NOTE : Updates will be posted below the break as they come in. Check in for all the latest developments. In the wake of a video sting showing NPR executives making disparaging comments towards conservatives, National Public Radio announced Wednesday morning that it had accepted the resignation of its president Vivian Schiller. “The Board accepted Vivian’s resignation with understanding, genuine regret and great respect for her leadership of NPR these past 2 years,” said Board Chairman Dave Edwards . The hidden-camera video, released Tuesday, showed NPR exec Ron Schiller, no relation to Vivian, calling the Tea Party “racist” and “xenophobic” and insisting that NPR would be “better off in the long-run” without the federal dollars that congressional Republicans have been seeking to rescind. A pair of NPR statements disavowed Ron Schiller's comments, and specifically rejected his claims regarding NPR funding. Vivian Schiller was also the target of criticism for her handling of the firing of Juan Williams from NPR for comments he made about Muslims that the station considered inappropriate. Schiller acknowledged in a speech at the National Press Club on Monday that the firing was not handled correctly. Williams appeared on the Fox News Channel, where his a contributor, on Tuesday night to denounce NPR for the revelations in the undercover video. “They prostitute themselves for money,” he had told Fox Nation earlier in the day. Appearing on Tuesday's “Hannity”, Williams blasted NPR's leadership for “destroying NPR”: Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com These people are so rude and condescending and they say people like me are bigots because i tell you what I feel. These folks are not only attack the tea party as anti-intellectual and racist and bias. They attack anybody that disagrees with their point of view –this elitist, this NPR point of view that time rest of us are a bunch of dummies, a bunch of rubes from the country, we don’t understand what going on. he thinks we lack education and only his group up there, on the executive floor of NPR really understand. These folks are doing damage, Sean, to real good journalists at NPR the people who gather the news. Because they are destroying the brand. These people are just destroying NPR. UPDATE (9:40): Here is the full text of Board Chairman Dave Edwards's statement: It is with deep regret that I tell you that the NPR Board of Directors has accepted the resignation of Vivian Schiller as President and CEO of NPR, effective immediately. The Board accepted her resignation with understanding, genuine regret, and great respect for her leadership of NPR these past two years. Vivian brought vision and energy to this organization. She led NPR back from the enormous economic challenges of the previous two years. She was passionately committed to NPR's mission, and to stations and NPR working collaboratively as a local-national news network. According to a CEO succession plan adopted by the Board in 2009, Joyce Slocum, SVP of Legal Affairs and General Counsel, has been appointed to the position of Interim CEO. The Board will immediately establish an Executive Transition Committee that will develop a timeframe and process for the recruitment and selection of new leadership. I recognize the magnitude of this news – and that it comes on top of what has been a traumatic period for NPR and the larger public radio community. The Board is committed to supporting NPR through this interim period and has confidence in NPR's leadership team. UPDATE (9:44) : “I'm told by sources that she was forced out,” NPR media reporter David Folkenflik claims . UPDATE (9:53) : Given Folkenfilk's claims, some on Twitter are noting that Schiller is essentially playing the same role than Williams played in his firing: a scapegoat in the midst of an onslaught of bad press. But Schiller (Vivian, not Ron) maintains a healthy share of the responsibility for her situation, if for no other reason than the fact that Juan Williams's ouster motivated the video sting behind the current controversy. James O'Keefe, the conservative filmmaker responsible for the effort, told CNN on Tuesday: “My colleague Shaughn Adeleye who posed as one of the members of the Muslim Brotherhood was pretty offended with what happened with Juan Williams and he suggested looking into NPR after that incident back in the fall,” O'Keefe said to CNN Correspondent Brian Todd on Tuesday. “My other colleague Simon Templar came up with the idea to have a Muslim angle since Juan Williams was fired due to his comments. So we decided to see if there was a greater truth or hidden truth amongst these reporters and journalists and executives.”
Continue reading …Just a minor historical footnote, but arguably an interesting one . . . A man whose Watergate reporting made his career and led to Richard Nixon's downfall has declared that Pres. Gerald Ford did the right thing in pardoning Nixon.
Continue reading …On Monday, in a story I will link after the jump, the Associated Press reported that on March 1 the
Continue reading …Title: Do Whatcha Wanna Artist: Rebirth Brass Band It’s Mardi Gras! I’ll take any excuse to post the Rebirth Brass Band and tonight they’re bringing the party to you.
Continue reading …On March 2, two U.S airmen, Nicholas Alden and Zachary Cuddeback, were gunned down at the airport in Frankfurt, Germany. Two other Americans were wounded. The assailant was a radical Muslim. This was a huge story to most Americans – but, naturally, but not to our news media. If the amount of air time is any measure, the assassination of our troops drew a yawn. That night, ABC’s “World News” offered a full report, but CBS and NBC each gave it less than 30 seconds. “Troops under attack in Germany, targeted by a gunman shouting in Arabic about jihad,” reported ABC anchor Diane Sawyer. Neither CBS or NBC found room for “jihad” talk, and never found time to ask about the young American lives extinguished. CBS saved room that night for Mickey Rooney’s testimony about “elder abuse.” NBC needed to save four minutes and 15 seconds for semi-retired Tom Brokaw’s report on the decline in Reading, Pennsylvania, and then devoted another two and half minutes to promoting the Smithsonian’s attempt to find a “Candid Camera in the Wilderness” with animal spycams. Even after the radical-Muslim motivations were confirmed, the anchors were still downplaying it. On March 3, Katie Couric relayed: “It appears 20-year-old Arid Uka had a grudge against the U.S. military. Sources tell CBS News that when he was arrested, Uka said ‘They are at war with us.’” I’m sure Mark David Chapman had a “grudge” with John Lennon, too. CBS did go to a reporter in Germany on Thursday morning…but the whole story was over in 90 seconds. NBC offered two minutes. The same yawning thing happened at the newspapers. No one put this story on the front page. USA Today just reprinted the Associated Press on A-5. The New York Times put it on A-4. The Washington Post offered a story on A-6 that day, and then when it discovered over the weekend that one of the assassinated airmen was a Virginia native – Zack Cuddeback , gunned down at the wheel of the bus – they promptly reported it on….B-6. The story itself is far more offensive than anything chronicled in last week’s obsession over the craziness of Charlie Sheen. The Times reported a German security official said “The bus was waiting at the terminal, and one serviceman after the other got on it,'' Uka asked the last one for a cigarette, ''then he asked the soldier if they were heading to Afghanistan.'' When the serviceman answered yes, Uka shot him with a handgun in the back of the head. ''He then entered the bus, shouted 'God is the greatest' and opened fire and killed the driver with a shot in the head and injured two other soldiers,'' the official said. Uka meant to kill them all. He held his gun to the head of a fifth man and pressed the trigger twice, but it jammed. Our media showed more concern about cartoons mocking Mohammed than they did for this crime. The Times did put another Islamist-violence story on the March 3 front page: Shahbaz Bhatti, the lone Christian cabinet member in Pakistan, was shot dead by the local Taliban for opposing an Islamic anti-blasphemy law. ABC, CBS, and NBC all skipped that story on the evening news, and offered tiny scraps of it on their morning shows. Their “public service” function was served by displaying Charlie Sheen and “Candid Camera in the Wilderness.” These journalists have lost a connection to the war on Islamic extremism and the troops fighting in Afghanistan. The Washington Post recently published a touching story of how Gen. John Kelly went to St. Louis and delivered a “passionate and at times angry speech about the military's sacrifices and its troops' growing sense of isolation from society.” He told the crowd “Their struggle is your struggle…If anyone thinks you can somehow thank them for their service, and not support the cause for which they fight — our country — these people are lying to themselves….More important, they are slighting our warriors and mocking their commitment to this nation.” Gen. Kelly did not tell the crowd he’d lost his 29-year-old son Robert in Afghanistan four days earlier. He became the most senior U.S. military officer to lose a son or daughter in Iraq or Afghanistan. Like many in the military, he fears the American public is unaware of the price that military families pay in one of the longest periods of sustained combat in U.S. history. This passage underlined the problem: “President Obama devoted only six sentences to the war in Afghanistan in his State of the Union address in January. The 25-second standing ovation that lawmakers lavished on the troops lasted almost as long as the president's war remarks.”
Continue reading …March to coincide with International Women’s Day intimidated by group opposed to calls to allow a female president in Egypt There have been ugly scenes in Tahrir Square as hundreds of women, many of whom had recently faced tear gas alongside men during the protests that toppled Hosni Mubarak, attempted to hold a “Million Women’s March” in Cairo to highlight their hopes of playing an active part in building a new Egypt. They were harassed and intimidated by a counter-protest made up of mainly men objecting to the call for a new constitution allowing women to stand for the Egyptian presidency. As the women, who were marching on International Women’s Day, found themselves surrounded they chanted “the people want to bring down women” – a variation on the “the people want to bring down the regime” chant that became the Egyptian revolution’s battle cry. “Women were caught in the middle and groped,” witness Ahmad Awadalla said. “When I tried to defend them they said, ‘why are you defending women? Are you queer?’” These scenes were repeated until the army dispersed the crowd. In the Sudanese capital Khartoum, riot police armed with batons and tear gas arrested more than 40 women as they protested against rape and rights abuses following the arrest and alleged rape of Safiya Eshaq, 24, a supporter of anti-government activist group Girifna. A planned march in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe, organised by the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions to mark the day was also disrupted, despite the organisation gaining a high court order saying it could take place, when police arrested 16 women at the ZCTU offices. The women were released after being briefly detained. In Iran pro-opposition protesters gathered in scattered groups in Tehran to mark the day clashed with the riot police who used tear gas and wielded batons to disperse the crowd. International Women’s Day Women Egypt Middle East Protest Iran Zimbabwe Sudan Caroline Davies guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The revolutions in the north have inspired sub-Saharan Africans. We can only hope the region’s leaders take note As protests against authoritarian rule spread throughout north Africa and the Middle East , I’ve been asked whether similar pro-democracy protests could take place in sub-Saharan Africa too. At first glance, the conditions appear ripe. Many sub-Saharan Africans also struggle daily with the consequences of poor governance, stagnating economies and dehumanising poverty, and rampant violations of human rights. It’s difficult for an outsider to know the local reasons why people in any society finally decide they’ve had enough of their leaders and rise up against them. It’s also dangerous to assume that revolutions occurring simultaneously have the same root causes. But certain factors do help explain the volatility in north Africa and the relative quiet to the south – and why that may not persist indefinitely. The first is the idea of the nation itself, along with regional identity. Because the great majority of peoples of north Africa and the Middle East are Arabs, their ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural connections provide a degree of solidarity within and across national boundaries. The majority think less along ethnic and more along lines of national identity. Al-Jazeera provides a wealth of information in the region’s common language, Arabic, and allows one country’s news to reach a broad regional swathe practically instantaneously. Many in the younger generation are well-educated professionals, eager to make their voices heard. And in Tahrir Square, we heard the protesters chant: “We are all Egyptians,” no matter where they came from in Egypt, their social status, or even their religion (Egypt has a small but significant population of Coptic Christians). That sense of national identity was essential to their success. But that national spirit, sadly, is lacking in much of sub-Saharan Africa. For decades, under colonial rule and since independence, many leaders have exploited their peoples’ ethnic rivalries and linguistic differences to sow division and maintain their ethnic group’s hold on power and the country’s purse strings. To this day, in many such states, ethnicity has greater resonance than national identity. Instead of encouraging inter-ethnic understanding and solidarity, leaders have set communities against each other in a struggle for resources and power, making it difficult for citizens to join together for the national interest. A second factor is the role of the military. The Egyptian army’s decision not to fire on protesters was key to the success of the February revolution. Sadly, we couldn’t expect the same in sub-Saharan Africa, where in many – if not most – nations both police and army are sources of instability and rancour. Quite often soldiers are hired, paid and promoted by the man in power. As a result, their first loyalty is not to the nation, but to whomever is in the state house. In addition, the majority of the army’s recruits may be drawn from the leader’s ethnic group, especially if the leader has been in power for many years. Since it isn’t likely that the soldiers’ micro-nation (tribe) would be demonstrating in the streets, it can be relatively easy for them to open fire on protesters with a certain sense of impunity. More tragic evidence of this was provided last week when unarmed women expressing their opinion about the disputed election in Ivory Coast were mown down by troops loyal to the incumbent president. Not only was this a clear violation of human rights, but evidence of recklessness and impunity, and the extreme lengths to which leaders will go to protect their power. A third factor is the flow of information. North Africans’ geographic proximity to Europe and the ability of significant numbers to travel or study abroad have exposed them to other influences and horizons. Many have access to the latest technology and the wherewithal to use social media to communicate and organise to great effect. But the large majority of people in sub-Saharan Africa don’t have access to the same levels of education, or information and technology. It may be that their media are controlled by the state, or independent voices are so worried about being harassed or shut down that they censor themselves or shy away from politics altogether. These constraints make it difficult for ordinary citizens to understand how their governments operate, and less able to calibrate the power of a united and determined people. Finally, oor people tend to tolerate poor governance and fear both their perceived lack of power and their leaders. This year in north Africa enough people shed their fear of losing jobs and property, of reprisals, detention, torture and even death. Until a critical mass does the same, it’s unlikely sub-Saharan Africa will emulate the kind of “people power” we’ve seen in the north. Even so, many sub-Saharan leaders must be paying close attention and asking themselves: “Could it happen here – my people rising up against me?” Some will make changes, perhaps cosmetic, to appease their populations; others may take bigger steps. One lesson I hope all will draw is that it’s better to leave office respected for working for what they believed was the common good, rather than risk being driven out, repudiated and humiliated, by their own people. Even though internet-organised pro-democracy protests earlier this week in Luanda, Angola’s capital, were broken up by security forces and the protesters threatened with harsh reprisals by a senior member of the ruling party – tactics we have seen used in numerous African regimes over the years – the truth is that people are not rising up without reason. They are unhappy with how they are being governed and have tried others methods to bring about change that haven’t worked. A wind is blowing. It is heading south, and won’t be suppressed forever. In Ivory Coast, despite last week’s brutal attack, on the eve of International Women’s Day hundreds of women marched to the spot where their colleagues were killed, a clear demonstration that, slowly but surely, even Africans south of the Sahara will shed their fear and confront their dictatorial leaders. The women’s bravery will be an inspiration to others in Africa and elsewhere. Eventually the information gap in sub-Saharan Africa will be bridged, partly because the world is not closed anymore: al-Jazeera, CNN and mobile phones – all available in sub-Saharan Africa – mean information can be transferred instantly. There is no doubt that those in the south are watching what’s happening in the north. I also hope that the extraordinary events in the north encourage all leaders to provide the governance, development, equity and equality, and respect for human rights their people deserve – and to end the culture of impunity. If its member states are slow to recognise the inevitability of change, let us hope that the African Union encourages heads of state to acknowledge that Africa cannot remain an island where leaders continue in office for decades, depriving their people of their rights, violating their freedoms, and impoverishing them. In conflict and war, Africa and all its peoples lose. It would be so much better to see Africa awake and have revolutions brought about by the ballot box in free and fair elections, instead of by tanks and bullets. Protest Egypt Tunisia Libya Ivory Coast Angola Middle East African Union Wangari Maathai guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media I’m not sure what “LessGovernment” has to do with Al Jazeera, but Judge Napolitano and Glenn Beck’s bookers took the opportunity to let their spokesmouth, Seton Motley (yes, that IS his name), come on and “analyze” them after Hillary Clinton’s remarks and praise of their broadcasts. Mr. Motley starts out with some incoherence about campaigning in prose and broadcasting in Arabic before launching into an indictment of Hillary Clinton as a “leftist” who likes “leftist reporting”. Oh, and then there’s that thing about how Al Jazeera is no different than any US mainstream outlet because they all bash the Tea Party. NAPOLITANO: …can get real news around the clock. Is Secretary Clinton right? Is Al Jazeera one of the few sources left for real news and should we welcome it here in America? Here now to discuss is Seton Motley, president of Less Government. Well that’s a great name for your organization – Less Government. Seton, welcome back to the Glenn Beck program. What is she talking about? Is Al Jazeera to be trusted? In English? Or in another language? MOTLEY: Well, there’s an old campaign saw. You campaign in poetry, you govern in prose, and Al Jazeera campaigns in English and governs in Arabic. And if you’re watching Al Jazeera Arabic you get a whole different perspective on what’s going on over there than what you do over here. Part of the reason it hasn’t taken off greater here in America – the English version – is because it’s just like ABC, NBC, CBS. I watched segments today where they’re just bashing the Tea Party just like NBC does, ABC does, so there’s no difference. Alrighty then. It certainly couldn’t have anything to do with the refusal of all cable providers to actually CARRY Al Jazeera, right? No, it’s just because they’re no different than the others. I’m truly not sure that this guy has ever really watched Al Jazeera for any length of time, but get a load of his next “analysis”. NAPOLITANO: All right, but do they have a message that they convey about behavior that goes over there that either we don’t get from our own home-grown media — Fox or CNN or whoever might be there — and are they trustworthy? Or is this a propaganda arm of some government? MOTLEY: I get this — there’s station Qatar and there’s station Kuwait and they’re based out of those two countries. And I — I think it’s a propaganda arm. I mean if you watch — uh, there’s a great website, MEMRI.org, Middle East Media and Research Institute — If you watch Al Jazeera’s Arabic language clips, it’s presenting all kinds of crazy. You’ve got people saying jihadist things all the time, they reported on a British citizen who joined the Taliban and said “death to Americans”. If they presented that here, I think they would get ratings, I think they would get viewership, I think there would be a clamor for what they’re doing. But they’re not presenting that over here. They’re presenting it over there and not giving it to us here. So that I understand him, I read it twice after I transcribed it myself. I think he is saying that IF they presented video that painted Arabs as crazy people who are out to kill Americans they’d get ratings. But because they don’t do that on AJE, they’re not viable? Is that really what he’s saying? Well, it takes a propagandist to know one, after all, but I think he should actually WATCH what they do on both. I’ve watched AJE and AJArabic, and when it’s live, it’s often the very same video. One in English, the other in Arabic. While I don’t speak Arabic, I’m not really inclined to believe the Arabic version is a propaganda version that Americans would love, are you? And finally, all Fox/Beck viewers are admonished to beware that raving leftist, Hillary Clinton. NAPOLITANO: All right, last question since we have 30 seconds. Why is Hillary Clinton saying this? Why is she, of all people, telling Americans to watch it? MOTLEY: Because I think they have a similar agenda to what leftists like Hillary Clinton want to see advanced here. So this is another network that does what MSNBC, CNN and ABC does. NAPOLITANO: Got it. I’m glad Napolitano got it, because I’m still scratching my head. There’s propaganda all right, but it’s not being aired on Al Jazeera. I’m starting to think maybe I should’ve stayed with the whales and fish another week.
Continue reading …National Public Radio further distanced itself Tuesday afternoon from embattled outgoing executive Ron Schiller saying that he would be put on “administrative leave” following the release of a video in which he bashed Tea Party activists as “racist” and said that NPR would be “better off” without federal funding. It was unclear from NPR's first statement, released early in the day, which of Schiller's many comments the radio network had disavowed. The second statement offered some clarification, specifically addressing the claims that the organization would fare better without federal dollars. But it did not highlight or specifically denounce any of Schiller's comments regarding the Tea Party movement, the Republican Party, or the American people generally – though it did broadly condemn his comments. Schiller's impending departure for a post at the Aspen Institute makes the move to place him on “administrative leave” mostly symbolic. Here is the statement in full : The comments contained in the video released today are contrary to everything we stand for, and we completely disavow the views expressed. NPR is fair and open minded about the people we cover. Our reporting reflects those values every single day – in the civility of our programming, the range of opinions we reflect and the diversity of stories we tell. The assertion that NPR and public radio stations would be better off without federal funding does not reflect reality. The elimination of federal funding would significantly damage public broadcasting as a whole. Prior to the lunch meeting presented in the edited video, Ron Schiller had informed NPR that he was resigning from his position to take a new job. His resignation was announced publicly last week, and he was expected to depart in May. While we review this situation, he has been placed on administrative leave. See also: Brent Bozell Calls on Congress to Pull Plug on NPR's Propaganda Machine NPR Exec: Organization 'Better Off' Without Federal Dollars; GOP Happy to Oblige NPR's Schiller Denies Liberal Bias, But Station's Content, Policies, Board Say Otherwise NPR CEO Says We're Not Lefties, But Cites Leftist James Wolcott for Honoring NPR's 'Sound of Sanity'
Continue reading …The fall of Hosni Mubarak – and the instruments of state oppression – have allowed the Tahrir Square mindset to spread Shortly before midnight on Wednesday 9 February, I was with a friend in a small coffee shop in Zamalek, the Cairo district where I live. It was that period when Hosni Mubarak’s government had unlocked the jails, turned thousands of violent criminals loose, “vanished” the police from the streets of the cities and switched off most of the lights. There was a curfew in place from 6pm, but we, and the coffee shop, were ignoring it. We had been in Tahrir Square (where else?) and left it ringing with chants, speeches and debate. But we felt cold and were looking for something to eat before going to our respective homes. It was less than 48 hours before the fall of Mubarak. That morning al-Shorouk newspaper had carried a brief item on the report which my friend – let’s call him MH – and I, along with48 others, had lodged the previous day with the public prosecutor, demanding an investigation into Mubarak’s wealth. Other truants from Tahrir headed for the sushi bar upstairs and we were mostly alone, until a man came in carrying a notebook, sat in the opposite corner and started to work. He was maybe in his late 30s. Smart casual. I thought I clocked him clocking us but I wasn’t sure. As we were leaving he stood up and intercepted us at the door. Quietly he asked if we were MH and AS. We were, we said. I’ve been thinking about how to reach you; may we speak? So we stepped outside and he told us that he had been collecting evidence of the Mubaraks’ financial misdemeanours and had put together one complete case: it’s not very much, he said, only around $13m (£8m) – but it’s watertight. And on a napkin braced against the plate-glass window of our coffee shop he drew the diagram of the financial structure he had uncovered. We gave him our email addresses, agreed that we did not need to know his name and he went to find an internet cafe. Within an hour the documented case had arrived – from “an Egyptian” – in our mailboxes. The next day it was appended to the prosecutor’s report. When I tell this story to friends outside Egypt their first reaction is: “Didn’t you think it might be a set-up?” And the truth is that, no, we didn’t. We trusted him. Why? Well, I didn’t think about it at the time but, looking back, it’s clear: MH and I – and our anonymous friend – were behaving within the framework established in the liberated Tahrir Square on 28 January: we, the people, were rejecting the Mubarak strategies that were meant to make us suspicious and fearful; to turn us against each other. And we were right. A few days after Mubarak’s fall we met our friend once more, again on a late-night quest for coffee and cheesecake. This time we learned his name and exchanged phone numbers – and I left him and MH deep in napkins and diagrams tracking further millions. There was a moment in Tahrir, early on, when sitting on a low wall I watched two young men walking towards me, deep in conversation. One was saying: “The parliamentary system will be better for us because we need to break away from the cult of the leader,” and the other interrupted: “But the ‘leader’ doesn’t have to be a dictator; he could be a useful …” and then they were out of earshot. I gazed after them, feeling I had witnessed something extraordinary. And I had: I’d seen two men, openly, on a Cairo street, discuss an issue bordering on the political. It was the normalcy of it that was so extraordinary, and that was a measure of the repression we had been living under. People had expressed themselves before, of course, but the violence of the regime was such that dissent had to be shouted. You shouted or you shut up. And people shouted – with rising frequency. This revolution was born of the protests that started with the great march against the Iraq war in 2003 and were continued by Kefaya and, later, other groups, and spread so that by 2011 every sector of society was shouting. It was in 2004 that protest slogans started to pinpoint what would become the targets of this revolution: “Down, down with Hosni Mubarak,” broke a barrier of fear. And next came: “State security, tell us straight / Where’s our security? Where’s our state?” My moment of personal unease came on Saturday 5 February. I’d been to the square, gone to a studio to do an interview, then rushed home to keep a 6pm appointment with an Indian TV crew. A moment after I’d let the two young women with all their equipment into the flat, my doorbell rang again. It was the concierge’s daughter. Excuse me, she said, but who are the people who have just come to see you? Since when, I said, do you ask such questions? Well, she said, the [state security] intelligence came round asking if there were foreigners or media visiting any residents. It’s your home and you can do what you like, but we’ll have to report to them. I did the interview. I even insisted on making tea. But I packed an overnight bag, and when the young women left, I left with them. I did the next interview on the phone, locked in my car in a dark dark garage. Then I stayed at
Continue reading …