ABC News Wrong to Suspend Brian Ross

It's been a hectic week, otherwise I would have responded sooner to ABC News' suspension of Brian Ross for four weeks without pay, after he erroneously reported that Michael Flynn had been directed by candidate  Donald Trump to make contact with the Russians.

The report was erroneous - not sufficiently investigated or vetted by Ross - but his suspension is an even worse affront to professional, truthful journalism.

As I point out and detail in Fake News in Real Context, reporters and news media have always made errors - unsurprising, given that reporters are human.  That's why there has long been an "errata" note at the bottom of many front pages of The New York Times.  What make fake news fake is not that it is in error, but that is deliberately designed to be that way - intended to deceive.

Trump and his minions, who first became purveyors of fake news in the 2016 election - and fake news itself has always been with us, see the "Blood Libel" in medieval Europe - cleverly sought to turn this charge on its head and smear truthful, honest reporting as fake news.  In Trump-speak, fake news is any report that Trump finds unwelcome.

Understandably, legitimate media are especially sensitive to the need for their reporting to be truthful.  But suspending an excellent reporter for making an error is playing right into Trump's hands, by removing from the field, for whatever the period of time, an honest warrior in the fight for truth, which is in turn a fight for democracy.

To ABC News and all news media: Admit your errors, sure.  By all means apologize for them.  The same for your reporters.  But don't hold human beings, including journalists, to impossible standards of perfection. You don't need to prove to Trump that you're not fake news.  Everyone (including him) know that you're real.  We need human journalists, not angels (who are not readily available), to counter Trump's assault on reason.

MSNBC & ABC Call Pennsylvania for Obama; CNN, Fox, CBS Say Too Close to Call

Two of the five major television networks have just called Pennsylvania for Obama - MSNBC and ABC. The three other major networks - CNN, Fox, and CBS - say it's currently too close to call.

If MSNBC and ABC are right, then Obama is extremely likely to win the election. Kerry won Pennsylvania in 2004. If Obama has now won that state, then all he needs to do is pick off one or two other states in which Bush won in 2004 - and there are many. McCain's last ditch Pennsylvania strategy failed.

Fascinating how the networks differ in their calls.

But I'm thinking two out of five networks calls will be enough for Obama to be President.

More soon.

I'm Withdrawing My Support of Ron Paul's Candidacy

I am withdrawing my support for Ron Paul. I have been urging, since last March, that people should support the best candidate in each of the two parties, and Ron Paul was far and away my choice among the Republican contenders.

My reasons for that support remain. Ron Paul's respect for our Constitution, and his opposition to our undeclared war which follows from that, and his support of the First Amendment which also stems from his standing up for the Constitution, are still among the most crucial issues of our day. Ron Paul's positions on those issues are better than any other candidates' positions in either party (including the positions of Barack Obama, whom I am supporting for the Democratic nomination).

But I nonetheless can no longer support Ron Paul's candidacy. The reasons are presented in some detail, with citations, in this Wikipedia entry entitled the Ron Paul Report newsletter controversy. This newsletter, published under various, slightly different titles for decades, but always under Ron Paul's name, contained racist and homophobic remarks utterly repugnant to me. Here's a sample from The New Republic article:

The January 1991 edition of the Political Report refers to King as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and a "flagrant plagiarist with a phony doctorate."

A February 1991 newsletter attacks "The X-Rated Martin Luther King."

An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" would be better alternatives--and says, "Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house."

Gays

In the course of defending homophobic comments by Andy Rooney of CBS, a 1990 newsletter notes that a reporter for a gay magazine "certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist."

The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."

Ron Paul, to his credit, has taken "moral responsibility" for such comments, explaining that they were written by ghostwriters and did not represent his views. Reuters yesterday carried an official statement by Ron Paul that further said he did not directly edit the offensive newsletters.

Nonetheless, he also has failed to identify said ghostwriters, let alone vociferously denounce them, and sue them for every penny.

What would you do if a newsletter under your name, authorized by you, published such comments - or any comments that you vehemently disagreed with?

Whatever Ron Paul did, however much he disagreed with those comments, his response was not enough. Not enough for a person who is seriously putting himself forth as a candidate for President.

To be clear, I will continue to hold arrogant media such as Fox News to account for abusing Ron Paul's candidacy and the democratic process by excluding him from debates. And the same to ABC News and other mainstream media for belittling his levels of support.

And I will think about whom I can now support as the best Republican.

But it can longer be Ron Paul. Much as I admire his clear thinking and courage in speaking up for the Constitution, he should have done more in speaking out about and denouncing the scurrilous, sickening comments in the newsletters published under his name.

See also this angry, understandable reaction from another Ron Paul supporter: Ron Paul's Betrayal of America

High Point of Fox Republican Debate Without Ron Paul: Ron Paul Supporters Carrying Signs Outside the Window

Well, I broke down and took a look at the Fox Rump Republican Presidential debate tonight - without Ron Paul, who got 10% of the Iowa vote - and I thought by far the most significant moment came when Ron Paul supporters walked by with nice big signs of protest outside the window, and Brit Hume and company analyzed what had happened during the 90-minute debate in New Hampshire.

I also kept an eye on the CNN replay of the excellent ABC debate from last night, so first a little comparison of the Republicans on the two nights:

1. The ABC (on CNN tonight) debate was obviously more fair and representative, since it included Ron Paul.

2. It was also far livelier, and therefore better in giving the American people a good idea of what the candidates think.

3. It also just looked better - the lightning, the seating, the general kinaesthetics of yesterday's debate was easier, more enjoyable and instructive, to look at.

As was the case last night, I thought Romney did the best in the Republican debate tonight. He was the most informative and on-point.

One interlude between Thompson and Huckabee struck me as worthy of a little attention. Thompson jumped on Huckabee for Huckabee's statement last week that Musharrif should not "continue" martial law. Huckabee has been attacked for this statement as showing ignorance that martial law had already been lifted in Pakistan.
Well, although it's true that "reinstated" might have been a better word than "continued," it's also the case that reinstatement is really a form of continuation, so Huckabee's statement is not as ignorant as Thompson and Huckabee's critics like to pretend.

***
Back to the replaying of yesterday's ABC debate on CNN tonight. I again want to congratulate ABC for that great moment in which candidates from both parties met on stage, and CNN for the daring move of rebroadcasting this debate.

Many commentators have pointed out that Obama may not have been feisty last night, but he was Presidential. Seeing some of Obama's responses again - such as his joke about watching the Redskins game along with the Republican debate - I would have to agree....

I predict that history will continue to be made on Tuesday in New Hampshire, with Obama amassing an even more impressive victory than in Iowa.

---

The Plot to Save Socrates

"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

more about The Plot to Save Socrates...





Read the first chapter of The Plot to Save Socrates .... FREE!

CNN To Rebroadcast ABC Debates Tonight - Sticks It To Fox

Tonight: CNN will rebroadcast last night's Republican and Democratic ABC Presidential debates. This is a brilliant move for several reasons:

1. The debates were among the best so far. The Republicans often look as if they they're on life support, but we were as lively as I've seen them last night. All of the Democrats were fine. See my analysis last night.

2. CNN's move sticks it to Fox, which is hosting a rump session of the Republican candidates tonight - with a shortened field of candidates that excludes Ron Paul. Bizarre and inexplicable and outrageous, given Ron Paul's 10% showing in the Iowa caucuses.

Anyone who missed the debates last night would certainly do much better to watch them on CNN tonight than look at Fox's sham.

Frankly, I saw the debates last night, and will likely watch CNN, anyway...

---

The Plot to Save Socrates

"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly

"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News

"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book

more about The Plot to Save Socrates...





Read the first chapter of The Plot to Save Socrates .... FREE!

ABC Presidential Debates in NH: Analysis

I thought tonight's Presidential debates on ABC were excellent - right up there with the YouTube debates, and in many ways the best we have seen so far. The candidates seated, the lack of strict time limits, the savvy questions all contributed in their own ways to fine discussions. Good for ABC News for putting all of this into motion (though I still strongly disagree with ABC's exclusion of Kucinich and Gravel).

In many ways, the single most extraordinary part of the debate came when the Republicans and Democrats exchanged greetings in between the two debates. As I indicated in my last blog post, this was an enjoyable, precedent-breaking piece of television debate history.

Here are some thoughts about the candidates and their performances:

1. With all my joking about Romney being a Cylon, I thought he came through as the most relaxed and natural in the Republican debate. True, he did talk about a patient going in for "repairs," but he handled the attacks from McCain and Thompson with ease and style.

2. Ron Paul, as usual, made by far the best points in substance. His response to the question about Barack Obama was especially good: Obama and I (Ron Paul), Paul said, are similar in our longstanding opposition to the war. Ron Paul also was good in his continuing emphasis on the unconstitutionality of the war - I would have been interested in what the other Republicans would have had to say about that point.

3. Hillary did very well in the Democratic debate, in tone and substance. Her best line was when she pointed out that she embodies change, given that her election would be the first time a woman was President. Very true and important. (She and Obama both, literally, embody change - unlike any of the Republicans.)

4. Edwards was good, too, especially in his attack on Hillary. But she handled that attack very well.

5. Obama, given his victory in Iowa, had to get through this debate without any gaffes. He did that. He also made the important point - in response to Hillary's point about actions counting more than words - that words are important, too. Words inspire change.

In general, though, I'd say that these debates are not Obama's strongest medium - just as they are not Ron Paul's. In the case of Obama, his speeches are more inspiring. In the case of Ron Paul, his positions have always been stronger than his presentation.

The New Hampshire primary is Tuesday. We'll see, then, what the voters think.

ABC News Debates: Great to See Republicans and Democrats on the Stage, Together

I'll be back after the Democratic part of the ABC Republican, Democratic debates with an analysis, but, for now, let me just say -

Kudos to ABC for having both the Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates on stage together, briefly, at the end of the Republican debate (which was excellent).

I've never seen anything like this before, and I applaud ABC's daring and innovation for making this happen. It's good to break with precedent - or, to create new ones - and this one is a very good one: It reminds us that all of the candidates, Democratic and Republican, are part of the same process of democracy.

More after 11pm.

Fox News and ABC News: Missing the Lesson of Mike Huckabee

I'm looking forward to the round of Presidential debates this weekend, but still can't get over the gall - and slap in the face of the American people - of ABC and Fox News not including some of the lower-tier candidates.

In ABC's case, the most egregious dis-invitation comes to Dennis Kucinich, who will not partake in Saturday's debate. For Fox, it's been accorded to Ron Paul, who is barred from the Sunday debate.

The situations are different. Kucinich is doing much worse in the polls, national and locally, than Ron Paul - who got 10% in the Iowa Republican caucus. But both candidates offer points of view - the most outspoken against the war, to cite one example - that Americans deserve to hear, and these media have no right to exclude from the debates.

Are the memories of these media giants so foggy, or are they so unable or unwilling to learn from recent history, that they forgot that Mike Huckabee, winner of the Iowa Republican caucus, was not much ahead of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich in the national polls a few months ago?

The lame explanation usually given for excluding candidates is time - not enough of it to accommodate all of the candidates. To which my wife just said, as we were talking about this issue, why not just add another hour or whatever is needed to give all candidates a chance to talk.

It's worth it, isn't it?

After all, it's only our democracy at stake...

Ron Paul Polling 9% (4th Place) in Iowa - Fox Excludes Him from New Hampshire Debate

Shame on Fox News for diving to a new low in its election coverage. With Ron Paul surging to nine percent or higher in the Iowa polls - putting him in fourth place among the Republican contenders, tied with Fred Thompson, and closing the gap with John McCain, currently in third place - Fox News decides there is no room for Ron Paul in this weekend's New Hampshire debate?

In the sad sweepstakes of which mass medium has done the worst to our democracy and its election process in the past year, ABC News has led Fox News, in particular in its denigration of Ron Paul. But Ron Paul will be appearing in this weekend's ABC debates. Leaving Fox in the disgraceful position of the network demonstrating the most contempt for our democracy.

This election will be remembered in history for a variety of reasons. Among them will be the way some of the mass media - in particular, Fox News and ABC News - betrayed their crucial role in our society to report the news without bias, to convey the events in an election rather than shape them.

Whether Ron Paul eventually wins the Republican nomination or not - and today that certainly looks like more of a possibility than ever before - his mistreatment by mass media such as Fox News will be long remembered. Excluding any candidate from a debate, let alone one in fourth place, is a move worthy of Pravda and no American medium.

If I were Rupert Murdoch, I would fire whoever it was who decided to exclude Ron Paul, and replace that person with someone who has a slightly better understanding of democracy.

ABC News Good to the Last Drop in its Dissing of Ron Paul

Several people emailed me about this - but Jason Gordon was the first, early yesterday, and he gets the credit. (Two other early correspondents were Matt Caverhill, and Lee on MySpace.) The world at large - all of you, via your Internet connections - are the eyes and ears and witnesses of the mass media doing right and wrong. Our democracy depends upon you.

This is not the worst thing that ABC has done to Ron Paul, his supporters, and thereby our democratic process - no closing down online boards in the middle of discussions, no leaving Ron Paul out of post-debate analyses, as ABC did earlier this year - but it's bad enough to warrant taking permanent note.

As Matt Simon writes about in detail in the Huffington Post, ABC shunted John Stossel's interview with Ron Paul, intended for television broadcast, to its Internet site.

Now, there's nothing wrong with the Internet, and ABC is of course entitled to decide where and how to publish its interviews ... but, who is ABC kidding here? Clearly someone decided to deprive the American people of the maximum exposure that broadcast as well as Internet posting would have given this interview.

What could have driven ABC to do this? Clearly, John Stossel is a major, well-respected broadcast journalist, and Ron Paul is certainly a candidate who has raised millions of real American dollars.

Perhaps Ron Paul's low standing in the general polls was the reason. But surely ABC is aware that Mike Huckabee, once not that much higher in the polls than Ron Paul, is now in first place in the Iowa and South Carolina polls. Is ABC so sure that can't happen again? Do we want the American Broadcast Company making such kinds of decisions for the American people?

This part of our election process is soon coming to end. Beginning with the Iowa caucus in January, America will be moving from candidates debating to candidates being voted up or down.

When the history of this 2007-2008 election process is written, ABC will have a special place of dishonor. I will certainly include a section on its misreporting and anti-democratic behavior in the next book I'll be writing - entitled New, New Media.

One can only hope that ABC will improve as we move into the next phase of this process. But I'm not holding my breath that ABC will be standing up for democracy any time soon.

Newspapers Continue to Excel, and Broadcast Media Fail, in Fair Coverage of Ron Paul

Superb video of mainstream media pundits smirking and disinforming the public about Ron Paul and his supporters...



For some reason, I find the George Stephanopoulos smug comment on ABC News at the end that Ron Paul can't possibly win - made directly to Ron Paul - the most irritating. If for no reason other than to see Stephanopolous's reaction, it would be great for Ron Paul to win at least the Republican nomination. There would be many good and profound results from that, and among them - no place close to the top of the benefits but still among them - would be once and for all exposing the damage the mass media do to our democracy, and the power of voters to overcome it.

Thanks to Lee on MySpace for bringing this video to my attention.

Meanwhile, my student Mike Plugh e-mailed me about the following New York Times article about Ron Paul today, written by Katharine Q. Seelye and Leslie Wayne. It's a fair, factual, intelligent essay on where the Ron Paul candidacy stands now, and how it got there.

As I've noted before, it's interesting that the print press by and large has been doing a much better job of reporting this election campaign, and in particular Ron Paul's candidacy, than the mainstream broadcast and cable media. Certainly, some of the television coverage of Ron Paul - Alan Colmes on Fox, Tucker Carlson and sometimes Chris Matthews on Fox - has been objective, but more often than not we get Stephanopoulos, Hannity, and their snide misrepresentations.

Possibly there is something about text - whether online or on paper - the encourages fairness and accuracy of reporting.

Whatever the reason, the election of 2008 is so far shaping up as the traditional paper press, and the Internet's, finest hour.

How Did My Fordham University Students Do On Their Midterm Question about Ron Paul?

So how did my Intro to Communication and Media Studies class at Fordham University do on their midterm exam - and, in particular, the question about Ron Paul's mistreatment by mainstream news media.

You may recall that the open book exam consisted of three questions, with students required to answer two of the three. This was the first question:

1. Consider Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign the Source of communication. Using the Shannon-Weaver model, explain all the steps that the campaign must go through, in order to reach its Destination, the American people. Make sure you address each step in the process, as well as what can (and did) go wrong in the process, and possible remedies for addressing this. (Option: If you like to do this analysis for another Presidential candidate, that would be acceptable, but make sure you have specific examples to present.)

Here is a summary of relevant results.

a. A little more than 100 students took the exam (it's a "mega"-class). Of those, about 25% answered the above question.

b. All but one of the students who answered this question chose Ron Paul as the example. (One chose John Kerry's 2004 campaign.)

c. The students who answered this question did considerably better on this question than they and other students did on other questions: more than 90% received an A or A- on this question.

d. The students who answered this question also did considerably better than other students on the overall exam. The average grade on the exam for students who answered this question was A-. The average grade for the overall class was B/B+

e. Here is an excerpt from one of the Ron Paul answers. Mariel Di Biase (a sophomore) gave permission to indicate her name:

An example of noise in the Ron Paul campaign was that ABC presented misleading information to viewers regarding Paul's number of supporters and poll evidence. Some ways to combat noise are: (1)Change the way the message is sent - 'frequency'. This could be done by repetition or 'redundancy'. Paul could repeat the message using different/alternate channels, not ABC. (2) Increase the volume or amplitude. An example would be to turn up the volume on the TV during his speech. (3) Looking for problems in the system - feedback. This could be talking to ABC and addressing the issue.

Not bad for a high-pressure, in-class midterm essay exam. I have a little more confidence in the future now...

My Sept 28 2007 Lecture at Fordham University about the Media Misreporting of Ron Paul

This is the lecture I delivered to my "Introduction to Communication and Media Studies" class at Fordham University on September 28, 2007 about the media misreporting of Ron Paul.

The lecture, with student questions at the end, was about 50 minutes. It's divided in five parts on the YouTube video, as follows: 1. history of polling ... ABC May 2007 misreporting of Ron Paul ... 2. ABC continues misreporting Ron Paul (early August 2007).... 3. Mark Levin urges disinformation against Ron Paul on ABC radio ... Kucinich gets cropped ... the First Amendment ... 4. Hannity & Colmes misreport Ron Paul on Fox News ... reasons behind all of this ... 5. I answer student questions ...

Note that the above is, of course, current only as of September 28, 2007, and contains no mention of ABC affiliate WMUR TV in New Hampshire failing to cover the Ron Paul "Family Day" rally on September 30...

Now ABC Affiliate WMUR TV Neglects to Cover Ron Paul in New Hampshire

The Free Market News Network reports that WMUR neglected to cover Ron Paul at his "Family Day" rally in Manchester, New Hampshire this past weekend. WMUR is a state-wide television operation, with headquarters in Manchester.

What struck me most about this was not the lack of coverage itself - infuriating and undemocratic - but the fact that WMUR is ... an ABC affiliate!

Just this past Friday, at the lecture I delivered to my "Intro to Communication and Media Studies" class at Fordham University (we'll have the video up on YouTube soon), I detailed a series of outrageous ABC misreportings of Ron Paul since May - ranging from leaving him out of poll results to using photography to make his supporters seem far fewer at a rally in Iowa than they in fact were. But I concluded, in an effort to be fair, that ABC seems to have been improving in the accuracy of its reporting lately, with Fox making the worst transgressions.

But here we are, once again, with a national ABC television affiliate apparently up to the same old business. If the Free Market News story is correct - and it's been up online all day with no opposing comments offered - then ABC is continuing to dig itself into a hole it may never get out of.

Because, whatever happens in this election, the shameful performance of ABC News at so many junctures - regarding mostly Ron Paul, but also, at least once, Dennis Kucinich - will not be forgotten. Indeed, I expect it will be a section in many a textbook about media and politics. I know I certainly will be putting something about this in my next edition of The Soft Edge: A Natural History and Future of the Information Revolution.


See reviews of the most recent edition of The Soft Edge.

Rating the News Networks in their Election Campaign Coverage

With the Fall at our doorstep, and the lecture I'm giving to my class at Fordham University about the media mistreatment of Ron Paul just a week away, I thought I'd share with you a little list I put together, which ranks the five major TV news networks on their coverage of Ron Paul as well as other presidential candidates these past six months.

Since I'm not omniscient, I may have missed some network errors and abuses. All corrections and additions are welcome in the comment section.

1. CNN: in first place. They've done nothing wrong that I know of, and get kudos for the YouTube CNN debate a few months ago, in which questions came from people who submitted videos to YouTube, rather than so-called experts in the media. CNN decided which questions to air, but this is still a real breakthrough in the democratization of media.

2. MSNBC has in general done a fine job in its reporting of Ron Paul and the other campaigns. MSNBC commentators Tucker Carlson and Pat Buchanan have been public and explicit in their support of Ron Paul. But MSNBC got off to a bit off a rough start. Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, discussing the candidates' positions on the war after the debate of May 4, neglected to mention that Ron Paul has been systematically against the war. They both improved their reporting considerably, shortly thereafter.

3. CBS has done nothing wrong in its coverage of the current campaigns, either, as far as I know. But I put CBS in third place because of its continuing graceless treatment of Dan Rather, who was forced out of CBS after courageously reporting about George Bush's military past, in the election of 2004.

4. Now we take a sharp turn downward with Fox News. Hannity and Colmes denigrated Ron Paul's first place finish in the Fox phone-in poll conducted after the last Republican Presidential debate on Fox - the two claimed that Ron Paul's supporters were multiple-dialing. Not only was there no evidence for this, it turns out a second call from the same phone resulted in a text reply that the vote wouldn't count. O'Reilly, to his credit, did have Ron Paul on his show. But to O'Reilly's discredit, he barely gave Ron Paul a chance to get a word in edgewise.

5. ABC is in the cellar. Worse than Fox, ABC failed to mention on at least one occasion that Ron Paul came in first in its post-debate poll. It removed comments from Ron Paul supporters on its online board, and then proceeded to shut it down. ABC also showed a lone Ron Paul supporter before the Iowa caucus, in contrast to big crowds for Romney, when in fact Ron Paul had big crowds of supporters, too. Then there was Mark Levin, in ABC's radio line-up, who called upon his listeners to call up Ron Paul headquarters with advice that Ron Paul couldn't win. And, just for good measure, ABC spread some its abuse around, and cropped Dennis Kucinich out of a photo Democratic contenders.

The good news for Fox and ABC is that the election campaigns are continuing, and they can change their ways. Actually, Fox has been worse than ABC in the past month, and that may be a sign that ABC is finally seeing the error of its ways.

I'd like to see all five major news networks report the election campaigns truthfully. The American people require no less.

I'll continue to keep you posted.

Complete YouTube Video of My Aug 28 Talk about Ron Paul and Mass Media, at the Village Pourhouse in NYC

My complete talk about Ron Paul at the Village Pourhouse on August 28th follows. The venue was the back room of a boisterous drinking house ... it's good to think that our Founding Fathers took part in many a meeting in a similar room, as they hammered out the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which are under attack today, which Ron Paul supports, and which is the subject of much of my talk...


1. Introduction ... unconstitutional wars and attacks on the First Amendment, prior to 2007...


2. Discussion of four instances of ABC's misreporting, distorting, and undermining of Ron Paul's campaign for the Presidency... newspapers did better than broadcasters ... Fox not as bad as ABC...


3. Two remedies for mass media misreporting ... rational public discourse (as per Milton and Jefferson) ... increasing numbers of people speaking the truth ... beginning of q & a ... why did Internet fail for Howard Dean in 2004 ... infancy of social media in 2004 ... mass media suffer from trampling of 1st Amendment...


4. q & a continues ... "fairness doctrine" and attempt to muzzle right-wing radio is unconstitutional ... Hillary Clinton and 1st Amendment ... the lesson of Socrates ... conclusion


Books mentioned in the talk ...


The Soft Edge: A Natural History and Future of the Information Revolution


The Plot to Save Socrates

also ... my other YouTube videos ... complete run of clips of me v. Bill O'Reilly, Jack Thompson, Pat Buchanan, etc...

Ron Paul Has Company: Now ABC Crops Out Kucinich, Buries Poll

Well, no one can accuse ABC News of being biased in the way it metes out its destructively biased reporting: MediaBloodhound has published a chilling account of what ABC did to Dennis Kucinich in its reporting of the Democratic debate that took place on ABC News' This Week with George Stephanopoulos on August 19 in Iowa.

ABC cropped Kucinich out a photo of the Democratic candidates, and buried its own online poll which had Kucinich leading. Followers of the abusive reporting ABC News has been giving Ron Paul will be all too familiar with these techniques. ABC News is clearly an equal opportunity abuser when it comes to reporting on the Presidential campaign, and doing the job expected and required by the American people.

What do Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul have in common that they should attract such mistreatment? Both are forthright against the war. Kucinich has a good record of respecting the Constitution (though, unlike Ron Paul, Kucinich forgot about the First Amendment and voted for legislation to make flag desecration illegal - Kucinich forgot that the First Amendment is not about protecting communication you like, which needs no protection, but about protecting communication you do not like).

But Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul's greatest mutual sin in ABC's eyes, apparently, is that ABC does not take them seriously as candidates. And this leads ABC - maybe in a desperate, misguided attempt to be relevant - to commit grievous lies of omission in its reporting on these candidates.

What has gone so wrong at ABC? At least four cases of distortive reporting about Ron Paul, and now this about Kucinich? ABC was once, not that long ago, a pretty good news operation. Nightline with Ted Koppel was on the cutting edge.

It's at least partly due, I think, to ABC being pretty much out of it on cable and online news. Whoever is calling these shots at ABC News doesn't understand what it is obvious to CNN, Fox, and MSNBC: there is a whole new world of politics out there.

But, whatever the reason, ABC is forfeiting whatever right it once had to be taken seriously, or even to keep reporting the election. I would call upon the FCC to look into revoking its licenses, but that would be unconstitutional.

So I'll confine myself to expanding the section on media misreporting I'll be teaching at Fordham University starting in September - if ABC keeps this up, I'll have enough material for an entire course - and urge the American people to stop watching this benighted network.

Podcast with the Entire Sloan Ranger Interview of Paul Levinson About Media Misreporting of Ron Paul

Hey - if you missed this Tuesday's Sloan Ranger show on WGNU Radio - out of St. Louis and live-streaming everywhere - and his interview with me about the media misreporting of Ron Paul, I have it all for you here in this podcast:

Light On Light Through podcast page, with show notes and mp3 player

or just the mp3, that you can listen to right here

The full 20-minute interview, no commercials, in which I discuss four examples of ABC News misreporting and worse. Lloyd Sloan - aka the Sloan Ranger - and a Jeffersonian like me, offers an example of his own, and we also discuss media bias in general, its history and its ubiquity. The discussion inevitably touched on the First Amendment (I admire Ron Paul's rare, unstinting support of it), and I offered my view that the FCC, in daily abrogating this crucial part of our Constitution, is treasonous.

More soon...

Talking About Media Misreporting of Ron Paul this Tues Night in Manhattan

Hey - a heads-up for everyone in the New York area, with an interest in the mainstream and Internet media coverage of the 2008 Presidential election, and its current percolating campaigns:

I've been invited to talk to the New York City Ron Paul Meet-Up group at 7:30pm this Tuesday - in particular, about the media's misreporting and in one case outright attack on Ron Paul, and what can be done about it.

I'll be talking at the Village Pourhouse on 11th Street and 3rd Avenue (southwest corner) for 30-45 minutes, followed by 15-30 mins for questions and answers.

The meeting room will be spacious. The general public is welcome. Admission will be free.

I think the media coverage of our election campaigns thus far should be of concern to anyone who values our democracy.

Ron Paul and his supporters, in particular, have received less than truthful treatment from a variety of media. ABC News and its affiliates has had the greatest confluence of misreporting, and I'll be talking in particular about ABC's posting of misleading photos, reporting of Internet poll results which left out Ron Paul's standing, and, in the case of ABC radio talkshow host Mark Levin, about his urging listeners to call Ron Paul headquarters with hostile comments. In short, I'll be discussing the many abuses I've been loudly blogging about here for the past weeks.

Readers of Infinite Regress also know I'd be outraged about such media malfeasance whomever I supported, but I do support Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for President. That's easy for me to do, for two reasons. 1. I think our country's disregard of the Constitution - whether it's trampling on the First Amendment or going to war without the Declaration of War required - has gotten us into enormous difficulties. Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party with a lifelong commitment to supporting the Constitution. 2. My second reason for supporting Ron Paul for the Republican nomination is that the other Republican candidates are simply impossible for me to support - three of them don't believe in evolution, and most support the Bush administration's continuation of the war in Iraq. (In all honesty, the last Republican I voted for in any election was John Lindsay in the 1969 NYC mayoral race. He won, and soon after switched his affiliation to the Democrats.)

But there are Democrats I admire in this Presidential election, too. Indeed, any of them is easily better than any of the Republicans, with the exception of Ron Paul. But the three leading Democratic contenders - Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards (in that order for me) also have qualities that would make me consider their candidacies very seriously (not to mention Al Gore, who at this point is not in the running). And "second-tier" candidates Kucinich and Biden have much to commend them, too.

Accordingly, I'm urging everyone to work for the best candidate receiving the nomination in each party. And in the happy event that this happens, we can then decide in the general election who is better - the Democrat or the Republican - to lead this country.

But, whichever candidate you support, I hope you agree that our democracy is best served by truthful media coverage. How can we make a rational decision when we're fed misleading and false information? When that happens, we are being starved of the basis of our democracy.

It would be good to see you on Tuesday. And I'll be posting a postscript here to my talk later Tuesday night or early Wednesday.

complete YouTube video of my talk

Further details on two of the above points:

ABC's Abuse of American Electorate to Be Included in my Curriculum This Fall

Something New: How About We Look for Best Candidates in =Both= Parties?

ABC Mark Levin's Campaign of Disinformation Against Ron Paul

The latest in the mainstream media's bizarre and destructive campaign against Ron Paul and his supporters - actually, more ABC's than any other medium - comes from the WABC New York and nationally syndicated ABC radio talk host, Mark Levin.

As you can see on his web page, he's urging his listeners and web-page readers to "Call Ron Paul's office and tell him he can't win."

What kind of ham-handed campaign of disinformation is that?

Levin describes himself as "one of America's preeminent conservative commentators and constitutional lawyers."

I would describe Levin as a Nixonian dirty trickster, in the Donald Segretti and Watergate scandal tradition.

Ron Paul and his supporters should actually wear Levin's sleazy tactics as a badge of honor. They should be proud that someone who lists Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity among his favorite links, and who supports the Bush administration as if it were Abraham Lincoln's, has seen fit to try to undermine Ron Paul's campaign in this underhanded way. It means that Hannity and his ilk see Ron Paul as a threat, which indeed they should.

Ron Paul deeply believes in the First Amendment and freedom of speech, as do I, and therefore I would never call for Levin and his mouth to be taken off the air. Levin is entitled to urge all the despicable things in politics his mind can conjure.

But he can count on me to keep calling him out for what he is - a person, like Nixon's henchmen, with no respect for the democratic process. His continued presence on ABC's airwaves is yet another black mark against that benighted network, and another case study that I and no doubt other professors will be teaching their students about for many years to come.



See also - ABC's Abuse of American Electorate to Be Included in my Curriculum This Fall

and More ABC News Distortion to be Included in My Curriculum

and The Media Disenfranchising of Ron Paul

and Newspaper Coverage of Ron Paul in Iowa: B+