Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Our airwaves ourselves

Explain it to me.

"MoveOn knocked out of Super Bowl" (Michelle Goldberg, Salon):
Jan 16, 2004 | Every so often clients call Richard Laermer, CEO of the entertainment and public interest P.R. film RLM, with what they think is a brilliant and novel idea. "I can't tell you how many times somebody has called me and said, 'Hey, I've got a great idea for a media attack. I want to put a naked person in an ad and try to run it in the New York Times, and they're going to turn it down and I'll release that they turned it down,'" he says. Censorship, Laermer has learned, can be its own kind of publicity.
If so, MoveOn.org might reap its dubious benefits. On Thursday, CBS rejected the winner of MoveOn's "Bush in 30 Seconds" ad contest. The online advocacy group was trying to buy airtime to run the commercial, which criticizes the Bush administration's run-up of federal debt, during the Super Bowl, a Feb. 1 event expected to draw 90 million viewers. The ad will run around 30 times on CNN from Jan. 17-21.

[. . .]

Clearly, MoveOn has upset many on the right. But as Ad Age's Washington bureau chief Ira Teinowitz reported, CBS said it wasn't controversy that made it turn down MoveOn's commercial, and its $1.6 million. Instead, the network said the spot violates its policy against running any political issue ads at all.

Yet . . .

The spot, funded by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, is expected to tell the story of Pam Tebow, who became ill during her pregnancy with Tim but refused doctor recommendations to have an abortion. Pro-choice groups are calling for Super Bowl broadcaster CBS to reject the spot, but the network is standing firm, according to CBS News. In fact, producers said they would consider accepting any other "responsibly produced" advocacy ads for broadcast.

So they don't do advocacy ads . . . except when they do. They don't run issue ads, they insist in 2004 . . . but when it comes to abortion, suddenly they will run an ad . . .

If it's against abortion.

This is CBS we're talking about. I'm sure most people are aware of what that network did to a planned episode -- actually two planned episodes -- of Cagney & Lacey dealing with abortion? In one, they refused to allow Gloria Steinem to have a cameo because she was 'too political.' Grasp that, Gloria Steinem was 'too political' to appear in an episode of the show (because of feminism and being pro-choice). In the other, Cagney exploring her options was trashed and they were forced to instead turn it into a morality play where she wasn't pregnant but did get scolded by Lacey that she needed to be more careful.

That's CBS for you.

The same CBS that killed off the following shows starring women:

Touched By An Angel
Murder She Wrote
Murphy Brown
The Nanny

There are others. But they killed the above off by taking hit shows and moving them elsewhere on the schedule. It's a trick they pull whenever they want to get rid of a show starring a woman.

They have a long, long history of sexism.

(If you're late to the party on this issue, see Ava and C.I.'s "TV: All just a bit of (CBS) history repeating" for starters.)

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):
Tuesday, January 26, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, Baghdad again slammed with a bombing, the Iraq Inquiry hears that Blair and Cabinet were informed the Iraq War was illegal barring a second UN resolution, and more.

Committee Member Usha Prashar: Can I just then confirm, what were your views of the legal position on the use of force against Iraq before the Security Council Resolution 1441?

Elizabeth Wilmshurst: They were the same as described by Sir Michael Wood this morning, that it would be necessary to have a resolution of the Security Council, if force against Iraq were to be lawful, that the other lawful reasons for the use of force were not present at that time.

Commitee Member Usha Prashar: But there was a consistent view of all the law officers with the FCO [British Foreign & Commonwealth Office]?

Elizabeth Wilmshurst: Of all of the legal advisers within the FCO, yes.

Committee Member: Was the Foreign Secretary [Jack Straw] aware of your advice?

The illegal war. In London today, the
Iraq Inquiry heard there was no legal basis for the Iraq War. Today's witnesses were Michael Wood (Legal Adviser, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 2001 - 2006), David Brummel (Legal Secretary to the Law Officers, 2001 -2004), Elizabeth Wilmshurts (Deputy Legal Adviser, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 2001 - 2003) and Margaret Beckett (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, May 2006 - June 2007) (link goes to transcript and video option). John Chilcot is the chair of the Inquiry and he noted this morning that the testimonies would focus on legal issue and, "It is important also to recall we shall be raising legal issues with Jack Straw when he appears again on 8 February and with Mr [Tony] Blair on Friday." The first witness was, Michael Wood who explained, "I was the chief legal adviser to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1999, the end of 1999, until February 2006 when I retired. I was the head of a group of lawyers."

Usha Prashar: Sir Michael, thank you for your statement. What I want to cover is the legal position on the use of force before the Security Council 1441 and also what happened in terms of practical advice giving and the concerns you might have raised, but I think it would be very helpful if youc an just tell us whether you were ever asked to advise on the provisions of international law relevant specifically to regime change in Iraq, and who asked you, and when was this, and what advice did you give?

Michael Wood: It was such an obvious point that kept on coming up and we just stuck in the sentence: "Regime change is not a legal basis for the use of force." It wasn't really controversial, so -- I can't remember if and when I presonally put that sentence in, but it went constantly into documents and was not, as far as I can recall, challenged by anyone.

Usha Prashar: So you can't remember when you were specifically asked that question and by whom?

Michael Wood: I can't. I can remember when we were first -- at least, I think I can remember, having refreshed my memory with the papers -- when we first looked at the general question of the legal basis for the use of force prior to the adoption of 1441, if you would like me to set that out.

Committee member Usha Prashar: I would actually. That was my next point. I really wanted you to briefly give your view on the legal position of the use of force before.

Michael Wood: I think the legal position was pretty straightforward and pretty uncontroversial. The first possible basis would be self-defence, and it was clear to all the lawyers concerned that there was no -- a factual basis for self-defence was not present, unless circumstances changed, because there was not -- Iraq was not engaged in an armed attack, nor was there an imminent armed attack on us or its neighbours or anybody else. So self-defence was ruled out. The second possibility would have been the exceptional right to use force in the case of an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. This was the Kosovo argument, the argument we used in 1999, and also used for the No Fly Zones. Apart from the No Fly Zones, it was clear that there was no basis, using that rather controversial argument, for the use of force, in 2001/2002. So that left the third basis, possible basis, which was with authorisation by the Security Council. There, of course, we had a series of resolutions culminating in 1205 of 1998, which was seen as the basis for Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, and so there was a slight question whether that finding of a breach, a serious breach, was still -- still had some force. But I think all the lawyers who looked at it were pretty -- was very clearly of the view that it was not, and that if we sought to rely on that resolution of some years before, we wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. So the advice that was given was that there was no basis for the use of force in late 2001, when it first arose, I think, in 2002, without a further Security Council decision. There was one point that kept on coming up. Occassionally ministers, people, would say, "Well, Kosovo, we can do what we did in Kosovo. We didn't need a Security Council Resolution there". They remembered that we hadn't had a resolution, but, of course, Kosovo was very specific. It was based on the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, the hundreds of thousands of Kosovans being driven from their homes and their country.

Committee Member Usha Prashar: You made that very clear --

Michael Wood: We made it very clear throughout and I don't think it was very controversial. Occassionally, you would get ministers saying the wrong things, or the Prime Minister [Tony Blair] saying the wrong thing privately, and I would just jump in and remind people of this basic position, but the basic position was set out by one of my colleagues as early as November 2001, when I think President Bush made some kind of statement which made it look as though fource might be used. So we set out the position immediately. It was repeated in a document that was attached to repeated documents that went to that famous meeting on 23 July [Crawford, Texas meet up between Blair and Bush at Bush's ranch]. These, I think, are --

Committee Member Usha Prashar: What you are saying is that you and your colleagues were consistent in the advice you were giving prior to this period?

Michael Wood: We were, and I'm sure the Attorney was aware of what we were saying and agreed with it. It just wasn't really a controversial business at that stage.

Committee Member Usha Prashar: During this period, nobody challenged you, nobody disagreed with you.

Michael Wood: That's correct.

Committee Member Usha Prashar: This was the consistent view of you and your colleagues?

Michael Wood: Yes.

Committee Member Usha Prashar: I think this morning we have actually published notes that you sent to the Foreign Secretary on 26 Mrach, which is a -- records the Secretary of State's conversation with Colin Powell.

Michael Wood: Yes.

Committee Member Usha Prashar: I mean, were you concerned what he said, that he felt entirely comfortable making a case for military action to deal with Iraq's WMD? What were your concerns and why did he choose to write in this way?

Michael Wood: I was obviously quite concerned by what I saw him saying. I mean, often reports are not accurate. They are summaries, they are short. He may well not have said it in quite the form it came out in the telegram, but whenever I saw something like that, whether from the Foreign Secretary or from the Prime Minister or from officials, less often perhaps, I would do a note just to make sure they understood the legal position.

UN Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed by the Security Council on November 8, 2002. It did not declare war. It allowed for inspections. The inspection process was ended when Bush announced Saddam could leave or the invasion would start. There was not a resolution for the invasion. The committee has heard some witnesses admit they would have liked a second resolution, some state that it was not needed and a few delicately question the war itself without a second resolution. Today the committee heard that the Iraq War was illegal without a second resolution and that the cabinet -- including the Prime Minister Tony Blair -- knew of that before the start of the Iraq War.

Wood testifed about a January 24, 2003 letter (which the committee made public) to Jack Straw written as a result of a meeting Straw and Dick Cheney (the US' then president of vice) had in DC where Straw insisted a second UN resolution was only a preference and the war was still a go "if we tried and failed" to get a second resolution. Wood stated of his letter, "That was so completely wrong, from a legal point of view, that I felt it was important to draw that to his attention." Elizabeth Wilmshurst testified in the afternoon.

Chair John Chilcot: Did it make a difference that Jack Straw himself is a qualified lawyer?

Elizabeth Wilmshurst: He is not an international lawyer.

Emma Alberici (Australia's ABC News) notes of the above exchange, "Even Sir John Chilcot could not resist but laugh." Jeremy Greenstock had earlier testified and noted that he didn't believe the Iraq War was "legitimate" but he would not weigh in on the legality.

Committee Member Lawrence Freedman: You are saying that's actually part and parcel of the legal problem as well? That you don't necessarily see this distinction between legality and legitimacy?

Elizabeth Wilmshurst: In the case of Resolution 1441, he seemed to be saying that it was all right if we trod a very narrow line of textual interpretation, with which I didn't agree, of course, but he had a narrow textual argument, but which didn't have regard to what he said the majority of the Security Council believed. I was saying that, in this particular case, actually the whole question is: whose is the decision, the Security Council's or individual member states'? So that what in this case he was calling "legitimacy", I would call "legality". I would treat it as part of the legality argument. I do not know that I would make a wider proposition of it.

Committee Member Roderic Lyne used his questioning to, among other things, establish that the legal advice from the Foreign Office and the Attorney General's opinion was the same (illegal without a second resolution) and that it was the same "throughout 2002, before and after the adoption of Resolution 1441, and up until the point of the Attorney General's advice of 7 March 2003". That is when the divergence comes, days before the start of the Iraq War. It should also be noted that
as last year drew to a close, Tony Blair told the BBC that even without WMD, the Iraq War was still justifiable on the grounds of regime change. That argument/defense was rejected by government attorneys as Blair damn well knew.

Will Stone (Morning Star) quotes Lindsey German, Stop The War, reacting to today's testimonies, "We all knew that the war was illegal but it's a disgrace that Mr Straw ignored legal advice. When you hear that legal advisers had doubts abou tthe war and were being ignored you realise that this is not just about Tony Blair but a whole host of people who all went along with it." Brian Haw tells Stone, "Nobody will accept responsbility for the war even though international law was thrown clean out the window. That's what they hung the Nazis in Nuremberg for." James Chapman (Daily Mail) emphasizes this from today's hearing, "Astonishingly, Downing Street asked lawyers to assess what the consequences would be if Britain toppled Saddam Hussein without legal authority. When they received the lawyers' memo, No.10 demanded: 'Why has this been put in writing?'"

Andrew Sparrow live blogged today's hearings for the Guardian. Channel 4 News' Iraq Inquiry Blogger live blogged at Twitter. Chris Ames fact checked at Iraq Inquiry Digest. At the Guardian, Chris Ames gives the backstory on the previous efforts to hide the legal advice and the disregarding of that advice:

Last year, the information tribunal ordered the government to release the minutes of the cabinet meetings of 13 and 17 March but
Straw -- for the first time ever -- used the veto that he had himself put in the freedom of act to block publication. It had emerged during the tribunal hearing that there was considered to be insufficient discussion of the legal issues at the second meeting. It has since been admitted during the inquiry that all that happened at that meeting was that Goldsmith's very short legal advice was tabled and that a request by Clare Short for a discussion was rejected by the majority of the cabinet.
This lack of discussion is one of the key political and constitutional issues around the war. Should the cabinet have discussed the legality of a decision for which they were constitutionally collectively responsible?

Friday, one-time prime minister and forever poodle Tony Blair will appear before the
Iraq Inquiry in London. A major protest is expected to take place outside as War Criminal Tony testifies. From Stop The War Coalition's "Protest on Tony Blair's Judgement Day: 29 January from 8am:"
Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre, BroadSanctuary, Westminster, London SW1P 3EEOn Friday 29 January, Tony Blair will try to explain to the Iraq Inquiry
the lies he used to take Britain into an illegal war.
Writers, musicians, relatives of the dead, Iraqi refugees, poets, human rights lawyers, comedians, actors, MPs and ordinary citizens will join
a day of protest outside the Inquiry to demand that this should be Tony Blair's judgement day.
There will be naming the dead ceremonies for the hundreds of thousands slaughtered in Blair's war. Military families who lost loved ones in Iraq will read the names of the 179 British soldiers killed.Join us from 8.0am onwards.

Paul Lewis and Vikram Dodd (Guardian) report, "Anti-war campaigners planning to protest when Tony Blair appears before the Iraq inquiry on Friday said today they had been barred from going near the building where he is giving evidence. Up to 1,000 protesters are expected to rally outside the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, in Westminster."

Turning to Iraq where Baghdad was again slammed today with a major bombing.
Jenny Booth (Times of London) reports a Baghdad suicide car bombing has targeted the police forensic service. Booth notes many dead and "Around 80 people were injured in today's attack. Hospitals in the Iraqi capital reported receiving a surge of wounded people and dead bodies." Yousif Bassil (CNN) counts 18 dead in addition to the eighty wounded. Al Jazeera explains the forensic services were part of the Interior Ministry and adds "Five of the dead and 25 of those injured worked in the interior ministry building." John Leland and Anthony Shadid (New York Times) add, "The bombing set cars ablaze and sprayed glass through the assortment of nearby restaurants and shops, wounding several people, according to news reports, and rescuers picked through the rubble of the damaged forensics department building, looking for anyone buried in the blast." [Note, the Times report has been revised and now only carries Shadid's byline. It also now omits other violence that took place yesterday.] Saad Shalash, Khalid al-Ansary, Michael Christie, Missy Ryan and Noah Barkin (Reuters) quote eye witness Hassan al-Saidi stating, "I've heard many explosions in the past, but nothing like this." Liz Sly and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles Times) report the death toll has reached 21 and that "The bomb pulverized blast walls intended to protect the facility, caused extensive damage to the building and shattered windows for hundreds of yards around."

In other violence,
Reuters notes today that Monday saw 2 police officers shot dead in Baghdad, two Baghdad roadside bombing which injured five people and a Baghdad grenade attack which left nine people injured.

Yesterday Baghdad was slammed by bombings and, if you doubted the news value, you missed the network evening news. (
Jenny Booth reports the death toll of Monday's bombings has risen to 41.) All three US networks noted the bombings. NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams provided the most time to the story:

Brian Williams: Overseas tonight, the situation in Iraq is suddenly back in the news today with a reminder that safety there can vanish in an instant. A series of bombings in downtown Baghdad, places frequented by Americans and other Westerners. Our own chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel who has spent so many years in Iraq is tonight with us in our New York studios. Richard what happened and what's the larger meaning do you think?

Richard Engel: First of all, the larger meaning is that the war in Iraq is not over and don't think that for a minute. They were three coordinated attacks on hotels used mostely by Western contractors and journalists. In one of the attacks, security cameras caught the white mini-van that was full of explosives as it was navigating through a security barrier, then it exploded. Why now? US troops are mostly staying on their bases, they're not patrolling nearly as much and it's a particularly volatile time. There are elections in Iraq in just six weeks and insurgents are trying to restart the civil war

Brian Williams: And also today, the death by hanging of a man we all came to know by a fiendish nickname

Richard Engel: Chemical Ali. One of the most hated men in Iraqi history, one of Saddam Hussein's chief henchman, responsible for killing by most accounts more than 5,000 Kurds in the -- during the Iran-Iraq War . He was put to death by the same tribunal that ultimately tried Saddam Hussein.

Brian Williams: Well perhaps some of the attention now shifts back to Iraq.

Click here for video of the above. ABC World News Tonight with Diane Sawyer provided the least time:

Diane Sawyer: Baghdad, Iraq was rocked today by three bomb blasts at hotels which are popular with Westerners and journalists. At least three dozen people were killed and more than 100 injured. And in related news, the Iraqi prime minister called for a fraud investigation into bomb testing equipment supplied by the British which reportedly doesn't do the job.

CBS Evening News with Katie Couric offered a summary (as did ABC) but paired it with a report on the 'bomb detectors':

In Baghdad today, suicide bombers attacked three hotels killing at least 37 Iraqis. Officials blamed Saddam loyalists out to undermine the government. That government has invested heavily in bomb detectors to try to prevent such attacks but as Richard Roth tells us, there's new evidence they don't work. .

Richard Roth: If you think the pictures in this promotional video are dramatic, just look at the claims made for the device it promotes. The ADE651 is a metal antenna on a plastic handle sold as a bomb dector that uses no batteries or electronics. According to its British distributor, it can point to hidden drugs, guns or explosives and it will work underwater, underground or in the air. According to the US military, it's completely useless.

Retired Lt Col Hal Bidlack: I can think of no practical application for this device beyond party entertainment.

Richard Roth: Yet the Iraqi government spent at least $85 million for about 2,000 of the so-called bomb detectors and a training program that teaches troops to shuffle their feet to generate static electricity to make the things work. Now Britian has just banned export of the devices and arrested the businessman who's made a fortune selling them. Jim Mccormack, a former police man, is accused of fraud but the ADE651s are defended by Iraqi officials who backed their purchase and they're still in use.

Retired Lt Col Hal Bidlack: They're fine for fooling a four-year-old at a birthday party but they're immoral if they're trying to supposedly save lives at a checkpoint.

Richard Roth: And they're also at checkpoints in Beirut and Amman, Jordan where the bomb detector guards are using it at this five star hotel, may provide no more security than a magic wand. RIchard Roth, CBS News, London.

For video of Roth's report
click here and for text click here. The NewsHour (PBS) offered the following:

Hari Sreenivasan: In Iraq, Baghdad was hit by a series of bombings on the same day that a notorious henchman of Saddam Hussein was executed. We have a report narrated by Lindsey Hilsum of Independent Television News.

Lindsey Hilsum: Three suicide car bombs in Baghdad today, all targeted at hotels where foreigners stay. The bombers didn't get right inside, but still managed to kill more than 30 people and injure seventy others. Neighboring houses were blown apart, firefighters helping survivors to safety. As Iraq heads towards elections in early March, such attacks are expected to continue or increase. The Americans say the perpetrators are probably al-Qaida in Iraq, a largely Sunni group supported by some members of Saddam Hussein's now banned Ba'ath Party. [. . .] Today's explosions show that Iraq is still volatile, maybe more so since the predominantly Shiite government barred many Sunni candidates from standing in the coming elections.

"[. . .]" is when Hilsum begins reporting on an execution. We noted it in yesterday's snapshot, Richard Engel's already been quoted noting it in this snapshot.
The NewsHour isn't just an hourly news program aired on PBS from Mondays through Friday -- I say doing my part to appease PBS friends -- it's also a web experience. The NewsHour is increasing their online presence and they have a news blog which I've supposedly never mentioned before. (That may be true.) But we will note it now because Gwen Ifill interviewed New York Times' Anthony Shadid yesterday about the bombings (link is audio).

Gwen Ifill: Tell us what you can, the latest you know about today's bombings.

Anthony Shadid: There were 3 bombings today in Baghdad. They were detonated about 9 minutes apart. And they struck landmark hotels in the capital. It's part of the campaign that's been going on basically since last August, aimed at undermining the sense of government control in Baghdad. In the past, they've struck ministries, government offiices, a courthouse, a bank, colleges and this seemed to open up a new front in that campaign in some sense by striking landmark hotels that pretty much everyone knows in Baghdad and that also cater to foreigners -- foregin reporters businessmen and, in time, election observers for the vote on March 7th for a new parliament.

Gwen Ifill: Has anyone taken responsibility?

Anthony Shadid: No one's taken responsibilty yet. But that's not unusual in these type of attacks. Claims of responsibilty often come days later. Government officials have so far been blaming the same people they've blamed in the past which is al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and Ba'athists. Now the government contends that they're working in concert -- al Qaeda and the Ba'ath Party or followers of the Ba'ath Party. The US military has maintained throughout this campaign, since last August, that al Qaeda alone is responsible for-for these attacks.

Gwen Ifill, in addition to NewsHour duties, also hosts
Washington Week. NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro and Quil Lawrence filed on the spot reports and this NPR page (Mark Memmot's) (scroll down) has multiple links to their audio reports as well as to photos of the bombings. For text reports of yesterday's bombings, see an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy at Inside Iraq, Leila Fadel (Washington Post) first-hand report:Liz Sly blow-by-blow for the Los Angeles Times: and the Times of London's Oliver August.

TV notes.

Haiti's catastrophic earthquake, in addition to leaving lives andinstitutions in ruin, also exacerbated a much more common and lethalemergency in Haiti: Dying during childbirth. Challenges intransportation, education, and quality health care contribute to Haitihaving the highest maternal mortality rate in the Western Hemisphere, anational crisis even before the earthquake struck. While great strides are being made with global health issues likeHIV/AIDS, maternal mortality figures worldwide have seen virtually noimprovement in 20 years. Worldwide, over 500,000 women die each yearduring pregnancy. On Friday, January 29 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), a NOW team thathad been working in Haiti during the earthquake reports on this deadlybut correctable trend. They meet members of the Haitian HealthFoundation (HHF), which operates a network of health agents in more than100 villages, engaging in pre-natal visits, education, and emergencyambulance runs for pregnant women.

Media Channel (home of Danny Schechter) is in need of funds:

NOTHING LASTS FOREVER So we are being forced to conclude that it may be time to declare victory and phase MediaChannel out. If we do, we will do it with pride of what we have accomplished overt the last decade. On the other hand, it's never over until it is. There is a small hope that other media sites that share our values may agree to some kind of consolidation, or a merger. Perhaps we can save ourselves if we work together. We know that collaboration is one of those values everyone supports in principle, but it's hard to give up our competitive instincts.
Your ideas and financial support are welcome and needed. We have been fighting for years to keep going and are now thinking about other options and initiatives if we cannot. Clearly, we are better hell raisers than fundraisers. Our costs are not that high, but there are costs, for a Webmaster, technology, distribution etc.. One deep pockets funder could write a check to keep us going, but we can't count on it. And it doesn't look like we can count solely on our readers either. Perhaps we have gone to "the well" one time too many times. We are sure those who never wished us well, the hackers and wreckers will celebrate. So what? As we consider the options, we would like you to consider ideas, contacts, connections and interest you may have to help sustain our work or tell us that its time to move on. We need help in reaching out for partners, a merger, or sale. [Email dissector@mediachannel.org for suggestions.]

the guardianandrew sparrow
channel 4 newsiraq inquiry bloggeriraq inquiry digestchris ames
the times of londonjenny boothcnnyousif bassil
the new york timesjohn leland
anthony shadid
nbc nightly newsbrian williamsabc newsdiane sawyerabc world news tonight with diane sawyer
cbs newsthe cbs evening news with katie couric
pbsthe newshour
gwen ifill
the times of london
oliver august
the washington postleila fadel
mcclatchy newspapers
now on pbs
danny schechter