the result is a system in which the most distorted information comes from the campaigns themselves. And as this year's presidential race is showing, that presents an opportunity for a candidate willing to go beyond simple distortions and exaggerations by making repeated and unapologetic use of objectively false statements.

But it's not just that candidates are allowed to launch unfounded attacks against their opponents or make false claims about their own records. Broadcasters are actually obligated to run their ads, even those known to be false. Under the Federal Communications Act, a station can have a blanket policy of refusing all ads from all candidates. But they cannot single out and decline to air a particular commercial whose content they know to be a lie.

In one of the earliest famous cases dealing with the issue, the NAACP objected to a 1972 political ad from a U.S. Senate candidate in Georgia named J.B. Stoner who was running on the National States Rights Party ticket. Stoner called himself a "white racist," and his ad said the "main reason why niggers want integration is because niggers want our white women." The Federal Communications Commission forced stations in Atlanta to accept the ad, citing freedom-of-speech protections."

USA: American Library Association signs statement demanding transparency in 'financial bailout'

Public Citizen | Congress Watch | Congress Watch - Joint Statement-Bailout TransparencyHouse
September 23, 2008
Any Federal Financial Industry Rescue Package Must Be Transparent

The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd
Chairman
Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs
534 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510


The Honorable Richard Shelby
Ranking Member
Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs
534 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510


The Honorable Barney Frank
Chairman
House Financial Services Committee
2129 Rayburn House
Washington, DC 20515



The Honorable Spencer Bachus
Ranking Member
House Financial Services Committee
Office B-371A Rayburn House Office
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby:

We the undersigned, as advocates for open and transparent government, strongly oppose section 2(b)(2) and section 8 of the Legislative Proposal for Treasury Authority to Purchase Mortgage-Related Assets. While we hold many different views on the causes of and remedies for the current turmoil in financial markets, we are united in the belief that the legislation confers unacceptably broad powers upon the Treasury to conduct activities without transparency and accountability to the public. As written, the proposal would make any decisions by the Secretary non-reviewable by courts or administrative agencies – a certain prescription for the very kind of opacity that has contributed to the financial policy woes we face today. Equally troubling, public contracts associated with the proposal could be created outside of existing laws normally governing such actions.

Few proposals in the 110th Congress can match this one for its impact on the American people. For the sake of democratic discourse, citizens deserve vigorous, timely, and accessible disclosure of all details surrounding any government decisions in response to financial market problems. Congress should respect this vital civil right by rejecting section 2(b)(2) and section 8 of the proposal now before you.

At a minimum, any credible solution must address one of the current crisis’ fundamental causes – corruption and other abuses of power sustained by secrecy. Otherwise, the taxpayers could end up giving $700 billion more to repeat the same disasters. Congress must prove it has learned this lesson. Any genuine solution must be grounded in transparency, with all relevant records publicly available and best practice whistleblower protection for all employees connected with the new law. Secrecy worsened this crisis, and taxpayers will not accept a law for secret solutions. What happens to our money is our business.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. If you have any questions, please contact Patrice McDermott, OpenTheGovernment.org, or Pete Sepp, National Taxpayers Union.

Sincerely,

Access Info Europe

Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington

American Association of University Professors

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression

American Civil Liberties Union

American Library Association

American Policy Center

Association of Research Libraries

Californians Aware

Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights

Citizen Outreach Project

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Common Cause

Defending Dissent Foundation

Downsize DC

Essential Information

FreedomWorks

Fund for Constitutional Government

Government Accountability Project

International Association of Whistleblowers

Liberty Coalition

Minnesota Coalition on Open Government

The Multiracial Activist

National Coalition Against Censorship

National Freedom of Information Coalition

National Taxpayers Union

National Whistleblower Center

9/11 Research Project

OMB Watch

OpenTheGovernment.org

Project on Government Oversight

Public Citizen

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Scientific Integrity Program, Union of Concerned Scientists

Semmelweis Society International

Society of Professional Journalists

Special Libraries Association

Taxpayers for Common Sense

U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation

Washington Coalition for Open Government

Washington Newspaper Publishers Association

WhyCongressCantRead.com

Woodhull Freedom Foundation

Richard A. Knee, Freelance Journalist
San Francisco, CA

Ann Garrison
San Francisco, CA

Vicki Leidner, Real Estate Agent
San Francisco, CA

Daniel Macchiarini
California

Susan Nevelow Mart, UC Hastings College of the Law (affiliation for information only)

Chad Scherr, FOI Advocate
West New York, NJ

Harrison Sheppard, Attorney
San Francisco, CA

Dr. Laurence H. Shoup
Oakland, CA

Paul Wertz, Journalist, retired
Eugene, OR