LA Times: EIGHT News articles plus TWO op/eds on the Fitz case! 10/29

[Nothing Without Hope]

The momentous importance of the Fitzgerald indictment is dramatically demonstrated by the LA Times presenting EIGHT news pieces PLUS two op/eds that are related in some way to the event. Some are fairly narrow and deal with details of the case and information about the principals in it, while others are broader and deal with issues such as the lack of honesty of the Bush Administration in making its arguments for the Iraq war and the culpability of the US media in falling for this deceit.

Below I give excerpts for the one of the news articles plus both op/eds and the titles and links for the others. One Op/ed is in the "Opinion" section, while the other is in the "Arts & Entertainment" section. The latter has a bit of a misleading title, but it is actually a major blast at the US media for falling for the lies of the Bush Administration in the rush to war.

I'll give the two op/eds first:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The op/ed by Tim Rutten in the Arts & Entertainment section - here called "Regarding Media" - does weasel a bit, but there is a rather strong condemnation of the role played by the "leading newspapers" in failing to question the Administration's statements in the rush to war.

http://www.calendarlive.com/printedition/calendar/cl-et-rutten29oct29,0,3124222.story?track=tothtml
REGARDING MEDIA

In blame game, take a number

Tim Rutten
October 29, 2005

(snip)

What they {serious-minded Americans} should not have to disagree over is whether the sacrifices made to overthrow Hussein were made not out of conviction but as the consequence of a calculated official deceit.

The leading American newspapers bear a special responsibility in this matter because they all swallowed the administration's argument hook, line and sinker.

The Los Angeles Times, for example, worried editorially that the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq gave Bush too much power but stated unequivocally: "It is well established that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction."

(snip)

The New York Times clearly wasn't the only journalistic institution that failed, and the duty to set the public record straight about how this mistake was made is a shared one. There will be shame enough for all if the media as a whole fail to accept this obligation.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The second editorial is in the "Opinion" section and is quite positive for Fitzgerald and the importance of the case.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-indict29oct29,0,3709477.story?track=tothtml
October 29, 2005
latimes.com : EDITORIAL

Fitzgerald's moment

(snip)

Those implications could hardly be more momentous. President Bush vowed to restore honor to the White House during his 2000 campaign, in a veiled reference to the Clinton-era scandals, and one of his Republican administration's main selling points is that it can be trusted to treat national security seriously. Friday's indictment, however, shows how the White House used Plame's identity as part of a deliberate campaign to discredit critics of the war in Iraq. Now the administration may face the spectacle of a sitting vice president being forced to testify in the trial of his former chief of staff.

The administration is well within its legal rights, obviously, to justify its policy in Iraq. Debate about the war and its aims is as necessary as it is vicious, and obviously still relevant. But the administration has set new standards for the politicization of national security, with the vice president's office at the center of a skillful yet reckless effort to manipulate intelligence and mislead the media.

Neither of which is necessarily against the law. Where this operation may have crossed into illegality was in the leaking of Plame's identity. It's clear that Fitzgerald knows who did this — the indictment refers to a mysterious "senior official in the White House (Official A)," widely believed to be Karl Rove — but the law requires that Fitzgerald prove intent. Libby was charged with obstruction of justice in part because he has prevented Fitzgerald from divining that intent.

So Fitzgerald's investigation will continue. Whether he will charge other administration officials remains to be seen. Thus far, however, his investigation is a credit to both him and the public he serves.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The single news article I have chosen to excerpt out of the eight in the 10/29 LAT issue assesses the case built by Fitzgerald as judged by legal experts. This analysis outlines and explains the allegations against Libby and cites the opinions of legal experts that Fitzgerald has made a strong case. At the end of the article is a fairly detailed timeline of relevant events beginning in Feb 12, 2002, when Cheney asked the CIA to look into the Niger yellowcake deal, and ending Oct 16, 2005, when Miller wrote that she couldn't remember who told her Plame's name.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-legal29oct29,0,4399303.story?coll=la-home-nation
October 29, 2005
latimes.com : National News
INDICTMENT IN CIA LEAK CASE

Prosecutor Has Built a Strong Case, Experts Say

By David G. Savage and Henry Weinstein, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — Sometimes, a witness says he just can't remember. It may well be a convenient memory lapse, but it is hard to prove such forgetfulness is a crime.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, however, is accused of something far more elaborate. Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald alleges that Libby made up a false story to deceive investigators and then told the lie under oath to the grand jury.

(snip)

Fitzgerald would have no case "without the journalist witnesses. We are in an interesting new world," said Rory Little, a former federal prosecutor who teaches criminal law at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. "Why would a guy as smart and as experienced as Libby go in and lie? One reason is he was still living in the world where journalists were not compelled to testify."

Little cautioned it was possible that Russert gave an inaccurate account and that Libby would be vindicated. However, if the allegations are true and Libby made up his story "out of whole cloth," he added, "it is the hubris of a high-ranking government official who doesn't believe it will come out, and if it does, there is deniability. If you want to spread this around, you talk to one reporter and then call another reporter and say this is what I heard. The allegation reads as a vicious, cynical use of the media."

(snip)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Here are links to the other seven news articles, one of which is a "news analysis."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-leak29oct29,0,4321095.story?coll=la-home-headlines
INDICTMENT IN CIA LEAK CASE: Top Cheney Aide Indicted; CIA Leak Inquiry Continues
I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby steps down after being charged with five felony counts, capping a trouble-ridden week for the Bush White House.
By Richard B. Schmitt, Janet Hook and James Gerstenzang, Times Staff Writers

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bushday29oct29,0,5234006.story?coll=la-home-headlines
INDICTMENT IN CIA LEAK CASE: Bush, Cheney Spend the Day Otherwise Occupied
On separate trips, they discuss the war on terrorism, with limited talk of the grand jury.
By Johanna Neuman and Warren Vieth, Times Staff Writers

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-media29oct29,0,2171074.story?coll=la-home-headlines
INDICTMENT IN CIA LEAK CASE: Some See Indictment as 'a Devastating Day for Journalism'
By James Rainey and Matea Gold, Times Staff Writers

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-assess29oct29,0,1968776.story?coll=la-home-headlines
NEWS ANALYSIS: Cloud Remains Over Rove's Situation
Bush's top aide wasn't indicted -- but he wasn't absolved. The result is more GOP uncertainty.
By Doyle McManus and Mary Curtius, Times Staff Writers

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove29oct29,1,4376327.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
INDICTMENT IN LEAK CASE:Rove Is Spared -- for Now
Bush's top advisor appeared to be targeted. But after negotiations and another look at the evidence, the prosecutor decides to hold off.
By Peter Wallsten and Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writers

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-libby29oct29,1,7449542.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
INDICTMENT IN CIA LEAK CASE: Powerful Insider Lands in 'Noose'
Libby was known for his clout, and discretion. His legal predicament stuns many friends.
By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fitzgerald29oct29,1,2351623.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
INDICTMENT IN CIA LEAK CASE: Prosecutor's Signature Traits Evident in the Case He Presses
Those familiar with Patrick J. Fitzgerald say he filed what the facts merited, no more or less.
By Josh Meyer, Times Staff Writer


Finally, there is a chart in pdf format of "Who's who" in the case. It only covers Rove, Libby and Cheney from the Administration; Miller, Novak and Cooper from the media; and the Wilsons, but it does make a simple capsule summary of history and current status for those unfamiliar with the principals.
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2005-10/20215595.pdf

[Popol Vuh]

1. No more LA times for me

Its nice to see these articles in the LA times, but I have long ago black balled the LA times. It has too often proved to me to be just another corporate outlet. For my print news I read the LA Weekly and a local paper here in the harbor area called Random Lengths.

But thanks for sharing the links Nothing Without Hope.

[Nothing Without Hope]

2. Welcome to DU, Popol Vuh!

Yes, they're all corporate outlets, but because they reach millions of people, I figure it behooves us to follow what they are saying. We have to know what the American people WE are trying to persuade are being fed by the corporate media. It gives us a necessary starting point in knowing what we have to rebut and what to expect in terms of what they're likely to believe.

So I'm not suggesting that we believe all we read in these leading newspapers ourselves, but rather that we take them as an indication of what many of our fellow citizens are being fed as news. We need to know that if we're going to be effective in getting the truth out.

Now I'll get down off my soap box and apologize for seeming to preach. It's the very late hour, it makes me too philosophical.

And you're very welcome! :hi:

[Popol Vuh]

5. Hi Nothing Without Hope

:hi:

[DistressedAmerican]

6. Welcome To DU! Maya Scholar Here. Love Your User Name.

We also have a Xipe Totec in the house!

[Popol Vuh]

7. Hi Distressed American

Thanks for the welcome. And I have to admit that you're the first person ever to recognize what my online user name is. :)

And I must keep a look out for Xipe Totec. :)





I am so loving the news right now, I want more. :)

[DistressedAmerican]

19. Hell Yes! Freaking Lover-ly!

Beware the lords of the underworld! Sneaky bastards!

[Nothing Without Hope]

8. "Popol Vuh" is familiar, but "Xipe Totec" just tickles my memory but

doesn't produce anyting clear. Can you translate?

I am no Maya scholar but I read all the books I could find on the Maya culture and especially enjoyed "Breaking the Maya Code."

This is the book I mean:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0500281335.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,32,-59_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Breaking the Maya Code (Paperback)
by Michael D. Coe
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0500281335/103-7816307-8571037?v=glance&n=283155&s=books&v=glance

[Popol Vuh]

12. Sorry for the delay Nothing Without Hope

I am listening to AirAmerica pod cast.. :)

"Popol Vuh" is the Mayan book of the dawn of life. Also, if I remember correctly, I think it also contains the Mayan book of the dead. But generally it is known as the book of the dawn of life and the people's book of council.

I myself am no Mayan scholar. I just come from a family where on one side of my family we're half Mexican and half Apache indian and I just remember Popol Vuh from my older uncles telling us little kids (30 something years ago :) ) stories. Mostly to scare us.. :)


Here's a link I found if you're curious

http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/maya/pvgm/

[Nothing Without Hope]

16. extremely interesting!

I have to leave for many hours now and also we should write more on this in this political thread. So perhaps we could have a thread in the Lounge to discuss this later on. If you would like that - and all would be welcome - I'll post a link here when I start that thread.

[DistressedAmerican]

18. He Was An Aztec God That Wore Flayed Human Skin.

The aztec Xipe priests would flay folks alive and wear their skin until it rotted off. It was a metaphor for the lifecycle of maize. Young then a drying husk then reborn.

Coe is a really good author and very accessable to the non-pro. That is key.

[goclark]

26. Same here, I refuse to read the LA TIMES

Maybe they have decided to grow a spine.

Keep me posted everyone because this loyal reader, for years.can't take them.

Glad to see these articles however.

[shockingelk]

3. recommend! n/t

:kick:

[Nothing Without Hope]

4. ***Contrast the tone of the op/eds with this sorry WASH POST product:***

And if you think this Wash Post editorial is bad -- it weasels and dodges every important point that departs from Bushie talking points -- wait until you see the Wash Post column by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, which has the title "No More Special Counsels." I'll post an excerpt shortly here and post a new thread with these two Wash Post editorials in it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801787.html

Mr. Libby's Indictment

Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A22

(snip)

Nevertheless, it is also a fact that Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, after substantially completing his two-year investigation, has brought no criminal charges in the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and its publication by columnist Robert D. Novak. Judging from the indictment, Mr. Libby was not Mr. Novak's source, and Mr. Libby himself is not charged with any wrongdoing in revealing Ms. Plame's identity to journalists. Though Mr. Fitzgerald says he has not wrapped up his work, that is the right outcome and one that reflects prudent judgment on his part.

The special counsel was principally investigating whether any official violated a law that makes it a crime to knowingly disclose the identity of an undercover agent. The public record offers no indication that Mr. Libby or any other official deliberately exposed Ms. Plame to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Rather, Mr. Libby and other officials, including Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, apparently were seeking to combat the sensational allegations of a critic. They may have believed that Ms. Plame's involvement was an important part of their story of why Mr. Wilson was sent to investigate claims that Iraq sought uranium ore from Niger, and why his subsequent -- and mostly erroneous -- allegations that the administration twisted that small part of the case against Saddam Hussein should not be credited. To criminalize such discussions between officials and reporters would run counter to the public interest.

That said, the charges Mr. Fitzgerald brought against Mr. Libby are not technicalities. According to the indictment, Mr. Libby lied to both the FBI and a grand jury. No responsible prosecutor would overlook a pattern of deceit like that alleged by Mr. Fitzgerald. The prosecutor was asked to investigate a serious question, and such obstructions are, as he said yesterday, like throwing sand in the umpire's face. In this case, they seem to have contributed to Mr. Fitzgerald's distressing decision to force a number of journalists to testify about conversations with a confidential source.

Both Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove appear to have allowed the White House spokesman to put out false information about their involvement. But nothing in this indictment suggests a broad-based conspiracy that requires endless further investigation by Congress or others. Nor does this case prove (or refute) charges that President Bush misled the country about the grounds for war. As Mr. Fitzgerald said yesterday: "This indictment is not about the war. . . . Anyone who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that."

[Peace Patriot]

13. This WaPo editorial could've been written by K. Rove (and maybe was).

I don't know why, but it still shocks me just how low the war profiteering corporate news monopolies have sunk.

"...nothing in this indictment suggests a broad-based conspiracy...".

I think I've just realized that part of what is going on here is that the collusion of these corporate news monopolies with the fascists in the WH is exposed by the indictment--Rove/Libby's utterly cynical manipulation of "the news," which these smart cookies in the media failed to in any way counter, mostly deliberately (on orders of their corporate bosses). The reporters and editors of our corporate news monopolies are exposed for the asses and lapdogs and wastes of news space that they are. Master minds like Rove and Libby just assume that they can commit high crimes and misdemeanors right in the newsstream, outing a CIA agent and the entire 20 year CIA weapons monitoring and non-proliferation project, with impunity.

And these editors and reporters will not just go along with it, they will follow up by legitimizing all their lies and excuses--their talking points--as well as providing them with legal cover. The delay of testimony for ONE YEAR by the reporter-witnesses that Fitzgerald needed is a disgrace. His having to go to the Supreme Court on a matter of the criminal endangerment of national security is amazing, now that I think of it. The reporters were doing the OPPOSITE of their job--they were COVERING UP White House crimes that they, personally, had evidence of.

WaPo, above, even uses Rove's demonic "criminalizing" shibboleth. "Criminalizing politics" becomes "criminalizing" discussions between "officials and reporters." But how this should really read is: criminalizing discussions between mass murderers, thieve, liars and usurpers and their lapdog scribblers.

Journalists with any integrity left will cringe reading this indictment. IT'S ALL ABOUT HOW BUSHITES DICTATE THE NEWS-STREAM, and the presumptions that Rove/Libby make that they can do so.

It's no wonder that WaPo wants this prosecutor to go away. He is not just pointing the spotlight on a criminal war; he's pointing the spotlight at THEIR PART IN IT.

"...nothing in this indictment suggests a broad-based conspiracy...".

Not only is this not true on its face--the indictment, for all its tight-lipped, careful legal framing, and redacted names, points RIGHT AT a WH conspiracy--the indictment ALSO points to the conspiracy between the WH and the corporate news monopolies!

------------------

Re: the L.A. Times. They are kind of like the Wall Street Journal. Sometimes quite good--very in depth--news articles; fascist top editors/owners. You will often find the truth in WSJ and LAT news articles, though you may have to read down to the 20th paragraph to get to it. Like the global corporate predator business people who read the WSJ, the Hollywood Holy Roman Empire II image-makers need reliable news. (This was formerly true of the NYT as well--re: the financial/cultural sector--but Judith Miller robbed them of their newsstream credibility. As for WaPo, they helped turn American politics into a bad joke, with Reagan--and Kenneth Starr--and into the goddamned 'mafia,' under Bush. What a soiled rag!)

[Nothing Without Hope]

15. Peace Patriot - please go to that thread and read the OTHER WaPo piece,

the one titled "No More Special Consels." It is FAR WORSE than the editorial you already read. It is full of blatant LIES, even repeating the "16 word" yellowcake story in a way that implies that it is the truth and once again saying that Wilson claimed falsely that Cheney sent him to Africa. It also says that special prosecutors are dangerous and must never be used again, and all legal oversight should be provided by the government's lawyers. (Which, by the way, the two authors of this travesty were under Bush41 and Reagan.)

This is very, very serious and I am not kidding. Please go read that column by Rivkin and Casey in the 10/29 WaPo, the one titled "No more special counselors." Both it and the WaPo editorial you already read (which doesn't quite lie but is just the GOP tallking points) are excerpted in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5216379
thread title: WaPo 10/29: a column of LIES and an op/ed of GOP talking points (SHAME!)

We cannot allow this to stand unchalleged - it will be quoted as gospel from the floor of Congress and all over the country by Bush enablers and operatives.

[H2O Man]

9. Thank you for providing these.

While I agree with other's expressed concerns that the paper is a corporate production -- and by definition, it cannot be otherwise -- it is also important to keep in mind that it can, and does, at times provide significant information. Our approach to the world of politics should always be one of a wary but open mind .... and that means not shutting the door on something that occasionally offers things of value, because it frequently provides things of no value. Your post is evidence that the alert person can find those nuggets of truth .... almost like panning for gold.

Your good works are appreciated.

[Nothing Without Hope]

10. ***I've posted the WaPo op/ed and the blatant, LYING WaPo column:***

plus some analysis and description. This is truly terrible and needs attention; we cannot let these outrageous lies stand unchallenged. The Washington Post is considered by many to be a reputable paper, and the propaganda and LIES will be cited from the floor of Congress and all over the country as TRUTH.

PLEASE READ THIS THREAD - THIS REQUIRES ACTION:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5216379
thread title: WaPo 10/29: a column of LIES and an op/ed of GOP talking points (SHAME!)

Here's my analysis of the column, "No More Special Counsels," which along with the editorial is excerpted in that thread:

This column, by a pair of lawyers who served under Reagan and Bush41, begins with the provocative statement: "Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby should be the final proof that the system of "special prosecutors" is bankrupt and ought to be abandoned." It then goes downhill from there.

It repeats the tired, repeatedly rebutted lie that Wilson claimed he was sent by Cheney and Novak’s attempted smear of saying Wilson's wife was involved in getting him the assignment. And then, amazingly, it implies that the infamous “16 words” in Bush’s speech were TRUE. Read it and see for yourself.

The column does NOT mention that the Niger yellowcake documents were forgeries. In fact, it implies that Saddam actually DID seek yellowcake from Niger and that British intelligence confirmed it: “Iraq's efforts to obtain weapons-grade uranium ore or "yellowcake" in Africa became an element of President Bush's justification for war, and it was included in his 2003 State of the Union address. British intelligence also believed that this attempt had been made, and the CIA's review of the matter -- including Wilson's trip -- emphatically did not suggest otherwise.”

And the column STILL isn’t done with outrageous statements. It ends with the claims that the independence of special prosecutors such as Fitzgerald is “dangerous” and that the government should be allowed to investigate itself. Which is, of course, the same as no honest investigations ever, just what the Bushies want.

Without surprise, I saw that the authors of this pack of lies and Bushie propaganda are “Washington lawyers who served in the Justice Department during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.” Clearly, they are still serving the Bushes, and it is an outrage that the Washington Post allows their lies to stand.

* * * * * * * * *

The WaPo editorial, "Mr. Libby's Indictment," doesn't - quite - lie, but it is a recitation of all the GOP talking points on the Fitzgerald investigation we have seen and heard for the past week. It is a sorry piece of shameless propaganda, but it looks less outrageous because it is in the same issue as the horrible column by Rivkin and Casey. It's excerpted in that thread too.

The contrast with the LA Times treatment could not be more marked.

Fellow DUers, I believe we have to take action here. LTTEs are called for, and not just to the WaPo. We have to spread the word of how that paper knowingly printed falsehoods and totally biased statements without any attempt at balance. It is propaganda, just like what got us into the war in th first place, and it cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.

[H2O Man]

11. Many years ago,

when I worked with children and youth, I had a friend from drug & alcohol services show groups how the tobacco and alcohol industries used subtle images in their ads, to encourage young people to buy their products. Once kids were aware of how these things worked, they viewed the images consciously, and so the subconscious power of the imagery no longer worked. Kids enjoy picking up skills that help them identify what adults are trying to scam them, and tend to refuse to be passive receptors for that type of commercial.

The same things are true with the corporate media. Surely, the powers that be have more reason to appeal to the subconscious of the adult American population, and to get them to invest in the product they are peddling, than does Budweiser.

"Perception management" is a concept that we can define and be fully aware of. It will not make the corporate media more responsible to reporting the truth. But it certainly makes us more responsible for shifting through the muck and mire, and focusing on what is true. Part of that responsibility is taking an active role the process -- including LTTE, etc -- rather than being an unconscious, passive consumer of crap.

[Nothing Without Hope]

14. Absolutely true. And that is why I am so concerned about the horrible

articles on the Fitzgerald investigation in the Washington Post. They will be used just as the yellowcake lies were originally -- and in fact those exact lies and more are REPEATED in the column -- to "prove" that the Bush Administration is right and that the investigation means nothing and in fact should never be allowed again. (The column actually asks for exactly that, even its title: "No more special counsels."

This is SERIOUS, H2O Man, I feel it. This is a setup for more deliberate deception and it cannot remain unchallenged.

[Peace Patriot]

17. "Fellow DUers, I believe we have to take action here." --Nothing Without

Hope.

Agreed. But I'm reminded of my more than ten years of forest protection work. The gov/private deforestation establishment sets up the forum for "action"--letters of public comment, or 3 minutes of public comment at some board meeting that is 5 hours drive from home (and the forest), or you can even sue if you can raise tens of thousands of dollars and get a good lawyer. And they just keep raking down the forest during and after whatever determined--but inevitably useless--action they permit you to take.

But I am not one to give up. I just want to know that, if I commit myself to some important aspect of the public good, that I am aiming at the right target. Ultimately, with forest protection, I decided that the target has to be the investors, AND, the system of corporate campaign contributions that makes public action within gov venues so useless. Up to the 2004 election, I had committed myself to achieving a Constitutional amendment banning all private money in political campaigns. I thought I had identified the root cause, and was prepared to act. Then 2004 happened, and I realized that we don't even have the right to vote any more (--and everything I have learned since has confirmed that, such as Diebold's and ES&S's "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY vote tabulation! ...jeez!). So, what do we do now? We must--we simply MUST--get back our right to vote. It's all over, if we don't.

The corruption at WaPo is based, ultimately, on our loss of our right to vote. If we still had the right to vote, a) we would have real political representation in DC; and b) WaPo would either wither on the the vine (make itself irrelevant) or it would change, and begin to reflect the views of the majority.

Writing letters to WaPo is kind of like that 3 minutes of testimony that forestry boards permit to public speakers. It is completely and totally irrelevant to their considerations, unless they think you are a legal threat, in which case they will only be listening for what you've got on them. A totally corrupt, rigged venue in which the public has NO POWER, by design. But more than this, it is a charade, and that is its more devious aspect. They can SAY they held a "public hearing." WaPo can say they printed your letter--and put on a farce of "objectivity."

I think that it is to some extent important to KEEP EXERCISING THE RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC, in whatever venue, for the sake of those rights--to keep them warm--however hopeless it is. That's how I feel about voting--and feel it VERY STRONGLY. I will never give up my right to vote! Never! I don't care if they turn it into electrons and send it to Mars and beyond. They will still have to DO SOMETHING with my vote--go to some degree of trouble to get rid of it. And, as long as that is the case, I have the chance of catching them at it.

Yes, we should write another goddamned letter to the goddamned WaPo. But we should also be asking, what is our strategy for getting real representation in DC--the essential condition for the WaPo to either become an honest newspaper again, or go out of business.

It also occurs to me that we might want to address how the agenda of the war profiteers and the super-rich impacts the news room and editorial decisions. A big topic, but one that may help us better target what's wrong there--and, for instance, frame our letters (and other activities) with skillful whacks at WaPo owners' financial interests and lack of news department independence.

Finally, we may need to reconsider the use of LTEs. LTEs legitimize them as a news organization. Perhaps we should focus on working this from the other end--from out here in freedomland, the internet, and concentrate on ways of spreading ANALYSIS of WaPo lies.

For instance, instead of sending a letter to WaPo, send the letter to some of the better Congress critters--with a cc to WaPo perhaps--demanding an investigation of WaPo and other corporate news monopoly involvement in the outing of Plame. Or send it to the journalists' union, or to journalism schools. Or send it to reputable news organizations, like Knight Ridder, or APF, or Reuters, or the BBC, or AAR, or the Nation, or Mother Jones. Ask THEM to investigate WaPo's lies and collusion--with cc to WaPo (maybe). And throw in the NYT as well. SOMEBODY needs to expose how these news lapdogs led us to war--not to mention federal bankruptcy, which is going to end up killing many poor people.

You see what I'm getting at? Eat away at them from the outside with the truth. Educate people, in the course of it. And find and use the OTHER avenues of pressure and threat, that will force them to reform themselves, or lose business and power.

[Nothing Without Hope]

21. I agree that sending letters to the authors of those lying articles will

do no good at all. THey'll just ignore them. Congress? Other media perhaps - as you say, presenting the WaPo's decision to print known lies favorable to the Bush Administration as NEWS. Because it IS news. It's exactly the behavior that got the country into the Iraq war -the Bushies beating the drums and the media swallowing and spreading their lies. The Wash Post has just shown that it intends to continue doing THE SAME THING. Other papers like the LA Times and the NYT have specifically indicated that the media have been culpable and must change.

It's NEWS and it sure isn't flattering the Washington Post. Surely their subscribers might be concerned to see the outrageous, proven lies being printed.

I've been up all night and my head is shutting down, ready or not, so I've got to go. I hope this discussion of exactly what is the most effective response will continue and the thread will stay visible and stimulate more reaction.

And thanks for your thoughtful insight.

[Nothing Without Hope]

20. kick n/t

[maryallen]

22. Excellent summary.

Thanks for the review.

[Nothing Without Hope]

23. kick n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

24. Don't miss the thread with the outrageous, lying WaPo op/eds -

the contrast with the LAT articles, which are relatively sane, could not be greater. Activism is needed:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5216379
thread title: WaPo 10/29: a column of LIES and an op/ed of GOP talking points (SHAME!)

[goclark]

25. Doesn't Robert Scheer still write for the LATimes?

He is the only one that has been nailing these clowns since the beginning.

[Nothing Without Hope]

30. yes he does, and he is a treasure. We are starting to put together a

rebuttal letter back at the WaPo editorial thread, which is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5216379
thread title: WaPo 10/29: a column of LIES and an op/ed of GOP talking points (SHAME!)

The help and input of all reading this would be very welcome. I feel we must stand firm now in demanding media accountability for deliberately printing Bush Admin LIES.

[goclark]

31. I'll check your editorial thread

LATIMES is out of touch with reality.

I just left Starbucks at 4 PM PST, there were still a stack of those "papers" that had not been sold.

[symbolman]

27. The way I deal with this is to make films or flash movies

that OUT these facts for public consumption - like my "Rove's War" film (a 2 DVD set at 150 minutes of RED MEAT if you like facts) I created to get the word out and ARM folks with what they need to attack the disinformation and distortion campaign I KNEW was coming..

If you want to have a look at this work (and H2OMan kindly gave it a nice review) then you can check it out at http://www.takebackthemedia.com

Tell your friends, blogs, write to the WaPo and LA Times and let THEM know that WE knowt the FACTS - Takebackthemedia.com has created a RECORD of the Facts :)

We all do what we can do, appreciate those who fight the good fight for our forests, etc, as mentioned above..

[snowbear]

28. Kudos to the LA Times!

And excellent, upbeat thread! Thanks!! :headbang: :yourock:

[Nothing Without Hope]

29. kick n/t