NJ Supreme Court: Bloggers Not Journalists

I received this today from a retired AP journalist.

TRENTON, N.J. – The New Jersey Supreme Court says people posting in online message boards don't have the same protections for sources as mainstream journalists.

The court ruled Tuesday that New Jersey's shield law for journalists does not apply to such message boards.

The case involved a New Jersey-based software company named Too Much Media. It sued a Washington state blogger for defamation and wanted her to reveal sources she cited on message board posts.

Shellee Hale claimed customer information was compromised and that she should be protected from revealing her sources.

New Jersey's highest court says online message boards are little more than forums for discussion and don't fit the definition of news media as described by the law.

Just what does the first amendment cover then?  What does the NJ SC think the 1st amendment covers?  I believe it covers both free speech and a free press.  Anyone who owns a printing press is a journalist...today that means anyone with a computer and the ability to write a coherent sentence.  After all, did the MSM actually report on Congressman Anthony Weiner's indescretions...Andrew Breibart did.  Andrew isn't a  journalist under this ruling, though I'd beg to differ on that.

Hopefully, this will be overtuned in the federal system as any 'journalist' shield law is at it's heart, a shackling of anyone who speaks out on any topic that "offends" someone.

Obama Administration Blocks Media Coverage Of Oil Spill

This report is from CNN and Anderson Cooper! You know, one of the biggest cheerleading networks for Obama over the past 3 years...so, the Obama Administration has tossed out the 1st Amendment and Freedom of the Press...






AC repeatedly states "We are not the enemy here...", but it  seems that transparency isn't what the Obama Administration wants...but then, this Administration promised to be the most open and transparent ever.   This, sadly, has not been the case.




Via Hot Air

Obama Signs Freedom of the Press Bill...and Refuses Press Questions

Irony alert of the day...Barack Obama signed into law a bill requiring that the State Department in it's annual human rights reports include descriptions of press freedoms in each of the 200+ countries around the world, yet refused to take questions from the lapdogs of the White House Press Corps...During the past campagn, Mr. Obama promised to establish a transparent government...and yet hasn't held a press conference in months...

Cartoon Yale Press Refused to Publish

Here is one of the cartoons that Yale Press refused to publish in a book about the cartoons....rediculous you say? Cowardace I say. Fools don't understand that by standing up to evil, you can defeat evil. Muslims aren't evil, just those who twist their religion are. In America, we believe in civil discourse, not in violense and intimidation...but Jihadists have initimidated and cowed many Politically Correct organizations into doing nothing. This is wrong and against all that America is. Here you DON'T have the right to be "offended," and people often mistake that they do so and thus often pressure companies into not doing that which "offends"...but that way leads to censorship and fascism. You can't muzzle freedom of speech, to do so is to end real democracy.

Valerie Jarret, Child of the Revolution (wannabe)...

I don't, at least not often, quote entire entries from another blog...it's not nice and is considered bad form. But when a far better writer than I writes something that makes a great point...I copy it and bring it here. The link in the title take you to the raw feed from the Baltimore Mullet Wrapper (oops the Balt Sun).

From the WSJ blog...James Taranto:

David Zurawik, TV critic for the Baltimore Sun, notes a revealing exchange between CNN's Campbell Brown and White House consigliera Valerie Jarrett. (Note that neither Brown nor Jarrett is as fat as she appears in the video; CNN, for some reason, insists on presenting its online videos with the wrong aspect ratio.) Here's the transcript:

>Brown: So do you think FOX News is biased?
Jarrett: Well, of course they're biased. Of course they are.
Brown: OK. Then do you also think that MSNBC is biased?
Jarrett: Well, you know what? This is the thing. I don't want to--actually, I don't want to just generalize all FOX is biased or that another station is biased. I think what we want to do is look at it on a case-by-case basis. And when we see a pattern of distortion, we're going to be honest about that pattern of distortion.
Brown: But you only see that at FOX News? That's all that--you have spoken out about FOX News.
Jarrett: That's actually not true. I think that what the administration has said very clearly is that we're going to speak truth to power.

Good for Campbell Brown for sticking up for a competitor (albeit at the expense of a lesser competitor). And it's pretty funny how Jarrett, after smugly asserting, "Of course they're biased," did not make a pretense of standing by her position when Brown asked a question she would have been prepared for if she had spent any time thinking this through.

Even more risible, though, is the claim that the administration "is going to speak truth to power." Hello, Valerie? Your boss is the president of the United States! No one is more powerful. As we suggested Friday, it really seems as if Obama and his men do not understand what it means to be president. Because their power is constrained--thank you, Founding Fathers!--they labor under the delusion that they are powerless.

Yet while this is all hilarious, it is also scary when you think it through. Great power entails great responsibility. There is little to suggest that Obama and his aides appreciate their responsibility, and much, including their incessant complaining that the previous president did a lousy job, to suggest an attitude of total irresponsibility.

The job of those in power is not to "speak truth to power," though it would be nice if they spoke the truth once in a while. It is to exercise power responsibly. The effort to bully Fox News Channel would be an abuse of power were it not so pathetically inept.

**Mr. Taranto makes a strong point. The Obama Administration really doesn't have a clue about what they are doing. When you are on the outside, it's really very easy to throw grenades...but when YOU ARE THE BOSS, it's vastly different.**

The Chicago Way

There was a very interesting column in today's Chicago Tribune by Clarence Page. He objects to the Obama Administration's attacks on Fox News. Not stridently, and really rather cautiously,

Surely President Barack Obama and his advisers don't really think that their feud with Fox News will do anything but enhance the cable network's viewership. A deeper problem is what the flap reveals about Team Obama, which seems to be more comfortable with campaigning than governing.

I'm not happy about that. It does not fill me with glee to see Fox News star Sean Hannity joyfully replaying Obama's 2004 come-together speech about how we're "not red states or blues states" but "the United States of America" and asking where is Obama's promise now?

I don't agree with Hannity on much. He's only a tad more serious-minded as a news clown, in my grumpy view, than his colleague Glenn Beck. But, as much as my wife might run from the house when she hears me say it, Hannity's right on this one

As far as it goes, it's at least a beginning...perhaps other voices will begin to question what is occuring. Here's my response to his column:


Mr. Page,
This letter is in response to your column on Mr. Obama's new "War On Fox News". Mr. Obama has more than Fox News on his "enemies" list. It apparently has entries for any organizations that oppose his policies. They are branded as "evil" and must be ostracized. Corporate leaders in the financial industry were stigmatized for "earning too much". Later the "enemy" was the health insurance industry for changing their minds about participating in their own destruction as an industry.

Yet another "enemy" who opposes some of Mr. Obama's policies is the US Chamber of Commerce who opposes the "Cap & Trade" bill which if enacted will literally destroy what is left of the economy. Individual household energy costs will add approximately $2000.00 per year. I'm barely making ends meet now. That kind of energy cost increase, along with the tax increases that are hidden in the various incarnations of the health care bills will literally put me and my family out on the street.All they, and Fox News are guilty of are opposing, as any American is permitted to do under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution is to express their opinions, or report what they deem to be news. On the other hand, John F. Kennedy said in a speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association, Apr. 27, 1961

" No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion."
Any president that does stifle opposition is skirting if not shredding, the US Constitution. Think about it. How much of a leap is it to being from being labeled "not legitimate" to "enemy of the state"...

Thank you for allowing me to take up so much of your time.

Sincerely,

Richard A. Vail

Portents of Things to Come

The NYTimes is reporting that Anita Alvarez, the Cook County state’s attorney, who was elected last fall, is investigating the student journalists of Northwestern University's, Medill School of Journalism's, Medill Innocence Project. These students have over the years, freed at least 15 men and women on death row or serving life sentences.

“Every time the government starts attacking the messenger as opposed to the message, it can have a chilling effect,” said Barry C. Scheck, a pioneer of the Innocence Project in New York, who said he had never seen a similar demand from prosecutors.

This is the "Chicago Way" of politics. If you don't like what someone is saying about you politically, then you stigmatize them, drive them out. This is what Mr. Obama is doing to Fox News. Exactly the same thing.

If you begin to hound and organization, to name them as "enemies" then they are no longer legitimate and thus must be ignored. It's not a huge leap, from ignoring groups...to eliminating in a final solution. The National Socialist thought that way, so too did Mao Tse Dung in China. Mao eliminated at least 100 million "enemies of the state". Hugo Chavez is well on the way to doing this as he is imprisoning all who have vocally opposed his dictatorship.

My question is, who is next? What group, organization will be named, stigmatized and delegitimated? Who is next? That's an important question to ponder upon in the next few months as we watch this Chicago-bred politician's administration unfold.

The White House Turns Nixonian, An Analysis

An outstanding analysis of the White House/FoxNews battle that is ongoing. This week, when the Obama Adminstration attempted to block FoxNews from participating in a pool interview of the unaccountably appointed (i.e. no Senate confirmation hearinng) executive pay Czar, Kenneth R. Feinberg. CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS in a clear sign those networks weren't comfortable in the White House stance, Fox's competition refused to go along with the attempt to exclude Fox the interviews that was to be conducted with a camera crew shared by all the networks. The below analysis is from the comments on Michael Silence's blog from KnoxNews.com:


If the other networks' reasons had been purely principled, they probably would've said something last week, when the "war" started. Since they didn't, I'm sure we can discount that as a reason.

Which leaves us with two points which differentiated this week from last week...

First, the WH stepped up the campaign last Sunday when Emanuel and Axelrod made their pitches against Fox on the Sunday shows. They went further than Anita Dunn had in her criticism, adding that the other networks shouldn't "follow Fox's lead." (My take on that was that they were suggesting not only that they shouldn't be critical of the WH like Fox was, but also that they shouldn't report on any stories of scandal Fox might break.)

Keep in mind, the WH was PO'd with Fox for things like reporting on Van Jones, the NEA being used as a propaganda tool, and the ACORN tapes -- all stories either unearthed by Fox or heavily covered by them, and they were the only major outlet to do so. When Van Jones resigned, suddenly the rest of the media had to report a story they'd been ignoring for a couple of weeks. When the same thing happened with ACORN, they ddecided maybe they needed to start paying attention to the stories Fox was reporting. And now, suddenly the WH is telling them to go back to sleep... So they're faced with either being completely irrelevant to their customer base because they go back to ignoring breaking news stories, or they have to follow Fox's lead, which will PO the WH.

Given that one choice seals their financial doom, it's not hard to see why they'd go in the other direction..

The other reason I think they waited until this week for the push-back was that Glenn Back started playing a new tape of Anita Dunn, which was made during an interview, post-election, in which she talked at length about how the campaign had controlled the media during Obama's bid for the WH.

There's nothing more stinging to a lackey press than to have the story of how the campaign played you like a fine Stradavarius splashed on a competing network...

So when the WH insisted that Fox be excluded... well, they suddenly overstepped. The press had no choice but to push back and defend one of their own, even if they kind of agree with the WH about Fox.

BTW... I do think they also started to realize with the Chamber of Commerce war the WH started this week, that ANYONE who crosses Obama once will be targetted. The only way to safeguard yourself from attack is to present a united front, since attacking on multiple fronts isn't a winning strategy. (That's not to say the WH won't try it, but given how much Obama loves to see himself on TV, I kinda doubt he'd give up appearing for countless interviews with news and late night talk show hosts..) So the WH had no choice but to relent. After all, when Anderson Cooper starts referring to your administration as "Nixonian," you know you're in trouble...

Posted by: elaine at October 23, 2009 10:45 AM

We're All Balloon Boys Now

RCP has a column by Daniel Henninger, titled "We're All Balloon Boys Now" from the WSJ's opinion section. One of the commenter's named Pat Schon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm a Democrat and I do not believe one single
> word that President Obama says. His
> message/agenda is all spin. How did we ever vote
> for him?

Here's my my answer to him:

You voted for him because you bought the "kool-aide" the MSM was selling. Because they decided that they HAD to get him elected so they threw aside their mandate to examine all candidates under the harsh glare of public scrutiny, and published exactly what the Obama campaign wanted you to hear/know (see: ) for the video of this interview of Anita Dunn in Guatemala...oddly where the America press DIDN'T report her comments:

"The Obama campaign's press strategy leading up to his election last November focused on "making" the media cover what the campaign wanted and on exercising absolute "control" over coverage, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told an overseas crowd early this ?year.

In a video of the event, Dunn is seen describing in detail the media strategy used by then-Sen. Barack Obama's highly disciplined presidential campaign. The video is footage from a Jan. 12 forum hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development in the Dominican Republic.

"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," Dunn said, admitting that the strategy "did not always make us popular in the press." "

Ms. Dunn is on record as saying literally, they don't want the press to ask Obama genuine questions...because they don't want to have to answer them....think about it. An American administration is actively trying to silence the one news organization that actually has the balls to question what this administration is doing.

Once upon a time an American president said:

" No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion."

John F. Kennedy
35th President of the United States
From a speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association, Apr. 27, 1961

I can't see this President saying that...even though he ran on the platform of transparency. The Nixon administration was more transparent than this one...this one even has an enemies list. It's gotten so bad that anyone who disagrees with Mr. Obama's policies is labeled a racist, next it will be treason to oppose him.

Here's the list

Health Insurance Industry
Banking Industry
US Chamber of Commerce
FoxNews

Who else will be added.

Obama Desires to Stifle Debate

John F. Kennedy
35th President of the United States
From a speech to the American Newspaper Publishers Association, Apr. 27, 1961

" No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion."

Mr. Obama, 44th President, on the other hand, campaigned specifically on tranparency, has done just the opposite. His loyal minions have begun an assault upon the 4th Estate by deliberately attacking the voice with the largest audience of the three cable news outlets. He is doing so in order to stifle the debat from anyone in opposition to his Administration's policies. In 2001 radio interview, Mr. Obama is quoted as saying the US Consitution,

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. {The Warren Court} It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&feature=player_embedded

Mr. Obama seeks to break free from the constraints of the Constitution in order remake America as a socialist country on the European model. He has ingored that fact that the majority of America's ancestors fled from Europe to avoid those governments that restrict civil liberties and the ability to rise simply upon your own merits, not who your family is.

Obama Administration Attempting to Eliminate Freedom of the Press

The Obama Administration's attack on FoxNews is merely the 2nd salvo in it's attempt to subvert the freedom of American press outlets. The first was their absolute control over contact with the press during the 2008 presidential campaign.

The Obama campaign's press strategy leading up to his election last November focused on "making" the media cover what the campaign wanted and on exercising absolute "control" over coverage, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told an overseas crowd early this year.

In a video of the event, Dunn is seen describing in detail the media strategy used by then-Sen. Barack Obama's highly disciplined presidential campaign. The video is footage from a Jan. 12 forum hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development in the Dominican Republic.

"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," Dunn said, admitting that the strategy "did not always make us popular in the press."

The video drew attention after Dunn kicked off a war of words with Fox News last Sunday, calling the network "opinion journalism masquerading as news." The White House stopped providing guests to "Fox News Sunday" in August after host Chris Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/19/white-house-official-says-obama-team-controlled-media-coverage-campaign/

Additionally, last week, Ms. Dunn announced the Obama Administrations attack on FoxNews by stating:

"The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. And it is not ideological... what I think is fair to say about Fox, and the way we view it, is that it is more of a wing of the Republican Party. ..."

This is the same strategy that Hugo Chavez used in Venezuela to eliminate media opposition. There remains only 1 radio station and 1 television station there who are in public opposition to his regime. It's estimated that by next summer, neither will remain.

Here in the US, the FCC's announced plan to begin taxing media outlets that air "one point of view" with fee that will equal their operating costs will effectively close down most independent radio stations. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31575

What we now also know is that the Obama Administration is circulating a proposal for a new "spectrum use" tax and another proposal for "diversity" of station ownership -- mandating racial and gender quotas as to who should be "allowed" to own radio stations.

What's at stake here ? Simply put--Free Speech on the Radio.

While the wider aim is to assert tighter government control over all radio programming, the immediate target here is conservative talk radio. The "progressive" tilt at publicly funded NPR, or the Big Business ownership of liberal leaning network news does not bother Obama. He knows that the executives at GE and NBC Universal will self censor to avoid criticism. In a recent meeting, GE CEO Jeff Immelt and NBC Universal President Jeff Zucker met to discuss how to limit criticism of Obama on MSNBC.

Thus, the Obama Administration while targeting FoxNews now, is actually assaulting the 1st Amendment freedoms of all Media outlets.

Donald Sensing, on his blogs believes (as do I) that, the Obama Administration is using the communist writer/theorist Saul Alinksy's playbook, who in his work, Rules for Radicals, wrote that one of the rules of "power tactics" is to,

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...

"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'

"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)
Let's consider the first sentence, which has become probably the most-quoted of the whole work, seriatim.

Pick the target. Do not make the mistake of thinking that FoxNews Channel is the actual target. The bullseye target of this campaign is all the public media. FNC's role in this much broader attack is the next two precepts.

Freeze it. This does not mean to shock the target into inactivity, but to fix a certain perception about the target in the minds of the broader community, in this case the media figures in general and the minds of the community (in this case, the whole nation is the community) as a whole.

The White House strategy here is twofold. First, to freeze FNC away from being thought of as just one of the universe of media outlets. White House Communications Director Anita Dunn opened this volley by declaring that FNC is not really a news organization, but the propaganda arm of the Republican party.

http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2009/10/attack-on-fox-news-right-out-of-alinsky.html

I hope and pray that the rest of the MSM wakes up in time to see that they have been played by the Obama Administration. Because if they don't we may well see the end of our Republic in my lifetime.

Welcome to the Banana Republic of North America

The United States has now begun to decline with the Mr. Obama officially trying to eliminate the 1st Amendment. His actions mirror those of Hugo Chavez, the de facto dictator of Venezuela. His action in attempting to shut off FoxNews are those of a tin-pot Central American strong man. This past Sunday, Mr. Obama sent out his minions to reiterate Anita Dunn's declaration of war against FoxNews.

The Sunday morning talk shows just brought us White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod opining to George Stephanopoulos, on ABC’s “This Week,” that Fox is “Really – not news — it’s pushing a point of view.” Axelrod advised that ABC and other non-Fox outlets take his cue and expunge Fox from the brethren of news services: “And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way.” Meanwhile, on CNN’s “State of the Union,” White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was hammering home the same message, that Fox “is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective,” and urging “More importantly is not have [sic] the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox, as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization… .”

This is the kind of thing I expect from Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Papa Doc/Baby Doc Duvalier, NOT from a President of the United States. When Richard Nixon, in 1973 started his "enemies list" the press rightfully crucified him. Now that Mr. Obama has started his...only the NYTimes has spoken out. I hope the rest of the press grows some ba*** and protests this unconstitutional attempt to muzzle critics of this administration.