 |
Our
blogs about
America's Wars
War
on Iraq
War on Drugs
War
on Afghanistan
War
on Columbia
War on
Philippines
War
on Venezuela
More
Matrix Masters
Blogs
World
Events
US News
Science
& Health
Earth
News
Free Speech
News
from Africa
News from
Palestine
Bill of
Rights Under Attack
Matrix
Masters'
SUPPORTERS
Lorenzo's
Random Musings
. . . about Chaos,
Reason, and Hope
| |
Matrix Masters'
Blogs Free
Speech Archives Free
Speech [Home]
Bush Caught Planting Fake News Stories (Andrew Buncombe, The Independent, 29 May 2006) Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news. Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted the companies' products. . . . The report, by the non-profit group Centre for Media and Democracy, found that over a 10-month period at least 77 television stations were making use of the faux news broadcasts, known as Video News Releases (VNRs). Not one told viewers who had produced the items. . . . "We know we only had partial access to these VNRs and yet we found 77 stations using them," said Diana Farsetta, one of the group's researchers. "I would say it's pretty extraordinary. The picture we found was much worse than we expected going into the investigation in terms of just how widely these get played and how frequently these pre-packaged segments are put on the air." . . . "They have got very good at mimicking what a real, independently produced television report would look like," . . . Among items provided by the Bush administration to news stations was one in which an Iraqi-American in Kansas City was seen saying "Thank you Bush. Thank you USA" in response to the 2003 fall of Baghdad. The footage was actually produced by the State Department, one of 20 federal agencies that have produced and distributed such items.
posted by LoZo 8:46 AM
Judges Challenge Internet Wiretap Rules (Ted Bridis, Associated Press, May 5, 2006) A U.S. appeals panel sharply challenged the Bush administration Friday over new rules making it easier for police and the FBI to wiretap Internet phone calls. A judge said the government's courtroom arguments were "gobbledygook." . . . The skepticism expressed so openly toward the administration's case encouraged civil liberties and education groups that argued that the U.S. is improperly applying telephone-era rules to a new generation of Internet services. . . . "Your argument makes no sense," U.S. Circuit Judge Harry T. Edwards told the lawyer for the Federal Communications Commission, Jacob Lewis. "When you go back to the office, have a big chuckle. I'm not missing this. This is ridiculous. Counsel!" . . . At another point in the hearing, Edwards told the FCC's lawyer that his arguments were "gobbledygook" and "nonsense." . . . The court's decision was expected within several months. . . . In an unrelated case last year affecting digital television, two of the same three judges determined the FCC had significantly exceeded its authority and threw out new government rules requiring anti-piracy devices in new video devices. Lewis was also the losing lawyer in that case, and Edwards also was impassioned then in his criticisms of the FCC. . . . The panel appeared more inclined to support the FCC's argument that Internet-phone services _ which allow users to dial and receive calls from traditional phone numbers _ may be covered under the 1994 law and required to accommodate court-ordered wiretaps. The technology, popularized by Holmdel, N.J.-based Vonage Holdings Corp., is known as "voice over Internet protocol," or VOIP. . . . "Voice-over is a very different thing," U.S. Circuit Judge David B. Sentelle said. He said it offered "precisely the same" functions as traditional telephone lines. . . . Edwards told the lawyer for the civil liberties groups, Matthew Brill, that on his challenge that VOIP services aren't covered under the surveillance law, "I didn't think you have it." . . . Education groups had challenged the FCC rules because they said the requirements would impose burdensome new costs on private university networks.
posted by LoZo 10:17 AM
|
|
|