Rating the Media in San Diego

U.S. drops in Press Freedom index

2012-01-31T11:22:00.000-08:00

PRESS FREEDOM INDEX 2011/2012

Syria, Bahrain and Yemen get worst ever rankings

“This year’s index sees many changes in the rankings, changes that reflect a year that was incredibly rich in developments, especially in the Arab world,” Reporters Without Borders said today as it released its 10th annual press freedom index. “Many media paid dearly for their coverage of democratic aspirations or opposition movements. Control of news and information continued to tempt governments and to be a question of survival for totalitarian and repressive regimes. The past year also highlighted the leading role played by netizens in producing and disseminating news.

“Crackdown was the word of the year in 2011. Never has freedom of information been so closely associated with democracy. Never have journalists, through their reporting, vexed the enemies of freedom so much. Never have acts of censorship and physical attacks on journalists seemed so numerous. The equation is simple: the absence or suppression of civil liberties leads necessarily to the suppression of media freedom. Dictatorships fear and ban information, especially when it may undermine them.

“It is no surprise that the same trio of countries, Eritrea, Turkmenistan and North Korea, absolute dictatorships that permit no civil liberties, again occupy the last three places in the index. This year, they are immediately preceded at the bottom by Syria, Iran and China, three countries that seem to have lost contact with reality as they have been sucked into an insane spiral of terror, and by Bahrain and Vietnam, quintessential oppressive regimes. Other countries such as Uganda and Belarus have also become much more repressive.

“This year’s index finds the same group of countries at its head, countries such as Finland, Norway and Netherlands that respect basic freedoms. This serves as a reminder that media independence can only be maintained in strong democracies and that democracy needs media freedom. It is worth noting the entry of Cape Verde and Namibia into the top twenty, two African countries where no attempts to obstruct the media were reported in 2011.”...

Journalists—Myself Included—Swept Up in Mass Arrest at Occupy Oakland

2012-01-29T17:53:00.000-08:00

Journalists—Myself Included—Swept Up in Mass Arrest at Occupy Oakland
By Gavin Aronsen
Mother Jones
Jan. 29, 2012

Occupy Oakland protesters flee as police attempt to kettle them ahead of Saturday's mass arrest. Glenn Halog/Flickr
On Saturday, Occupy Oakland re-entered the national spotlight during a day-long effort to take over an empty building and transform it into a social center. Oakland police thwarted the efforts, arresting more than 400 people in the process, primarily during a mass nighttime arrest outside a downtown YMCA. That number included at least six journalists, myself included, in direct violation of OPD media relations policy that states "media shall never be targeted for dispersal or enforcement action because of their status."

After an unsuccessful afternoon effort to occupy a former convention center, the more than 1,000 protesters elected to return to the site of their former encampment outside city hall. On the way, they clashed with officers, advancing down a street with makeshift shields of corrogated metal and throwing objects at a police line. Officers responded with smoke grenades, tear gas, and bean bag projectiles. After protesters regrouped, they marched through downtown as police pursued and eventually contained a few hundred of them in an enclosed space outside a YMCA. Some entered the gym and were arrested inside.

As soon as it became clear that I would be kettled with the protesters, I displayed my press credentials to a line of officers and asked where to stand to avoid arrest. In past protests, the technique always proved successful. But this time, no officer said a word. One pointed back in the direction of the protesters, refusing to let me leave. Another issued a notice that everyone in the area was under arrest.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

I wound up in a back corner of the space between the YMCA and a neighboring building, where I met Vivian Ho of the San Francisco Chronicle and Kristin Hanes of KGO Radio. After it became clear that we would probably have to wait for hours there as police arrested hundreds of people packed tightly in front of us, we maneuvered our way to the front of the kettle to display our press credentials once more.

When Hanes displayed hers, an officer shook his head. "That's not an Oakland pass," he told her. "You're getting arrested." (She had a press pass issued by San Francisco, but not Oakland, police.) Another officer rejected my credentials, and I began interviewing soon-to-be-arrested protesters standing nearby. About five minutes later, an officer grabbed my arm and ziptied me. Around the same time, Ho—who did have official OPD credentials—was also apprehended.

As I waited in line to be processed and transported to jail, Ho approached me with an officer who had released her from custody. The two explained to my arresting officer that I was with the media. "Oh, he's with the media?" the officer replied, although I had already repeatedly told him as much and my credentials had been plainly visible all night. He appeared ready to release me, until a nearby officer piped in, without explanation: "He's getting arrested."

Later, before I was loaded on a police bus with 48 protesters, another officer told a protester in front of me that he should have left after police issued dispersal orders. When I told the officer that I had attempted to do just that, he asked, "How long have you been out here today?" "Since about 1:30." Flashing a smile and telling me that he didn't care I was a reporter, he replied, "We've been issuing dispersal orders all day." Kettled protesters claimed that no orders were issued until they had no means of escape, but in either case the orders were difficult to hear over the commotion of the crowd.

As police rounded up protesters into vans outside the YMCA, several occupiers who managed to avoid capture retaliated by vandalizing city hall. Others protested outside an Oakland jail where the officer driving the bus I was escorted onto had promised to take us "if you don't piss me off." Instead, he had to drive to a county jail in Santa Rita about 40 minutes away. (Officers from at least seven outside agencies came to Oakland in response to the day's events.)

After spending about an hour locked up alone in a drunk-tank cellblock, OPD Sergeant Jeff Thomason arrived to release me, thanks to a call from Mother Jones co-editor-in-chief Monika Bauerlein. "You probably shouldn't have been in here to begin with," he told me apologetically as he escorted me in his personal car back to the scene of my arrest to retrieve my backpack where I'd stashed my steno pad. But for the time-being, it was unretrievable under a massive pile of occupiers' bags in the back of a police van.

At least five other reporters were arrested last night: Hanes, Ho, John C. Osborn of the East Bay Express, Yael Chanoff of the San Francisco Bay Guardian, and graphic journalist Susie Cagle, who was previously arrested during the short-lived occupation of a vacant downtown building following Occupy Oakland's first port shutdown last November. Chanoff was taken to the Santa Rita jail. The others were all quickly released at the scene (an officer told Cagle that he was doing her a "favor").

Oakland police, who have been instructed ahead of past Occupy Oakland protests not to prevent anyone "claiming media affiliation" from "engag[ing] in activity afforded to media personnel," particularly "during times of civil unrest," have also violated department policy on crowd control responding to previous Occupy protests. The ongoing game of cat-and-mouse between police and protesters has frustrated officers forced to work overtime hours at a department that will likely be placed in federal receivership for civil rights violations that predate the Occupy movement. Last week, a federal judge ruled that the OPD remains "woefully behind its peers around the state and nation."

"The Bay Area Occupy movement has got to stop using Oakland as their playground," Oakland Mayor Jean Quan said in a statement during last night's arrests that made no mention of her police department's lack of regard for journalists' First Amendment protections. Last week, the United States dropped 27 spots in Reporters Without Borders' annual press freedom index due to police treatment of journalists covering the Occupy Wall Street movement. By Josh Stearns's count, more than three dozen reporters have been arrested since the movement began last year in Manhattan.

Editorial Fellow
Gavin Aronsen is an editorial fellow at Mother Jones.

Doug Manchester, the new San Diego Union-Tribune owner, thinks of himself as Richard III

2011-11-18T08:11:00.000-08:00

November 18, 2011
Paper Will Call Out Stadium Opponents as 'Obstructionists'
Randy Dotinga
Voice of San Diego

Local hotel magnate Doug Manchester is buying The San Diego Union-Tribune, and heads are going to spin, if not roll: the paper's incoming president and CEO promises big changes.

John Lynch, a former local radio exec who's set to be that top boss, "said he wants the paper to be pro-business. The sports page to be pro-Chargers stadium. And reporters to become stars," our Rob Davis reports. In fact, Lynch said he wants the sports page to "call out those who don't (support a new stadium) as obstructionists."

Wow. However, Lynch said he expects that Manchester will "respect journalistic integrity" and adds that "we'd like to be a cheerleader for all that's good about San Diego."

Manchester says he paid above $110 million for the newspaper. That suggests the Platinum Equity firm, which bought the paper in 2009, made a tidy profit by flipping it.

Both Manchester and Lynch are known for their conservative bona-fides; in 2006, Lynch referred to then-Councilman Donna Frye, an iconoclast politician and hero not only to liberals, as "to the left of Mao."

So who's Manchester? Local reporter Tony Perry of the L.A. Times calls him "a minor league Donald Trump."

He's a polarizing figure, known for the moniker he insists on people using ("Papa Doug"), his stand against gay marriage (although he says he's not anti-gay and supports domestic partnerships), his luxurious hotels (a five-star rating for one of them made a big splash in the U-T this week), his push toward development (a state agency just rejected his mammoth $1.3 billion project planned on Navy property downtown) and his divorce after 43 years of marriage (it was messy).

* Check our reader's guide for a look back at the U-T's road from the glory days of the mid-2000s to post-boom heartache and dashed dreams under Copley ownership.

* News of the sale immediately sparked anger and threats of subscription cancellations. ("Manchester and his politics scare the **** out of me," wrote commenter Bill Paul, while Chris Brewster bemoaned "this unfortunate devolution in San Diego journalism.")

Fred Smith complained that the Copleys were "were extreme libs" (a comment that will send eyebrows rocketing skyward all over town) and says he "refused to read the rag when the Copleys ran it into the ground," while Darrell Thomas referred to "extreme left rags" like... the L.A. Times. (The sound you hear is even more wayward eyebrows.)

And then there's commenter David Hall. He weighed in with a zinger: "I don't think the UT has been consistently left or right. It has, however, been consistently bad."

In the U-T's defense, bashing the local rag has been a national pasttime since the first time headlines met hot type.

For more opinions, check our compilation of Twitter comments.

* And what of U-T employees? They're already sucking up to ... er, greeting their new owner. "We believe this is a step in the right direction for The San Diego Union-Tribune," the U-T's "Team" declared on Facebook. "As Dean Nelson pointed out, Doug Manchester is a brilliant guy. We're excited to have local owners who are in-touch with what's going on in our city and we look forward to the amazing things the future holds for our newspaper."

The U-T's story about the sale included not a discouraging word (or even a slightly non-positive one) about the paper or the owners, but had plenty of things-are-just-peachy verbiage.

We have two principal stories: one immediate analysis looking at the sale and getting reaction, and a second turning to the biggest question: in what direction do Manchester and Lynch take the news and editorial pages.

Tidbits about the U-T's New Owner

* A video on Manchester's website quotes a man identified as Jim Jameson as saying: "If Shakespeare were alive today, Shakespeare wouldn't write about most of us. But he would write about Doug Manchester. In the sense of Richard III or Julius Caesar, Doug has heroic qualities that are just extraordinary. He also has the human frailties that we all have. So that the mentions of these heroic qualities and frailties together, Shakespeare would write about today."

The video is, as San Diego Magazine puts it, "super odd."

Richard III and Julius Caesar, by the way, didn't come to good ends, either in real life or in Shakespeare's plays. (Maybe Manchester should watch his back, beware the ides of March and always keep a horse on hand?)

* As you might glean from the video, Manchester is not the humblest of men. San Diego Magazine found this quote on his website: "He creates and applies the magic that creates positive experiences. His memory-makers have routinely defined and enriched San Diego's skylines and landscapes. And when he reaches beyond San Diego, which he often does, his visions dot the landscape of America. This is what Papa Doug has done and from what he draws satisfaction."

Journalist arrested in Milwaukee for filming house fire

2011-10-08T05:50:00.000-07:00

Milwaukee Police Dept. v. Clint Fillinger

Posted October 6th, 2011 by CMLP Staff
Summary
Threat Type: Criminal Charge
Date: 09/21/2011
Location: Wisconsin
Party Issuing Legal Threat: Party Receiving Legal Threat:
Milwaukee Police Dept. Clint Fillinger

On September 21, 2011, Clint Fillinger, a photojournalist, was arrested for resisting and obstructing an officer after police confronted Fillinger while he was attempting to film at the scene of a house firm in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Fillinger, a 68-year-old journalist with 45 years of experience, was filming from outside the area that officers had cordoned off with police tape, where several members of the public had also gathered.

Fillinger's raw video of the incident was published by his employer, Fox6 Now. The raw video shows two officers approaching Fillinger and demanding that he step back. The video appears to show Fillinger complying as he stated that he had a right to be there as a member of the public. The officers tell him that he must move for his own safety. Fillinger ultimately falls to the ground, dropping his camera, though the video does not show the cause. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press reports that Fillinger was the only person asked to move away from the scene.

Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn told Fox6 the next day that he felt Fillinger was to blame, saying, "If the cameraman had simply complied with the instructions to back off from a working fire, none of this hullabaloo would be taking place." Fox6 posted the raw video of Flynn's statement on its website.

Several news associations – including the National Press Photographers Association’s Advocacy Committee, the Radio Television Digital News Association, and the Wisconsin News Photographers Association – have sent letters to Flynn demanding the charges be dropped and the officers involved be investigated and face disciplinary charges if necessary.

Meet the Fall 2011 IRP Fellows

2011-08-25T20:06:00.000-07:00

Meet the Fall 2011 IRP Fellows
International Reporting Project
2011

Ten U.S. journalists have been awarded International Reporting Project (IRP) Fellowships to report on important global topics, including four reporting projects on global religion. http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

The nine-week-long reporting fellowships, which provide U.S. journalists with opportunities to do in-depth overseas stories, will begin in September and end in November. The IRP, now in its 13th year, is based in Washington D.C. at The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of The Johns Hopkins University.

The fall 2011 IRP Fellows, their affiliations and the countries where they will report are:

Emily Alpert, voiceofsandiego -- Bolivia
Alex Daniels, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette -- Benin
David Francis, freelance -- Nigeria
Alex Gallafent, PRI/BBC “The World” -- Swaziland
Matt Jenkins, freelance -- Taiwan
Krista Mahr, TIME Asia -- South Sudan
Megan Verlee, Colorado Public Radio -- Ethiopia
Andrea Wenzel, WAMU-FM -- Thailand
Jennifer Willis, freelance -- Ireland
Jamison York, NPR’s “On the Media” -- Malaysia

Who is watching the Watchdog? The San Diego U-T “disappears” its own reporting by moving it

2011-08-05T22:52:00.000-07:00

Who is watching the Watchdog? The San Diego U-T “disappears” its own reporting by moving it
by Anna Daniels
OB Rag
August 1, 2011

For those of us who read the news and analysis of the news online, it is not uncommon to find a correction appended to an article or some part of the original text struck through, but still visible, with a modification following it. Online material is uniquely adaptable to quick corrections and updates in the interests of getting a story “right.”

Removing a story, scrubbing it from the site’s archives and replacing it with a completely new version is a jaw dropping breach of journalistic integrity and responsibility. The U-T did precisely that when it wrote that it had “moved” an article written by Wendy Fry on July 25 about the presence of paid “activists” at a series of Chula Vista city council meetings in which rent control in mobile home parks was being deliberated.

I had found Fry’s initial post extremely interesting and wrote about it here. The link that I provided however to Fry’s July 25 article now pulls up a page that says that the story was moved to the Watchdog section and we are invited to read it there.

It is impossible to read that story there because it is not posted there. Instead, there is a rewrite, a total do over dated July 28. It is also authored by Fry but the topic receives a new title and substantively different treatment from the original. This new story was not presented as a correction, update or retraction and the original article has disappeared from the signon archives (Read it here from a non U-T source.) leaving only the reader comments.

It is worth asking why Fry’s South Bay report on a topic that is not a particularly “hot” issue would even merit this kind of treatment. What entity (or entities) was disturbed by the content of the original and capable of exerting sufficient power upon the U-T to receive a rewrite? Who is really involved in this story and to what extent?

The bare bones story presented in both articles is that the Chula Vista city council held two public meetings on an agenda item about current rent control law as it applies to mobile home parks. An overflow crowd of interested parties, a significant number of whom were allegedly compensated by an individual or organization associated with the Republican Party, was able to weigh in on whether to continue rent control for residents or to let that law sunset, and “decontrol” rents with all new tenants. Those compensated individuals were there to oppose the continuance of rent control. The city council voted 4-0 to enable mobile home park owners to increase rent whenever a mobile home is sold, signaling the end of rent control.

If the bare bones of the story were not altered, what did change and why? Fry’s original article used the terms “activists’ and “seat savers” when referring to those who were paid to attend. Both of those terms disappeared completely from her rewrite. Attendees were simply “paid,” provided with “financial incentives” or “compensated,” which creates a significant change in tone from presenting the unusual to the unremarkable. The number of people provided with financial incentives also changed from “about 100” in the original to “at least 50,” which alters the degree of relevance of those compensated.

The question of who was doing the paying has been substantively reworked. She writes in her original article —“In the crowd July 12, a large group of young people wore green ‘Yes on Vacancy Decontrol’ stickers in support of the changes. Some of those attendees told other audience member they were with ‘the Young Republicans of El Cajon’ and that they were each paid $20 to attend.” Yet all allusions to this group as well as to the San Diego County Young Republicans, also quoted, disappear in the subsequent article. Why is that?

In Fry’s second shot at this, she presents a statement from Derrick Roach, the secretary for the Republican Party of San Diego “Roach, a Chula Vista resident, confirmed he helped recruit and pay 50 mobile-home residents to attend the meeting and gave McMurty $40 cash.” These 50 residents were the “seat savers” in Fry’s original article.

Fry goes on to write “Chairman Tony Krvaric said the Republican Party of San Diego County was not responsible for compensating people at the meeting.” This leaves the reader with the mystifying feeling that Krvaric, president, and Roach, secretary of the Republican Party, have never met each other, let alone spoken to each other. When Kravic outrageously responds to her question about who provided the cash behind the handout with “’What do you think? Who had the financial interest in the item? What was the issue being pushed and probably the people pushing the payments,’” and she lets go of that bald contradiction to Roach’s admission, you know it’s all over for the U-T’s reporting. Roach admitted to providing the money and he represents the obvious financial interest. Is Krvaric really trying to obfuscate that fact and why did Fry let him get away with it?

Roach is the fall guy in all this—the rewritten title states “GOP officer paid people to attend council meeting” and his picture is prominently displayed; Krvaric is obviously a person of influence; and it remains unclear whether the “South Bay campaign consultant who runs the politically involved San Diego Group” is a significant player; and there were no interviews in either of the articles of the actual mobile park owners who have a great deal at stake in the issue.

Ray McMurty, age 62 and living on social security disability is grateful for the forty bucks he was paid by the Republican Party and which helped out with his weekly groceries. He publicly states he sees no problem in attending those city council meetings, wearing a sticker in support of “decontrol,” even though he lives in one of the affected mobile home parks. His statements, one of the few included in both articles, provide a transparency lacking in the other interviews. We can assume that he is not the entity which has exerted the power over the U-T for a rewrite.

I do not understand why Fry was given a second chance to “get it right.” It strikes me as an odd opportunity for journalistic redemption, tantamount to writing “I was bad and will never be bad again” on the blackboard 100 times, yet the rewrite still stirs up the soup.

The U-T Watchdog wants us to know that it stands for “Journalism that upholds the public trust, regularly.” The cavalier acts of rewriting its own news and expunging all evidence to the contrary exemplifies an appalling disregard of what constitutes upholding that trust—and the very basis for reporting the news.

It looks like Voice of San Diego might be taking some cards out of the deck before it begins to play

2011-07-30T16:46:00.000-07:00

Has Voice of San Diego given up on journalistic ethics? They're starting to make the SDUT look good! I'm beginning to think VOSD is just a mouthpiece for a few people with money and/or influence who wanted some control over which voices are heard in San Diego. But apparently they didn't just want to give some new people a voice. They also want to keep some new voices silent.

Last night I sent two comments to VOSD about the Jackson story in Voice of San Diego:

To VOSD:
You guys are doing something wrong. I don't think your decisions are motivated by race, but the unbalanced racial makeup of the people you choose to attack exposes a problem. I'm not talking about the top elected officials. I am talking about how VOSD chooses which of the other 3 million people in San Diego to attack, protect, or discuss. There's something wrong with your methodology when so many of the people attacked are black women. There is something arbitrary and inequitable about your methods. The law of probability indicates that you are somehow pulling some of the cards out of the deck before the game begins.

You are exposing your methods unintentionally. The same thing happens with people who cheat on their taxes. The IRS spots them by looking for certain numbers that tend to pop up more frequently in the tax filings of people who are cheating. They use statistics to spot the fraud, without even looking at the reasons given for deductions.

VOSD has stepped gingerly around some stories, and stepped heavily into other stories.

The people that get the gentler treatment from VOSD tend to be white, not because VOSD is racist, but because, I suspect, the people whom Buzz Woolley and the rest of the top dogs at VOSD want to protect happen to be white. People high up on the food chain in San Diego schools are treated gently (and the superintendent there is a black man), while people who rank lower take the heat. Also, people down at SEDC get harsh handling.

Obviously, commenter "bigfan" doesn't like Shelia Jackson, and doesn't want to question VOSD's motives for choosing to attack Jackson while staying silent on more important issues in schools.

My point is that I think VOSD chooses stories for the wrong reasons, but not necessarily for racial reasons. But one must suspect that something is wrong when there is such a surfeit of black women being attacked. The laws of probability are being violated. The choices seem arbitrary. It appears that people are attacked if they are not on the protected list.

Let's look at the facts. When Regina Petty at SEDC wouldn't turn over public records, VOSD went after her with a vengeance. We were treated to 13 "Petty Watch" posts. It took two months of "almost constant hounding" to get SEDC to release public records.

But VOSD reported that when it asked for records from the County Office of Education "that would show if the trips were given to the agency rather than the employee, it didn't provide any." VOSD didn't begin an aggressive "Crosier Watch." No constant hounding. The difference in treatment was not due to the fact that the SEDC lawyer was black and Diane Crosier, the lawyer in charge of keeping public records out of public view at the County Office of Education, was white. It's because Petty had no friends at VOSD, and Crosier apparently does. I call it friendship when you meekly accept a "no" answer to a public records request instead of doing all you can to shame Diane Crosier into turning over the records.

I'm not saying VOSD shouldn't cover the Jackson story. I'm saying that we can clearly see that there is a problem when racial patterns emerge so clearly in VOSD stories. I'm saying VOSD needs to start telling the whole truth about schools in San Diego. And it should start with a "Crosier Watch."

At almost 5 p.m. today (July 30, 2011), my comments are not posted. Here's what I just wrote to Scott Lewis and Andrew Donohue.

Scott Lewis, Andrew Donohue:

You allowed a commenter to call me "pathetic" and say she was LMAO (laughing her ass off). Not coincidentally, I believe, she was defending VOSD's choice of subject for investigation.

Then you failed to publish my two comments explaining myself.

You're not even pretending any more, are you?

I'm beginning to think that although VOSD does cover some stories that the SDUT doesn't, it isn't because VOSD is more fair in who it attacks. It's simply that VOSD is politically motivated to attack different people. The main problem I see with both VOSD and SDUT is that they like to go after little stories of small corruption in which the taxpayers lose a small amount of cash to someone with sticky fingers, while at the same time both these newspapers leave unmolested the big guys who undermines society itself by corrupting the system to make the entire operation of government subservient to their wishes.

Anatomy of a Journalistic Success and a Journalistic Failure at Voice of San Diego (VOSD)

2011-07-29T15:19:00.001-07:00

Will Carless triumphs but Emily Alpert fails to get public records from local agencies. Click here for comparison.

Now Two Murdoch Whistleblowers Dead

2011-07-24T08:24:00.000-07:00

Now Two Murdoch Whistleblowers Dead
By John Romano
Yes, But, However
(YBH)
July 24th 2011

First it was Big George Webley who relayed a fear of the Murdoch machine and wound up dead. Now it’s Sean Hoare. Two British media whistleblowers. Two untimely deaths.

Let’s assume that neither was killed by Rupert Murdoch (toxicology reports haven’t been made available; foul play isn’t suspected by British authorities in either case), but something happened that put the fear of God into both men. Neither was known as a lunatic before their demise, both simply told the truth to British authorities about what they knew of Mr. Murdoch’s enterprises and died afterward at a relatively young age.

Sean Hoare

Mr. Hoare’s role in the evolving scandal is obvious: he worked at News of the World and broke the scandal wide open by charging his former editor, and then Prime Minister David Cameron’s Communications Director Andy Coulson, with lying about his role in NOTW’s phone hacking. Big George, for his part, allegedly revealed in private testimony to British authorities the fact that the Sky TV show he worked on in the early 90′s ,”Jameson Tonight”, had routinely bugged the dressing rooms of guests looking for scoops. Mr Webley’s charge was relevant because News Corp.’s initial defense was that the hacking at NOTW was the work of a rogue reporter. Big George’s charge threw cold water on that defense by helping to establish a pattern of subterfuge over many years at Murdoch-owned enterprises.

At first, Big George’s April 29th frantic phone call to me (eight days before his death at age 53, details here) didn’t make much sense. Now that the scandal has broken wide open a few things are much clearer:

The hacking/bugging taking place at News Corp. businesses was far more widespread than previously known.
Based on their dismissals from News Corp. it is shown that the hacking went far up the food chain all the way to Les Hinton, who resigned as head of Dow Jones last week.
The police were involved, as evidenced by the resignation of two of Scotland Yard’s top cops.
Prime Minister David Cameron’s Communication Director was a former Murdoch employee and News of the World editor.

The United Kingdom is the closest western country to a de facto police state. Surveillance cameras are everywhere. No Bill of Rights (in law or practice), and by living there you acknowledge that you are a subject of the British Crown. Britain is a great place, but it is not exactly a place where freedom flourishes compared with the United States, France or Canada.

Given the above, it is very easy to envision a scenario where the police could and would build a campaign of quiet intimidation against men like Mr. Webley and Mr. Hoare. London police were on the payroll of a Murdoch enterprise; why wouldn’t they act to protect their racket?

The Murdoch empire is fighting for its life, but let’s not forget both Sean Hoare and Big George Webley, two men that it would seem either directly or indirectly are collateral damage in the whole affair. Someone needs to speak for them.

UK lawmaker calls for police investigation of claim contradicting James Murdoch

2011-07-22T12:01:00.000-07:00

UK lawmaker calls for police investigation of claim contradicting James Murdoch testimony
By Associated Press
July 22, 2011

LONDON — James Murdoch was under pressure Friday over claims he misled lawmakers about Britain’s phone hacking scandal, as a lawmaker called for a police investigation and Prime Minister David Cameron insisted the media scion had “questions to answer” about what he knew and when he knew it.

The presumed heir to Rupert Murdoch’s media empire testified before a parliamentary committee that he was not aware of evidence that eavesdropping at the News of the world went beyond a jailed rogue reporter. But in a sign that executives are starting to turn against the company, two former top staffers said late Thursday they told him years ago about an email that suggested wrongdoing at the paper was more widespread than the company let on.

32

Comments

Weigh In
Corrections?

Graphic
The sequence of events at News Corp.

The sequence of events at News Corp.

Video
A British lawmaker wants police to investigate whether James Murdoch, son of Rupert Murdoch, lied to Parliament. (July 22)

A British lawmaker wants police to investigate whether James Murdoch, son of Rupert Murdoch, lied to Parliament. (July 22)

More on this Story

British PM adds to pressure on James Murdoch
Former execs accuse James Murdoch of lying
News Corp. PAC boosted donations in June
Michael Regan, Murdoch's man in Washington

View all Items in this Story

The claim brings more trouble for the embattled James Murdoch, who heads the Europe and Asia operations of his father’s News Corp., as his family fights a scandal that has already cost it one of its British tabloids, two top executives and a $12 billion-dollar bid for control of lucrative satellite broadcaster British Sky Broadcasting.

Tom Watson, a legislator from the opposition Labour Party, called for Scotland Yard to look into the allegation and said it “marks a major step forward in getting to the facts of this case.”

“If their version of events is accurate, it doesn’t just mean that Parliament has been misled, it means police have another investigation on their hands,” Watson told the BBC.

James Murdoch, who was not testifying under oath at Tuesday’s parliamentary hearing, could face sanction if it becomes clear he deliberately misled lawmakers — but the prospect is highly unlikely. The last time the House of Commons fined anyone was in 1666.

The House of Commons no longer has the power to imprison a nonmember, but it could refer a case to the Metropolitan Police...

Righthaven LLC v. Hyatt Copyright Infringement

2011-03-06T13:42:00.000-08:00

Righthaven LLC v. Hyatt
Citizen Media Law Project
Threat Type: Lawsuit
Date: 10/06/2010
Status: Pending
Location: Nevada
Legal Claims: Copyright Infringement

Righthaven LLC, a Las Vegas company associated with Las Vegas Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Bill Hyatt, a New York blogger. Righthaven alleged that Hyatt copied an article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal without permission and posted it on his website, 1ce.org.

After Hyatt did not respond to Righthaven's lawsuit, on February 10, 2011, Righthaven filed a motion for default judgment and demanded it be awarded attorney fees, $150,000 in statutory damages, and an order that 1ce.org be transferred from Hyatt to Righthaven.

Update:

2/23/2011 - The Media Bloggers Association ("MBA") moved to file an amicus brief with the court. In the brief, the MBA argued that Righthaven's claim to ownership of the copyright in the article in question is dubious, as the copyright assignment appears to be invalid. The MBA also argued that Righthaven should not be awarded any more than nominal damages at most, as it "is not a content producer trying to preserve ts relevant market from the unceasing raids of content pirates, but a dedicated litigation house that acquires rights from other entities solely to sue essentially defenseless 'infringers' for their supposed infringement." And the MBA argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to order the transfer of 1ce.org to Righthaven, as such an award is only an appropriate remedy in cybersquatting cases, which this is not.

San Diego Union-Tribune Watchdog highlights this question: "Should there be any pension for [teacher] retirees?"

2011-02-27T13:21:00.000-08:00

Clearly, Les Birdsall of San Diego is not interested in attracting the best and brightest to work as teachers in San Diego. Since teachers don't pay for, or receive, Social Security benefits, Mr. Birdsall seems to be asking if retired teachers should perhaps live in homeless shelters and collect food stamps. Why would the SDUT Watchdog print such a silly comment while at the same time failing to investigate costly shenanigans of insurance companies and lawyers at the San Diego County Office of Education? Has the Watchdog received any rabies shots? Is it mad?

See Slaying the Mythical Tax-Fattened Hog regarding public sector pay.

Educator pensions report raised questions
“The average education pension in $40,663. Is this too high?“
By Maureen Magee
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
January 31, 2011

Underfunded public pensions have made big headlines in San Diego and elsewhere, igniting a debate over the cost of retirement packages that often pits taxpayer groups against public employees, with the public somewhere in the middle.

A recent report by The Watchdog on educator pensions contributed to the debate. Some readers wrote to raise questions and voice their views — from outrage over what they call excessive pensions to sympathy for public employees whose retirement packages they believe have been unfairly called into question.

Mary Jean Word, a retired San Diego teacher, objected to our report claiming the educator pension system, like other public funds, offers “high benefits with no clear way to pay them.” She said the broad brush was unfair to those on the lower end.

“Do not include administrators with teachers,” said Word, who retired with 25 years service credit in California and receives an annual pension of $24,000. “They do not teach 20 to 150 students a day.”

Public educators from counselors to superintendents pay into the California State Teachers Retirement System. The program does not classify them by position, however, so separate data analysis was not possible. Although the top pension for a retired San Diego County educator is $281,034, the average retired educator in the county takes home just over $40,000 annually.

Much of the response to our story centered around whether that is a high number. For perspective, recent U.S. Census Bureau estimates show the average person of retirement age receives about $19,000 from retirement, pension and/or Social Security benefits.
Teacher fund status

Jim Wirt of San Diego wanted to know more about the state of the teacher pension fund. “You could have at least mentioned that CalSTRS assets have fallen...”

The fund reported good news last month when it posted 12.7 percent investment returns for 2010, raising its portfolio to $146.4 billion. The fund peaked at $180 billion in 2007 and had fallen to $112 billion in early 2009.

Even so, the system is expected to go broke by 2045 unless contributions are increased by the state, school districts and California educators. Officials say the fund needs a 15 percent hike in employer contributions this year. Only the state Legislature has the authority to approve such an increase. Since the state faces a $20 billion budget deficit, many say it’s unlikely to happen this year.
Who’s to blame?

Marty McGee of La Jolla wants to know how California got into this mess. She wrote, “In order for your watchdog reports to lead to meaningful changes, the people need to know who did it.”

Some of the blame goes to California voters.

“A little-known ballot measure a quarter century ago, Proposition 21 in 1984, opened the door for much of the current controversy over California’s public employee pensions,” former Union-Tribune reporter and pension expert Ed Mendel wrote last year. The measure passed with 53 percent of the vote.

Before Proposition 21, pension funds had been required to put most of their money into bonds. The ballot measure allowed pension funds to shift most money to stocks and other riskier investments. Some have said that public pensions would be more manageable today if the funds had stuck with safer investments.

Other changes to CalSTRS have also contributed to the funding gap.

In an effort to address teacher shortages and convince veteran educators to put off retirement, CalSTRS benefits were sweetened about a decade ago under AB 1509, legislation sponsored by Mike Machado, D-Stockton.

To fund the added benefits, the legislation took a fourth of the money teachers had been contributing to their pensions and used it to seed the added benefit. The teachers no longer pay into the supplemental benefit fund, but they draw from it.
What about Social Security?

Tom Helmantoler, a retired Julian High School teacher, asks this: “What about Social Security? Why can’t someone who has qualified for Social Security in the private sector turn to teaching as a second career and keep the Social Security benefit they earned?”

More than two decades before the Social Security Act was signed, the Teachers’ Retirement Law took effect in California in 1913. Public educators decided to continue to opt out of Social Security in 1955 because CalSTRS offered better benefits. California teachers do not pay into Social Security while they pay into CalSTRS. But some have paid enough toward Social Security to qualify for the benefit from other jobs. Those retired educators see a significant reduction in Social Security benefits under a law designed to prevent double-dipping. Similarly, retired educators who qualify for Social Security as the spouse or widow/widower of a worker who was covered by Social Security also see a reduction in that benefit under the law.

Should taxpayers contribute anything?

Les Birdsall of San Diego asked broader, philosophical questions. “The story tells us the average education pension in $40,663. Is this too high? What would be a reasonable pension? Should there be any pension for retirees?”

Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, said governments must compete with private sector salaries and benefits or it will not attract a qualified work force. And that means offering a decent retirement.

“It’s very easy to say that public sector defined benefit programs are more generous than what most people get in the private sector,” she said. “But it’s really hard to say.”

The military/media attacks on the Hastings article

2011-02-27T13:18:00.000-08:00

Feb 27, 2011
The military/media attacks on the Hastings article
By Glenn Greenwald
Salon.com

Last June, when Rolling Stone published Michael Hastings' article which ended the career of Obama's Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal -- an article which was just awarded the prestigious Polk Award -- the attacks on Hastings were led not by military officials but by some of Hastings' most celebrated journalistic colleagues. The New York Times' John Burns fretted that the article "has impacted, and will impact so adversely, on what had been pretty good military/media relations" and accused Hastings of violating "a kind of trust" which war reporters "build up" with war Generals; Politico observed that a "beat reporter" -- unlike the freelancing Hastings -- "would not risk burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal’s remarks"; and an obviously angry Lara Logan of CBS News strongly insinuated (with no evidence) that Hastings had lied about whether the comments were on-the-record and then infamously sneered: "Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has." Here's Jon Stewart last year mocking the revealing media disdain for Rolling Stone and Hastings in the wake of their McChrystal story.

* Continue reading

Hastings has now written another Rolling Stone article that reflects poorly on a U.S. General in Afghanistan. The new article details how Lt. Gen. William Caldwell "illegally ordered a team of soldiers specializing in 'psychological operations' to manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war" and then railroaded the whistle-blowing officer who objected to the program. Now, the same type of smear campaign is being launched at Hastings as well as at his primary source, Lt. Col. Michael Holmes: from military officials and their dutiful media-servants.

Ever since publication of this new article, military-subservient "reporters" have disseminated personal attacks on Hastings and his journalism as well as on Holmes and his claims, all while inexcusably granting anonymity to the military leaders launching those attacks and uncritically repeating them.

As usual, anyone who makes powerful government or military leaders look bad -- by reporting the truth -- becomes the target of character assassination, and the weapon of choice are the loyal, vapid media stars who will uncritically repeat whatever powerful officials say all while shielding them from accountability through the use of anonymity...

San Diego Union-Tribune Watchdog highlights this question: "Should there be any pension for [teacher] retirees?"

2011-02-20T19:11:00.000-08:00

KUSI reports campaign allegations as fact; is Prop D so incendiary that it causes KUSI to compromise its journalistic integrity?

2010-09-01T08:52:00.000-07:00

How Political Spin Became Fact on KUSI
Keegan Kyle
Voice of San Diego
August 31, 2010

Here's a lesson from the budding campaign over Proposition D that shows how quickly political spin can become accepted fact.

Last week, journalists received an e-mail blast from opponents of Proposition D, the sales tax measure on November's ballot. The opponents announced a meeting with "over 300 business and community leaders" for the "launch of (a) grassroots effort." They took a stab at Proposition D supporters, too.

[Excerpt from email:] Proponents of Prop D will have $1 million or more from labor unions and special interests to spend in their campaign ... We cannot match that special interest money. Fortunately, our "No on Prop D" campaign has the support of the grassroots in San Diego -- a broad spectrum of hardworking small business owners, neighborhood activists and community leaders.

KUSI covered the meeting live and reported the campaign's claims to its audiences as fact. Here's one excerpt from the exchange between anchor and news reporter (emphasis is ours):

Anchor: I understand the Prop. D campaign has quite a bit of money behind it to see it through.

Reporter: They do. They have about a million dollars for those supporting Proposition D, for their campaigns. Some of that is funded by some of the unions around San Diego city and county as well. The campaign here, the No on Prop. D campaign, does not have that kind of money. This is a purely grassroot effort. This is a fundraiser tonight so they're actually trying to get some people to donate to their campaign, but what they're to do is get as much support behind this as they can. They've already got a substantial portion of the business community supporting the No on Prop D campaign.

Anchor: Sounds like they're putting up a pretty good fight, though. Alright, Tom, thank you.

In those four highlighted sections, the reporter presented the same talking points about unions, special interests, business and grassroots efforts that came from the anti-Prop. D press release. He claimed the pro-Prop. D campaign had $1 million, which actually went a step further from the press release, which only forecasted that sum...

Fox news hammers another nail in the coffin of fair and balanced reporting: $1M gift to Republican Governors Association

2010-08-17T16:30:00.000-07:00

News Corp. defends $1M gift to Republican Governors Association
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
August 17, 2010

Rupert Murdoch, who has never been shy about making his political views known, has voted with his sizable checkbook.

Murdoch's News Corp. has made a $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association, triggering swift criticism from Democrats that a contribution of that magnitude casts a shadow on his media properties, particularly Fox News.

"For a media company -- particularly one whose slogan is 'fair and balanced' -- to be injecting themselves into the outcome of races is stunning," Nathan Daschle, executive director of the Democratic Governors Association, said Tuesday. "The people owning Fox News have made a decision that they want to see Democratic governors go down to defeat. It's a jaw-dropping violation of the boundary between the media and corporate realm." ...

The NCT may have fooled some readers into thinking that a MiraCosta College mediator spoke with the authority of a judge

2010-08-17T09:54:00.000-07:00

See MiraCosta College posts.

San Diego's retired judge David B. Moon, Jr. is not a judge, he's a mediator-for-hire. He is famous in some circles for his successful efforts to help employers get away with mistreating employees. However, when the employee in question is someone who has run an organization, and has worked closely with the lawyers for the organization, it seems that Mr. Moon does his best to get the employee an extremely good deal. In the case of MiraCosta College, a appeals court has ruled that the deal Moon got for former college president Victoria Richart was so generous that it was illegal.

Mr. Moon's statements should be given no more weight than those of any other mediator who is paid to be biased. But the North County Times, by focusing on his status as a retired judge, makes it sound like his personal opinion has some special value:

"...before the 2007 settlement, a retired judge retained by the college board found that Richart had a valid claim for damages against MiraCosta and some of its trustees worth 'in excess of $2 million'" (emphasis added).

Reporter Paul Sisson should have described Moon as a mediator, not a judge.

Across town, the San Diego Union-Tribune has broken the link to the following story it published on the same subject:

"This is Google's cache of http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/13/judge-says-former-miracosta-president-must-repay/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Aug 14, 2010 00:28:07 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.

Judge says former MiraCosta president must repay $1.3 million
By Pat Flynn, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 5:05 p.m.

A judge has ordered the former president of MiraCosta College to repay about $1.3 million in compensation she has received from the college district under a 2007 settlement in which she agreed to step down and waive her right to sue over employment issues.

Victoria Muñoz Richart and the district agreed to a $1.6 million settlement after the faculty cast a no-confidence vote against her over her investigation into the illegal sale of palm trees that belonged to the college.

Leon Page, an attorney who lives in Carlsbad, quickly sued, contending that state law prohibits public agencies from granting more than 18 months’ worth of salary and benefits in terminating contracts.

He lost at the trial level, but in November the 4th District Court of Appeal agreed that the deal was an unconstitutional gift of public funds and declared the settlement contract void. The appellate court sent the case back to Superior Court to sort out what to do next.

In his ruling, Judge William S. Dato said the solution is to return the parties to the status they had before the agreement was reached, ordering Richart to repay the money within 90 days and reinstating her right to pursue legal claims against the district.

“Technically, she is also relieved of her obligation to step down as president of the district, but the significance of that fact is far from clear,” Dato wrote, noting that the college has a new president (since March 2009) and that “it is unlikely Richart would want to resume the position even if the district board was willing to permit it.”

The ruling also ordered the district to withhold the approximately $300,000 remaining to be paid under the settlement.

Neither Richart nor her attorneys could be reached for comment Friday.

“This was an abusive, corrupt bargain,” Page said of the deal he torpedoed, saying his role was to stand up for the college and taxpayers “since nobody else did.”

Although he has no role in any future dealings between Richart and the Oceanside-based district, Page said, “I think now this can very easily be settled.”

He said he envisions a scenario in which Richart is able to “hold back” some of what she has been paid.

“I don’t think it’s necessary to squeeze every last penny out of Victoria,” Page said.

Michael Gibbs, an attorney for the college district, said that while there have been no discussions since Dato released his ruling Thursday, a settlement is possible.

“I am sure there will be a good-faith effort to reach a resolution,” he said.

And if that doesn’t happen, there “may well be” more litigation in the case, he said.

My apology regarding SDUT's Sign On San Diego website

2010-08-06T14:10:00.000-07:00

San Diego Union-Tribune

I apologize for my mistake about how
the SDUT published comments. I've
erased this page, and am working on
a full explanation which I will
publish in this space. I mistakenly
thought I posted a comment on one
web page of the SDUT, but I had
actually posted my comment on
another page. I kept looking at the
first page (the one that had everyone
else's comments), waiting to see my
comment, and, of course, my
comment never appeared.

Why did the San Diego Union Tribune talk about Francisco Escobedo's other school district, but never mentioned Lowell Billings' other district?

2010-08-03T15:43:00.001-07:00

New CVESD superintendent Francisco Escobedo

Who is in charge of the San Diego Union-Tribune's editorial policy regarding Chula Vista Elementary School District? The editor who (mis)handled the story of the "Castle Park Five" was Don Sevrens.

Once again, the SDUT fails to give the full story about Chula Vista Elementary School District. Until he was voted out of office in 2008 (and replaced by Russell Coronado), CVESD board member Patrick Judd was an employee of CVESD Superintendent Lowell Billings in another school district, The Accelerated School (TAS) in Los Angeles. At TAS, Lowell Billings was on the board that chose Patrick Judd as executive director of the school.

But here's the big difference between the two situations: Escobedo didn't personally hire Coronado. Lowell Billings, on the other hand, was personally involved in the hiring of Patrick Judd, and Judd was personally involved in hiring Lowell Billings.

The board minutes for CVESD do not indicate that Patrick Judd recused himself from voting for Lowell Billings' employment, nor does it appear that Billings recused himself from voting for Judd's employment.

See blog posts about The Accelerated School (TAS) in Los Angeles.

Shame on the San Diego Union Tribune for cherry-picking the facts it gives to readers. This story reminds me of the "Castle Park Five" story, in which the SDUT was outraged that five teachers were transferred, but never told readers that several of those teachers were deeply involved in illegal actions. The district had paid $100,000s to defend them. The teachers weren't grateful for the district's assistance in covering up their wrongdoing, however. When they were transferred, they filed a complaint against the district!

Chula Vista superintendent candidate had inside track
The president of the school board works for him at another district
San Diego Union Tribune
By ASHLY McGLONE
August 2, 2010

One candidate for superintendent of Chula Vista’s elementary school district had an inside track — one of his employees is the president of the school board.

Francisco Escobedo last week was named the sole finalist for the job, which paid its last occupant $247,000...

It wasn’t mentioned in the news release, but The Watchdog has learned that Escobedo is Coronado’s boss at the South Bay Union School District. Escobedo is assistant superintendent of educational leadership there, a post he has held since 2007. Coronado is the director of student services.

Coronado was one of two board members on a selection committee, which also included a parent, a principal, a labor representative and a taxpayer. That committee passed along three finalists to the board, which narrowed the field to one by a unanimous vote that included Coronado.

Coronado on Monday said his relationship with Escobedo at the South Bay district was not a conflict-of-interest and had no bearing on the recruitment at the Chula Vista Elementary district...

Still, Coronado said, he has decided to recuse himself from the final vote to hire a superintendent, possibly on Aug. 17, “so that there wouldn’t be any misinterpretation.”

Escobedo said he sees no conflict with applying for a job controlled in part by a subordinate.

“I wouldn’t say that is the case,” Escobedo said. “[Coronado] has two roles to play: one as the school board president when he works for Chula Vista. He does an exceptional job at differentiating what his roles are in those two positions.”

Larry Cunningham, the other board member who served on the selection committee, said the relationship between Coronado and Escobedo was “not a discussion item” but that he was aware that they worked together. Asked whether he knew that Escobedo was Coronado’s boss, he said, “I don’t know what the structure is.”

[Maura Larkins' comment: Come on, Larry. Don't be so afraid to admit the truth. If Escobedo is the superintendent, then he's the boss of every employee in the district. I wish you would start giving straight answers to questions. This evasiveness is getting to be a very bad habit.]

Jim Groth, former president of the teacher’s union for the district, said he was unaware of the connection.

“As far as my reaction to it, it’s not uncommon, but it would be proper for a board member not to vote on the process,” said Groth, now a member of the California Teachers Association board. “Everybody in leadership kind of knows everybody else in leadership. To directly supervise them though, in the state of California, I am sure it happens, but as an elected official, you need to be very careful.”

[Maura Larkins comment: But you didn't want Lowell Billings to be careful, did you, Jim? At least not regarding issues that you and he were hiding from teachers and voters, right?]

The successful candidate will replace Lowell Billings, who will retire midway through his ninth year as district superintendent in December. His salary is $247,000, although a replacement with less experience might be paid less.

At South Bay Union, Escobedo’s salary stands at $144,000, and Coronado’s is $124,000.

Escobedo, who has a doctorate in education and has worked in education for 22 years, should not be excluded from the Chula Vista job because a board member happens to work for him, Billings said.

“Do you exclude someone that you really really like because you have a history with them? He is a really good educator,” Billings said. “You have to look at the track record of the candidate that has been selected, and it is immaculate.”

Billings said there was no problem with the news release quoting Coronado praising Escobedo, without disclosing their outside relationship.

“I think you have to put it in the context of how pleased the other board members are,” Billings said. “One board member is not the board. He is not giving his sole opinion. He is voicing the consolidated opinion of the board. He doesn’t speak for himself.”...

Daniel Schorr's Legacy: Speaking Truth To Power

2010-07-24T10:25:00.000-07:00

Daniel Schorr's Legacy: Speaking Truth To Power
by David Folkenflik
NPR
July 24, 2010

He wasn't the most handsome, nor the most famous, of the dashing "Murrow Boys" of CBS News, the ones who defined ambitious broadcast journalism in the middle of the last century.

Nor was Daniel Schorr among the first. It took years of freelancing abroad, and even a brief try-out at The New York Times, before Schorr caught the attention of Edward R. Murrow and was hired by CBS in 1953.

But Schorr, who died Friday at 93, left two unquestionable journalistic legacies all his own.

First, he exemplified the mission of bearing active witness to history, in his case, the decades that chronicled America's rise after World War II. His reporting and interpretation of developments provided important insights for generations of readers, viewers and listeners.

He covered the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954; a few years later, as Moscow bureau chief for CBS, Schorr won the first sit-down television interview with Soviet Premier Nikita Krushchev — the first by a television news outlet from any country, including the U.S.S.R. He covered the Cold War from West Germany, too; and the Johnson administration's anti-poverty efforts when he returned to the U.S.; and, perhaps most famously, Watergate and the ensuing revelation of CIA abuses.

Schorr took a pride in his name's appearance on President Nixon's infamous "enemies list" that could not be underestimated. It served as a verbal talisman during his later appearances on NPR, particularly as he observed some parallels between the pushes for secrecy in the Nixon years and in the administration of President George W. Bush (especially as embodied by then-Vice President Richard B. Cheney).
Dan Schorr Memorial Special

Then, there is his second legacy: He uncompromisingly stood up to power.

Murrow famously tangled with network executives — all the way up to CBS chairman William S. Paley himself. But to the outward observer, Schorr seemed as fearless as his mentor...

Truly independent American journalists don't work for big organizations

2010-07-05T19:30:00.000-07:00

Jul 4, 2010
America's good, subservient press
On Independence Day, noting that the truly independent American journalists don't work for big organizations
By Dan Gillmor
Salon.com

Journalists tend to take themselves too seriously, and their craft not seriously enough. So it is apt that some famous and obscure quotations and aphorisms about the value and function of a free press adorn the tiled walls of the restrooms at Rhodes University's African Media Matrix -- the building that houses what is widely considered the continent's top journalism school.

One of those quotes is from Nelson Mandela, spoken in 2002, and it feels dismayingly correct today:

“A bad free press is preferable to a technically good subservient press."

In the wake of a major journalistic scandal in the United States, broken open in the last week, I have to say that America's establishment press has never been technically better, but never more pathetically subservient. My hopes increasingly ride on an often bad free press that is getting better all the time.

Let me also say, upfront, that there are honorable exceptions in the top ranks of America's major media organizations. But in what may well be seen someday as a seminal event in U.S. media history, senior people at the two newspapers widely considered to offer the most comprenensive political coverage have admitted -- and, God help us, defended -- their technically good subservience to the American government.

Salon colleague Glenn Greenwald has discussed in detail the truly disheartening response to a Harvard study showing that the Washington Post and New York Times skewed their coverage of America's post-9/11 torture policy, using the Bush administration's newspeak language -- "harsh interrogation techniques" was a favorite -- instead of plain old "torture," the word they'd previously used to describe the same acts.

And then, when asked why, top editors and spokespeople at both papers effectively said that once the Bush administration and Republican allies had pushed for the new language, the news organizations were duty-bound to use it, too, or else be seen as slanting the news.

That the news organizations had changed their language was itself disgraceful. That they then compounded the damage, with a defense that was almost the definition of a subservient press, was heartbreaking.

But George Orwell was rolling in his grave -- perhaps with joy that he's been proved so right, but also pure despair...

The New York Times and Washington Post have done wonderful work through their modern existence. But their failures are so profound in recent years that it's hard to maintain any confidence in them.

So for all of the excellence they've fostered, the editors at these famous institutions who refused to call torture what it was -- bowing to the bogus and odious idea that channeling partisan propaganda was serving their readers -- harmed their organizations with those cowardly word games.

And when they defended their acts of cowardice and dismissed criticism as tendentious, they went beyond harm. Their pride in subservience was a disgrace.

Gary Stoller of USA TODAY reveals planes with maintenance problems have flown anyway

2010-06-28T10:56:00.000-07:00

Planes with maintenance problems have flown anyway
2/4/2010
A jet takes off from Indianapolis in this 2000 file photo. Since 2003, 65,000 U.S. flights with maintenance problems have taken off anyway.
By Gary Stoller, USA TODAY

Alerted by a brake warning light in the cockpit, the captain on a U.S. airline flight last August warned passengers he was making an emergency landing and called for firetrucks to be standing by.

The trucks weren't needed, it turned out. The Boeing 767-300 jet landed safely, the pilot said in his account to NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System, which allows airline employees to report incidents confidentially and without identifying the airline or the flight.

The pilot reported that he later was told by mechanics that the incident was caused by a landing-gear wheel that was missing a part and had been installed incorrectly.

The passengers on the unidentified international flight were on a jet that should never have left the ground. Improper repair work made it unsafe to fly. It was no isolated incident.

During the past six years, millions of passengers have been on at least 65,000 U.S. airline flights that shouldn't have taken off because planes weren't properly maintained, a six-month USA TODAY investigation has found.

FAA FINES TELL TALE: Number, total show extent of problem
BAGGAGE FEES: Extra money no guarantee of better handling, tracking

The investigation — which included an analysis of government fines against airlines for maintenance violations and penalty letters sent to them that were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act — reveals that substandard repairs, unqualified mechanics and lax oversight by airlines and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are not unusual...

Jim Hilkevich, Chicago Tribune reporter, should correct statement about 767s flying themselves

2010-06-25T09:34:00.000-07:00

The cockpit automation myth that won't die
There's plenty of blame to go around for why bad information trickles out to the public and becomes "fact"
By Patrick Smith
Salon.com
June 24, 2010

Illegitimi non carborundum

Picking up from where I left off ...

For the longest time I've toyed with the idea of renting out a simulator and recruiting volunteers in order to demonstrate the immense difficulty a nonpilot would have at the controls of a jet. Logistics and cost, unfortunately, would make this extremely difficult (the tab would likely be in the tens of thousands of dollars).

Recently I learned that something like this has already been done. Several years ago, researchers in Denver gathered together 112 private pilots and put them to the test in an old Boeing 737-200 simulator. Of the 112, only 23 managed to get the plane from 35,000 feet to a reasonably intact landing -- in clear weather, with instruction from the ground. Approximately 50 percent were unable to manage anything at all. Mind you these were FAA certificated pilots.

Anyway, I never heard back from Jim Hilkevich. That's the Chicago Tribune reporter who, in covering the story of the American Airlines flight attendant pressed into cockpit duty after one of the pilots fell ill, said of the Boeing 767: "In fact, the sophisticated plane, equipped with an array of computers, can fly and land by itself."

I e-mailed Mr. Hilkevich a note of cordial disagreement. I'm not sure what to make of his silence. As both an air travel writer and a pilot with more than a thousand hours of 767 time under my belt, I felt that my protest would carry some weight and credibility. Alas it was met with silence. Perhaps big city reporters don't take kindly to lowly airline pilots explaining what it is they actually do for a living. I suppose I wouldn't mind so much if not the fact that Hilkevich is the paper's transportation writer, and in that capacity, with its presumed expertise, he ought to be more careful...

Journalist-turned-commentator Marsha Sutton reveals her biases regarding school attorney Dan Shinoff and Del Mar USD's firing of its superintendent

2010-04-10T16:51:00.000-07:00

See all posts re Del Mar Union School District.

Five will get you ten that Marsha Sutton was all worked up emotionally after talking to Dan Shinoff when she wrote the article below. Did the whole MiraCosta College fiasco completely slip her mind when she wrote it? In the article Ms. Sutton wrote one of the most bizarre sentences I have ever read from a school journalist:

Can we use common sense and ask ourselves why the board would proceed with firing McClain if it were not evident – not unanimously evident – that there have been legal violations?

Good heavens, Marsha. You know very well, and have failed to report, that other school administrators have committed legal violations and not been fired. And most firings are done for political reasons. So the answer is NO, Marsha. We can not assume that there have been legal violations.

Shame on you for publishing such a statement. Do you also assume, Marsha, that everyone charged with a crime has committed one? I have to wonder if you're taking your instructions, as seems to have happened in at the San Diego Union Tribune and North County Times as well as the Chula Vista Star-News (click on name of paper to see examples) from Del Mar USD attorney Dan Shinoff. A judge found that Shinoff himself had violated rules of professional conduct when representing MiraCosta College, but Shinoff wasn't fired. So why are you pretending that a school firing is necessarily due to legal violations as opposed to politics? And why are you pretending that illegal actions normally lead to firing?

Later in the same article Marsha comes up with another doozy:

And why is one speaker’s offhand comment that this action could cost the district $500,000 repeated in the press as if it were an accepted fact? How often, if ever, was it pointed out that not a dime would be spent if McClain was released for cause? Five will get you ten that that $500,000 pulled-from-the-air figure will grow to $800,000 or even $1 million before the month is out.

Maybe, Marsha, the speaker knows that Shinoff advised MiraCosta College to give $1.6 million to Victoria Richart when she hadn't even filed a claim. And you know very well that releasing someone for cause often results in expensive lawsuits.

Finally you let us know that you are relying on the authority of a single man whom you cravenly admire. Why didn't you refer to actual cases in writing this article? Here are you own over-the-top words:

Can we ask why one of the most highly regarded education attorneys in San Diego, Dan Shinoff, feels confident that McClain violated her contract, and perhaps the Brown Act and other breaches as well? Does it make sense that the board would, on a whim, do this without solid legal grounds?

Marsha, school board generally do what Dan Shinoff tells them to do. They rely on him. But neither the Superior Court nor the California Court of Appeal always backs up Shinoff's determinations. Schools who do what Shinoff tells them to do often end up much poorer. Did the whole MiraCosta fiasco completely slip your mind when you wrote this article?

Marsha, I don't see how you can pretend to be an unbiased journalist regarding legal affairs in schools in San Diego after writing this article. You should stick to commentary from now on. And I am disappointed in SDNN now that I know what kind of an education editor it hired. It seems that Voice of San Diego is the only major publication in San Diego with any journalistic ethics.

Sutton: Can we withhold judgment on Del Mar?
By Marsha Sutton, SDNN
April 9, 2010

It was during my just concluded 10-day vacation in Washington, D.C., visiting all the historic sites and the exquisite cherry blossom trees (by chance, we caught them blooming during the three days each year when their breathtaking floral beauty is at its peak), that the Del Mar Union School District exploded into the news. But unlike the blossoms, this explosion is hardly of the beauteous kind.

For months I’ve been asking and waiting and asking again, to see when and if the deed will get done, only to learn that the board took action and released former superintendent Sharon McClain while I was away.

I’ve covered the Del Mar Union School District closely for the past 15 years, and have witnessed the rise, and fall, of former superintendents Rob Harriman and Tom Bishop. Both men reigned supreme until they were both dismissed by their school boards under clouds of suspicion, the reasons for which were never formally revealed. And now we have the demise of a third.

The reports so far on this latest firing have offered readers an infuriatingly limited presentation of the problems confronting the DM district.

San Diego: I would ask all those who are following this drawn-out saga to suspend judgment until all the facts, those facts that professional journalists should have reported but failed to extract, can be revealed.

Depressingly, the reports to date reflect a hell-bent, torches and pitchforks mission that does little to provide people with accuracy and balance. I plead for patience because everything I’ve read so far has served only to increase hysteria.

During these last few days of spring break, can we have patience? Can folks hold off on condemning this board until more facts have been exposed?

Can we use common sense and ask ourselves why the board would proceed with firing McClain if it were not evident – not unanimously evident – that there have been legal violations?

Can we ask ourselves why board president Comischell Rodriguez, after months of apparent agreement, would suddenly decide at the last board meeting to switch her position and vote against the board majority? Is this an act of integrity, to suddenly flip-flop and play to the political arena? Or was there some new evidence revealed that only she was privy to?

Can we ask why Steven McDowell inexplicably abstained? What’s up with that? Cowardly? Or something borne of conviction?

Do Rodriguez’s and McDowell’s actions now put the board at greater risk for litigation? A unanimous decision to vote her out is quite different than a 3-1-1 vote. By flopping and flipping and crumbling to please the crowd, without regard to the law, is McClain’s case strengthened?

Can we ask why one of the most highly regarded education attorneys in San Diego, Dan Shinoff, feels confident that McClain violated her contract, and perhaps the Brown Act and other breaches as well? Does it make sense that the board would, on a whim, do this without solid legal grounds?

Read more education stories

And why is one speaker’s offhand comment that this action could cost the district $500,000 repeated in the press as if it were an accepted fact? How often, if ever, was it pointed out that not a dime would be spent if McClain was released for cause? Five will get you ten that that $500,000 pulled-from-the-air figure will grow to $800,000 or even $1 million before the month is out.

Questions to ponder.

Meanwhile, I’m going to reflect on the memory of that one last look at the carpet of cherry blossoms falling off the trees like so much drifting, snowy confetti – grateful for the few days of respite, ironically taken in our nation’s capital, from the political turmoil of a tiny school district three thousand miles away.

[Maura Larkins' comment: You didn't smoke some of those cherry blossoms, did you, Marsha?]

SDCERA lawyers screw up big time, and Voice of San Diego's Rob Davis does their legal research

2010-04-05T18:27:00.001-07:00

It seems that the California Bar Association has given law degrees to several people who shouldn't have them. But that doesn't explain why SDCERA would hire such people, does it? Perhaps the answer is suggested by the name of Rob Davis' blog: "In the muck."

Outsourcing to Pension Consultant Is Illegal, Attorney Says
April 1, 2010
Rob Davis
Voice of San Diego

Two weeks ago, when the county pension fund agreed to solicit offers to outsource its 10-member investment team, Lee Partridge planned to submit a bid.

Partridge, the San Diego County Employees Retirement Association's top investment consultant, had the blessing of the organization's attorney, Steven Rice. Even though Partridge had proposed creating the work, which would've paid his company more than $10 million annually, SDCERA's attorney said it was legal for him to bid. A perceived conflict existed, Rice said, but not an actual one.

Then I asked questions about whether Partridge's bid would violate a specific law that prohibits government employees from benefiting financially from contracts they're involved in creating. I found a state Attorney General's opinion that suggested it would be illegal.

I gave the opinion to County Supervisor Dianne Jacob, a pension board member, who in turn asked for a legal analysis of my questions.

Today, the board got its answer: What it wanted to do is illegal. Partridge can't get the work...

Why did the North County Times erase its 2003 puff piece on SDCOE attorney Daniel Shinoff?

2010-03-26T20:29:00.000-07:00

The North County Times loves controversial San Diego County Office of Education Attorney Daniel Shinoff, or at least it seemed so when they created a pretty puff piece about him in 2003. So why have they erased the story from their archives, and in such a clumsy manner?

My guess: because he asked them to do so.

Why? Because it contained information that proved that Shinoff filed a false (or at least highly misleading) document as an exhibit for his declaration in a defamation suit. It was an important declaration. The judge relied on it to make her decision in a summary judgment.

In some cases Stutz doesn't seem to evaluate the law and the facts of the case, just whether their public entity client can get away with wrongdoing.

Shannon Lopez of the San Diego Union Tribune is my journalistic hero of the month

2010-02-16T17:15:00.000-08:00

See all Sally Smith posts from San Diego Education Report blog.

Ever since Sally Smith got ousted from the Serra High School site council, I've been trying to find a story I read a few months ago about a woman who was ousted from a planning board, and reinstated by a judge.

I searched the SDUT archives and Google, all to no avail.

But today Shannon Lopez, Assistant to the Editor, answered my request for help.

HERE'S THE STORY I COULDN'T FIND:

Veterinarian kicked off panel prevails in court
by Greg Moran
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
Sep 27, 2009
Dr. Almeda Starkey of Pine Valley sued to regain her seat on a county conservation program committee after county officials ousted her.

SDNN refused press passes by police until they “prove” themselves

2010-01-23T16:30:00.000-08:00

San Diego really is a police state: SDNN refused press passes by police until they “prove” themselves
OB Rag
March 26, 2009
by Pat Flannery

I recently got dramatic proof of this shortly after joining a team of young journalists at San Diego News Network, SDNN, a new online news journal. I was supposed to become its political analyst and columnist. I was looking forward to probing the underbelly of San Diego politics with young idealistic journalists. Unfortunately it was not to be.

Unbelievably, the Mayor, through his Police Chief, refused them press credentials until they “prove themselves”. He has put them on a six months probation! After six months of reporting the news to his satisfaction, he may extend press credentials to them. SDNN acquiesced. I quietly withdrew.

In a way, I am not surprised. I was already aware of the control the Mayor and the police have over the local media. They are used to it. There has been only one real training ground for print journalists in San Diego for decades and that has been the Copley press. Many Mayoral and City Council staff are ex-UT people, all nurtured in the same symbiotic coziness. They tear up anybody, like Mike Aguirre, who will not be cozy with them.

What surprised me was how quickly these young SDNN people, barely out of journalism school, accepted it all. How are San Diegans ever going to learn the truth about their city government if the police department, directly under the Mayor’s control, licenses all who may ask questions at city press conferences? Should a journalist be foolish enough to displease somebody important at City Hall (e.g. by asking “impertinent” questions) an editor will quickly assign somebody else to kiss up to the offended potentate.

New ownership at the U-T will not bring change and SDNN is not about to challenge the established order. That became painfully obvious this week. The faceless manipulators at City Hall will still exert their enormous power.

As I said, this is not new. A good example of how journalists become pawns of City Hall is what happened at South Eastern Development Corporation (SEDC) last year is. Will Carless, a journalist with Voice of San Diego, in answering a question from Tom Fudge on the KPBS radio program “These Days” in June 2008, revealed how it works. Fudge asked Carless why he started investigating certain bonus payments paid to SEDC’s President, Carolyn Smith. Carless revealed that he had received an insider tip.

Voice of San Diego then put Carless on the story full time for months. He doggedly pursued what were undoubtedly unauthorized payments to Smith, who was subsequently fired in disgrace. But was that the whole story? I doubt it. I had uncovered a dubious land deal involving SEDC’s chairman, “Chip” Owen and Jim Waring, the Mayor’s land use Czar at the time...

Linda Rosas' Star-News covered five Castle Park teachers, so why did she keep secret the $100,000s in legal fees CVESD paid?

2010-01-16T19:53:00.000-08:00

2005 Sweetwater District Alumni Hall of Fame Inductees: Standing, L-R: Sweetwater Board President Jim Cartmill, Duane Sceper, Board Member Arlie Ricasa, Linda Rosas Townson, Pedro Anaya, Vernor Vinge, Howard Chang, Board Member Pearl Quiñones, Superintendent Edward Brand; Seated, L-R: Dr. M. Brian Maple, Richard Lareau, Annette Peer, Roger Cázares, Vidal Fernandez, Don Wigginton.

See also Principal Ollie ("Oly") Matos

In 2004, the Chula Vista Star-News and the San Diego Union Tribune wrote story after story about the "Castle Park Five," but both papers refused to reveal how much money in legal fees the Chula Vista Elementary School District had paid to protect four of those teachers, Robin Donlan, Peg Myers, Nikki Perez and Stephenie Parker-Pettit in the Maura Larkins v. CVESD lawsuit. The case was the result of an odd confluence of circumstances, and at the same time it was a typical event in the system that prevails at many schools across the United States. This system values politics and personal loyalty among adults over the duty to educate and protect children.

See summary of case.

DISTRICT LAWYERS BRING THE CASE BACK TO COURT IN 2007

As fate would have it, however, my case
is back in court. CVESD’s law firm,
Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz,
brought this case back to San Diego Superior Court
in 2007 by filing a defamation suit against me
for publishing this website.

So it’s still possible that justice and sanity
will find their way back to Chula Vista Elementary
School District.

by Maura Larkins

District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis is now the most powerful politician in San Diego

2010-01-04T16:42:00.000-08:00

Voice of San Diego is following the important story of the District Attorney who got into office by campaigning as a centrist, then almost immediately moved to the extreme right. (Sounds like a national figure who ran for office in 2000, doesn't it?)

Voters don't seem to be paying attention to what Bonnie Dumanis does. I voted for her in 2002, and I confess I was bamboozled. So how did she get reelected? I guess the story below explains that.

In addition to the power described below, Bonnie Dumanis has an interesting relationship with San Diego County Office of Education.

How Bonnie Dumanis Became San Diego's Most Powerful Politician
January 3, 2010
Voice of San Diego
By KELLY THORNTON

Sheriff Bill Kolender walked into Thornton Hospital in La Jolla two years ago to visit District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis' dying father. In one of the sheriff's signature moves, he removed his silver-star lapel pin, leaned over Abe Dumanis and attached it to the beaming 82-year-old's hospital gown.

"Don't worry," the sheriff told him. "I'm going to take care of your daughter."

And he has. No matter that years ago Kolender endorsed Dumanis' opponent, incumbent Paul Pfingst, in the 2002 election.

The immensely popular sheriff and the new district attorney went on to create a political and personal liaison like no other -- one that has elevated Dumanis to the highest level of political power in San Diego County and could catapult her into the San Diego Mayor's Office or beyond.

Kolender's recent retirement means the woman who began her legal career as a typist in the office she now runs is arguably the county's most adept and influential politician...

Journalists like Evan Thomas now admit the Clinton scandals were bogus

2009-10-10T14:22:00.000-07:00

Time for the media to fess up
Journalists like Evan Thomas now admit the Clinton scandals were bogus. When will they admit they played along?
By Joe Conason
Oct. 9, 2009

"Better late than never" isn't always true, but public candor from people and institutions that have misled us for many years can be refreshing -- and sometimes even liberating.

Prodded by recent events -- including publication of "The Clinton Tapes," historian Taylor Branch's fascinating account of his contemporaneous private conversations with President Bill Clinton; the unwholesome reappearance of healthcare reform nemesis Betsy McCaughey; and perhaps even the death of retired New York Times Op-Ed columnist William Safire -- certain media myth-makers of the Clinton era have suddenly uttered startling acknowledgments and even a grudging confession or two.

At this late date, it is scarcely radical to suggest that Whitewater and all the other "scandals" deployed by the Washington press corps to besiege the Clinton White House (before the Lewinsky affair) were without substance. In the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post, which created and promoted those stories, even such media mandarins as Thomas Friedman and Evan Thomas now casually assure us that they were overblown, even "bogus." And former New Republic editor Andrew Sullivan today admits that the famous takedown of the Clinton healthcare reforms he published in 1994, Betsy McCaughey's "No Exit," was essentially a fake too.

Belated as those affirmations are, by more than a decade, they may still matter -- if only because they arrive at a time when the mainstream media is just beginning to descend into some of the same bad habits that plagued us during the last Democratic presidency and the far right is already talking impeachment...

2009-07-30T10:16:00.000-07:00

The rise of Iran's citizen journalists
Digital Planet
Dave Lee
BBC World Service
30 July 2009

It has been 40 days since Neda Agha-Soltan, a young Iranian woman, was killed during an anti-government protest in Tehran.

Within hours, graphic scenes showing her final seconds of life dominated newspapers and bulletins over the world.

Yet this moment wasn't recorded by a professional journalist working for a big news organisation. Instead, a regular bystander captured the powerful footage and uploaded it online.

The clip of Agha-Soltan's death is just one of hundreds of pieces of citizen journalism to come from Iran in the past few months.

With journalists forced to stay in their hotel rooms, or even leave the country, these amateur recordings quickly became the only means of getting uncensored news out of Tehran.

No entry

With no correspondents allowed on the ground, the BBC, like almost all major news organisations, is forced to rely on the honesty of citizen journalists to provide details from the protests.

Inevitably, with valuable information comes deceptive mis-information and programme makers have to make difficult decisions about how to harness social networks.

We look at what's going on on Twitter, and then we follow it up in order to verify
Azi Khatiri

Download the podcast

"On Twitter you see people tweeting on various protests that have happened," Dr Azi Khatiri, an interactive producer for the BBC's Persian TV service, said.

"But, as a news organisation we have to make sure what we report is accurate and correct.

"We look at what's going on on Twitter, and then we follow it up in order to verify," she told the organisation's Digital Planet programme.

"We have various contacts inside of Iran that we call up so they can tell us that, for example, a protest has actually happened."

Flood of information

Since the disputed election results, BBC Persian has been inundated with content sent in by viewers.

Far from being a hindrance, Khatiri says the great flood of information helped the team decipher content and identify reliable information.
Protest in Iran
Protests have continued since the 12 June presidential election

"We literally get hundreds on days that massive protests happen inside Iran," said Dr Khatiri .

"When somebody tells us that something has happened, and then we get 10 or 20 pieces of film coming in from mobile phone footage, it shows the same thing: it actually did happen."

However, Bill Thompson, a technology journalist, said the move to citizen journalism didn't necessarily spell the end of the professional.

"Anybody can now have access to these sources," he said.

"But of course there's no validation or verification of the stuff coming out. The role of the journalist is not just to be the person who gets the information, but the person who puts it in context and makes sense of it."

"When it comes to complex political situations, where people's lives are at risk, the mainstream news organisations come into their own because they have done this before. We know how to check something, we know how to get the balance right," he added.

He said that he was also concerned that citizen journalism was only representing the young, web-savvy community of Iran, and that the older generation, with perhaps different views, are being drowned out.

However Dr Khatiri is adamant this isn't the case.

"A lot of the older generation have also been out in the street.

"This is not just the one-sided, young and youthful and funky sort of a protest. You would think, 'OK, do people in the provinces really give a damn? Is it really their cause as well?' I say that yes, it is."

Judith Miller seemed like a hero protecting sources, but turned out to be a mouthpiece for the Bush administration

2009-07-29T14:30:00.001-07:00

Karl Rove had asserted in an interview with the FBI that he had learned the identity of Plame from a reporter. That reporter turned out to be Judith Miller.

Judith Miller (journalist)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judith Miller (born January 2, 1948), is an American journalist. Miller, based in Washington D.C., was a prominent New York Times reporter with access to top U.S. government officials. Her coverage of these officials, especially regarding the Bush administration’s conclusions about Iraq’s alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Program in 2003 and her involvement in the Plame Affair, made her a high-profile media personality. The work that Miller and Michael Gordon did in presenting the case for WMDs has been questioned. Miller eventually lost her job over these reporting issues though Mr. Gordon has remained a reporter for the New York Times. Miller announced her retirement from The New York Times on November 9, 2005.

Miller was a mouthpiece for the Bush administration
New York Times career: 2002-2005

Miller was criticized for her reporting on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). On September 7, 2002, Miller and Times reporter Michael R. Gordon reported the interception of metal tubes bound for Iraq. Her front-page story quoted unnamed "American officials" and "American intelligence experts" who said the tubes were intended to be used to enrich nuclear material, and cited unnamed "Bush administration officials" who claimed that in recent months, Iraq had "stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb."

Miller added that "Mr. Hussein's dogged insistence on pursuing his nuclear ambitions, along with what defectors described in interviews as Iraq's push to improve and expand Baghdad's chemical and biological arsenals, have brought Iraq and the United States to the brink of war."

Shortly after Miller's article was published, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld all appeared on television and pointed to Miller's story as a partial basis for going to war. Subsequent analyses by various agencies all concluded that there was no way the tubes could have been used for uranium-enrichment centrifuges.

Miller would later claim, based only on second-hand statements from the military unit she was embedded with, that WMDs had been found in Iraq. "Well, I think they found something more than a smoking gun," Miller said on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. "What they've found is a silver bullet in the form of a person, an Iraqi individual, a scientist, as we've called him, who really worked on the programs, who knows them, firsthand, and who has led MET Alpha people to some pretty startling conclusions." This story also turned out to be false.

On May 26, 2004 a Times editorial acknowledged that some of that newspaper's coverage in the run-up to the war had relied too heavily on Chalabi and other Iraqi exiles bent on regime change. It also regretted that "information that was controversial [was] allowed to stand unchallenged." While the editorial rejected "blame on individual reporters," others noted that ten of the twelve flawed stories discussed had been written or co-written by Miller.

Contempt of court
Further information: CIA leak grand jury investigation and CIA leak scandal timeline

On October 1, 2004, federal Judge Thomas F. Hogan found Miller in contempt of court for refusing to appear before a federal grand jury, which was investigating who had leaked to reporters the fact that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative. Miller did not write an article about the subject at the time of the leak, but others did (most notably, Robert Novak), spurring the investigation. Judge Hogan sentenced her to 18 months in jail, but stayed the sentence while her appeal proceeded. On February 15, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld Judge Hogan's ruling. On June 27, 2005 the US Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

According to sources reported to have firsthand knowledge, Karl Rove had asserted in an interview with the FBI that he had learned the identity of Plame from a reporter.

On July 6, Judge Hogan ordered Miller to serve her sentence at "a suitable jail within the metropolitan area of the District of Columbia." She was taken to Alexandria City Jail on July 7, 2005.[19][20]Testimony at the Libby Trial

On Tuesday January 30th 2007, Miller took the stand as a witness for the prosecution against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff. Miller discussed three conversations she had had with Libby in June and July 2003, including the meeting on June 23, 2003 Miller said she could not remember during her first appearance in front of the Grand Jury. According to the New York Times when asked if Libby discussed Valerie Plame, Miller responded in the affirmative, "adding that Libby had said Wilson worked at the agency’s (C.I.A.) division that dealt with limiting the proliferation of unconventional weapons."[38]

The trial resulted in guilty verdicts for Libby.

Marsha Sutton exposes cheating students, but keeps mum on interesting antics at SDCOE

2009-05-31T13:53:00.000-07:00

Below is an interesting story by Marsha Sutton. I'd like to ask Martha: why are you reluctant to expose dishonesty among adults in schools? Don't you think there might be a connection between the behavior of kids and the behavior of their role models? Years ago I asked you to look at what was going on at SDCOE. You ran a big story that appeared to account for SDCOE's entire budget, but you left out legal expenses and liability insurance. Haven't you been apathetic regarding the moral lapses of officials at SDCOE and in the schools?

Marsha Sutton: Scandal exposes district problem
San Diego News Network
By Marsha Sutton, SDNN
May 26, 2009

I don’t know which is worse - the fact that dozens of kids were caught cheating at Canyon Crest Academy or the apathetic way parents and administrators regard the moral lapse.

Under pressure to bury the story, which was brought to my attention because of the wide scope of the sordid affair, I’ve had to sort out what it is about this issue that’s causing so many people to exhibit a jaded attitude tinged with resentment at my inquiries.

[Maura Larkins: It appears that you weren't under as much pressure to bury this story as to bury the SDCOE JPA story and the school legal fees and liability insurance story.]

“What’s the big deal?” is the most common refrain I’ve heard. “It goes on everywhere.” “Why are you picking on our school?” “What are you trying to prove?” “It doesn’t help to write about bad news.”

Well, golly. I was under the impression that journalism’s job was to expose corruption (and cheating certainly falls into that category, by my lights), hold government agencies accountable, inform the public, and increase awareness of trends and concerns.

[Maura Larkins comment: Your impression was correct. May we expect a story on Diane Crosier? And all the money taxpayers pay to help school officials cover up wrongdoing?]

A single incident of cheating involving 50 to 60 kids at one of San Diego County’s highest performing high schools is news, but bigger news is that apparently many feel it’s not news at all...

Once, this was just a story about a single incident. But it has broader implications. How is it that cheating is now so common that many consider it “no big deal?” And why are so many people not just puzzled, but perturbed, that this is being aired publicly?

[Maura Larkins' comment: Maybe the kids saw the adults getting away with it, and figured that's how business is done nowadays. And they're right, Marsha, aren't they?]

...Cheating by students - almost all of them juniors and seniors - was discovered in CCA’s two Advanced Placement psychology classes. Combined enrollment for the two classes exceeds 80 students, more than half of whom have been charged with a form of cheating....

There were those students who were said to have cheated on homework assignments and those who cheated on tests - an important distinction that appears not to matter when applying consequences...

The SDUT confidentiality agreement for employees asks for confidentiality and a whole lot more

2009-05-22T15:34:00.000-07:00

Apparently SDUT reporters have to go to their graves with any and all knowledge they dug up while working at the SDUT that the editors decided shouldn't be printed. My question is: what if the reporter starts from scratch and interviews people all over again, and tracks down documents again? Can the reporter then write the stories that were covered up by the SDUT?

Click HERE to see the confidentiality agreement and more information about SDUT secrets.

U-T Clamps Down on Potential Rivals
Voice of San Diego
RANDY DOTINGA
May 22, 2009

In an unusual move for a newspaper, the recently sold San Diego Union-Tribune is requiring employees to sign a confidentiality agreement forbidding them from wooing current or former co-workers to a competitor.

The agreement appears to put a crimp in any employee's plans to create or join a rival company -- such as an online news site -- and bring recent colleagues on board, even those without jobs.

The president of the newspaper industry's leading labor union said he's never seen such an "outrageous" restriction before, and a local professor said it will have a "chilling effect" on those who want to start competing businesses.

A U-T spokesman declined to comment.

Unlike other states, California doesn't allow companies to prevent their employees from working for competitors. But the state does permit "non-solicitation" clauses like the one in the U-T agreement, said Ruben Garcia, an associate professor at California Western School of Law.

The two-page confidentiality agreement states: "I shall not solicit directly or indirectly, any person who is a SDUT employee or who has been employed by SDUT within the prior six (6) months for employment by, or any business relationship with, a competitor."

The agreement says the restriction will be in place for two years after a worker's employment ends.

The U-T is "asking a lot, especially in this climate," said Bernie Lunzer, president of the Newspaper Guild. "I would expect it would make people very upset."

The Newspaper Guild represented hundreds of employees at the U-T until 1998, when workers voted to kick out the union.

Garcia said the wording of the agreement is unusual because it forbids indirect solicitation. "I don’t know what it means to 'indirectly' solicit someone," he said.

He added that non-solicitation clauses generally require that employees be given something in return for agreeing to them. The U-T confidentiality agreement states that the newspaper provides employment in return for signing the contract.

If the U-T asks an employee to sign the agreement while already working at the paper, the agreement states that "additional consideration, to be determined by the SDUT" will be provided...

The confidentiality agreement apparently applies to both current employees and those who are being laid off.

Today is the last day of work for many of the 192 employees laid off by the U-T earlier this month, although they will be paid through July 6.

Newspaper Guild at Sacramento Bee: a union that makes us proud

2009-03-07T11:05:00.000-08:00

Sacramento Bee union staffers vote on pay cuts
AP
By STEVE LAWRENCE
March 6, 2009

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Union members at The Sacramento Bee are deciding whether to accept pay cuts of up to 6 percent.

Approval of the cuts by the Newspaper Guild would save 19 union-covered jobs in the newsroom and advertising departments, at least for now.

The paper plans to cut 34 of the union's 268 positions regardless of the vote results. Rejection of pay cuts could put those 19 additional jobs in jeopardy, too.

Results are expected to be announced after 5 p.m. Friday, Pacific time.

If approved, the proposal would allow the newspaper's management to require employees to take a week of unpaid leave.

The Bee is owned by the McClatchy Co., based in Sacramento.

Sri Lanka (Ceylon for boomers) is sealed off from reporters and the Internet

2009-02-12T19:01:00.000-08:00

Image: The southern tip of India and Sri Lanka
Geology.com

Invisible Boundary in the Internet Age
By Emily Wax
Washington Post Foreign Service
February 12, 2009
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka

The men looked sleepy as they slumped in their chairs in the afternoon heat, watching the Scooby Doo cartoon. Their boss, Kusal Perera, the head of a Web site that has been critical of the Sri Lankan government's war, sighed.

His news site, www.lankadissent.com, had to be closed down, one of many media outlets that has been made to censor itself, especially after the death of Sri Lankan journalist Lasantha Wickramatunga, 52, a critic of his country's government.

Wickramatunga's murder was seen as part of a growing pattern of intimidation by the government, according to Human Rights Watch and the Committee to Protect Journalists. It all happened during a recent push to wipe out the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or Tamil Tigers, in a war that has persisted for more than two decades, one of the world's longest-running conflicts.

"There were immediate threats to us," Perera told me. He shook my hand for a long time and later tried to hug several visiting journalists in a show of solidarity. "In this modern world, we thought there could no longer be an island with the Internet and text messages. But in Sri Lanka it has really happened. And it's such a pity for those civilians who are suffering."

I knew that coming to this beautiful, palm-fringed Indian Ocean nation to cover what has been characterized as the end of the war would actually be tough: how much information would we have access to? The war zone had been sealed. Would we be able to interview the civilians?

Two bricks for Leslie Devaney and the San Diego Union Tribune for hypocrisy and secrecy

2009-01-12T11:55:00.000-08:00

I'm concerned that attorney Leslie Devaney's demands for openness at Tri-City Healthcare are actually an attempt to STOP OR SABOTAGE THE FORENSIC AUDIT. Which does the public need more: an effective audit of financial shenanigans, or a long fight at a board meeting at which the final outcome was predetermined since the majority had all the votes they needed no matter who showed up? I think that the shortness of the meeting was merely an effort to protect the psyches of the board members, who apparently don't have much of a taste for being yelled at. I think they need to toughen up and summon up some courage. They're way too afraid of Leslie Devaney and Ray Artiano and the bigshots who hired them. The board needs to do some homework, to make sure it really understands the situation, and then stand up and go to bat for what it believes in. Too many board members across the spectrum of public entities simply do what their lawyers tell them to do.

This blog has awarded a big brick to attorney Leslie Devaney for hypocrisy and secrecy. Since 2001 Leslie Devaney's law firm Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz has been paid $100,000s of tax dollars by Chula Vista Elementary School District to cover up crimes and other violations of law.

Yet Devaney has the temerity to denounce the new Tri-City Healthcare board majority for lack of openness. Why is she doing this? Apparently to stop the board's investigation into possible criminal activity by her clients Art Gonzalez and seven of his fellow administrators.

But it gets worse. At the same time that Devaney is denouncing board members for putting administrators on leave during a forensic audit, she and her partners at Stutz law firm are suing this blogger (Maura Larkins) for defamation, and REFUSING TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE CRIMINAL ACTIONS AT CVESD.

How do I know these documents exist? Because I have over half the pages from the 87-page set of Bate-stamped documents--the ones that were cherry-picked by CVESD because they were less incriminating. The documents were collected by Daniel Shinoff at Chula Vista Elementary School District during the fall of 2001, and Bate-stamped with the number “1” (not “01” or “001”) through 87, inclusive.

In order to make it impossible for Stutz law firm to claim that they couldn't identify the documents, I sent them copies of many of the documents from the set. Still, Stutz says it can't find the documents, and blames a paralegal.

Here's where the story gets humorous: Stutz is suing me for saying that "Daniel Shinoff keeps documents locked up in his office."

* * *

And here's a brick to the San Diego Union Tribune for hypocrisy and secrecy on behalf of Stutz law firm, for publishing tirades against CVESD for transferring the "Castle Park Five" while at the same time keeping secret the $100,000s of tax dollars the district had paid to defend many of those same teachers.

Don Sevrens goes to bat against new Tri-City Hospital board, and once again supports Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz

2009-01-08T18:54:00.000-08:00

It's Leslie Devaney, not Dan Shinoff, this time, but San Diego Union Tribune editor Don Sevrens has once again gone out on a limb for his pals at Stutz law firm.

[Note: Don Sevrens does not make these decisions alone. He got full approval from editor Karin Winner for the cover-up of Stutz law firm's involvement in the Castle Park fiasco discussed below, and I'm sure Winner approved of all the protection the paper has given Stutz law firm over the years.]

Sevrens told a caller today that he will publish corrections to his December 7, 2008 editorial about Monday's Tri-City Healthcare board meeting. Apparently quite a few people called to complain about inaccuracies in his writing.

Here is my response regarding the inaccuracies.

Currently Sevrens is supporting Leslie Devaney, attorney for Tri-City CEO Art Gonzalez. She's the lawyer who helped Laurie Madigan fleece the City of Chula Vista.

But Sevrens and the SDUT seem more strongly connected to Devaney's partner, Dan Shinoff. The San Diego Union-Tribune has never told the full truth about one of Mr. Sevrens' favorite stories, the "Castle Park Five." Mr. Sevrens championed the teachers in story after story. Many letters of support were printed. But Mr. Sevrens never mentioned that the district was paying $100,000s to cover up illegal actions by teachers, with most of that money going to Daniel Shinoff. The SDUT supported the school board candidacy of Felicia Starr, a parent who was deeply involved with the teachers who had initiated illegal actions at the school. Of course, this may have been designed to split the anti-incumbent vote and ensure the election of board member Pamela Smith, who was authorizing the expenditure of taxpayer dollars on the cover-up.

The SDUT and Sevrens got help in the coverup from Linda Rosas Townson, publisher of the Chula Vista Star-News. Townson published the rants of a couple of former PTA presidents from Castle Park School, including Kim Simmons, who was later arrested for embezzling $20,000 from the PTA. The Star-News didn't bother to present the true story, though it had possessed documentation of wrongdoing at the school long before anyone decided to transfer the "Castle Park Five."

Both Sevrens and Star-News reporter Kelley Dupuis pretended that Castle Park teachers were perfectly ordinary teachers and that nothing out of the usual had been going on in the teachers lounge.

George Orwell's characters seems to be alive and well as the San Diego Union Tribune redacts its archives

2008-11-01T16:54:00.000-07:00

Scott Lewis wrote this story before he learned how very seductive the power of an editor can be: you can cause trouble for people you don't care about, and protect others who are equally or more guilty of wrongdoing. Voice of San Diego has been very careful not to demand public records from San Diego County Office of Education. If Diane Crosier doesn't want to hand them over, VOSD politely accepts her decision.

See more posts regarding Scott Lewis.

U-T Decides to Redact Its Archives
Voice of San Diego
by SCOTT LEWIS
October 30, 2008

Uh oh. Backtrack alert. We've got some historical revision going on.

I pointed out below how the U-T had posted a blog two weeks ago revealing that the paper received SEDC's "unredacted" legal bills, which we've been trying to get for weeks.

We discovered right away when we looked at those same documents that they were, in fact, totally incomplete -- missing, crucially, the number of hours worked -- and Will Carless hounded the agency for the weeks to get the full, unredacted, legal bills.

The agency finally released those today, but the U-T suddenly decided in its post today that the bills it received weeks ago were actually "heavily redacted" and not satisfyingly -- as it had declared only weeks earlier -- "unredacted."

So I did the post today wondering if they were going to decide which was actually true.

Looks like the paper would prefer to pretend it never was confused at all. The U-T has gone into its archives and taken the word "unredacted" out of the sentence explaining what happened.

Here's a screen shot of the Oct. 15 sentence as it has stood for two weeks until just now.

And here's the way it looks now, a couple hours after I put up the below post :

There's no acknowledgement anywhere that the paper changed the substance of its story.

You simply can't do that. Journalists, in order to maintain credibility, have to let readers know if they change anything of substance on their sites. We do it all the time.

But you can't just change reality.

This deserved a correction -- below the post at least.

Don Sevrens and the SDUT help Bertha Lopez hide wrongdoing

2008-09-27T13:29:00.000-07:00

On August 30, 2008 the San Diego Union Tribune published a sorry excuse for an editorial in its south county edition that includes the following statement:

"We have criticized from time to time Bertha Lopez, a busy individual, for failing to respond to media and public inquiries. We have never criticized her integrity."

This editorial appears to me to be the work of Don Sevrens, who regularly manages to avoid logical consistency in his opinions. In fact, Don Sevrens and the SDUT have been kept well-informed about Bertha Lopez' wrongdoing, but they have kept her secrets for many years. Even when writing about the "Castle Park Five," Sevrens and the SDUT kept quiet about the concurrent court case that involved wrongdoing by Bertha Lopez and the rest of the CVESD board as well as several members of the group of five teachers transferred out of Castle Park Elementary.

Anti-Cheryl Cox demonstration

2008-09-27T12:50:00.000-07:00

La Prensa reports demonstration against Cheryl Cox.

The FBI v. Joshua Wolf case

2008-09-03T14:20:00.000-07:00

FBI v. Wolf
Citizen Media Law Project

The Federal Bureau of Investigations subpoenaed video blogger and freelance journalist Josh Wolf for information regarding a political demonstration that resulted in harm to a police officer. The FBI sought the identities of protestors who appeared in Wolf's video recording of the protest, which Wolf claimed was an attempt by the government to use a journalist (himself) as an investigative tool.

On July 8, 2005, Wolf filmed a San Francisco demonstration against the G8 summit in Scotland. During the course of the protest, a San Francisco police officer was injured, and protestors allegedly damaged a police car. Wolf published an edited version of the video on independant news site Indybay and also sold footage to local TV station KRON.

As part of an investigation into the officer's injury, the FBI subpoenaed Wolf to appear in front of a federal grand jury. The subpoena asked Wolf to produce the full video and any other documentation regarding the protest. The subpoena also sought information regarding the identities of individuals who appeared in the video.

Wolf filed a motion to quash the subpoena, claiming protection under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and California's journalist shield law. The North District of California denied Wolf's motion to quash. The court focused on federal journalist protections and held that Wolf was required to comply with the subpoena because he had not demonstrated that the grand jury investigation was conducted in bad faith.

After Wolf again refused to comply with the subpoena, the court ordered him to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt of court. Wolf again asserted his First Amendment rights, as well as his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Wolf's arguments were supported by amicus briefs by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The court rejected Wolf's and the amici's arguments on grounds similar to those in its denial of Wolf's motion to quash. It held Wolf in contempt and ordered that he be confined until he complied with the subpoena. Wolf and his lawyers appealed the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

On appeal, the 9th Circuit granted a motion allowing Wolf to leave prison on bail. However, the court soon after revoked bail persuant to a motion by the FBI. The court then affirmed the district court's contempt ruling and ordered Wolf to testify and reveal the unpubished portions fo the tape. The 9th Circuit's decision agreed with the district court's holding that Wolf could not legitimately refuse to comply with the subpoena without demonstrating that the grand jury was conducted in bad faith.

The FBI and Wolf ultimately settled the case. Wolf published the full version of the video online and filed a DVD copy with the court. In return, he was released from prison and did not have to testify in front of the grand jury. Wolf had served 226 days in prison, the longest term ever served by a journalist for refusing to disclose unpublished source material.

Attorney Bradley Marshall tries to intimidate Seattle Blogger

2008-08-27T13:43:00.000-07:00

Apparently a lot of lawyers think that bloggers are easy to intimidate. I also have had the honor of having an eminent lawyer (actually, a whole firm of them) try to intimidate me into silence.

Lawyer Tries to Intimidate Seattle Blogger

From Hominid Views: People, politics, science and whatnot
July 31, 2008

What is this world coming to when a high-powered attorney to sports stars (and a now-deceased famous talk-radio host) goes on the attack against a lowly blogger?

You see, Bradley Marshall, attorney extraordinaire (well… if you don’t count the recent 18 month suspension of his license) just sent a letter to Seattle liberal blogger and journalist (and friend of mine) Michael Hood at Blatherwatch requesting that Michael yank some old blog posts and cease writing about him.

Michael is certainly not the first blogger to get such requests, but it must be quite the honor for Michael to get a letter from a lawyer of such stature...

Columbus Dispatch on the story that the San Diego Union Tribune covers up

2008-08-19T09:41:00.001-07:00

The San Diego Union Tribune has a habit of killing stories that embarrass school districts--unless the story is too big to cover up, or some editor has a personal ax to grind.

I have experience with the antics of the Chula Vista Elementary School District, where board members Patrick Judd, Pamela Smith, Larry Cunningham, Bertha Lopez and Cheryl Cox/David Bejarano have received reports of possible teacher misconduct, including a possible Columbine-style shooting by a teacher, and then decided that the safest course of action to ensure their re-election would be NOT TO INVESTIGATE.

Fortunately, the Columbus Dispatch has taken the issue of school district cover-ups head-on.

"[The system] puts the rights of teachers before those of students. It hides information from parents and potential employers. It allows secret deals with troubled teachers. A 10-month Dispatch investigation, a first-of-its-kind analysis of the system, found that 1,722 educators have been disciplined since 2000 for everything from shoplifting to murder. Two-thirds were allowed to return to the classroom or start school jobs..."

The newspaper was attacked for reporting these problems.

"Reporters Jennifer Smith Richards and Jill Riepenhoff were accused of "doing this to ruin my life" and "doing this to drag my name through the mud."

Those words are strikingly similar to what public entity attorneys Daniel Shinoff, Lesley Devaney, and Ray Artiano are saying in their defamation lawsuit against me regarding my website.

What went wrong at the San Diego Union Tribune--and lots of other institutions

2008-07-28T14:17:00.000-07:00

Letter by Fred Jacobsen, Apollo Beach, Fla.
published by Voice of San Diego
July 28, 2008
"I retired from The San Diego Union-Tribune years ago, and years too early. I left after working there became no longer enjoyable.

"The turning point came when middle managers were deemed to be the cause of all problems there, and were not made part of the solution.

"New faces and high-paid consultants became the new fonts of salvation.

"Continuous planning was substituted for continuous improvement.

Browbeating was substituted for constructive conversation..."

Broadcast news more negative toward Obama

2008-07-28T10:45:00.000-07:00

Media Biased Against Obama
By David Knowles
Jul 28th 2008

...The claim comes to us from George Mason University's Center for Media and Public Affairs, which has studied network newscasts for 20 years running. After analyzing the nightly ebb and flow of our current race, the center's researchers see a pattern (Via the Los Angeles Times):

...that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

...when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

...with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center...

So, could the pro-McCain bias be having an effect on the race? No doubt. Maybe it's the x-factor that commentators like Robert Novak have been searching for to explain why Obama still has only a 9-point lead over McCain in national polls...

Who will follow up on this commenter's suggestion about Lowell Billings?

2008-05-24T23:25:00.000-07:00

The media will tell you that Superintendent Lowell Billings gave pink slips to hundreds of teachers in Chula Vista Elementary School District.

But it is your fellow readers who will tell you the story behind the story, which is why I'm willing to wade through the bizarre gibberish in the comments section of news stories.

Today I came across this gem:
"April Jehnssen Chula Vista, CA"
"Lowell Billings just came back from a safari in Africa! Did you shoot us any jobs to bring back home Lowell?"

http://www.topix.com/city/chula-vista-ca/2008/05/hundreds-protest-looming-school-layoffs

The comment was based on a Channel 7/39 NBC news story.

I'm guessing that the commenter didn't use his or her real name, but he/she raises an interesting question. Did Lowell Billings just get back from a safari in Africa? How about it, San Diego media? Why don't you ask him?

In court last December during the Danielle Cozaihr case, Billings pretty much admitted that all he does is walk around and smile. I think this man needs a pay cut.

For me, Lionel Van Deerlin was always Mr. San Diego

2008-05-18T11:25:00.000-07:00

Former US Representative Lionel Van Deerlin died yesterday, and it seems his death was a very good one. He spent his last day putting the final touches on a San Diego Union Tribune column, and died peacefully at the age of 93. We were lucky that he was with us for so long.

Lola Sherman keeps them honest

2008-04-19T11:21:00.001-07:00

Daniel Shinoff and MiraCosta College trustees just don't get it.

Attorney Daniel Shinoff boasts that he's an expert in the Brown Act. (The Brown Act says public entity boards must keep all meetings open except in specific circumstances.)

But Shinoff apparently hasn't been urging his clients at MiraCosta College to obey the Brown Act.

Here's the point, Dan: The issues in the MiraCosta debate are serious public issues, not a private matter between trustees.

You and Richart and the majority trustees have threatened the minority trustees because they discussed Richart with the media. But you and the majority trustees don't seem to want to discuss ANYTHING in public.

Thank goodness that Lola Sherman of the San Diego Union Tribune was present at a recent meeting to represent the public's right to hear the debate. How else will the public know whom to vote for if they don't know what the board members say and think?

Sure, there might be some personality clashes as a result of the $3 million investigation you and Victoria Richart masterminded, but this is not some sort of couples counseling. These are public officials making decisions, and the majority seems to have made some very bad decisions.

< Minority bloc MiraCosta College Trustee Jacqueline Simon

I think the majority board members simply want to threaten the minority in private, out of earshot of the public.

Stay strong, Gloria, Judy and Jacqueline! Elections are coming, and help is on the way.

Ninth Circuit Denies Full Immunity for Web Service

2008-04-16T10:06:00.001-07:00

Ninth Circuit Denies Full Immunity for Web Service in Roommates.com Case
April 10, 2008

On April 3, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, et al., v. Roommates.com, LLC that merits consideration by online services generally. Roommates.com (Roommates) was sued by the housing council for violating fair housing laws, but the company had successfully argued at the district court level that, as an interactive computer service, it should be immune from liability for the content posted by its users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The Ninth Circuit, en banc, held that the website was not entitled to this immunity because it "materially contributed" to the "development" of unlawful content. Most notably, as a condition to registering for the site, users were required to create a profile by selecting from pre-populated answers to various unlawful, discriminatory questions about their housing preferences.

Under Section 230(c), "[n]o provider . . . of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." The statute makes clear, however, that immunity does not apply if the service provider also participated as an "information content provider," that is, a party "responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development" of the offending content.

Patrick O'Toole goes looking for a friend--and finds one!

2008-04-13T13:07:00.001-07:00

Patrick O'Toole, head of the Public Integrity Unit in the San Diego District Attorney's office, has been having a hard week. He's been trying to convince a juror that when Steve Castaneda asked how much a condo would cost, that proved he intended to buy one. And that even though O'Toole didn't uncover wrongdoing during his lengthy investigation, Castaneda should be convicted of perjury FOR SAYING HE DIDN'T INTEND TO BUY A CONDO, WHICH HE, IN FACT, DID NOT BUY.

So you can see how O'Toole would be going around scouting up someone who would make him look professional.

O'Toole found Martin Garrick, R-Carlsbad, who agrees that O'Toole needs not one, but TWO, grand juries to help him find public officials who might say something he disagrees with during grand jury proceedings.

Martin Garrick is the sponsor of the two-criminal-grand-juries-for-San Diego bill, who apparently thinks that San Diego prosecutors have done such a fine job with the Public Integrity Unit and cases such as the indictment by a grand jury of the innocent 15-year-old brother of murder victim Stephanie Crowe, that we really should skip preliminary hearings more often.

After all, who needs a judge deciding if prosecutors should go to trial?

Garrick and O'Toole seem like petty, malicious versions of Don Quijote, tilting at people who oppose their favorite politicians.

They say a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Maybe Martin Garrick thinks there are too many ham sandwiches walking around free.

Or maybe he needs another grand jury to investigate Cheryl Cox?

Mass Media Distribution Newswire investigates press release

2008-03-30T13:54:00.000-07:00

This press release has been removed until we further investigate it's accuracy
January 25, 2008
Scott A. Wahrenbrock, attorney for The Copley Press, Inc. Responds to the press release as follows:

Press Release Statement: “Despite subpoena, San Diego Union-Tribune journalist refuses to answer claims she took money to discredit local businessman.”

Response: It is absolutely false that Ms. Crabtree ever took money from anyone to discredit Mr. Brodie, or his companies. Any claim to that effect is false and defamatory.

Press Release Statement: “Penni Crabtree, staff writer at the newspaper, is amongst journalists being investigated for taking money from a rival pet company.”

Response: Penni Crabtree is not being investigated for taking any money from a rival pet company.

Press Release Statement: “Investigators for Simon Brodie, the inventor of a revolutionary pet diagnostic product and developer of new breed of ‘lifestyle pets’, including the hypoallergenic cat, are investigating claims that Penni Crabtree, a reporter for the Union-Tribune newspaper in San Diego, may have taken money from Idexx Laboratories to discredit Brodie in a number of articles written in their newspaper during 2006.”

Response: Ms. Crabtree is not being investigated by any entity and there are no credible allegations or “claims” she ever took money from Idexx in exchange for discrediting Mr. Brodie in articles she has written. Ms. Crabtree has never taken any money from Idexx and claims made by Mr. Brodie she may have done so are false.

Press Release Statement: “Although Crabtree was subpoenaed by Brodie's attorneys, she has so far failed to agree to any questioning."

Response: Ms. Crabtree was subpoenaed Mr. Brodie’s company, Allerca, as part of a civil suit Brodie filed against a former employee, in which he alleged that the former employee sold the newspaper confidential information. As with all journalists in California, Ms. Crabtree asserted her right not to provide unpublished information pursuant to the Reporter’s Shield law set forth under the California Constitution, Article I, section 2. The implication in the press release that the subpoena related to an investigation being conducted into Ms. Crabtree taking money from Idexx is patently false.

Press Release Statement: "The articles written by Crabtree began appearing a few weeks after Brodie's veterinary diagnostic company Cyntegra issued legal proceedings against Idexx Laboratories."

Response: The first article about Allerca was published on June 8, 2006, while Brodie’s company Cyntegra's lawsuit against Idexx was filed three weeks later on June 30, 2006.

Press Release Statement: "In one of the articles, she accused Brodie of illegally taking donations through an animal non-profit (so the headline read), even
though she was aware that the non-profit web site was a pure design concept, had not been launched and no donations were ever taken."

Response: The Allerca Foundation Website was active and accepted
donations when the article was written. The Foundation's Website claimed that every gift was tax-deductible and described itself as a nonprofit corporation of the State of California. The IRS and the California Attorney General's Office confirmed that Allerca had not registered as a nonprofit and had no nonprofit status, even though the
Foundation's Website was actively soliciting donations as a nonprofit. The foundation also claimed on its Website to be working with the Audubon Zoo in New Orleans to clone the rare clouded leopard, and with the Feline Conservation Center in Rosamond to add genetic samples of endangered species to the foundation's DNA bank. Both organizations confirmed that they were not working with Brodie or his foundation.

Press Release Statement: "In the articles written by Crabtree, she failed to mention any of the details for the Idexx case, even though she was made fully aware of Idexx's actions and the serious threat this action would cause too many of the
country's pets."

Response: Novartis Animal Health, the maker of the Sentinel line of pet medicines, sued Brodie, Allerca and another Brodie company, GeneSentinel, alleging infringement of Novartis' trademark and cyberpiracy. A month later, Novartis was granted a permanent injunction against Brodie and his companies. Around the same time, GeneSentinel laid off several employees, to whom it collectively owed unpaid wages, and changed its name to Cyntegra. Brodie also revealed in a prospectus for GeneSentinel (Cyntegra) that the animal diagnostics technology that he claims to have invented were the subject of a threatened lawsuit by Minneapolis-based Fair Isaac Corp. Fair Isaac's informed Allerca that if it moved forward with the diagnostic technology, Fair Isaac would take legal action if it believed Allerca was using or disclosing Fair Isaac's confidential information.

Press Release Statement: "For Brodie, these revelations have struck like lighting: It makes absolute sense now. The articles appeared just after we sued Iddex.
Crabtree wrote a number of negative articles about me, my lifestyle pets business ALLERCA and our hypoallergenic cats, but never once mentioned Idexx. So let me get this right: Crabtree somehow forgot to write about a large company like Idexx squeezing out life-saving groundbreaking new technology, an action that now threatens people's pets, and as important, has the potential to save thousands of human lives as well?"

Response: As to Brodie's claim to inventing "life-saving groundbreaking new
technology," he and Cyntegra lost the lawsuit in October 2007 that they filed against Idexx. U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez granted Idexx's motion for summary judgment and ordered Cyntegra to pay $7,100 in costs. Brodie has appealed this decision. The Judge's order stated, "The evidence shows that Plaintiff's (Cyntegra) sole employee and founder, Brodie, has little background or experience in the market of molecular diagnostic testing. Brodie is unaware of the difference between certain common diagnostic testing techniques, in addition, Brodie testified at deposition that he has never taken a course of a technical or scientific nature, or any courses that focus on management or business. The evidence shows that any steps Plaintiff took to engage in the proposed business were only preliminary or exploratory in nature...In addition, Brodie never developed a formal business plan, Plaintiff had no other employees besides its founder Brodie, Plaintiff never acquired a laboratory or employed a laboratory manager, Plaintiff never contacted an investment bank or venture capital firm to raise capital and Plaintiff never obtained a license to sell the canine influenza test, one of the few products it purported to sell. Furthermore, despite claiming to have a patent pending for its veterinary diagnostic system, aside from Brodie's declaration, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with any other evidence regarding the patent."

Press Release Statement: "Crabtree also reported Brodie to the California business authorities when she claimed that his company was taking deposits for a
proposed franchise program; however, after investigation, the authorities proved that Crabtree's claims where in fact false as the company had never taken any franchise based funds. Much of this information used in these articles came from a laptop computer that Crabtree was aware had been stolen from the company."

Response: Ms. Crabtree did not "report" Brodie to California business authorities. As it turns out, the Department of Corporations confirmed Brodie and Allerca had never registered the cat franchise it was marketing, even though it was promoting them on its Website. The Department of Corporations investigated and ordered Allerca and Brodie to" desist and refrain" from the further offer or sale of Allerca franchises "for the protection of investors" until the cat franchise business was
registered, or declared exempt.

Press Release Statement: "She did provide a brief written response in which she refused to answer questions but at the same time Crabtree may have committed perjury when she stated she had not had any communication with a former disgruntled employee.”

Response: After receiving the subpoena, Ms. Crabtree’s counsel informed Allerca that Ms.Crabtree was asserting her rights under the California Constitution not to reveal unpublished information. Ms. Crabtree submitted a declaration to Allerca’s counsel stating if called to testify should would invoke her rights under the California Constitution and California Evidence Code not to provide unpublished information. Ms. Crabtree never perjured herself and has never provided “a brief written response” to any of Allerca’s questions.

Press Release Statement: "Brodie had received a number of serious threats from animal rights activists and that his personal security was always a concern. Says Brodie: Crabtree's response? Publish my address in her next article, which caused me to move and put my partner and child in danger. I guess she was really trying to provide the best service possible to Idexx.”

Response: A July 16, 2006, story correctly stated Brodie had been evicted in February 2006 from the downtown 777 Sixth Avenue Lofts complex for nonpayment of rent. On October 8, 2006 we reported that according to a recently filed U.S trademark application for the Ashera cat filed by Brodie, Brodie and Allerca resided at The Grande condo complex in downtown San Diego. The information was public record and readily available to anyone who wanted to go to the U.S. Patent office Website and look up the Ashera cat. No specific address was ever provided and Mr. Brodie's “guess” Ms. Crabtree reported certain facts to “provide the best service possible to Idexx” is defamatory.

Press Release Statement: “A few weeks after the Union-Tribune articles appeared, one of Allerca's hypoallergenic cats was successfully tested on a number of national, live television shows. Brodie's company has since delivered dozens of these special cats to very happy customers, many of whom are willing to extol the cat's virtues on the Allerca website. The cat was subsequently voted one of TIME magazine's best inventions of 2006. Says Brodie: Conveniently, Crabtree, Grens and others failed to mention our success.”

Response: On November 15, 2006, Allerca announced it was relocating the company to Los Angeles, citing its strategic growth plans, which we reported in an article that ran November 16, 2006. Within that story, we also noted that Time magazine had placed the sneeze-free cat on its Best Inventions of 2006 list.

http://www.mmdnewswire.com/despite-subpoen-2823.html

Cayman Islands Bank Gets Wikileaks Taken Offline in U.S.

2008-02-23T12:01:00.000-08:00

Cayman Islands Bank Gets Wikileaks Taken Offline in U.S.
By Kim Zetter
February 18, 2008

Categories: Censorship

Wikileaks, the whistleblower site that recently leaked documents related to prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, was taken offline last week by its U.S. host after posting documents that implicate a Cayman Islands bank in money laundering and tax evasion activities.

In a pretty extraordinary ex-parte move, the Julius Baer Bank and Trust got Dynadot, the U.S. hosting company and domain registrar for Wikileaks, to agree not only to take down the Wikileaks site but also to "lock the wikileaks.org domain name to prevent transfer of the domain name to a different domain registrar." Judge Jeffrey White in the U.S. District Court for Northern California signed off on the stipulation between the two parties last week without giving Wikileaks a chance to address the issue in court.

The Julius Baer Bank, a Swiss bank with a division in the Cayman Islands, took issue with documents that were published on Wikileaks by an unidentified whistleblower, whom the bank claims is the former vice president of its Cayman Islands operation, Rudolf Elmer. The documents purport to provide evidence that the Cayman Islands bank helps customers hide assets and wash funds...

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/02/cayman-island-b.html

Court Shuts Down Whistleblower Site

2008-02-20T10:52:00.000-08:00

Switched.com published the following article:

Court Shuts Down Whistleblower Site
Feb 20th 2008
by Tim Stevens
http://www.switched.com/2008/02/20/court-ruling-shuts-down-online-whistleblower-site/?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Nobody likes a snitch, but the whistleblower, someone who exposes corruption, is often held in quite high regard. There's a fine line between the two types of tattletales, but most everyone is almost always happy to see shady and illegal back room dealings exposed.

Everyone, it seems, except the American courts. The U.S. Supreme Court made exposing misdeeds a little more dangerous last year when it ruled that whistleblowing employees had no protection against retaliation from employers. Now, a California District Court judge has ordered the online anonymous whistleblowing site, Wikileaks.org, to shut down.

Wikileaks, which is currently available at the address Wikileaks.be, launched in December of 2006 as a place for the anonymous posting of information by whistleblowers. It was responsible for the revealing of the controversial "Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta" at Guantanamo Bay, which exposed some potential civil rights violations. The site hosts thousands of other posted documents, which range from supposed e-mails from U.S. Ambassadors to videos showing a nuclear accident in Japan.

Last week's ruling from the California judge is in response to a lawsuit by the Julius Baer Group, a Swiss bank that was alleged to be involved in money laundering. The allegations were backed up by documents posted -- illegally, according to the bank -- to Wikileaks. The judge ruled that the Wikileaks.org domain name could no longer be renewed or resolved.

Given that the site is mirrored in many countries around the world with suffixes besides ".org," however, it's likely that Wikileaks won't be affected too much by this immediate ruling. All that said, we expect a more concerted effort against this site in the not too distant future, given that the site's main purpose of exposing secrets more less always creates enemies.

From Computerworld and Wikipedia

Scott says:
Speaking of "concerted efforts", the injunction was preceded several hours earlier by both a 500Mbps distributed denial of service attack and a fire at the website's ISP.

02/20/08 11:37 AM

Keith J. Mohrhoff says:
This is ridiculous!! What ever happened to freedom of speech? That aside, by not protecting whistleblowers, we are forcing ordinary working people to become part of the crime by continuing to protect their employers interests regardless of their legality!!

02/20/08 11:57 AM

Kate says:
"Freedom of speech" sometimes actually means "libel". There's no proof of anything these people have written or put up (plus it doesn't sound as though this is a solely US site, and our constitutional freedoms do not protect us against a foreign government) - if they want to be real whistleblowers and not just disgruntled employees they should contact the appropriate authorities, not post anonymously on a website.

02/20/08 12:05 PM

warren garrison says:
Naturally they don't want anyone blowing the whistle, they might be targeted themselves. It's like the sorry ass Pima County Attorneys office in Tucson Arizona. A disgruntled mother who worked at a convenienct store falsely accused me of things I did not do because I had called the cops on her two boys vandalizing first the local laundry, and then the car wash so this was a chance to get even with me rather than thanking me. As I began to gather up my disclosures to defend myself I made the mistake of saying to a prosecutor, "when you see the tape you'll see I did nothing and was falsely arrested", my first arrest in 54 years, and then I added that I was going to sue the county because of how they treated me. Guess what? Before one of the receptionist realized what was going on she told me she had the tape and if I would bring $10 and a blank she would make me a copy, but by the time I got down to the county attorneys office, it had disappeared. BUT, you have to understand that Barbara LaWall's office has pulled some pret-ty shady and underhanded things in this town and yet they continue to get away with it. And if you want to take a shot at me bitch, this is Warren Garrison writing this, come on!!!!!!

02/20/08 12:11 PM

Ann says:
THIS IS "KING GEORGE" AND "UNCLE DICK'S" AMERICA FOR YOU; CALIFORNIA USED TO BE OK, BUT NOW WE SEE THIS HALF-WIT REPUBLICAN GOVERNING IT WHO SITS SO PRETTILY EMBROIDERED IN A LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC FAMILY; ENOUGH OF THIS B*****IT!!!!!!!DOWN WITH THIS MOCKERY!!!!!!!!
IT'S OBAMA 2008!!!!!!!!!
GO OBAMA, GO,GO,GO!!!!!!!!!

02/20/08 12:21 PM

Carol Levy says:
Whistleblowing is necessary and so is protection.
In my medical malpractice against Dr, Peter J. Jannetta nurses told me they would not testify against him because they were afraid for their jobs. Doctors said they would not testify because he is so big in the neurosurgery world.
The Pa. Superior Court called Dr. Jannetta's testmony re: the risks of the surgery, an MVD or 'Jannetta Procedure', perjurioous * yet no one cared that he committed a felony by lying under oath. The Court did not sanction him nor did the state or medical societies. (In fact my lawyer forced me, literally, to settle out of court for a pittance that does not even cover my lifetime medical expenses. The lawyer, Michael Fishbein, as an offcer of the court, should have made a criminal complaint for perjury.)
Maybe if people felt safe coming forward when they see illegal or unethical prosecutable acts the court systems would not be so clogged up - the proof would be out there. The guilty would be pleading guilty.
* "We have little difficulty in concluding that Dr. Jannetta's testimony at deposition was different than, or inconsistent with, the testimony at trial." Levy v Jannetta, CCP Allegheny County, GD 81-7689; appeal -J. A370017/92 Levy v Jannetta et al, No. 00150 Pittsburgh, 1992. settled, 1995

02/20/08 12:23 PM

nationalsecuritymatters says:
If this site is posting material that would directly impact United States national security, it should be shut down in a heartbeat.

02/20/08 12:28 PM

Keith J. Mohrhoff says:
Kate: the problem is that since the Supreme Court denies any protection to whistleblowers, "Going to the authorities" is impossible! It is now to the point where the only people who can afford to do the right thing are those with enough financial resources to whether the fallout.

Hence, anonymity is necessary and may serve a useful purpose. If an employee can go on-line and post anonymously about the illegal actions of their employer, then maybe, someone from the authorities can investigate and discover the proof.

02/20/08 12:42 PM

PG says:
Another example of the Bush Adminstration and the GOP ruining this country. This Supreme Court is a disgrace. Thomas is an embarrasment, and Scalia, Alito, and Roberts should be nowhere near the Court. Bush goes in less than a year, but we'll be stuck with these losers for years.

02/20/08 12:48 PM

Joe Alt says:
I can't believe that there are so many people out there who THINK that there is still free speech in The United States.

02/20/08 1:00 PM

Jim from Michigan says:
We need to discuus issues like this (and many others) and have a mechanism nationally to use our collective ideas to "reinvent and actually implement" some forward thinking. Thsis and antithesis on many issues like this.

What if a standing committee of congressmen/women (and their humongous staff) reviewed anonymous whistleblowing cases without publication to see if a basis of truth exists?

02/20/08 1:02 PM

Bob says:
While this ruling makes me a bit uncomfortable as well, people have brought this upon themselves. People have abused the whistleblowing system as a tool of retaliation and political smear. To make it legal to leak sensitive information about our country just for selfish political motivations is wrong and I've seen too much of this. Furthermore in our country we have a right to see who our accuser is, and for someone to be able to just throw something out there to destroy somebody without having to respond to is wrong. Think about this, if you are an employer and you have a disgrutled employee who decides to go on a site like this and falsely name you as a child molester, there is nothing you can do. Even though there is no proof, the very suggestion has ruined your repution and your life and there's nothing you can do because this person would be hiding behind some whistleblower law.

02/20/08 1:02 PM

Joe Alt says:
"Free Speech" vanished along with our Right to Vote way back in 2000.

02/20/08 1:04 PM

Joe Alt says:
"Free Speech" vanished along with our Right to Vote way back in 2000.

02/20/08 1:05 PM

TIM says:
nationalsecuritymatters

Do you shake in your pants when someone on TV speaks the word Terroist or maybe believe in the fairy tale (The sky is falling ) that is what the Repubican party is trying to do to americans is take away there rights and say everything is nationalsecurity so they bring out the BOGGYMAN talk every other week to scare your simple minded people.

02/20/08 1:06 PM

Jim says:
So let's see...Supreme Court allows domestic spying to go on unabated but shuts down a snitch site that PROTECTS PEOPLE. We the people are keeping score of the parasitic LEETCH known as "our" so-called government. Like every other government before it that played the same game, it too shall someday fall.

02/20/08 1:12 PM

Kate says:
First off, you don't need a website aimed at whistleblowers to go online and post whatever you want about whomever you want. So the judge's decision is really moot.

Secondly, if you don't protect whistleblower's from retaliation, either from their company or coworkers, we will no longer find out about tainted beef like the story in the news now.

How much protection do you want to give companies that routinely lie and cheat?

02/20/08 1:34 PM

Carol Levy says:
To Bob, a few bad apples does not mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater. If whistleblowers had not, and continue to be retaliated against for telling the truth, for exposing $100.00 toilet seats paid for by our tac dollars there would be no need for sites where they can go. My name has been sullied by some people without any proof. I on;t like it but I am not going to shut them up. It's their right to be liars but there must nbe recourse to prove accusations to be false. If no one listens then a website may well be the only answer.

02/20/08 1:35 PM

Earl Bailey says:
Before retirement I worked in manufacturing. A defect in the product was detected but, having been unsure of it's effect on performance, I needed access to testing equipment that was locked up on the off shifts. The shift supervisor would only allow me access if I agreed not to devulge the test results until the following day. I refused, and, as a result, the factory manufactured defective product for 24 hrs. "Boy was he holding his breath to find out if I'd told the truth the next day. (All involved were called in )

02/20/08 1:35 PM

djknugget says:
Has anyone ever considered:

A. The fact that the constitution clearly states that if we are not happy with the government we can dismantle it. Right now it seems like people are so fed up with the government that we should just go ahead and scrap it, and make a new one.

B. Sueing the supreme court for failing to obey the constitution.

C. That Ron Paul is a republican who voted against illegal wiretapping, the patriot act, raising taxes, against the war in Iraq, and has never voted for anything that is protected by the constitution.

Sorry to put in my little political add, but for all of the republican bashers, keep him in mind! He actually stands for what the republicans are supposed to stand for: small government and the freedoms gaurenteed by our constitution. There is always the write-in. www.RonPaul2008.com

02/20/08 1:40 PM

The SDUT connection with KPBS: how embarrassing for KPBS

2008-02-19T12:11:00.001-08:00

February 18, 2008
Aguirre takes issue with The U-T

What started with a question about a State Bar investigation turned into a heated encounter between City Attorney Michael Aguirre and San Diego Union-Tribune reporter Alex Roth today.

The exchange was videotaped for about 10 minutes by Channel 7/39 and posted on its Web site.

Aguirre called a noon news conference in Old Town to talk about his re-election bid. Roth was there to cover the news conference, but also asked Aguirre about the Bar investigation for a separate story he was writing.

"Why do you think the State Bar is investigating you?" Roth asked in front of other reporters.

Aguirre responded that the investigation was based on Roth's incomplete and faulty reporting, including a reliance on sources "that have grievances or axes to grind." "There's no substance to anything that you write," Aguirre said.
Roth said he wanted to limit his questioning to the investigation.
Aguirre said Roth asked about the investigation to embarrass him. Roth asked Aguirre to step aside to privately talk about the investigation. The two walked away and continued talking for about eight minutes while the 7/39 camera rolled.
Aguirre can be heard suggesting Roth see a counselor, and accusing the reporter of ethical lapses in previous stories. Aguirre said Roth's 2007 coverage of Aguirre's investigation into KPBS programming, for example, did not mention that Roth's wife worked for KPBS.

Roth's wife left her job as a KPBS education reporter in 2006. Roth and Union-Tribune editors said they stand by his coverage of the city attorney.

Posted by Alexa Capeloto February 18, 2008 07:34 PM
http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/breaking/2008/02/aguirre_takes_issue_with_ut.html

Karin Winner and Chris Jennewein agree on one thing

2008-01-29T08:19:00.000-08:00

Voice of San Diego describes a rift between Karin Winner and Chris Jennewein at the San Diego Union-Tribune.

From personal experience I am able to report that these two think very much alike when it comes to keeping the secrets of San Diego county schools. They both love to write about schools, but they stick to the theatrics, not the real stories.

Rob Davis of Voice of San Diego reports:

"The company essentially has two separate enterprises: The Union-Tribune and SignOnSanDiego.com. Each has a different leader.

"Six current and former employees said a well-known rift exists between those two leaders: Winner, and the newspaper's vice president of Internet operations, Chris Jennewein, who oversees SignOnSanDiego.com.

"Winner and Jennewein "don't like each other, they undermine each other -- and it's one company for God's sakes," said a former employee. "I don’t understand the philosophy of allowing them to do this."

"Said another current staffer: "If you can't solve that most basic problem, how are you going to solve the Herculean problems that are facing this industry?"

"A reporter who attended a 2007 newsroom strategy meeting in which Winner laid out ideas for the company's future said the editor closed the session with this request: Don't tell the workers at SignOnSanDiego.com about what was discussed.

"Winner said she did not recall making the comment. If she did say it, Winner said she was probably joking. Her relationship with Jennewein "is not a personal relationship that matters," she said..."

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2008/01/29/news/utfuture012908.txt

Libel--single publication rule

2008-01-20T00:21:00.000-08:00

FIFTH CIRCUIT ·
Libel ·
Jan. 18, 2008

http://www.rcfp.org/news/2008/0118-lib-appeal.htmlAppeals court applies 'single publication rule' to Internet

Newspaper Web sites should be treated like the print version for publication date purposes, according to the judges.

Jan. 18, 2008 · The "single publication rule," which holds that the statute of limitations for libel begins when a defamatory statement is first published, applies to publications on the Internet, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Dallas (5th Cir.) ruled last month.

The appeals court upheld the district court's decision to grant the defendants' motion.

The appeal was the result of a defamation charge against Belo Corp. for an article published in both the print and Internet editions of its publication, The Dallas Morning News, concerning the questionable business procedures of Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc.

The article, criticizing one of Nationwide's mortgage programs, initially appeared in The Dallas Morning News' financial column on July 29, 2003, and was later made available on the newspaper's Web site. Nationwide filed suit on July 28, 2004, alleging defamation.

Belo successfully brought a motion to dismiss based on Nationwide's violation of Texas' one-year statute of limitations for libel claims. The one-year limitation starts on the last day of publication, commonly known as the "single publication rule." This rule serves to prevent the same recurring claims against publishers. Although Nationwide successfully filed suit on July 28, 2004, just within the allotted time period, it did not serve the defendant until over 10 months after filing the complaint

Nationwide appealed the decision, arguing that the Internet edition of The Dallas Morning News constituted "continuous publication" of the article.

Noting that "Texas courts have not yet considered whether the single publication rule should apply to Internet publications," the court of appeals examined earlier cases to help determine how the state high court would likely come down on the matter.

"[T]he continued availability of an article on a website should not result in republication, despite the website's ability to remove it. Perhaps more important than the similarities between print media and the Internet, strong policy considerations support application of the single publication rule to information publicly available on the Internet," Judge Harold R. DeMoss wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. "We agree that these policy considerations favor application of the single publication rule here and we note that application of the rule in this context appears consistent with the policies cited by Texas courts in adopting and applying the single publication rule to print media: to support the statute of limitations and to prevent the filing of stale claims."

Paul C. Watler, an attorney for Jackson Walker in Dallas and the lead counsel for the defendants, hailed the decision.

"I think it's an important case because it's only the second published opinion by the federal circuit of appeals applying the single-publication rule to Internet context," he said. "This circuit had addressed the issue that no Texas state court has."

(Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc., v. Belo Corp., Media counsel: Paul C. Watler, Dallas) -- Alanna Malone

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

© 2008 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Tom Cruise and Church of Scientology are as mad as Daniel Shinoff and Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz

2008-01-20T00:18:00.000-08:00

Gawker Defies Demand from Church of Scientology to Remove Creepy Tom Cruise Video

Posted January 18th, 2008 by Sam Bayard

http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2008/gawker-defies-demand-from-church-scientology-remove-creepy-tom-cruise-video

Earlier this week, a promotional/inspirational video for the Church of Scientology featuring Tom Cruise began circulating online. The video is bizarre -- against the background of what sounds like the Mission Impossible theme, Cruise extols the virtues of Scientology and urges viewers to embrace its ethics and worldview. Among many, many other things, he drops gems like "We are the authorities on getting people off drugs. We are the authorities on the mind. We are the authorities on improving conditions" and "We are the way to happiness. We can bring peace and unite cultures."

Some might say that the clip has only gossip value, but others assert that it reveals something about Cruise's position within the controversial organization (which to some may still have only gossip value). Nevetheless, it has caused some complicated legal maneuvering this week. From Gawker:

Several indoctrination videos were available on Google Video, on Sunday, and showcased on Gawker, before being removed by the person who had originally posted them. Yesterday, for a few hours, the clip of Tom Cruise discussing his beliefs as a Scientologist appeared on Youtube, and was republished by Radar and Defamer. That video is no longer available, most likely after the Church of Scientology sent in a copyright infringement notice. Gawker is now hosting a copy of the video; it's newsworthy; and we will not be removing it.
Sure enough, lawyers for the Church of Scientology sent a takedown notice to Gawker Media, alleging that the video was stolen and that Gawker and Defamer's distribution of the video violated its copyright. It also asserted that, because the video was stolen, California criminal laws relating to receipt of stolen property and theft were implicated.

Not intimidated, Gawker fired back:

We are using this video in the context of news reporting and critical commentary, which are uses that may not be authorized by your client, but which serve the public interest. For this, and other reasons, we believe our use is fair. We further do not accept that we have broken any criminal laws in publishing it, and in any event, several of the statutes you cite are inapplicable in this case.
Gawker's fair use argument looks like a strong one, although the video's previously unpublished status might give a court some pause (assuming that the Church's previous use of the video would not qualify it as "published"). Even if it were unpublished, the fair use provision states expressly that "[t]he fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of [the four fair use factors]." Moreover, the First Amendment would likely block any criminal prosecution of Gawker for publishing material that it lawfully obtained, even if it knew that the clip was initially stolen (which itself would be hard to prove). See Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001).

Eriq Gardner at THR Entertainment & Media Law Blog has some detailed analysis of the fair use argument, but I disagree with his conclusions.

Tom Cruise gives journalists an automatic "F"

2008-01-19T21:50:00.000-08:00

SP: "Suppressive Person." An SP is someone who commits suppressive acts, like murder, criticizing Scientology or altering LRH's teachings, according to former and current members. Journalists are automatically considered SPs because they traffic in bad news and so are barred from entering Scientology. Psychiatrists would also be SPs, so Cruise says, "Crush these guys! I've had it! No mercy! None! Go to guns!" as a call to arms. Since all's fair in war, LRH once issued a policy called "Fair Game" that decreed that anyone who opposed Scientology could be "tricked, sued or lied to and destroyed."

Jan 18 2008
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1579963/20080118/index.jhtml
Tom Cruise Scientology-- What Is He Talking About?

The actor talks for nine minutes in his instantly famous Scientology video. Can you figure out what he's actually saying? Here's a guide.

By Jennifer Vineyard

Tom Cruise talks for nine minutes in his instantly famous Scientology video — now, can anyone figure out what he's actually saying?

Apparently, non-Scientologists are just "spectators." It's a far nicer thing to call us — kind of like "Muggles in "Harry Potter" — than the term they usually use, "wog," which is more equivalent to the derogatory "Mudbloods" in the "Potter" books. Here's a breakdown of some of the other Scientologese words, acronyms and turns of phrase — culled from a variety of sources, including books, Web sites, and current and former church members — that might get lost in translation:

LRH: L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the Church of Scientology and author of sci-fi books such as "Battlefield Earth" and "Mission Earth."

...KSW: Keeping Scientology Working. Refers to a policy LRH published in 1965 that requires all Scientologists to follow his words and rules exactly.

"It is something that you have to earn": Cruise is referring to taking Scientology courses. According to the church, to get to the higher levels of Scientology — he's an OT VII, the highest level is OT VIII — you must complete a number of courses and auditing sessions, a sort of Scientological take on the Catholic confession. And it all costs; depending on your level, the tab for wisdom can be hundreds if not thousands of dollars. To finally learn what the basis of Scientology's precepts are (about how we got remnants of space aliens known as thetans trapped in our system), you must attain the level of OT III. The secrets of Xenu aren't free!

"Am I going to look at that guy or am I too afraid?": Cruise's relentless stare is actually a technique from "Success Through Communication" training routine (TR) drills. According to former and current members, pre-clears have to learn to look someone straight in the eye for hours. It's supposed to generate self-confidence and intimidate the other party. No blinking!
...

SP: "Suppressive Person." An SP is someone who commits suppressive acts, like murder, criticizing Scientology or altering LRH's teachings, according to former and current members. Journalists are automatically considered SPs because they traffic in bad news and so are barred from entering Scientology. Psychiatrists would also be SPs, so Cruise says, "Crush these guys! I've had it! No mercy! None! Go to guns!" as a call to arms. Since all's fair in war, LRH once issued a policy called "Fair Game" that decreed that anyone who opposed Scientology could be "tricked, sued or lied to and destroyed." The church says it no longer officially practices this, however, it is still a fairly contentious organization.

PTS: "Potential Trouble Sources," as in Scientologists who are losing the faith or are being influenced by an SP.

PTS/SP: A course in how to "handle" and/or "disconnect" PTS and SPs, which usually costs about $1,600, according to estimates from church members.

"Ways to Happiness": Actually, "A Way to Happiness," a booklet of the Scientology version of the 10 Commandments, except theirs has 21 Commandments. The number-one precept is "Take Care of Yourself." Also on the list: "Don't Be Promiscuous," "Set a Good Example," "Do Not Murder," "Do Not Harm a Person of Good Will" and "Flourish and Prosper."
...

Everybody but Daniel Shinoff: The North County Times stops naming MiraCosta College's lawyer

2008-01-16T11:34:00.000-08:00

Suddenly you can't find Daniel Shinoff's name in the North County Times. Why? Because Shinoff is trying to prove that he's not a public figure so he can stop me from writing about him?

My suspicion is that Shinoff, one of the favorite sources of information for NCT, suddenly doesn't want to be mentioned by name, and the newspaper wants to stay on friendly terms with him.

Shinoff's new moniker is "the district's lawyers." He comes alone to settlement conferences and board meetings. This morning he is listed as MiraCosta College's lawyer on the San Diego Superior Court calendar (no judge listed):
North County
01/17/08
08:30AM Dept N-27
Ex Parte
Case number GIN058018
Party C)MIRA COSTA COLLEGE
Counsel DANIEL R. SHINOFF

But like the Queen of England, Daniel Shinoff apparently prefers to refer to himself in the plural.

Other than that, North County Times is doing a terrific job reporting on education. Until now, the NCT frequently quoted Shinoff in its top-notch articles about north county schools.

The following opinion piece from NCT is typical of good reporting and opinion writing, with the omission of that once-ubiquitous name. By the way, I didn't write any of the comments, although I heartily agree with most of them.

North County Times
January 15, 2008
Click HERE to see the original article.

Slapped by karma?

By: SUNANA BATRA - For the North County Times

The new year has already ushered in some positive developments in the ongoing sordid saga at MiraCosta College.

When former MiraCosta President Victoria Munoz Richart was sued by faculty member Eileen Kraskouskas, who alleged that Richart had besmirched her reputation and forced Eileen to retire, Richart's attorney, Randy Winet, contended that Richart was well within her rights, and argued that people working in public education have to bear the "cross" of intemperate comments about their work performance.

The judge agreed, dismissing the case on the basis that she believed it to be a SLAPP, or Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, suit, which aims to silence a group or an individual raising issues of public concern.

Fast forward a few months and, lo and behold, luck being the friend of the righteous, the judge presiding over the case brought by Leon Page against Richart and the district just happens to be the same judge, Judge Jacqueline Stern.

Imagine the dread Richart must have felt knowing the frailty of their argument, since it's the exact same argument the district successfully crushed just a few months ago. What a delicious tidbit of irony. Kraskouskas' grandstanding was no different from Richart's, Kraskouskas just didn't have free lawyers to duke it out for her.

So, what to do? Richart must get Judge Stern removed (or "papered" in fancy lawyer speak), and did, as was her right. While this sort of practice isn't illegal, it's certainly questionable. Did her lawyer "paper" Judge Stern because Stern knew that Dr. Richart, as president of the college, had previously rebutted a claim similar to the one she made when negotiating her buyout package, clearly working against her credibility? Is Mr. Winet now hoping that the new judge, Judge Thomas Nugent, never finds out about what happened in the Kraskouskas case?

You gotta love comeuppance for trying to silence people.

Wrapped only in her ambition, Richart had to know Judge Stern would point out that the queen had no clothes.

In the Kraskouskas case, she framed the suit against her as an attempt to squelch her free speech. But in striking the "do as I say, not as I do" posture, she does not believe her employers should be granted the same free speech that she enjoyed.

So, a question comes to mind: Why didn't the district's lawyers force Richart to file a lawsuit and then challenge her flimsy claims with an anti-SLAPP motion, since they beat a similar lawsuit just four months prior?

Of course, such questions are not likely to go unanswered for too long, as I'd wager that Judge Nugent is likely to compel Richart to testify soon.

But, hands down, the cherry on top has to be a comment, steeped in foreshadowing, made by Richart, in a letter addressed to her ally Charles Adams. She complains that the minority board members made a public evaluation of her by stating in public that they did not agree with the majority. She states: "This action causes me to believe that it may be in my best interest to publicly reveal all of the misconduct that has occurred at MiraCosta College prior to my arrival."

Unbelievable. Funny? Pathetic? Both? We shall see.

-- Encinitas resident Sunana Batra is a freelance columnist for the North County Times. Contact her at sunanabatra@gmail.com.

Comments On This Story

Note: Comments reflect the views of readers and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff.

We want to know more wrote on Jan 16, 2008 7:48 AM:
When Ms Richart is questioned under oath, the public deserves to learn if the school's lawyer was representing his client, MiraCosta College, or her. If the lawyer was representing her, did he inform his client, MiraCosta College, of the conflict. To do so would have been his ethical duty.

thank you wrote on Jan 16, 2008 8:24 AM:
I appreciate the NCT for printing this commentary.

Ethical? wrote on Jan 16, 2008 9:04 AM:
One uses the word "ethical" in relationship to the lawyers for MiraCosta and/or Richart? This relationship is almost incestuous and the trustees (majority) just seem to bless everything the taxpayers' money pays for! Now the bill for defending the district against the D.A. will be added to the toll. Ethical? A joke!

angry taxpayer wrote on Jan 16, 2008 10:52 AM:
Is the faculty happy with Leon Page's lawsuit which the taxpayers must defend? This gadfly simply wants to run for office and is playing a game to advance his political ambitions. And at the taxpayers' expense.

To Angry wrote on Jan 16, 2008 11:08 AM:
You need to check your facts before you open your mouth and let the loose thoughts fly out. Mr. Page is working to save the taxpayers' money - a job the trustees (get the word trustee?) are elected to do, but at which they failed. Mr. Page will get his expenses paid - that's all. This has nothing to do with faculty as the spinners are trying to imply. This is what the public is supposed to do when the politicians try to pull the wool over the public's eyes. Put your anger toward the trustees who got us into this mess by colluding with Richart to hide the truth.

What a mess wrote on Jan 16, 2008 11:16 AM:
This whole mess has come about because of Richart's inability to fulfill her duties as a leader. She can hand out the criticism but can't take it? Oh boo hoo. Let's get the majority off the board and get some new people in there who care more about finances and education than politics!

San Diego needs a new newspaper to hire SDUT reporters

2008-01-06T19:24:00.000-08:00

Voice of San Diego reports the loss of 29 reporters at the San Diego Union Tribune.

Shrinking Union-Tribune: 'Doing Less With Less'
By ROB DAVIS Voice Staff Writer
Jan. 7, 2008
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2008/01/07/news/01buyouts010708.txt

I found this section of the article interesting:

"...If you're going to downsize your reporting staff you don’t take a (federal law enforcement reporter) Kelly Thornton or Mark Sauer out of the mix," said one newsroom employee who accepted the offer. The staffer had signed a non-disclosure agreement and agreed to speak anonymously. "Those are the people you want to keep. To keep people interested in the paper, they take things away? It's all business driven at this point."

Nelson also pointed to Thornton as a key loss, saying he was "stunned" she wasn't begged to stay. Early in 2007, she helped break news that U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was being forced by the Bush Administration to resign -- before Lam had even announced the news. Her reporting in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks deeply detailed the lives of three hijackers who had trained and lived in San Diego.

"She's probably the most respected, reviled and feared reporter in San Diego," Nelson said. "And they're letting her go? That would be like The Washington Post letting Bob Woodward go..."

Fall guys charged in killing of Russian journalist

2007-08-28T07:35:00.001-07:00

Suspects charged over murder of Russian journalist

Anna Politkovskaya was a fierce critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Russian prosecutors have formally charged at least four of 10 suspects detained over the murder of reporter Anna Politkovskaya, a defence lawyer says.

Russian prosecutor-general Yuri Chaika said on Monday 10 people had been detained and anti-Kremlin forces abroad had ordered the killing of Ms Politkovskaya to discredit President Vladimir Putin...

Ms Politkovskaya, a fierce critic of President Vladimir Putin, was shot dead in her block of flats on October 7 last year.

A senior editor at the Novaya Gazeta newspaper where Ms Politkovskaya worked, Sergei Sokolov, said he did not think the crime had been solved...

"The question of the person who ordered this killing has not been worked out in full - the interpretation of the prosecutor-general is more political than judicial."

Mr Chaika said on Monday said no political pressure had been exerted on prosecutors.

He said Ms Politkovskaya was killed by an organised crime group led by an ethnic Chechen and including at least five serving and former law enforcement officers.

- Reuters
August 28, 2007
ABC NEWS
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/28/2018035.htm?section=justin

Chauncey Bailey dies investigating a group gone wrong

2007-08-13T13:57:00.000-07:00

A Journalist's Death
Chauncey Bailey is murdered while performing an essential task of democracy.
Washington Post Editorial
August 11, 2007

THERE WAS a time when many people in Oakland, Calif., admired Your Black Muslim Bakery, a neighborhood enterprise founded in 1968 by a charismatic African American known as Yusuf Bey. Community members, politicians and the local media hailed the bakery as an example of black self-help in an otherwise dispiriting environment of urban poverty. For years, they tended to ignore or play down reports about the more violent side of Mr. Bey's operation, or about such disturbing events as a political rally at which Mr. Bey remarked that Jews "are not worthy of being hated." Among the many who were a bit soft on the bakery was a reporter for the Oakland Tribune, Chauncey Bailey, who doubled as news director for a television channel that Mr. Bey paid to broadcast his sermons.

But in 2002, the East Bay Express, a local alternative newspaper that had praised the bakery, ran a penetrating series of articles on the activities of Mr. Bey's minions, including the alleged torture of a Nigerian immigrant. That series earned reporter Chris Thompson threats from Mr. Bey's group. Mr. Bey's arrest in 2003 on 27 counts of raping four girls further damaged both Mr. Bey's image and that of his organization, though most of the charges were dropped and he died before his trial.

Mr. Bailey began to take a second journalistic look at Your Black Muslim Bakery. Having become editor of the Oakland Post, a small weekly newspaper focused on the African American community, Mr. Bailey probed the bakery's murky finances -- until the morning of Aug. 2, when a masked man approached and fired a shotgun at his head. According to police, a 19-year-old employee of the bakery has confessed to the murder, saying he carried it out because of Mr. Bailey's reporting. The suspect denies he confessed and claims he is innocent.

Job-related murders of journalists are extremely rare in the United States: The last one took place in 1993, and there have been only 13 since 1976 (including Mr. Bailey's), according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Yet this murder is a reminder of the need for reporting by professional journalists, even in an era when amateur video of war zones can be had at the click of a mouse. Aggressive journalism is still a vital part of every community's defenses against corruption and crime. It can save lives.

Chauncey Bailey died doing his duty as a reporter. That duty is not only indispensable in a democratic society; it's also risky...

John Davies silences public comment at Charter Review Committee

2007-08-11T12:19:00.000-07:00

From San Diego City Beat's "Last Blog on Earth"
August 10th, 2007
by David Rolland

"...at last night’s Charter Review Committee meeting, committee chair John Davies refused to allow CityBeat’s favorite City Hall-watcher, Mel Shapiro, to speak at the podium about some of the items on the agenda. I recounted how committee member Mike McDade urged Davies—a stern fellow who wants to limit public comment to one time at the start of the meetings—to let Shapiro speak..."

http://lastblogonearth.com/2007/08/10/you-cant-treat-mel-that-way/#more-1081

Death of a young American journalist in Oaxaca

2007-08-11T12:12:00.000-07:00

City Beat has an excellent story this week by John Ross on the murder of American journalist Brad Will in Oaxaca in October 2006.

Here's the URL: http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=6051

Here's an excerpt:

"...Two of the gunmen were later identified by Mexican news media as Pedro Carmona, a local PRI political fixer and cop, and Police Commander Orlando Manuel Aguilar Coello. One of the men crouched down behind Carmona was Abel Santiago Zárate, aka "El Chino" (the grasshopper). Santiago Zárate and Aguilar Coello were reported to be the personal bodyguards of PRI Municipal President Manuel Martinez Ferrea. The other two men would be fingered as Juan Carlos Soriano (aka "El Chapulin") and Juan Sumano, both Santa Lucia police officers.

"You can see the gunmen in the film Brad Will shot just moments before the bullets hit him, and they are clearly framed in a picture taken at the same time that ran on the front page of El Universal.

" When the shooting erupted, Will took cover on the opposite side of the narrow street from the rest of the press. He was crouched against a lime green wall when his bullet came for him. You can hear the shot on the sound track and listen to Will's cries as it tears through his Indymedia T-shirt and penetrates his heart. A second shot caught him in the right side. There was little blood, the first slug having stopped his heart from pumping. On film that Gustavo Vilchis and others took, the entrance wound looks like a deep bruise..."

Is the San Diego Union-Tribune clueless?

2007-08-11T11:27:00.000-07:00

Today the SDUT editorial page derided the intelligence of left-leaning bloggers who want to unite to bargain for health insurance.

The SDUT thinks that this idea makes no sense. Bloggers are silly to think they can bargain, says the SDUT, because the bloggers don't have employers.

Here's how the SDUT puts it: "Now along comes a story about some of these lefty bloggers that is so flabbergasting it demands this observation: So we're clueless?"

(This question is apparently directed to left-wing bloggers who think that the mainstream media don't "understand how the world really works nowadays.")

Economics lesson #1 for Bob Kittle and friends:
You don't need an employer to bargain for a better price for health insurance. All you need is a large number of people who are combining their purchasing power. As the quantity being purchased increases, the price goes down. This method works whether you're buying health insurance, office supplies, fleets of cars, or potatoes.

The answer to Bob Kittle's question ("So we're clueless?") would seem to be YES. Not always, of course. But in this case, I'm afraid so.

But, to be fair, I did like the editorial about the team of students from Mexico who won the National Geographic World Championship. And I do like print journalism. In fact, I think San Diego would be much better off if we had two print newspapers instead of one. Perhaps the North County Times and the East County Californian will expand into downtown and make San Diego a great American city with two competing print newspapers.

Bonnie Dumanis tries to limit media coverage of her own press conference

2007-06-25T11:26:00.000-07:00

Mark Walker of the (San Diego) North County Times wrote on June 19, 2007:

" District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis said Tuesday that her office made a mistake when it barred a North County Times reporter from attending a news conference she conducted on Monday.

"The newspaper's reporters will not be barred from future news conferences, Dumanis said.

""We are back on track," the district attorney said during a meeting with Dan McSwain, the newspaper's acting editor."

Here's something I found on Bonnie's own online biography:
"She taught ethics and trial skills at the University of San Diego School of Law ..."
That would be the same school that hired Rudy Castruita, the San Diego County Office of Education recent past Superintendent who supported Daniel Shinoff's illegal tactics in support of school officials who broke laws.

Our comments are back! Thank you, SDUT!

2007-06-25T11:07:00.000-07:00

This morning I found that all the comments were back on the Logan Jenkins article. (See previous post.)

The San Diego Union-Tribune Has Standards

2007-06-24T23:16:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, Logan Jenkins of the San Diego Union Tribune wrote about the settlement MiraCosta College made with President Victoria Richart to get her to go away:

"I don't know what element of the settlement to admire more.

"The $650,000 in “damages”? (You help blow up the place and then collect for your theoretical injury at the hands of dissident board members who may have illegally dissed your leadership. Fabulous!)

"Indemnification in all future lawsuits? (You walk away clean, no harm, no foul – forever!)

"The confidentiality clause? (All lips are sealed. No snitching!)

"Though not highlighted in the press, one clause of the settlement struck us as especially brilliant.

"If the college fails to pony up the dough by next Saturday, you'll “remain as Superintendent/President until those payments are made.”

"Talk about striking the fear of God into your marks. Pay me or I'll . . . stay!

"Madam president, you must be very tired, but deliriously happy."

These three comments had been posted by the time I read the piece on the Internet:

By wondering on 06/23/2007
Bravo, Mr. Jenkins !!!

By whatagreatscam on 06/23/2007
I was not even aware of all the preceding details of this situation and it was apparent to me that this circumstance is the modus operandi of this woman. Those board members must have been asleep.

By Sky173 on 06/24/2007
I guess San Diego has become the haven of every white collar crook in the U.S., be it college president, politician, or developer.

I figured, why don't I add a post, too? Here's what I said:
I hope Victoria Richart will show due respect to those who have paved the way for her. What if Daniel Shinoff's partner Leslie Devaney had never pulled off the Laurie Madigan deal in Chula Vista? In Chula Vista, the public official in charge, mayor Cheryl Cox, was also a client of Daniel Shinoff, just like the MiraCosta Board. It's remarkable the way the Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm plays both ends against the middle, with the taxpayers footing the bill for both sides!

I came back two hours later, and all four posts had been erased. I'm trying to figure out which of the rules we broke.
Here is the SDUT posting policy: "Comments containing threats, foul language or thinly disguised foul language will be deleted. Keep it civil, stay on topic and your posts will remain online."

I figure I violated the unwritten SDUT policy: "Thou shalt not speak ill of Daniel Shinoff, Leslie Devaney, or Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz."

UPDATE: All the comments were back the morning after I posted this. Thank you, SDUT!

Kogan focuses on the politics of education

2007-06-06T17:02:00.000-07:00

Just yesterday I complained that VOICE OF SAN DIEGO shortchanges education coverage, so I was delighted to see Vladimir Kogan's story today about Greg Campbell, who was apparently fired for working to organize a union at Art Institute of California.

Kogan writes:

"In a statement issued Tuesday, and in a subsequent interview, Art Institute President Elizabeth Erickson declined to discuss the details of Campbell's dismissal, though she denied that it was related to his work on behalf of the union

"'I cannot comment on any personnel issue, but I have never and will never make an employment decision based on union activity/affiliation,' she said in a written statement.

"Erickson has made no secret of her opposition to the union. In several letters distributed to staff at the college, Erickson has urged faculty members to not sign the union authorization cards.

"She ended one memo on the drive, dated April 26, with a sentence written in bold capitals: "You may be signing up for more than you bargained for!" (Erickson said her intention was to warn faculty that signing the union cards would entangle them in a legally binding contract.)"

Obviously, Erickson thinks she has plausible deniability, but I think most people would understand from her words that she was threatening the jobs of people trying to form a union.

Erickson stated further that a union "would only reduce her ability to work personally and one-on-one with individual faculty members."

She refused to answer a question about her position on an academic senate without a union. She said: "I would say that I don't choose to answer that question."

If Erickson were really interested in education, she'd be in more of a learning mode herself. She obviously thinks she knows all there is to know about the subjects and methods that would benefit her students.

That's not too likely. I think the school would benefit from more input from the faculty.

Both the San Diego Union-Tribune and the Voice of San Diego Could Do Better

2007-06-05T09:14:00.000-07:00

The San Diego Union Tribune has many talented reporters, but I believe that SDUT journalists are thwarted constantly in their efforts to get out the truth. I'm interested in education, and I've long believed that Voice of San Diego might have done as good a job on education reporting as Chris Moran and Leonel Sanchez do at the Union-Tribune if the VOSD editorial staff hadn't changed.

I felt that Marsha Sutton was knowledgeable about education and sincere in her desire to improve it, but was not aggressive about telling the real story.

I noticed her big two-installment article about school financing in 2006 never even mentioned how much SDCOE spends on lawyers. Even the SDUT has printed some pretty aggressive reporting about school lawyers Bonny Garcia and Daniel Shinoff. What gives? Why was Marsha Sutton more gentle with Garcia and Shinoff than the Union Tribune was?

The SDUT isn't telling all about one of its favorite newsmakers

2007-05-24T14:18:00.000-07:00

CVESD UPDATE: For news about the $1 million jury award in the Danielle Coziahr v. CVESD lawsuit, click HERE.

David Washburn of the San Diego Union Tribune wrote on May 18, 2007, regarding the recent lawsuit against Vencent Donlan and his wife Robin Donlan, "...Robin Donlan, who teaches fourth grade at Hilltop Drive Elementary in Chula Vista, is cooperating with federal investigators to an “unprecedented degree.”

Any cooperation at all from Robin Donlan in the investigation of crime is unprecedented, in my experience.

Robin's lawyer David Hiden said "she has waived attorney-client and spousal privileges and agreed to informal interviews."

In a civil lawsuit filed about four years ago against Robin Donlan for misdemeanors committed against Maura Larkins at Castle Park Elementary School District, Robin's entire defense was based on attorney-client privilege. Her argument was that any subject she had ever discussed with her attorney was something she should not have to answer questions about. Robin answered only ONE written interrogatory in San Diego Superior Court case no. 781970, and she answered it EIGHT MONTHS after it was served on her, when she knew that the plaintiff had already found out the answer to the question. (The answer was found by a private investigator at a cost of several hundred dollars.) Robin Donlan's brother, Michael Carlson, who is a sheriff's deputy in Santa Barbara, never answered a single interrogatory, nor showed up for a deposition. But perhaps he could be helpful in the current case. He could tell his sister that he puts people in jail all the time for being in possession of stolen property.

While Robin Colls Donlan's cooperation in answering questions is clearly a brand new behavior, some of her other behavior hasn't changed at all.

Robin ensnared a lot of her friends in her crimes, but they all stood loyally by her, claiming the same attorney-client privilege, and committing felonies to cover up her misdemeanors. Robin, on the other hand, seems to have turned against her husband. That's probably wise, since the FBI might be a bit tougher than Robin's victim in the previous case.

Donlan turned against Chula Vista Elementary School District after it had paid many $100,000's of taxpayer dollars to defend her. The San Diego Union Tribune wrote frequently about her attacks on the school district in 2004 when she was transferred to a new school. The district had to spend EVEN MORE MONEY TO DEFEND ITSELF FROM Robin Donlan, after it had spent so much TO DEFEND HER.

Here's what I'm wondering. If Robin really believed that she had HONESTLY AND GENUINELY come into millions of dollars in wealth, why didn't she pay back the taxpayers for all the money they spent on her? Robin's former lawyer Daniel Shinoff is still living high off taxpayer dollars, but the students of Chula Vista Elementary schools could sure use the money.

Interestingly, today's paper says 30 former officials at Mira Costa College are outraged by the college president, Victoria Richart. It seems she funnelled around a million dollars to Daniel Shinoff and school staff to investigate "the errant, but well-intentioned, actions of a teacher struggling to make her program the best in the state." This quote is from a letter from the 30 former officials.

My own personal opinion is, if a public entity is doing business with Daniel Shinoff or Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, that public entity is probably involved in dirty business. Chula Vista Elementary trustees Cheryl Cox, Bertha Lopez, Pamela Smith, Larry Cunningham and Pat Judd wanted lawyers who would be willing to commit crimes to cover up crimes, so they chose Daniel Shinoff of Stutz and Mark Bresee of Parham & Rajcic.

This is certainly true of Grossmont Cuyamaca Community College, where chancellor Omero Suarez changed his own contract without permission, but the lawless board kept him on. He and Dan Shinoff are apparently doing exactly what the board wants. The board clearly does not value honesty. If it did, how could it get away with violating the law so often?

Thumbs up for Tanya Mannes

2007-05-20T09:48:00.000-07:00

Tanya Mannes impressed me this morning with her excellent article about San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis and her mysterious "Public Integrity Unit."

The unit has indicted one person in fourteen months.

That person was Jason Moore, an aide to former Chula Vista mayor Steve Padilla. Jason Moore made the mistake of being caught by Cheryl Cox's associates trying to take photographs at a secretive fundraiser with Cox's disgraced family friend David Malcolm.

Here is the article.

The SDUT and Robin and Vencent Donlan

2007-05-05T10:53:00.000-07:00

To Chris Moran:

For years the San Diego Union Tribune has refused to allow you to tell the truthabout Robin Donlan's crimes at Castle Park Elementary.

Now that Donlan been sued for $7.7 million by Wireless Facilities, and is underinvestigation by the FBI, SEC, IRS and DOJ, will your bosses Karen Winner and William Osborne finally let you tell the truth about Donlan and the CVESD board and their CTA friends local presidents Gina Boyd, Jim Groth, and CTA attorney Michael Hersh?

Maura Larkins

P.S. I know she's under investigation by the above organizations
because all of them have visited my website looking for information
about her.

Oops! Did the SDUT say too much?

2007-04-27T10:06:00.000-07:00

The San Diego Union Tribune hides the wrondoing of public officials it likes. But the SDUT did give a perfect description of how those officials go about their business in the first paragraph of an article on April 22, 2007:

"San Diego County Officials aren't actively helping the Chargers find a new stadium site--they met only once with team representatives last year--yet since September they've paid $109,787 to two consultants who specialize in stadium deals."

The SDUT article goes on to note that a "one-hour phone call at a cost of $585" was part of the bill for something the county supervisors pretend NOT to be working on.

Gee whiz, you don't think Greg Cox and the all-Republican board of supervisors is trying to steer a stadium deal to Chula Vista, where his wife is mayor, do you? These consultants, who cost an average of $506 per hour, won't steer the Chargers away from cities with Democratic mayors, will they? Well, if they do, it's probably good for the Democrats. The Chargers have a tendency to drain money from any city that builds them a stadium.

San Diego County Supervisor Greg Cox pays public money to lawyers to get him what he wants, but pretends he himself is not involved. This is exactly how his wife, Cheryl Cox, operated in Chula Vista Elementary School District with her lawyers
Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz.

The Cox Collaborative sets up lawyers with an assignment, then continues to channel public money to those lawyers while looking the other way. A public employee is appointed as go-between so that the Coxes don't have to communicate directly with the lawyers. They can claim ignorance of all the dirty deeds--unless someone actually provides the Coxes with the proof of the misdeeds.

The Coxes were provided with proof that Daniel Shinoff and Kelly Angell (AKA Minnehan) obstructed justice and suborned perjury on Cheryl Cox's behalf. Rather than investigate, Cheryl Cox said that the lawyers had told her not to talk about the matter.

Cute little scheme, isn't it? Greg and Cheryl aren't as dumb as they pretend to be. They are, however, every bit as secretive and dishonest as they appear to be.

Free the San Diego Union Tribune Five!

2007-04-15T10:58:00.000-07:00

The San Diego Union Tribune refuses to allow its reporters to write the full story about many events, particularly wrongdoing by people of whom the SDUT is fond.

The strange events at Castle Park Elementary are one such story. Click here to read more about what went wrong in Chula Vista Elementary School District.

When will Karen Winner, William Osborne and Bob Kittle allow reporters to practice journalistic ethics? They might want to start with the fine reporters who cover education issues around the county. I am speaking about good reporters like Chris Moran and Leonel Sanchez. I am most definitely NOT speaking of Don Sevrens, who writes anonymously about education. Winner, Osborne and Kittle should forbid Don Sevrens from writing any more anonymous stories about education. He's told enough whoppers already.

Below is the latest installment of the Castle Park Elementary story, taken from the CVESD Reporter Blog.
___________________________________________________________________________________
CHULA VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT 2005-06 HOAX ON BEHALF OF CHERYL COX TO COVER UP CVESD WRONGDOING

Chula Vista is not the place to go if you are looking for equal protection of the law. It makes a big difference to the CVPD if you're a Republican or Democrat. Republicans like Cheryl Cox get help from the CVPD in covering up crimes and other wrongdoing.

On the other hand, a Democratic employee of the City of Chula Vista who took two hours off work to spy on a Cheryl Cox fundraiser has been charged by Bonnie Dumanis with perjury for not admitting he was doing political work on the job.

There's a lot of political work being done on the job in Chula Vista, but you don't hear much about the work done by Republicans in the police department.

The Chula Vista Police Department is a friend of Cheryl Cox, who was a Chula Vista Elementary school board member before she was elected mayor. The CVPD failed for over a year to investigate a financial crime at Castle Park Elementary School reported in 2005. Why? The CVPD has a knee-jerk policy of covering up wrongdoing by Cheryl Cox and Chula Vista Elementary School District.

In 2006 I pursued a public records request for months before the CVPD admitted that it had a record of a police visit to Castle Park Elementary on April 21, 2001. When they decided I wasn't likely to go away, I finally received a copy of the Castle Park Elementary School "call" report.*

But the Chula Vista Police Department was doing a lot more than illegally hiding public records in its efforts to support Cheryl Cox's campaign for mayor of Chula Vista in 2006.

Between 2000 and 2006 a long string of crimes had been committed at Castle Park Elementary. Cheryl Cox and CVESD committed bigger and bigger crimes to prevent the exposure of earlier, smaller crimes and violations of law committed at Castle Park Elementary in 2000 and 2001.

See "Castle Park Elementary," "Teacher Reports," and "Law Enforcement" at MAURALARKINS.COM (link available on this blog's link list).

In 2005-2006, the most newsworthy crime being covered up by the CVPD and the media to protect Cheryl Cox and the CVESD school board was the embezzlement of about $20,000 from the Castle Park Elementary PTA.

Apparently fearing that this crime would eventually become public knowlege, perhaps because it was being reported by this blog and the San Diego Education Report website, the Chula Vista Police Department seems to have developed a plan in November 2006 to create the appearance that it was no longer covering up the embezzlement. Of course, by November 7, 2006, the election was over. The cover-up was successful. Larry Cunningham crowed that voters had seen throught the lies of his opponents. The truth is that the voters saw almost nothing because Larry and Cheryl had spent hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to cover up crimes and other violations of law at CVESD.

The police asked former Castle Park PTA president Kim Simmons to come in the CVPD office, where she was interviewed and arrested. Was Simmons arrested after a careful investigation? No, the CVPD does not carefully investigate incidents that might embarrass Cheryl Cox and the school board. CVPD arrested Kim Simmons simply to create the impression that they weren't covering up Castle Park crimes, and passed on their humble efforts to District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis.

What did Bonnie Dumanis do? Prosecute the crime? Not likely. Just as she had refused to prosecute CVESD Assistant Superintedent Richard Werlin for obstruction of justice, she also refused to prosecute Kim Simmons.

Why? Maybe because Kim Simmons knew too much about crimes at Castle Park Elementary.

Did I mention that Kim Simmons was a close friend of transferred teacher Robin Donlan, a member of a powerful teacher clique at Castle Park Elementary that received a great deal of support form local papers when she and several other teachers were transferred out of the school?

Robin Donlan and her friends created a bizarre brouhaha, in which they and the media attacked the principal of Castle Park Elementary without ever mentioning the crimes of which Donlan had been accused. The truth was that the principal was attacked for daring to challenge the authority of the "family" that had created a crime wave at the school.

In October 2004, Kim Simmons entered a Castle Park Elementary classroom, and asked to use the school phone during class time so she could call up Robin Donlan and ask for instructions on how to proceed with her attacks on the principal of the school. The teacher gave permission, and took the opportunity to explain to her students that she was "mad at the principal." (There has been a dearth of professionalism at Castle Park Elementary since this "Castle Park Family" teacher group took over.)

Kim Simmons, along with Gina Boyd, the president of the teacher union, and school site council President Felicia Starr were working with transferred teacher Robin Donlan to get rid of the first principal who had had the nerve to stand up to the arbitrary power of the group of teachers who ruled the school.

What was Cheryl Cox's role in all this? She and all the other board members authorized the payment of hundreds of thousands of public dollars to Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz law firm to represent Robin Donlan and cover up the crimes initiated by her and Assistant Superintendent Richard Werlin and several other CVESD officers and employees in 2000 and 2001. After fostering perjury and other crimes, and using huge sums of public money to keep bad teachers in power, Cheryl Cox ran for mayor on a platform of "charater" and "fiscal responsibility."

The San Diego Union Tribune has maintained to this day a complete black-out regarding crimes committed by Robin Donlan, Richard Werlin, Cheryl Cox and others at CVESD. On November 17, 2006 the SDUT published a small article about the arrest of former PTA Kim Simmons. The story immediately went into "partially hidden" status in the Union-Tribunes archives. (If someone does a signonsandiego search for "castle park PTA Simmons," he'll get a message back saying "No articles found.) The article can only be found by leaving "simmons" out of the search. If you already know about Kimberlee Simmons, the San Diego Union Tribune doesn't want you to know more.

Of course, there has been no follow-up to the SDUT story. But there should be--because the story created the false impression that the police were actually intending to do something about crime at Castle Park Elementary. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The police waited until Cox was elected, and then they did their hoax arrest, but Kim Simmons was never charged with anything.

When wil the SD Union Tribune publish the full story, revealing Kim Simmons' close association to Robin Donlan and the "Castle Park Five"? When will the San Diego Union Tribune apologize for so maliciously attacking the honorable and decent principal of Castle Park Elementary on behalf of Robin Donlan, Kim Simmons, and the rest of their clique, after the group was found to be responsible for yet another crime after the SDUT had written so much on its behalf? How about it, Don Sevrens?

The SDUT November 2006 story about Simmons arrest was published to create the impression that Bonnie Dumanis and the Chula Vista Police Department are not covering up crimes involving Cheryl Cox and Castle Park Elementary School. It appears that Simmons wasn't really the fall guy; she was actually the pretend fall guy.

Bonnie Dumanis, why don't you investigate the use of public resources for political purposes at CVPD? Why don't you investigate crimes at Chula Vista Elementary School District, including perjury by Cheryl Cox and Robin Donlan? Or do you only use the public resources under your control to investigate Democrats?

*The police "call' report that was hidden for months by the CVPD revealed Assistant Superintendent Richard Werlin's attempt to silence a teacher who had suggested that the media might investigate what was happening at the school in 2001. The teacher clearly knew nothing about the media in San Diego. The San Diego Union Tribune, the Chula Vista Star-News and La Prensa still have not reported those crimes, although all three newspapers have long known about them. These three publications exposed their lack of journalistic ethics when they published a deluge of letters, articles and editorials defending the teacher, Robin Colls/Donlan who initiated the crime wave! All three papers were incensed when Robin Colls was transferred from Castle Park Elementary. Richard Werlin, who called the police when the teacher mentioned the media, didn't correctly estimate the power of his Chula Vista Elementary School Board bosses, including Cheryl Cox, to silence the media. Werlin did go on to achieve a certain amount of notoriety for his use of the police to silence teachers. He had second-grade teacher Jenny Mo arrested in front of her students at his new school district in Richmond, California this year when the teacher went to the media with a story about bullying at her school. Of course, Werlin didn't step up and take the credit/blame for the arrest. He let the principal sit in the hot seat, while he took indefinite sick leave from his position.

San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial contained false statements of fact

2007-02-10T10:05:00.000-08:00

When Don Sevrens endorsed Felicia Starr for the Chula Vista Elementary School District board in 2006, he claimed that she must be ethical because she had been appointed by a judge.

The San Diego Union-Tribune editor's claim was false. No judge supported Felicia Starr's appointment to the ethics board.

I obtained this letter from a judge through a public records request to the City of Chula Vista.

SDUT supports return of ReadyReturn: THUMBS UP!

2006-12-27T15:01:00.000-08:00

The Franchise Tax Board made it easy for the poor to file their tax returns: it sends them a filled-out form that just needs to be signed and sent back if they agree with it.

But the California legislature, after lobbying by the TurboTax folks, stopped the practice. Steve Westly and the brave members of the Franchise Tax Board then brought ReadyReturn back!

Note to the California legislature: send the TurboTax lobbyists home! The poor shouldn't have to pay TurboTax for extremely simple tax returns.

SDUT supports Byrd-Obey earmark ban: THUMBS UP!

2006-12-27T14:16:00.000-08:00

San Diego Union Tribune today supported a ban on congressional earmarks. The SDUT noted that the new (Democratic) chairmen of the Senate and House appropriations committees STRIPPED ABOUT 10,000 EARMARKS FROM THE SPENDING BILLS THAT THE LAST (Republican) CONGRESS NEVER GOT AROUND TO PASSING. The SDUT also noted that Democrats and Republicans have often colluded in approving pork for each other's districts.

Write your representatives, the SDUT said. You got it, Bob Kittle. I wrote to DUNCAN HUNTER, DIANNE FEINSTEIN, BARBARA BOXER, and told them I want them to vote to end earmarks. I said our country cannot continue to be for sale, and still endure as a democracy.

Don't sell us out, I said.