The Freedom of Speech

The “U.S. vs. Libby” lawsuit did not only put an administration and its actions in the wake of the Iraq war on trial, but featured many stars of the political media landscape on the witness stand.

I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former top aide to Vice-President Dick Cheney was on trial for purgery and obstruction to federal investigations, but with Bob Woodward, Tim Russert, Robert Novak, Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, some of Washington’s most influential journalists were questioned about their involvement in the leak of a C.I.A. undercover agent.

In March 2002, Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, is sent on a trip to Niger on behalf of the C.I.A. He is ordered to look for evidence that Niger sold nuclear technology to Iraq. Shortly after his return, Wilson explains that there was nothing to that story. Still, President Bush will use it as an argument to defend an invasion of Iraq in his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003. He announces that British intelligence has gathered evidence that Iraq bought significant amounts of nuclear explosives in Africa.

In July of 2003, Wilson publishes an op-ed column in The New York Times with the title “What I did not find in Africa” and erodes Washington, especially the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney and his aide Scooter Libby.

A few months prior to that, in Mai of 2003, Libby and Rove react to an article by N.Y. Times writer Nicholas Kristof, who reports that an unknown ambassador has visited Niger and could not find any connection between this country and Iraq.

In an attempt to discredit Wilson, Libby and Rove talk to several reporters and leak the name of Wison’s wife, C.I.A undercover agent Valerie Plame, who reportedly sent him on this trip. After those 15 famous words of President Bush in his State of the Union, the administration blamed the C.I.A. for the mistake.

Libby learned of this connection in May of 2003 by a state department official, but claimed during the first hearings that he lost his memory about those talks because of the flood of information that came in during this period of time.

In June of 2003, Libby talks to N.Y. Times reporter Judith Miller several times about Valerie Plame’s identity, so the charges. Leaking her identity would be present a felony.

A week earlier, Bob Woodward, writer for the Washington Post, talks to Secretary of State Richard Armitage and becomes the first to learn about Plame’s identity. Armitage admits these talks with Woodward and is not charged due to inadvertence.

Armitage will also talk to Robert Novak, who will later become the first journalist to publish the story. Bob Woodward, until this day, remains the only person involved in this issue, not to have written a single article about it. He never saw it as an important enough topic. Later on, Woodward will talk to Scooter Libby about the Wilsons.

In July of 2003, Wilson’s op-ed column is published in The New York Times and Dick Cheney gets involved in the dealings. He writes notes next to the article, questioning if the C.I.A. has done this sort of thing before: Sending an ambassador on a covert mission. He also asks in these notes if his wife might have been the one that sent him.

Scooter Libby, shortly after, talks to Ari Fleischer, then Press Secretary of the White House, about the issue and the connection to Plame and adds, that not many people would know about this. Ari Fleischer confirms this talk, but Libby claims he has never talked with Fleischer about Plame.

Thereafter, Libby meets with Judith Miller for a second time and asks her to refer to him as “former Hill staffer”, if she wanted to publish the story. This identification, and Miller’s decision not to reveal it, will put her into jail for 85 days, until Libby reveals himself to be the anonymous source. A source, that only appeared in Miller’s notebook and was never published in an article.

After his talk to Miller, Libby will also have a conversation with Tim Russert, the host of NBC’s Meet the Press. Libby now claims that he learned about the identity of Valerie Plame in this conversation. Russert denies ever talking to Libby about Plame. Shortly after, Libby also talks to Matt Cooper, writer for Newsweek, about Plame, claiming that he had heard about the rumor himself.

Later on, Libby will tell the grand jury, “I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn’t know it as a fact. I thought I was — all I had was this information was coming in from reporters.”

On July 14, 2003, Robert Novak publishes the story that reveals the identity of Valerie Plame as a C.I.A. agent and wife of Joseph Wilson and causes a federal investigation on weather administration officials leaked her identity.

Judith Miller, who has notes about Valerie Plame, refuses to identify her sources and refers to a shield law which exists in 30 states and Washington D.C. Because the leak of an undercover agent is considered a crime, and Miller may be aiding the perpetrator, she is sentenced to jail until she reveals her source.

Now Judith Miller sees herself as defender of a whole profession. She demands her rights to protect a source, because those are vital to investigative journalism. Such a protection should exist to not scare away potential whistle blowers, no matter if a source is a good, or a bad one.

Branzburg v. Hayes announced in 1957 that a journalist had no right to protect a source if a criminal investigation depended on it. Still, the importance in this 5-4 decision was put on the minority dissent of Judge Powell who explained, that every case needed to be treated individually. He acknowledged that Branzburg v. Hayes did have its limits.

Judith Miller knew who she granted anonymity and knew, that she protected an administration that not only went to war with false information, but tried to discredit the ones who wanted the truth to be heard. One of these people is now on trial on accounts of obstruction and perjury.

Freedom of Press and protection of sources are vital for a free democracy. Without it, there would not have been a “Deep Throat” or Jeffery Wigand. However, those sources ought to be protected to serve one goal: the public’s interest.

It is questionable if the protection of Scooter Libby served in that interest. Especially in the months after the original invasion, it would have been of great importance to uncover the wrongdoings of administration officials.

Journalists need protection to do their work. But they should always remember that they do this work to serve in the public’s interest. With freedom of speech comes great responsibility.

Discussion:

1) Is Judith Miller right in arguing for protection of sources, no matter if they are good or bad ones?

2) Do you think journalists should have a special right, just as doctors or lawyers, to protect information in order to serve the public?

3) Where are the dangers in a town as Washington D.C. where every journalist depends on background informations and off-the-record statements by politicians?

Additional Information:

> Branzburg v. Hayes
> First Amendment Center on Shield Laws
> New York Times timeline about “Plamegate”
> MSNBC article about Libby’s actions

Works Cited:
Seidman, Joel. “Backstory: How the CIA leak case began” MSNBC.com 12 Jan. 2007. 11 Mar. 2007

 Email This Post ⋅  Print This Post ⋅ ⋅ Post a comment

Die gestiegene Anforderung

In den letzten Stunden habe ich rund um das Podcamp viele interessante Gespräche zum Thema der Zukunftsausrichtung der Medien geführt und angehört, und bin doch überrascht wie sehr Deutschland immer noch hinterherdenkt.

Während ich von Zeitungen und ihren Online-Auftritten heute Rund-um-Versorgung erwarten kann und will, sind manche doch immer noch der Überzeugung, dass man sich besser auf eine Sache richtig, als auf viele Sachen nur halbwegs konzentrieren sollte.

Als angehender Journalist, der zugegebenermaßen mit dem amerikanischen System viel besser vertraut ist, als mit dem Deutschen, muss ich doch ein wenig schmunzeln wenn in der heutigen Zeit tatsächlich noch Leute behaupten, dass ein Redakteur nicht nebenbei noch eine Audio-Datei und einen Videobeitrag, zusätzlich zu seinem eigentlichen Artikel produzieren kann.

Die Realität ist aber, dass genau das verlangt wird und das es eigentlich keinen Grund gibt warum das nicht gerechtfertigt wäre. Fakt ist, wir hinken hinterher und Tatsache ist, dass das vor allem auf unserer eigenen Faulheit gründet die ich mir selber nicht absprechen will, zumindest wenn ich in Deutschland bin wo Ehrgeiz und Tatendrang nicht gerade gefördert werden.

Um auf eine mögliche zukünftige Ausrichtung einer Printausgabe im Internet zurückzukehren möchte ich vor allem darauf hinweisen, dass dieses Audio- und Videoangebot schlichtweg ein bereits gutes Konzept komplettieren sollten. Ich gehe nicht auf die Seite meiner liebsten Zeitung um dort Artikel zu lesen die schon in der Printausgabe standen. Wenn mir aber die NYTimes.com eine “Backstory” zu diesem Artikel als mp3 anbietet, indem der Redakteur des Berichts nochmals dazu interviewt wird, dann finde ich das eine sinnvolle Ergänzung. Wenn ich diese Backstory dann noch als Podcast abonnieren kann, und dadurch auf interessante Artikel in der Zeitung aufmerksam werde, die ich ohne das Interview nicht entdeckt hätte dann kann ich das ebenfalls nur begrüßen.

Wenn mir meine Zeitung dann noch ein Video von dem letzten Bericht aus meiner Nachbarschaft anbietet um das ganze vollends abzurunden, dann bin ich ein komplett zufriedener Kunde und habe dabei nur auf ein Produkt zurückgegriffen: Das von einer einzigen Zeitung.

Natürlich hätte ich diese zusätzlichen Infos auch woanders bekommen können, aber genau deswegen müssen die Zeitungen ja auch reagieren. Wenn sie mich locken und mir den Aufenthalt auf ihrer Online-Seite schmackhaft machen wollen, dann müssen sie meine Anforderungen erfüllen.

Bei der Produktion meiner Arbeit stelle ich immer wieder fest, dass unsere erfolgreichsten Gäste einfacher zu erreichen sind als die kleinen Lokal-Redakteure. Während die Stars der Branche die Telefonnummer von zu Hause mitteilen damit man das Interview am Sonntag um 21 Uhr noch führen kann, behauptet der Sportredakteur deiner Zeitung, dass er nach 17 Uhr nicht mehr zu erreichen ist.

Es hat etwas mit Arbeitseinsatz zu tun und die Gruppe angehender Journalisten die behauptet, dass die Anforderungen die ich an die Branche stelle zu hoch sind, müssen ganz schnell aufwachen wenn sie in ein paar Jahren noch einen guten Job bekommen wollen. In der Zwischenzeit rennen Studenten mit Notizblock, Kamera und Mikrofon durch die Stadt.

Die Zukunft hat schon längst begonnen und wer mir nicht glaubt, der schaut einfach mal auf die Kursliste einer x-beliebigen Journalism School einer amerikanischen Universität und fragt mich dann ob ich wirklich jede Woche bis weit nach 2 Uhr nachts im Studio die diversen Beiträge fertig gestellt habe.

> Mehr zum Thema: podcampde

 Email This Post ⋅  Print This Post ⋅ ⋅ 3 comments

When the news are biased

An attentive observer could come to the conclusion that the conflict in Iraq was solved a long time ago, the next elections would still be years away and all political issues resolved. At least one will get this impression when tuning in to either MSNBC or FOX News these days.

While President Bush is announcing his “new way forward” in Iraq, presenting a new ambassador to the U.N. and a new Director of Central Intelligence, the news is reporting about what?

An objective observer will proclaim that it is almost astounding what is happening in cable news television these days, where all you can see, or hear about, is the never-ending feud between the news channels themselves.

The dispute is summed up quickly. Since its emergence in American households, Fox News proclaims that the majority of the American news establishment is liberal and therefore sees itself as counterpart and true advocate of free and balanced reporting.

Until now, CNN, MSNBC and the news staffs of the “Big Three” cared little about those propositions, but stood by and watched how Fox News and its strategy of attacking anything that seems “liberal” took over the ratings and passed the cable news competition.

In a research paper for New York University, I cited a Roper Poll of 1992, which found out that 92% of the reporting press had voted for Bill Clinton, whereas only 43% of the country did. Even though this poll is still disputed, we can safely assume that journalists tend to lean more towards the Democratic Party. The question remains if this is reflected in their coverage, and therefore influences their readership.

Furthermore, another study found out that Republican candidates for President got newspaper endorsements 86.7% of the time since 1948, whereas Democrats only received 13.3%.

To sum up, reporters tend to lean towards Democrats, their publishers tend to be more conservative. How much influence does the boss have on his employee, and how much influence does he have on his readers? At the end, no one is contented when their product is labeled partisan.

For Fox News, this strategy of attack as always worked in their favor because they could rally their viewers behind their fight against a common enemy: the liberals and their press. “Rally the troops” is not only a military term but is more often used in politics, especially in the Republican Party.

Though, the times have changed. The majority of Americans is favoring a new strategy in Iraq and Washington and Fox News is losing its enemies. The people they used to attack were, at the end, right in their observations, and the audience knows it.

Time to find new combatants, or, go back to the old ones. After years of dominating the ratings, Fox News sees itself threatened by MSNBC, which is more popular than ever.
Especially Keith Olbermann and lately Joe Scarborough lead the wave of popularity on MSNBC. As third-tier cable news channel they only saw one chance to increase their ratings, and that was to attack the leader: Fox News.

If you hate Bill O’Reilly - the successful evening host on Fox News - then we want you as our viewers. And because they were more than successful with that strategy and with everything working against Fox News in the moment, the latter has found its new enemy.

Everything started with NBC News’ announcement to officially call the conflict in Iraq a “Civil War”. Bill O’Reilly went on the attack and described all of NBC’s staff as irresponsible, liberal journalists that hate President Bush. MSNBC did not want O’Reilly to get away with it and fired on all cylinders in all their evening shows.

What transpired these next couple of days makes you feel sorry for the uninformed viewer, or even worse, for the viewer that tunes into a news show to actually hear about news. Rather than seeing a host talking about what happened around the world, the viewer saw a talking-head that prattled about another host on a different channel.
MSNBC could not be happier about the current situation, which seems like the best publicity for the smallest of the three 24/7 cable news channels.

Ultimately, they still trail Fox News in millions of viewers but find their names in every show of their rival channel. On the other side, Fox News is rejoiced because they finally found their new common enemy since their last, the Democratic Party, won the midterm election by a great margin. In the meantime they can justify their excessive patriotic and conservative coverage by shouting: the others do it as well.

The loser in this contest is the viewer and to quote myself from my research paper: “All of the media has to be challenged in their coverage, because no one can say to be fully objective in their doings. Be it by trying to defame someone else, or by hiding from the responsibilities to the public. After all, it is us who should decide what to think and how to think about it, and not some talking head on the TV screen.”

Discussion:

1) Are MSNBC and Fox News doing their audience a favor in playing a watchdog role on each other?

2) What are the dangers of a society that only hears news about how partisan the news are?

3) How can the media be saved from this battle and what would have to happen in order to do so?

Additional Information:
> Media Matter’s clips on the feud between MSNBC and Fox News
> PBS Frontline documentary “News War”
> MSNBC’s Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann and Bill O’Reilly’s Talking Points as Podcast

Works Cited:
Niven, David. Tilt? The Seach for Media Bias. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002.
Strasser, Franz. Bias in American Media. New York University. New York, N.Y., April 2006.

 Email This Post ⋅  Print This Post ⋅ ⋅ Post a comment

Media re-discovers Iraq

In 2006, the Tyndall Report notices a bigger coverage of the Iraq war in the American media than in 2005. Hurricane Katrina also is still among the leaders in the battle for airtime minutes.

For 20 years, the report of Andrew Tyndall measures each evening which topics get the most coverage among the three leading evening news broadcasts and outlines the results in a yearly balance sheet.

While Hurricane Katrina topped that list in 2005 with 1,153 total airtime minutes on ABC World News, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News, and was leading the Iraq war, it only got the attention of 367 minutes in 2006 and finished third in the standings. Interestingly enough, with 190 minutes NBC devoted way more attention to the recovering of the region than CBS with merely 75 minutes.

Hurricane Katrina especially had to give way to the coverage of the ongoing struggle of American forces in Iraq. While the coverage of that conflict steadily declined each year since the invasion in 2003 (1,602 min. in 2003, 1,352 in 2004, 879 in 2005), it rose back to 1,131 minutes in 2006 and lead the field with a big gap to the Israel-Hezbollah conflict which came in second with 578 minutes. Iraq-related topics like sectarian violence (187 min.) and the attacks on journalists (170 min.) finished seventh and eight in the 2006 ranking.

In general, it was the Tsunami in South-east Asia, the death of Pope John Paul II, and the bombing attacks in London that got most of the coverage in American evening news programs in 2005. Last year, however, the attention is more on national topics like the aftermath of 9/11, the rise of gasoline prices, and the debate about illegal immigrants.

The nuclear weapons program of North Korea received 30 minutes more attention than the efforts of the Iranian President to start one. The biggest difference among the three channels was the coverage of the Winter Olympics in Turin, Italy. NBC Nightly News reported 73 minutes about the games, whereas CBS only devoted 4 total minutes. NBC had the exclusive rights and Nightly News-Anchorman Brian Williams reported some of the shows live from Italy.

How much the Iraq war is back in the awareness of news shows and therefore the public, becomes clear when you look at the airtime of the individual correspondents on those programs. Richard Engel, Baghdad- and Beirut-correspondent of NBC is the only international correspondent among the Top 15 of all three news channels and their reporters. In 2004, two international reporters made that list - none of them did in 2005.

David Martin (CBS) and Jim Miklaszewski (NBC) are two prominent Pentagon-correspondents in the Top 5, whereas this group only got one of their peers in the Top 15 in 2005 (Martha Raddatz (ABC) on No. 11). The most airtime, as always, went to the three White House correspondents of the major networks.

It should come to no surprise that the conflict in Iraq is back in the minds of the press. After three years of declining coverage, the major networks and cable news shows have realized that this conflict is not anywhere near to being solved and that a lot of decision-makers have simply made the wrong decisions for many years. Finally, one could argue, those mistakes get the coverage they deserve.

Still, there are a lot of questions that need to be asked, starting with why one can see a decreasing coverage over the years and what went different from 2003 to 2005 that justified such a decline. At the end, it is debatable if a turnaround in the media could have prevented such mistakes from happening for this long period of time by making the public aware of it.

In conclusion, one finds that neither side is looking like a winner in this story. While one side got into this crisis and currently tries desperately to get out of it, the other side recognized this crisis too late and is now anxious to catch up on what it missed. The criticism appears late, but at least it appears.

Discussion:

1) How do you explain a decline in the coverage of the Iraq conflict from 2003 to 2005 and should the media be held accountable for “missing the story”?

2) Is it surprising that national issues got most of the coverage in 2006, whereas there seemed to be a bigger focus on international news in 2005?

3) What influence does the media have on decision makers and do you believe a better reporting about the wrong-doings would have prevented some of them from happening?

Additional Information:
> Tyndall Report Website with archive to search for topics and people
> Electronic Iraq’s view on Tyndall’s findings
> Worldpress.org Top Ten Stories of 2006

Works Cited:
Tyndall, Andrew. “Tyndall Report 3 Jan. 2007. 4 Jan. 2007 

 Email This Post ⋅  Print This Post ⋅ ⋅ Post a comment