Washington Post wapo

=<div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">// to newsweek api  session? same owners?</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">https://www.politico.com/story/2009/07/wapo-cancels-lobbyist-event-024441</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">no lnx</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">WaPo cancels lobbyist event</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">By MICHAEL CALDERONE and MIKE ALLEN 07/02/2009 08:04 AM EDT Updated 07/03/2009 12:50 AM EDT</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div>Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth said today she was canceling plans for an exclusive "salon" at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to "those powerful few" — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and even the paper’s own reporters and editors.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">With the Post newsroom in an uproar after POLITICO reported the solicitation, Weymouth said in an email to the staff that "a flier went out that was prepared by the Marketing department and was never vetted by me or by the newsroom. Had it been, the flier would have been immediately killed, because it completely misrepresented what we were trying to do." </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Weymouth said the paper had planned a series of dinners with participation from the newsroom “but with parameters such that we did not in any way compromise our integrity. Sponsorship of events, like advertising in the newspaper, must be at arm's length and cannot imply control over the content or access to our journalists. At this juncture, we will not be holding the planned July dinner and we will not hold salon dinners involving the newsroom. “</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">She made it clear however, that The Post, which lost $19.5 million in the first quarter, sees bringing together Washington figures as a future revenue source. “We do believe that there is a viable way to expand our expertise into live conferences and events that simply enhances what we do - cover Washington for Washingtonians and those interested in Washington,” she said. “ And we will begin to do live events in ways that enhance our reputation and in no way call into question our integrity.” </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Executive editor Marcus Brauchli was as adamant as Weymouth in denouncing the plan promoted in the flier. “You cannot buy access to a Washington Post journalist,” Brauchli told POLITICO. Brauchli was named on the flier as one of the salon’s "Hosts and Discussion Leaders."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Brauchli said in an interview that he understood the business side of the Post planned on holding dinners on policy and was scheduled to attend the July 21 dinner at Weymouth’s Washington home, but he said he had not seen the material promoting it until today. “The flier, and the description of these things, was not at all consistent with the preliminary conversations the newsroom had,” Brauchli said, adding that it was “absolutely impossible” the newsroom would participate in the kind of event described in the solicitation for the event.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate," says the one-page flier. "Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. ... Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The flier promised the dinner would be held in an intimate setting with no unseemly conflict between participants. “Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No,” it said. “The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it. What is guaranteed is a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds typically on the guest list of 20 or less. …</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Brauchli emphasized that the newsroom had given specific parameters to the paper’s business staff that he said were apparently not followed. He said that for newsroom staffers to participate, they would have to be able to ask questions and that he would “reserve the right to allow any information or ideas that emerge from an event to shape or inform our coverage.” That directly contradicts the solicitation to potential sponsors, which billed the dinner as “off-the-record.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“Our mission in the news department is to serve an audience,” Brauchli said, “not serve our sponsors.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“We do not use the Post’s name or our journalists to gain access to officials or sources for the benefit of non-news purposes,” he continued.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Brauchli said that Post employees on the business side — not the newsroom — would have been responsible for seeking participants for this event. Reporters, he said, would not solicit sources or administration officials. Brauchli said that he did not know who was invited or who accepted.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Ceci Connolly, a Post reporter who covers health care, told POLITICO that she had been told there would be a dinner and that she would be invited. However, Connolly said, she “knew nothing about sponsorships and had not seen any flier or invitation.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Brauchli declined to comment on whether anyone on the business side would be held responsible for the abortive plan. He said that would be a decision for either Weymouth or Stephen Hills, The Post’s president and general manager. </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">But regarding future events, Brauchli said: “I would hope that everybody in the Washington Post Company is always sensitive to the importance of the newsroom’s integrity and independence.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Charles Pelton, The Post business-side employee listed as the event contact, seemed to dispute Brauchli’s version of events.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Pelton was quoted by Post ombudsman Andy Alexander in an online commentary as saying that newsroom leaders, including Brauchli, had been involved in discussions about the salons and other events.“This was well-developed with the newsroom,” Pelton told Alexander. “What was not developed was the marketing message to potential sponsors.”</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">According to Alexander, who called the flier a “public relations disaster,” Pelton told him: “There’s no intention to influence or peddle.” “There’s no intention to have a Lincoln Bedroom situation,” referring to charges that President Bill Clinton used invitations to stay at the White House as a way of luring political backing.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Pelton did not return a phone call from POLITICO. </div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">If POLITICO had not reported on the flier this morning, Brauchli said he expects someone would have seen it before the event and, given the obvious ethical issue, it would have been canceled.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Kris Coratti, communications director of Washington Post Media, a division of The Washington Post Company, said the flier “came out of a business division for conferences and events, and the newsroom was unaware of such communication. It went out before it was properly vetted, and this draft does not represent what the company’s vision for these dinners are, which is meant to be an independent, policy-oriented event for newsmakers.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"As written, the newsroom could not participate in an event like this. We do believe there is an opportunity to have a conferences and events business, and that The Post should be leading these conversations in Washington, big or small, while maintaining journalistic integrity. The newsroom will participate where appropriate."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Earlier this morning, Brauchli sent an e-mail entitled “Newsroom Independence” to his staff explaining his position.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"Colleagues,” Brauchli said. “A flier was distributed this week offering an 'underwriting opportunity' for a dinner on health care reform, in which the news department had been asked to participate. The language in the flier and the description of the event preclude our participation.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"We will not participate in events where promises are made that in exchange for money The Post will offer access to newsroom personnel or will refrain from confrontational questioning. Our independence from advertisers or sponsors is inviolable. There is a long tradition of news organizations hosting conferences and events, and we believe The Post, including the newsroom, can do these things in ways that are consistent with our values."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The first "Salon" was to be called "Health-Care Reform: Better or Worse for Americans? The reform and funding debate." More were anticipated, and the flier described the opportunities for participants:</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“Offered at $25,000 per sponsor, per Salon. Maximum of two sponsors per Salon. Underwriters’ CEO or Executive Director participates in the discussion. Underwriters appreciatively acknowledged in printed invitations and at the dinner. Annual series sponsorship of 11 Salons offered at $250,000 … Hosts and Discussion Leaders ... Health-care reporting and editorial staff members of The Washington Post ... An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done. ... A Washington Post Salon ... July 21, 2009 6:30 p.m. ...</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"Washington Post Salons are extensions of The Washington Post brand of journalistic inquiry into the issues, a unique opportunity for stakeholders to hear and be heard," the flier says. "At the core is a critical topic of our day. Dinner and a volley of ideas unfold in an evening of intelligent, news-driven and off-the-record conversation. ... By bringing together those powerful few in business and policy-making who are forwarding, legislating and reporting on the issues, Washington Post Salons give life to the debate. Be at this nexus of business and policy with your underwriting of Washington Post Salons."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked Thursday in the briefing room if anyone from the White House was invited to attend the salons, and what the policy is for attending such events.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"I don't know if anybody here was," Gibbs said. "I think some people in the administration, writ large, may have been invited. I do not believe, based on what I've been able to check, anyone has accepted the invitations."</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Gibbs said that the White House counsel would review such invitations and that they "would likely exceed" what would be considered appropriate.</div></div></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">wapo</div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trump-signed-tax-returns-false-information-under-penalty-perjury-least-4-times">https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/trump-signed-tax-returns-false-information-under-penalty-perjury-least-4-times</a></div><div style="font-size: small; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div>

Washington Post repeatedly allowed Hugh Hewitt to write

columns praising Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator

Scott Pruitt without disclosing that Hewitt’s law firm does work before

the agency. Washington Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt told Media Matters that Hewitt would no longer write about Pruitt. Hewitt is a <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/06/22/new-msnbc-host-hugh-hewitt-sean-hannity-glasses/216352">conservative radio host</a> who also works as a host for MSNBC and a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/hugh-hewitt/?utm_term=.50428cc3b223">contributing columnist</a> for The Washington Post. Off air, he is a <a href="https://larsonobrienlaw.com/litigation-boutique-larson-obrien-llp-announces-washington-dc-office/">partner</a> at the law firm<a href="https://larsonobrienlaw.com/attorneys/"> Larson O’Brien</a>.That

law firm position presents numerous potential and real conflicts of

interest for Hewitt’s media roles. Larson O’Brien stated in a May 5,

2017, <a href="https://larsonobrienlaw.com/litigation-boutique-larson-obrien-llp-announces-washington-dc-office/">press release</a> that

the firm will be opening a Washington D.C. office and “is currently

representing clients before the US Department of Justice, the Securities

and Exchange Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency.” The

press release touted Hewitt’s relocation to the Washington area as a

reason for the firm to “have a permanent presence in the District”:

</div><blockquote>Larson O’Brien is

currently representing clients before the US Department of Justice, the

Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Environmental Protection

Agency.Larson O’Brien partner Hugh Hewitt recently relocated to

the Washington area where he hosts an award winning radio show during

the morning drive-time hours. “With Hugh moving to Washington and our

significant client work in the Capital, it made sense for us to have a

permanent presence in the District,” said Stephen Larson.</blockquote>Politico <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/07/pruitt-california-cleanup-hewitt-meeting-521215">reported</a> on

May 7 that Hewitt brokered a meeting between Pruitt and lawyers at

Larson O’Brien concerning efforts of the firm’s client Orange County

Water District to get the EPA to devote resources to cleaning up a

polluted site in the district. From the report, which is based on

“emails released by EPA under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by

the Sierra Club”:<blockquote>Hewitt, a resident of Orange County

whose son James works in EPA’s press office, emailed Pruitt in September

to set up a meeting between the administrator and the law firm Larson

O’Brien, which employs Hewitt and represents the Orange County Water

District. Pruitt had been planning to meet with the lawyers in

California a month earlier, but cancelled the trip to undergo knee

surgery.“I’ll join if the Administrator would like me too or can

catch up later at a dinner,” Hewitt wrote in his Sept. 18 message.

Hewitt added that the issues surrounding the Superfund site were “Greek

to me but a big deal in my home county.”Pruitt’s aides responded within minutes and quickly confirmed an Oct. 18 meeting for the lawyers and a project director.Six

weeks after that meeting, on Dec. 8, the Orange County North Basin site

appeared on Pruitt’s list of 21 contaminated areas to address. A month

later, Pruitt proposed listing the site on EPA’s National Priorities

List, a move that could make it eligible for long-term federal cleanup

funding from the federal government if the responsible polluters cannot

be identified and forced to pay for its remediation.</blockquote>Politico <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/05/08/Politico-details-Pruitts-seeming-quid-pro-quo-relationship-with-MSNBCs-Hugh-Hewitt/220146">noted</a> that Hewitt has been a vocal defender of Pruitt on MSNBC. <a href="https://twitter.com/RobertFaturechi/status/993683253230997504">Several</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/993846100606976002">journalists</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/brianbeutler/status/993831944478707712">have</a> criticized MSNBC for the blatant conflict of interest; The New York Times’ Michael Barbaro<a href="https://twitter.com/mikiebarb/status/993691829760675840"> tweeted</a>:

“Um, it's not okay for a cable news contributor to ask the EPA

administrator for favors like this and still be on TV talking about him.

At. All. CC: @MSNBC.”Hewitt’s conflict of interest problem has also extended to The Washington Post, which repeatedly allowed Hewitt to praise the EPA and Pruitt in opinion columns for the paper.Hewitt himself <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-if-trump-is-playing-russia-like-he-played-the-media/2017/01/04/9a045ea4-d28a-11e6-9cb0-54ab630851e8_story.html?utm_term=.7cecacdda2d5">referenced</a> his work on issues related to the EPA in the Post.

On January 4, 2017, he wrote: “I’ve worked for real estate developers

on huge projects for three decades. My law practice was built on helping

them figure out and comply with complex statutory and regulatory

regimes and knowing how the Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps

of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service worked.”The following are instances in which the Post allowed Hewitt to discuss the EPA without disclosing his conflict of interest:<ul><li>On January 19, 2017, Hewitt <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-time-to-relax-about-trump/2017/01/19/f9aba24a-ddbb-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.ac0943d114bc">praised</a> President Donald Trump’s nomination of Pruitt, writing, “Discount the rhetoric. ... Pruitt’s not a ‘climate denier.’”</li><li>On March 1, 2017, Hewitt <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-trumps-critics-got-so-wrong-about-his-speech/2017/03/01/5b209094-fe87-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html?utm_term=.423dab24aefd">wrote</a>:

“Trump’s repeated calls in many places for regulatory reform had been

foreshadowed earlier Tuesday with an executive order directing the

Environmental Protection Agency and its new and very able director,

Scott Pruitt, to move quickly to roll back the ruinous, overreaching

‘Waters of the United States’ rule of the Obama years.”</li><li>On July 4, Hewitt <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/combative-but-not-cruel-mr-president/2017/07/04/6af74d86-60ad-11e7-8adc-fea80e32bf47_story.html?utm_term=.8e168e568d02">wrote</a> that Pruitt has become one of “the domestic policy stars of the Trump administration.”</li><li>On August 19, Hewitt <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reshuffle-reset-restart-call-it-what-you-want--trump-and-the-gop-need-it/2017/08/19/78c61824-845d-11e7-ab27-1a21a8e006ab_story.html?utm_term=.d34ad42aeb5f">called</a> Pruitt

and several other Trump administration officials “committed reformers”

who “are in strong and stable positions now as staffing of political

appointees accelerates.”</li><li>On September 19, Hewitt <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/all-in-all-trump-has-had-a-pretty-good-eight-months/2017/09/19/eeb431f8-9c93-11e7-8ea1-ed975285475e_story.html?utm_term=.3210f3ed0104">praised</a> the Trump administration and Pruitt for “pursuing ambitious and much-needed rollback agendas.”</li><li>On February 22, Hewitt <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/theres-reason-to-smile-as-we-approach-day-400-of-the-trump-presidency/2018/02/22/122aa1ce-17e8-11e8-b681-2d4d462a1921_story.html?utm_term=.ac976630d1a5">wrote</a>:

“The United States is out of the one-sided Paris accord while open to

steps toward genuine protection of the climate. The EPA is refining its

rulemaking process in ways that rule-of-law conservatives hope will

conform the agency’s new rules to the designs and ends Congress intended

for them, reversing the warped power grabs of the administrative state

they had become.”</li></ul>The Post did not disclose that

Hewitt’s firm works on issues related to EPA regulations in those

pieces. The paper has also not been consistent in disclosing that

Hewitt’s son works for the EPA. According to his LinkedIn page, James

Hewitt<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-hewitt-91616968/"> joined</a> the agency in July 2017. Hewitt's <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/combative-but-not-cruel-mr-president/2017/07/04/6af74d86-60ad-11e7-8adc-fea80e32bf47_story.html?utm_term=.406c72746ee9">July 4</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/all-in-all-trump-has-had-a-pretty-good-eight-months/2017/09/19/eeb431f8-9c93-11e7-8ea1-ed975285475e_story.html?utm_term=.4b8bfbf5b55e">September 19</a> columns disclosed that connection while his <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reshuffle-reset-restart-call-it-what-you-want--trump-and-the-gop-need-it/2017/08/19/78c61824-845d-11e7-ab27-1a21a8e006ab_story.html?utm_term=.d34ad42aeb5f">August 19</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/theres-reason-to-smile-as-we-approach-day-400-of-the-trump-presidency/2018/02/22/122aa1ce-17e8-11e8-b681-2d4d462a1921_story.html?utm_term=.ac976630d1a5">February 22</a> columns did not.In an email to Media Matters, Editorial

Page Editor Fred Hiatt wrote: “I was disturbed to learn this morning

that Hugh Hewitt had intervened with EPA administrator Scott Pruitt on

behalf of Hewitt’s law firm as he was writing about Pruitt in a column

for The Washington Post. Hewitt, who has not written about Pruitt since

September, has agreed not to write about him going forward and has

assured us that similar incidents won’t occur in the future.”The Washington Post also employs megalobbyist <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/people/ed-rogers">Ed Rogers</a> as a contributor despite countless conflicts of interest relating to Roger’s lobbying firm. Over the years, the Post has <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/05/24/wash-post-didn-t-disclose-writer-who-penned-positive-piece-about-trumps-saudi-trip-paid-saudi/216610">repeatedly</a> <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/04/21/wash-post-has-lobbyist-writer-here-are-12-times-they-didnt-disclose-conflicts-interest/216133">allowed</a> Rogers to tout his clients’ interests without disclosure.
6 of the Biggest Media Meltdowns This WeekA New York Post column casually calls for nuking North Korea... and much more.By Adam Johnson / AlterNet September 9, 2017, 8:29 AM GMT1. Hillary Clinton promotes dubious, culty media outlet Verrit, internet proceeds to destroy it.Every now and then products come along that are so pointless and badly executed one can only sit back in awe of the sheer incompetence. Such a product, Verrit, was launched this week by Clinton hanger-on and man with a checkered past Peter Daou and his wife. It’s a website that nominally allows people to post memes, quotes and other information by entering a verification code that, well, the rest doesn’t really make a lot of sense. Since its launch Monday, which was strangely promoted by Clinton herself, every outlet from Gizmodo, Vox and Slate to the Washington Post and the AV Club has bashed the media upstart for being little more than a disjointed cultist meme farm.
It got so bad that Daou started attacking journalists simply for liking tweets mocking the website; an outburst that led to even more sarcastic memes. The internet can be a cruel place, but few recklessly invite this cruelty more than Mr. Daou.
2. Fox News eggs on white vigilantes threatening to 'shoot looters' in Houston.
Fox News’ business model is predicated on driving to the one-yard line of white supremacy, then acting shocked when it's accused of trying to score a touchdown. Fox's institutional flirtation with white nationalist tropes has gotten more overt with the rise of Trump, a fact that was on full display in one particularly gross segment in which a Fox News anchor laughed at the thought of a few vigilante rednecks going around shooting “looters.”  
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/906320820221464580
Who are these looters? Presumably the two gun-wielding white guys will drive around making this determination and blowing people away based on their own ad hoc judgments of guilt. All just another good laugh on the set of Fox News.
3. Alex Jones is now pro-FEMA camps.
After spending over a decade railing against the threat of FEMA and its globalist plot to take over the U.S. homeland via its camps, Alex Jones’ website and personal Twitter feed promoted a tweet insisting we fund FEMA over DACA, the Obama-created program to give citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants.Combined with Jones’ love for the pro-cop, pro-military, pro-Department of Homeland Security President Trump, it’s beginning to seem like InfoWars “anti-government” rhetoric was based more on mindless racist grievance and paranoia than an actual opposition to the government. Oh well, he still has "Jewish” crisis actors and gay frogs.
4. Breitbart and Fox News serve up talking points for Jeff Sessions' DACA-rescinding press conference.If one needs more evidence the Trump administration takes its tone and language directly from Fox News and Breitbart, look no further than Jeff Sessions' press conference this week. As liberal watchdog Media Matters notes, Sessions' primary talking points were ripped off directly from the two outlets. Breitbart/Fox and Sessions both claimed DACA was “amnesty” (it’s not), that the “child migrant surge” was due to DACA (it’s not), that DACA recipients take American jobs (they don’t), and that DACA was “unconstitutional” (it isn’t).   
Steve Bannon may have exited the White House, but his propaganda reach hasn’t. Recently, there have been reports Trump’s new Chief of Staff John Kelly was trying to wean Trump off InfoWars, but it’s doubtful the two pillars of Breitbart and Fox News will go anywhere anytime soon. After all, where else would they trial balloon their talking points?  OMFG:5. Pro-Trump fossil fuel lobbyist and Washington Post columnist writes greatest 'self own' in op-ed history.America’s most corrupt columnist and noted sleazy lobbyist Ed Rogers wrote one of the greatest "self owns" in the history of op-ed writing. In his attempt to rail against the “lurch to the left” taking place in the Democratic Party, he listed off a litany of problems, a point that was laughably undermined by the tacked-on disclosure his editors forced him to put in:Economic policies [of the Democrats in 2020] will consist of government giveaways and anti-business crusades. Social causes will give no quarter to moderate positions, and LGBT special interests, labor unions, global warming fanatics and factions such as Black Lives Matter, along with other grievance industry groups, will face no moderating counterforce. (Disclosure: My firm represents interests in the fossil fuel industry.)
Sort of takes the wind out of one's rhetorical sails to rail against—among other causes—climate change, only to have to cap it off by pointing out you’re a lobbyist for Exxon. Moreover, one has to ask how Post editors felt publishing the "disclosure" the same week three once-in-a-generation hurricanes formed in the Atlantic ocean. Democracy dies in darkness, indeed.
6. New York Post column casually calls for genocide in North Korea.
Typically when calling for war against another country, American propagandists will make some token attempt to distinguish between destroying a military or a leadership and an entire people. It maintains the pretense of distinguishing between civilians and military targets.
No such pretense was required for America’s most radical right-wing rag, the New York Post, which ran a columnby Fox News analyst and former United States Army lieutenant colonel Ralph Peters expressly calling to “destroy North Korea”:PUNKED CEI and mann bk:ch 12: 2007 big year: inc truth,
IPCC ARA 4, Nobeleven Luntz 180 after 2002 memo
ARA ~ pillars of deniers
but 2008 Nature jrnl artl misrepped, --> GW stopped meme --> Geo Will Wapo op ed; superFreakonomics 2009
Jrnl G res defreitas, carter amd ---M&M PNAS
---<a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/09/01/study-newspaper-opinion-pages-feature-science-denial-and-other-climate-change-misinformation/212700">http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/09/01/study-newspaper-opinion-pages-feature-science-denial-and-other-climate-change-misinformation/212700</a><div class="item-summary" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 0px 30px 15px; margin: 0px 0px 15px; border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(204, 204, 204); clear: both; line-height: 18.5714px;">The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and The Washington Post all published climate science denial and other scientifically inaccurate statements about climate change on their opinion pages over the last year and a half, while The New York Times avoided doing so, according to a new Media Mattersanalysis of those four newspapers. The Journal published by far the most opinion pieces misrepresenting climate science, while all three instances of climate science denial in the Post came from columns written by George Will. The Journal and USA Today also published numerous climate-related op-eds without disclosing the authors’ fossil fuel ties, while USA Today, the Post, and particularly the Journal frequently published some of the least credible voices on climate and energy issues.</div><div class="item-body" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 18.5714px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1.5em; margin: 15px 0px; padding: 0px 0px 2px; clear: both; border-bottom: 1px dotted rgb(0, 153, 255);"><a id="denial" name="denial" style="box-sizing: border-box; outline: none; background-color: transparent;">Three Major Newspapers Published Climate Science Denial On Opinion Pages, Led By The Wall Street Journal</a></h2>Analysis: Three Major Newspapers’ Opinion Pages Published Climate Science Denial And Other Antiscience Claims. Media Matters examined op-eds, editorials, and columns in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The New York Times, and The Washington Post from January 1, 2015, to August 31, 2016, to determine how often climate science denial and other false statements about climate science appeared on each newspaper’s opinion pages. We found that the Journal, the Post, and USA Today all published climate science misinformation on their opinion pages, while the Times avoided doing so. Unlike the Journal editorial board, which has denied climate science, the editorial boards of the Times, the Post, and USA Today all recognize the scientific consensus around man-made climate change. But our analysis found that the Timeswas the only one of these newspapers that did not publish an op-ed or column containing climate science denial during this time period. [Media Matters, <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PnvucqIBBWlAOgAyBP_G7QLLdtqOIoj0nlW12adewVk/edit#gid=0" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); background-color: transparent;">Climate Denial/Misinformation Spreadsheet</a>; The New York Times, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/opinion/the-pope-joins-the-climate-wars.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); background-color: transparent;">4/29/15</a>; The Washington Post, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/just-about-every-big-measure-of-climate-change-was-bad-last-year/2015/07/21/113ecea6-2cc8-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html?utm_term=.f11af2c1f6b1" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); background-color: transparent;">7/21/15</a>; USA Today, <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/11/30/climate-paris-talks-obama-global-warming-editorials-debates/76578684/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none; outline: none; font-weight: 700; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); background-color: transparent;">11/30/15</a>]</div>=<div class="pb-sig-line hasnt-headshot has-0-headshots hasnt-bio is-not-column"> By Sam Kazman and Kent Lassman April 22 </div> <article itemprop="articleBody"> <div class="intro"> Sam Kazman is general counsel and Kent Lassman is president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. </div> With seven state attorneys general and Al Gore <a href="http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-former-vice-president-al-gore-and-coalition-attorneys-general-across" id="U104012990927870yE">sharing a New York City stage</a> , there was no doubt about it: It was showtime for a whodunit. The crime being investigated? Dissent.

The

March 29 news conference unveiled, according to New York Attorney

General Eric T. Schneiderman, an “unprecedented” coalition to fight not

only climate change but also allegedly deceptive speech about climate

change. The group, which dubbed itself <a href="https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/al-gore-and-new-york-attorney-general-eric-schneiderman-launch-ags-united-clean-power-coalition">AGs United for Clean Power</a>, promised to “use all the tools at our disposal” to battle for progress on “the most consequential issue of our time.”

<a href="https://cei.org/blog/state-attorneys-general-conspire-shake-down-big-oil">Schneiderman was blunt</a>

about his goal of shutting down debate: “You have to tell the truth.

You can’t make misrepresentations of the kinds we’ve seen here.”

This

isn’t a law-and-order drama. It’s politics clothed in messianic garb,

and its primary tools are censorship and intimidation.

The

AGs are following a familiar script here: target an unpopular,

deep-pocketed business, harass that business’s potential allies with

overly broad investigations, run roughshod over the target’s First

Amendment protections and settle once the politically weakened company

tires of fighting the endless resources of the state.

ExxonMobil

was singled out by name at the news conference, but the coalition

appears to be following the script perfectly. Now it’s on to the

fishing-expedition stage.

<a href="https://cei.org/content/cei-fights-subpoena-silence-debate-climate-change">On April 7,</a>

our organization, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, was subpoenaed

by coalition member and U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude

Walker for all CEI material on climate change and energy policy, as well

as information on our supporters, over 10 years beginning in 1997. The

subpoena’s purported focus is on our contacts with ExxonMobil, a former

CEI donor that publicly ended its support for us after 2005.

Nonetheless, the subpoena calls for practically all of our material on

climate change and energy policy, as well as information on any donors

who directly or indirectly supported that work.[NOTE horner is still foiaing sci right now?]
 <div class="moat-trackable pb-f-theme-normal full pb-feature pb-layout-item pb-f-page-newsletter-inLine" data-chain-name="no-name" data-feature-name="no-name" data-feature-id="page/newsletter-inLine" id="fqXleg2Bn4GLJp"> <div class="newsletter-inline-unit container " id="inline-newsletter"> <div class="signup-module row"> <div class="title-container col-xs-8"> [Opinions newsletter

Thought-provoking opinions and commentary, in your inbox daily.] </div> <div class="sign-up col-xs-4"> </div></div></div></div></article><div class="moat-trackable pb-f-theme-normal full pb-feature pb-layout-item pb-f-page-newsletter-inLine" data-chain-name="no-name" data-feature-name="no-name" data-feature-id="page/newsletter-inLine" id="fqXleg2Bn4GLJp"><div class="newsletter-inline-unit container " id="inline-newsletter"><div class="signup-module row"><div class="sign-up col-xs-4"> </div> </div> </div> </div>That’s

one hell of a burden to slap on a nonprofit. The coalition’s purported

justification is that the risks of global warming are so important and

the scientific basis for them so settled that disputing them constitutes

fraud. But the rhetoric of the AGs is blissfully oblivious to the First

Amendment. Court rulings make it clear

that broad subpoenas aimed at restricting speech, especially in the

context of policy debates, are invalid. Time and again, the Supreme

Court has held that the remedy for unwanted speech is more speech in

response. The chief law-enforcement officers of several states should

know better, but their reaction to a dissenting policy position is

punitive, coercive and unconstitutional. As

for breaching donor confidentiality, the obvious aims here are

intimidation and to limit future use of the constitutionally protected

right of anonymous donation. In 1958, in NAACP v. Patterson, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/357/449" title="www.law.cornell.edu">the Supreme Court held</a> that such attempts were illegal under the First Amendment’s right of association. You

might think that if the law is that clear, we have nothing to worry

about. But fighting a subpoena is incredibly costly and time-consuming,

especially when the attorneys general behind them have promised to “use

all the tools” at their disposal, courtesy of their states’ taxpayers. Regardless

of where you stand on global warming policy, the notion of a

multi-state campaign to end the debate ought to make you worry. After

all, there are many science-driven policy debates out there, on topics

ranging from genetically modified food to population control. It is not

as if the government has a sterling reputation when it comes to science.

From Galileo to today’s food plate, we know government politicizes

science. It ought not to punish dissent, too. Read more on this topic: <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-war-against-exxon-mobil/2015/11/08/094ff978-84a6-11e5-8ba6-cec48b74b2a7_story.html" title="www.washingtonpost.com">Robert J. Samuelson: The war against Exxon Mobil</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2015-a-year-of-progress-and-buffoonery-on-climate-change/2016/01/02/9ad6955c-af33-11e5-9ab0-884d1cc4b33e_story.html" title="www.washingtonpost.com">The Post’s View: 2015: A year of progress and buffoonery on climate change</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fossil-fuel-industrys-campaign-to-mislead-the-american-people/2015/05/29/04a2c448-0574-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html?tid=a_inl" title="www.washingtonpost.com">Sheldon Whitehouse: The fossil-fuel industry’s campaign to mislead the American people</a> ==AN<a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/exxon-using-tobaccos-failed-free-speech-defense-decades-deception-climate-change">http://www.alternet.org/environment/exxon-using-tobaccos-failed-free-speech-defense-decades-deception-climate-change</a>

The past week has seen a barrage of opinion pieces carrying water for

the fossil fuel industry, defending against the ongoing fraud

investigations. The Washington Post had two pieces, Newsweek had one

and the Financial Times had an editorial, in addition to op-eds in a

couple of other conservative outlets. Of those six, half were penned by

groups funded at least in part by fossil fuel companies.The

arguments are all by and large the same, claiming that the

investigations infringe on fossil fuels companies’ right to

free speech while steadfastly ignoring the fact that <a href="http://ecowatch.com/?s=exxon">ExxonMobil</a> funded climate denial to protect their business model. Only the <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/936011b4-087e-11e6-b6d3-746f8e9cdd33.html#axzz46r98Erf4" target="_blank">Financial Times editorial</a> actually

acknowledges the “misleading claims from fossil fuel interests and

their allies” but concludes that it is “because the stakes [of the

debate] are so high that all arguments must be heard.” While that sounds

fair at first <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanton_Glantz" target="blank">Glantz</a>, it quickly sounds silly when applied to a recent example: the tobacco industry’s denial of the fact that its carcinogenic <a href="https://climatecrocks.com/2016/04/25/defending-exxons-denial-its-their-right-to-free-speech/" target="blank">product is addictive</a>.All but one of the pieces similarly ignored the tobacco industry precedent and the <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/climate_alarmism_and_the_muzzling_of_independent_science.html" target="blank">only person who mentioned it</a> was one of the few voices not plugged into the professional denial apparatus.As for the pros, Newsweek ran a blog post from the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Hoover_Institution_on_War,Revolution_and_Peace#Funding" target="_blank">Hoover Institution</a>, which

rambled on about climate science that’s supposedly still uncertain,

lamenting that fair debate is impossible if one side can bring the other

to court. Not mentioned is how a fair debate can be possible if one

side launches multi-million dollar PR campaigns to mislead the public

about the science.<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">Feds Refer Exxon <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Climate?src=hash">#Climate</a> Investigation to FBI: <a href="https://t.co/MS5BfY7PNp">https://t.co/MS5BfY7PNp</a> via <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch">@EcoWatch</a> <a href="https://t.co/mBWybUPmVb">pic.twitter.com/mBWybUPmVb</a>— DeSmogBlog (@DeSmogBlog) <a href="https://twitter.com/DeSmogBlog/status/706866373939429376">March 7, 2016</a></blockquote>Heritage’s Hans von Spakovsky’s <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/20/has-von-spakovsky-prosecuting-climate-change-denie/" target="_blank">piece in the Washington Times</a> misses the

tobacco precedent, but went all the way back to the Spanish Inquisition

for his First Amendment fear mongering. George Will used <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-settled-science-consensus-du-jour/2016/04/22/46acd802-07de-11e6-a12f-ea5aed7958dc_story.html" target="_blank">his column in the Washington Post</a> to

offer a lesson on how this campaign is part of a larger progressive

strategy to shut down debate. But apparently it’s Will that needs a

history lesson, as he uses as evidence a story about a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/irs-sued_n_3354502.html" target="blank">2013 IRS investigation</a> accusing the agency of targeting conservatives. But that investigation “<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politics/lois-lerner-no-charges-doj-tea-party/" target="blank">found no evidence</a>” that the IRS actions were politically motivated. No doubt his column is similarly bereft of evidence.The Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-environmental-campaign-that-punishes-free-speech/2016/04/22/e2eafd88-07bc-11e6-b283-e79d81c63c1b_story.html" target="_blank">also gave space</a> to

the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) to defend itself by

pretending it is being investigated for political dissent, not its years

of Exxon funding for climate denial. Worth noting CEI’s careful

phrasing about its relationship with Exxon, which CEI says “publicly

ended its support for us after 2005.” With Donors Trust and others

making it possible to anonymize giving, the key word is “publicly.”Ironically,

despite the admission that its Exxon funding is a perfectly legitimate

reason to look into its communications, CEI considers its subpoena to be

a fishing expedition. Meanwhile, CEI’s own <a href="https://theintercept.com/2015/09/30/coal-mining-ceo-defends-financing-harassment-of-climate-scientists/" target="_blank">coal-funded</a> Chris Horner continues to engage in nuisance FOIAs for climate scientists.Exxon’s

defense is a hot topic in denierland, as it advances the narrative

that the fossil fuel industry is an embattled population facing

government persecution. But <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/apr/25/berta-caceres-murder-honduras-death-threats-hitman-agua-zarca-dam?CMP=share_btn_tw" target="_blank">here’s a reality check</a>: Before Honduran activist <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/03/berta-caceres-murdered/">Berta Cáceres</a> was

murdered on March 2, she reported receiving 33 death threats after

years of intimidation. Instead of investigating a man who had previously

bragged about his plans to murder her, authorities claim the prime

suspects are two of her fellow activists.<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">Heartbreaking! <a href="https://twitter.com/goldmanprize">@GoldmanPrize</a> Activist Berta Cáceres Murdered in Honduras <a href="https://t.co/Zj97cmwQi3">https://t.co/Zj97cmwQi3</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/FoEint">@FoEint</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/Greenpeace">@greenpeace</a> <a href="https://t.co/tAujvEGtMR">pic.twitter.com/tAujvEGtMR</a>— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/705452661236228096">March 3, 2016</a></blockquote>Looks like the fossil fuel industry isn’t the one facing persecution after all.
=<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Milbank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Milbank</a>tears of a clown book on beck; columnists: Esther J. Cepeda Richard Cohen E. J. Dionne Kenneth Harney Michael Gerson David Ignatius Charles Krauthammer Ruth Marcus Dana Milbank Ruben Navarrette Jr. Kathleen Parker Catherine Rampell Eugene Robinson Robert J. Samuelson Michelle Singletary Gene Weingarten George F. Will Fareed Zakaria
=
<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/22/wash-post-ed-rogers/">http://ecowatch.com/2015/12/22/wash-post-ed-rogers/</a>In his <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/12/17/what-will-democrats-not-do-in-pursuit-of-a-global-warming-remedy/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">latest column</a> repeating his clients’ attacks on <a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">climate change</a> policies, lobbyist and Washington Post writer Ed Rogers finally disclosed to readers that his lobbying firm “represents interests in the <a href="http://ecowatch.com/news/energy-news/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">fossil fuel</a> [industry].”Rogers is the chairman of BGR Group, a top lobbying firm that has <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/05/what-happens-when-the-wash-post-gives-a-top-coa/206652" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">received</a> more than $700,000 from the energy industry in 2015. Rogers has personally lobbied this year for Southern Company, one of the largest electric utility companies in the U.S.—and <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2014/12/17-southern-company-attack-clean-power-plan-sussman" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">one of the biggest opponents</a> of the most significant U.S. policy to combat climate change.Rogers’ disclosure, which was placed in a parenthetical in the middle of his Dec. 17 column, could help Post readers recognize that they should take his opinions on the United Nations’ historic <a href="http://ecowatch.com/cop21/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">Paris climate agreement</a> with a grain of salt (he says it’s a “sham”). And it marks a stark contrast from Rogers’ <a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/05/what-happens-when-the-wash-post-gives-a-top-coa/206652" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">past columns</a>, in which the Post allowed him to dismiss the scientific consensus on climate change and echo his client’s attacks on climate policies without disclosing his firm’s fossil fuel ties.The Post’s past failure to require Rogers to disclose his lobbying firm’s clients—both <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/21/this-washington-post-writer-has-a-million-dolla/202216" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">fossil fuel</a> and <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/23/wash-posts-disclosure-fiasco-continues-writer-d/202249" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">otherwise</a>—drew criticism from <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/22/media-ethicists-savage-wash-posts-troubling-and/202233" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">media ethicists</a>. Among them was Ed Wasserman, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, who said it’s clear that “someone else is paying” Rogers to write his columns and urged the Post to provide “specific disclosure” of Rogers’ clients rather than a “blanket description of him as a lobbyist,” in order to make plain that he “has a horse to back” in his columns.From Rogers’ Dec. 17 <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/12/17/what-will-democrats-not-do-in-pursuit-of-a-global-warming-remedy/" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; color: rgb(67, 146, 65); transition: color 0.2s linear; background: transparent;">column</a> for The Washington Post’s Post Partisan blog (emphasis added):<p style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 30px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 18px; line-height: 25.2px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">“The [Conference of Parties] 21 conference in Paris was the most predictable event of 2015. Of course an agreement was going to be reached and of course that agreement is a sham, but it all fits perfectly with what the climate issue has become. The topic of climate change has become manna for exhausted liberals who have nothing much to say and policy failures on almost every front. (Disclosure: My firm represents interests in the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries.) And let’s face it, global warming is an issue that perfectly suits Obama as he warms up for retirement. He doesn’t really have to do anything, there is never any day of reckoning and it lends itself to sanctimonious moralizing and generally lecturing everybody about how they should live.”<div>Amy HarmonAmy Harmon is a reporter for the New York Times. She was part of a Times team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2001, and in 2008 she won a Pulitzer for explanatory reporting.On September 23, 2013 at 7:44pm, Jon Entine emailed Renee Kester, “FYI, I think I’ve talked Amy Harmon into doing a Hawaii Hawaii [sic.] story... and I gave her your and Kirby’s email information, so she may call at some point if she indeed pursues this.” Kirby Kester is president of the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, an agrichemical industry front group.On January 4, 2014, the New York Times published a front-page article by Amy Harmon, titled “A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops.” The story is datelined from Kona, Hawaii.In 2014, Harmon won second place for the Society of Environmental Journalists “Kevin Carmody Award for Outstanding In-depth Reporting, Large Market” for “The Facts About GMOs,” a series that included the article “A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops.”On September 30th, Harmon is scheduled to speak to the Cornell Alliance for Science, a group funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to promote GMOs. The group is running a petition against U.S. Right to Know’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.Keith KloorKeith Kloor is a freelance journalist who has written for Nature, Science Insider, Discover, Slate, and other outlets. Kloor has written many pro-GMO articles that have been featured by Jon Entine’s Genetic Literacy Project.Kloor is mentioned in two places in the FOIA documents.In one email, Jon Entine refers to Keith Kloor as a “very good friend of mine”.In another email, on October 18, 2014, Dr. Channapatna Prakash, a GMO advocate and dean at Tuskegee University, emails Adrianne Massey of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), along with several others, to forward an alert from Lorraine Thelian, vice chairman of the PR firm Ketchum that “the hacker communityAnonymous is planning a series of attacks on biotechnology and food industry websites… Trade association and corporate websites of CBI [Council for Biotechnology Information] members are being targeted in this planned attack.” Dr. Prakash writes, “Adrianne I have copied Kevin Folta, Karl von Mogel, David Tribe, and Keith Kloorhere as well.”Dr. Prakash cc’d the email to Jay Byrne (former director of corporate communications for Monsanto), Jon Entine, Bruce Chassy (agrichemical industry advocate) Val Giddings (former VP of BIO), Henry Miller (agrichemical industry advocate), Drew Kershen (agrichemical industry advocate), Klaus Ammann, Piet van der Meer, Martina Newell-McGloughlin (agrichemical industry advocate), Karl Haro von Mogel (member of the board of directors of Biology Fortified, a pro-GMO website), Kevin Folta (agrichemical industry advocate), Keith Kloor, and David Tribe (agrichemical industry advocate).Keith Kloor was the only journalist who received this email.The email implies that Kloor works closely with the agrichemical industry’s prominent advocates.Kloor has written three articles that were critical of U.S. Right to Know’s FOIA requests, in Science Insider, Discover and Nature.On March 23rd, 2015, Kloor gave a talk for the Cornell Alliance for Science, which is hosting a petition against U.S. Right to Know’s FOIA requests.Tamar HaspelTamar Haspel is a columnist at the Washington Post. She has written many columns for the Post defending or praising GMOs that have later been featured by Jon Entine’s Genetic Literacy Project.In 2015, Haspel won the James Beard Foundation Award for her Post columns.In June 2014, Haspel spoke to a pro-industry conference about “How can scientists best engage the GMO debate with a skeptical public?” The conference was coordinated by Jon Entine and Cami Ryan, who is currently social sciences lead for Monsanto. The conference was led by two agrichemical industry front groups, the Genetic Literacy Project and Academics Review, along with the University of Florida, which receives major funding from agrichemical companies, as noted in a September 6 article in the New York Times.Haspel also moderated a panel organized by the North Carolina Biotechnology Center, which “provides long-term economic and societal benefits to North Carolina through support of biotechnology research, business, education and strategic policy statewide.”In a September 23 chat hosted by the Washington Post, answering a question about whether she receives money from industry sources, Ms. Haspel wrote that, “I speak and moderate panels and debates often, and it’s work I’m paid for.” Later that day, I asked Ms. Haspel on Twitter how much money she had received from the agrichemical industry and its front groups. She replied, “Since any group believing biotech has something to offer is a ‘front group', plenty!”Is it appropriate for a Washington Post columnist to write glowing columns about GMOs while appearing at such pro-industry conferences? Is it a conflict of interest for Haspel to accept money from agrichemical company interests that she covers as part of her beat as a Post food columnist? How much money has Haspel received from agrichemical industry interests?Some journalists have criticized journalists for “buckraking” on speakers’ circuits. For example, former Washington Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee said, “I wish it would go away. I don’t like it. I think it’s corrupting. If the Insurance Institute of America, if there is such a thing, pays you $10,000 to make a speech, don’t tell me you haven’t been corrupted. You can say you haven’t and you can say you will attack insurance issues in the same way, but you won’t. You can’t.”Haspel wrote in the Washington Post that she will only speak at events where “if for-profit companies are involved in the event (which they often are), they can’t be the only voice. So, I will speak at a conference co-sponsored by, say, Monsanto and the USDA and NC State University, but not an event sponsored by Monsanto alone.” However, at the June 2014, conference at which Haspel spoke, no consumer advocates were slated to speak, only pro-industry advocates.On October 16, Haspel is scheduled to speak to the Cornell Alliance for Science, a pro-GMO group that is hosting a petition against U.S. Right to Know’s FOIA requests.Haspel has been critical of the U.S. Right to Know FOIA requests. On August 17, on Twitter, she wrote: “The money/time/brainpower wasted on @garyruskin’s mean-spirited, self-interested attack on @kevinfolta! Can we move on to something useful?” Others did not agree with her news judgment. On September 6th, two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Eric Lipton wrote an article largely based on our FOIA requests – especially of University of Florida Professor Kevin Folta – which ran on the front page of the Sunday New York Times. The article revealed how Folta, who repeatedly denied ties to Monsanto, in fact had received an undisclosed $25,000 grant, as well as writing assignments from the company, and worked closely with it and its PR firm Ketchum, which ghostwrote text for him and organized media and lobbying meetings for him.U.S. Right to Know is a consumer advocacy group. We try to expose what the food industry doesn’t want us to know. We believe it is useful for the public to see how the food and agrichemical companies do their public relations work. That is one way we can help consumers to assess the claims and information they receive from the companies involved in our food production, their PR firms and operatives, and the journalists who work with them.</div><div></div><a href="http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/17/the-wash-post-doesnt-support-exxon-investigatio/206913">http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/17/the-wash-post-doesnt-support-exxon-investigatio/206913</a><h1 itemprop="name" style="margin: 0px 0px 7px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Wash. Post Doesn't Support Exxon Investigations -- Here's What It Had To Say About Tobacco Litigation</h1>=http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/09/29/national-review-online-pushes-attack-on-bill-ny/205851<div class="bd-headline left" style="width: 659.578px; margin: 0px auto;"><h1 itemprop="name" style="max-width: 100%; width: 659.578px; margin-top: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">Nat'l Black Chamber President Smears Wash. Post For Exposing Industry-Funded Pro-Smog Campaign</h1><h5><a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog">Blog </a>››› <time datetime="2015-10-01T11:48:08-04:00" itemprop="datePublished">1 hour and 14 minutes ago </time>››› DENISE ROBBINS</h5></div><div itemprop="articleBody" class="item-body">The president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) lashed out at TheWashington Post for exposing his organization's oil industry funding, baselessly describing a Post article about the group's anti-environmental agenda as "[l]ies, innuendos and false claims."The Post recently helped pull back the curtain on the NBCC's fossil fuel-friendly agenda. In a September 28 <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/in-smog-battle-industry-gets-help-from-unlikely-source-black-business-group/2015/09/28/8c1c7e34-63c8-11e5-9757-e49273f05f65_story.html">article</a>, The Post reported that the NBCC has been <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/09/29/wash-post-details-anti-environment-agenda-of-oi/205845">fighting</a> an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) <a href="http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/actions.html#current">proposal</a> to reduce ground-level ozone pollution, the primary component of smog, and also noted that the NBCC is heavily funded by ExxonMobil and <a href="http://fcir.org/2015/08/13/national-black-chamber-of-commerce-solar-energy-critic-rakes-in-cash-from-polluters/">other fossil fuel interests</a>. The NBCC has been fighting air pollution standards and climate change action for<a href="http://www.climateinvestigations.org/national-black-chamber-of-commerce-fossil-funders-revealed">decades</a>.NBCC president Harry Alford decried the Washington Post article in a <a href="http://www.nationalbcc.org/news/beyond-the-rhetoric/2511-environmental-extremists-seem-to-be-going-cuckoo">column</a> on his organization's website, titled "Environmental Extremists seem to be going cuckoo." Without identifying any specific errors in the Post article, Alford wrote that that it contained "[l]ies, innuendos and false claims" and "misinformation about the National Black Chamber of Commerce." He also described the Post article as "incomplete reporting, replete with racial innuendos," but failed to elaborate.</div><blockquote>=</blockquote><blockquote><div class="headline" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 property="dc:title" datatype="" class="node-title">How the Media Fail to Explain the Basic Science That Proves Climate Change</h1></div><div class="byline media-culture" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">By <a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/laura-dattaro" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Laura Dattaro</a> [1] / <a href="http://www.cjr.org/" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Columbia Journalism Review</a> [2]</div><div class="story-date" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">March 16, 2015</div><div class="story-date" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div class="story-date" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div class="the_body body_media-culture clearfix">Two weeks ago, the New York Times published an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?r=1" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">article</a> [3] detailing the results of an investigation into Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, an aerospace engineer who’s published several papers questioning the link between human emissions of greenhouse gases and global warming. Soon, it was revealed, has received more than $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry over the course of the last decade.It’s a story with a lot of moving pieces. There’s the funding itself, and Soon’s failure to disclose it; there’s his affiliations with both Harvard and the Smithsonian, which <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/A-Climate-Crusader-Melts/190349/" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">appear</a> [4] to have benefited from his questionable grants; there’s his published papers, and what to do with them; and there are questions about what all of this means for academia and the peer-review process.But one piece that got lost is the piece that all of this is ostensibly about: science. Very few outlets — with the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/23/no-the-sun-isnt-driving-global-warming/" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">notable exception</a> [5] of the Washington Post — took the time to explain what exactly Soon claims about climate change (that it’s caused by the sun), and how his claims fit in with accepted science (short answer: they don’t). Instead, most outlets focused on Soon’s funding, and his use of the word “deliverables” to refer to studies he had completed with that funding, as something close to proof that his research can’t be trusted. 

While the source of a scientist’s funding is certainly relevant, particularly in the current political context in which industry interests fund entire institutions dedicated to denying climate science, it doesn’t supersede a close look by journalists at whether the scientist is actually correct. And some recent studies give hope that even reporters who may not have the expertise, or the time, to dig into the data on solar radiation and the sunspot cycle can still have an impact on public understanding of climate science.In the great media universe, it would be great to have at least a few instances of dealing with the science. But I kind of think it’s unrealistic.Last summer, climate communication researchers at George Mason University and Yale University published a <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000226/full#eft231-bib-0015" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">commentary</a> [6] urging the science community to reiterate the scientific consensus on climate change—that 97 percent of scientists support the conclusion that climate change is real, and humans are causing it—citing studies showing that exposing individuals to this message can increase their estimates of the scientific consensus by 10 to 20 percent. And a <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118489" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">recent study</a> [7] from Yale found that simply stating this fact can induce changes in beliefs about climate change and increase support for public action on the issue in study participants from both sides of the political aisle.“In the mainstream media, there’s really not a lot of room for a full explication of the science,” said Elizabeth Bass, director of the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science and associate professor of journalism at Stony Brook University. “In the great media universe, it would be great to have at least a few instances of dealing with the science. But I kind of think it’s unrealistic.” 

The Soon investigation, then, may have been a lost opportunity for some great science journalism, and a chance to rehash what the science community knows (and doesn’t) about climate change. And it’s not the first time this has happened.In late 2013, for example, researchers at Drexel University <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">attempted to trace</a> [8] the sources of “dark money”—money that had been donated by industry interests to dubious “research” institutions and think tanks through organizations that obscure the original donors. That news released a wave of backlash from more conservative outlets, including a Forbes contributor <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/02/dark-money-funds-to-promote-global-warming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">piece</a> [9] that claimed far more “dark money” went to fund “global warming alarmism.” Little of this coverage, on either side, mentioned any of the actual science being questioned.“I think that’s very common,” Bass said. “Political reporters and government reporters far outnumber science reporters, and most of the time when science and public policy collide, or when science is clearly very important in public policy, it’s likely the government and political reporters covering it. They bring their own perspective to it.”Industry funding is also an issue for the field of biomedical research, and the press who covers it. In February, British researchers <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/11/obesity-adviser-rejects-conflict-of-interest-claim" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">leaped to the defense</a> [10] of a top UK government health official after the British Medical Journal <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h231" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">revealed</a> [11] that she had received more than $2 million from companies like Coca-Cola, implying that her credibility on obesity policy had been compromised. Coverage from the Guardian’s health editor mentioned no scientific health studies, a critique the researchers were quick to lobby at the BMJ.In areas of research where a scientist’s conclusions can shape decision making at the individual and policy levels, funding provides important context. But it’s not the whole story.“If a doctor said that smoking is great for you and has no ill effects, and then you found out they were fully funded by Philip Morris, wouldn’t that make you a tad suspicious? And rightly so,” said Phil Plait, an astronomer and author of the Slate column Bad Astronomer. “But you have to be careful about overreach, and not going too far with it. Suspicious funding is not proof. In the end, the proof is in the claims.” http://www.alternet.org/print/media/how-media-fail-explain-basic-science-proves-climate-change<div class="bio-new body_media-culture" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="author-bio">Laura Dattaro is a freelance reporter in New York with a focus on the environment and an interest in all things science.</div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/25/2210101/twimc-its-a-war-on-climate-change-conservatives-launched-a-war-on-coal-when-they-killed-the-climate-bill/">http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/25/2210101/twimc-its-a-war-on-climate-change-conservatives-launched-a-war-on-coal-when-they-killed-the-climate-bill/</a>eilperin war on coal=alternet: Editorial: How Bad is the Corporate and Conservative Media?December 20, 2013  |      HOW BAD IS THE CORPORATE AND CONSERVATIVE MEDIA?Actually both corporate and right-wing press are getting much worse. There are dozens of examples of journalistic failure every week. The right-wing media is often insane as we report on AlterNet in our super popular weekly series on Right-wing wackos. And, increasingly, mainstream media is about protecting the 1% and the media owner’s financial interests. They too often miss the real story or mislead the reader. It is no accident that the world's richest man  -- Mexico's Carlos Slim, worth $73 billion  -- is the second largest stockholder of the  New York Times.  Or that  The Washington Post is now owned totally by one super rich person -- Jeff Bezos, the emperor of Amazon.Bezos recently landed  a $600 million contract with the CIA. But, the  Post’s articles about the CIA are not disclosing that the newspaper’s sole owner is the main owner of CIA business partner Amazon.Too often the media's performance is a disgrace to journalism:   The New York Times, in an astonishing bit of big bank propaganda, had the audacity to publish, “It is not a crime to make stupid mistakes, and much of what happened in the years before the financial crisis was more foolish than venal.” This is an astonishingly brazen lie, as AlterNet's writer explains, "…our biggest banks were found to have committed -- or have confessed to committing -- thousands of real and deliberate crimes, some of which rank among the largest financial crimes in history (such as LIBOR falsification, phony mortgage scams, and the $800 billion worth of drug money laundered by HSBC, to give just three examples)."It also was the  New York Times that first called the bumpy rollout of  healthcare.gov “Obama’s Katrina" in a front-page story.  Soon, this over-the-top message was puppeted all over the media. If ever there was a flawed, destructive analogy, this is it. Hurricane Katrina amounted to an abdication of government responsibility, resulting in the deaths and displacements of many thousands?  How can anyone in their right mind compare this disaster with the slow web-site role out of the ACA?Another media shocker was the shameful and distorted editorial in  The Washington Post, which downplayed the retirement crisis and stoked generational tensions by suggesting that Social Security is a burden on young people instead of a vital safeguard. The editorial actually mocked a sensible bill introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) that would boost Social Security benefits by increasing taxes on the wealthy.  The Washington Post's nonsense was blasted by Senator Elizabeth Warren, who spoke out strongly against cuts of any kind, including Obama's "chained CPI" cut which would prevent Social Security from keeping up with seniors' increasing costs. Recently, The Washington Post so-called "liberal columnist" Richard Cohen wrote, "People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York—a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children.”  Enough said on that one.  The Post also employs notable rabidly Islamaphobic blogger Jennifer Rubin.Chuck Todd, NBC News Political Director, actually asserted during an appearance on Morning Joe, “It’s not our job to inform viewers when Republicans lie.” This is what journalism has come to -- in the context of one of the most intense disinformation campaigns in history attacking the Affordable Care Act. What do Chuck Todd and NBC think journalists should do?
==BLOG:<h2> WaPo Driving the "Right"</h2>

The Washington Post has hired <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Ben_Domenech" title="Ben Domenech">Ben Domenech</a>, co-founder of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Conservative&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Conservative (page does not exist)">conservative</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.redstate.com/">RedState.com</a>, to write a new daily blog on its website called <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/redamerica/">Red America</a>, Editor & Publisher <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002200090">reported</a> March 21, 2006.

"After a stint as chief speechwriter for Senator <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/John_Cornyn" title="John Cornyn">John Cornyn</a> (R-Tx.), he co-founded [RedState.com] and became a book editor at <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Regnery_Publishing" title="Regnery Publishing">Regnery Publishing</a>, where he worked with <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Michelle_Malkin" title="Michelle Malkin">Michelle Malkin</a> and others," E&P wrote.

"Almost immediately the liberal blogosphere exploded with outrage

over Domenech's hiring by the Post. But by Thursday bloggers had more

than ideological reasons to oppose the Post's move, as he <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.first-draft.com/">plagiarized film critic Stephanie Zacharek</a>, and <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/1999/11/05/bachelor/index.html">Mary Elizabeth Williams, writing about television</a>," Joe Conason <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/03/24/domenech_blog/index.html">reported</a> in Slate March 24, 2006. "As a college student Ben Domenech lifted arts criticism; as a <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/GOP" title="GOP" class="mw-redirect">GOP</a> henchman, he was accused of fabricating a <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tim_Russert" title="Tim Russert">Tim Russert</a> quote."

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Dan_Froomkin" title="Dan Froomkin">Dan Froomkin</a> "has spent a decade at the Post, and also worked for the Winston-Salem Journal, the Miami Herald and the Orange County Register.

Froomkin is also deputy editor of niemanwatchdog.org, the web site of

the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University," E&P wrote.

"Whatever Froomkin's political views may be, he is a veteran reporter

with a long résumé of newspaper jobs, including a decade at the Post.

Domenech is a partisan operative with no newsroom experience of any

kind, no training in journalistic standards and ethics, and nothing to

guide him except home schooling and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Republican_Party" title="Republican Party" class="mw-redirect">Republican</a> reflexes," Conason wrote.===

<ul class="index"><li>

<h1><a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2009/12/03/so-how-much-did-big-oil-pay-for-a-seat-at-newsw/157695">So, how much did Big Oil pay for a seat at Newsweek's table?</a></h1>

<h5>

›››

December 3, 2009 10:51 AM EST ›››

JAMISON FOSER

</h5>

Defending <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2009/11/09/newsweek-teams-with-big-oil-for-energy-policy-f/156725">Newsweek's global warming panel</a>,

which was sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute and featured

API president Jack Gerard -- but no representative of environmental

groups -- Newsweek director of external relations Mark Block insisted

"These events are transparent. They're on the record. ... There's no

concern of appearance of impropriety because it's an open and

transparent process." Newsweek's Howard Fineman, who moderated the

panel, agreed earlier this week: "I see nothing wrong with an open,

on-the-record balanced discussion like this."

"Open"? "Transparent"? That's interesting, because when a <a href="http://enviroknow.com/2009/12/03/newsweek-hosts-policy-forum-with-top-oil-lobbyist-the-fallout/">Greenpeace staffer caught up with Gerard after the event</a> and asked him how much API paid for his seat on the panel, Gerard refused to answer.

So: By "<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2009/12/02/newsweeks-fineman-defends-balance-of-panel-that/157666">balanced discussion</a>,"

Newsweek means "the panel doesn't include environmental groups, but

does include oil lobbyists who pay us" and by "transparent," they mean

"but we won't tell you how much they pay us."

Got it.

</div>

</li><li>

<h1><a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2009/12/02/newsweeks-fineman-defends-balance-of-panel-that/157666">Newsweek's Fineman defends "balance" of panel that included oil industry, excluded enviro groups</a></h1>

<h5>

›››

December 2, 2009 3:28 PM EST ›››

JAMISON FOSER

</h5>

Newsweek's Howard Fineman <a href="http://enviroknow.com/2009/12/01/fineman-newsweek-ap/">responded</a> to controversy over the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2009/11/09/newsweek-teams-with-big-oil-for-energy-policy-f/156725">Newsweek/big oil panel</a> he moderated last night: <blockquote> Rep.

Ed Markey, the chief sponsor of the House cap-and-trade bill and a

leading environmental advocate, is a full participant in the open,

on-the-record discussion with no control by API over the questions or

flow. Dem Sen Byron Dorgan is also participating and will reflect

various views in Dem caucus. Rep Fred Upton, who opposed the House bill,

will also participate. I see nothing wrong with an open, on-the-record

balanced discussion like this. Newsweek has a long tradition of enviro

reporting, including our annual green issue.</blockquote> Seriously?

The "discussion" featured the president of the American Petroleum

Institute -- which just happens to fund Newsweek -- but no

representatives of environmental organizations ... and Howard Fineman

calls that a "balanced discussion"?

Apparently to Newsweek, "balance" means "Industry representatives who fund us and--Hey! Look over there!"

</div>

</li><li>

<h1><a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2009/11/09/newsweek-teams-with-big-oil-for-energy-policy-f/156725">Newsweek Teams With Big Oil For Energy Policy Forum</a></h1>

<h5>

›››

November 9, 2009 12:31 PM EST ›››

JAMISON FOSER

</h5>

The New York Times has a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/11/05/05greenwire-apis-partnership-with-inewsweeki-raises-ad-cas-65754.html?pagewanted=all">good article</a> spelling out the obvious problems with Newsweek's decision to <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2009/11/04/tpm-newsweek-oil-lobby-team-up-to-host-climate/156519">team up</a> with the American Petroleum Institute for a forum titled "Climate and Energy Policy: Moving?"

Here's the situation in a nutshell: API is paying Newsweek, in exchange for which API president Jack Gerard gets to be the featured participant in a Newsweek forum moderated by Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman. Newsweek says there's nothing wrong with the arrangement, because it is "transparent": <blockquote> "There's

absolutely no conflict of interest, because they're not driving our

editorial" content, [Newsweek director of external relations Mark] Block

said. "These events are transparent. They're on the record. They're

inclusive of media. They're inclusive of people that might disagree.

There's no concern of appearance of impropriety because it's an open and

transparent process."</blockquote> That does not, strictly speaking, appear to be true. Take a look at a "V.I.P. Invitation" <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/newsweek_and_oil_lobby_team_up_to_host_climate_cha.php?ref=fpb">email</a> Newsweek External Relations Manager Jennifer Slattery sent out about the forum: <blockquote> The

panel discussion will be moderated Howard Fineman, Newsweek

National-Affairs Columnist and Senior Washington Correspondent with

special guest panelist Jack Gerard, President & Chief Executive

Officer of American Petroleum Institute (API). Newsweek is also honored

to have forum invitations currently pending confirmation with notable

members of the United States House of Representatives and the United

States Senate.</blockquote> No mention of the fact that API paid for Gerard's participation in the event. So much for "an open and transparent process."

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/11/05/05greenwire-apis-partnership-with-inewsweeki-raises-ad-cas-65754.html?pagewanted=all">And so much for "no concern of appearance of impropriety"</a>: <blockquote> [J]ournalism and ethics experts decried the arrangement.

"You're

selling access," said Edward Wasserman, Knight professor of journalism

ethics at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Va. "Newsweek is

using its reputation as a great news organization to convene these

officeholders to talk about public policy. Then it's renting out a space

at the table for one of its customers who would not be at the table if

not for giving money to Newsweek."

John Watson, associate professor of communication law and journalism ethics at American University in Washington, agreed.

"You're enticing them to buy these ads to get this thing of value," Watson said.</blockquote> Newsweek's

claims that API's funding doesn't influence its editorial decisions are

undermined by the fact that the forum features Gerard -- but doesn't

include any representatives of environmental organizations. And, it

seems, <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/newsweek_and_oil_lobby_team_up_to_host_climate_cha.php?ref=fpb">Newsweek doesn't have any pans to address that exclusion</a>: <blockquote> Asked

whether Newsweek planned to invite a representative from an

environmental group to the upcoming event, to balance Gerard's

appearance, Block said the magazine "would definitely consider that

opportunity," if there were a high-profile environmentalist who might be

appropriate. But he said that because members of Congress would likely

also participate, time constraints might dictate against it.</blockquote> Yeah, I bet they might.

And I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Newsweek <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/221608">happily publishes</a>

global warming deniers like George Will. And its probably just another

coincidence that Will's column relies on the work of the American

Enterprise Institute, which gets funding from the likes of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute%23Funding">Exxon Mobil</a> and the <a href="http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/American_Enterprise_Institute_for_Public_Policy_Research/funders">Charles G. Koch Charitable Trust</a>.

That's Charles Koch as in Koch Industries, which was once <a href="http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2000/January/019enrd.htm">required to pay</a>

"the largest civil fine ever imposed on a company under any federal

environmental law to resolve claims related to more than 300 oil spills

from its pipelines and oil facilities in six states." Or perhaps you

know Koch Industries better as the company that got rich in part by

stealing oil from Indian reservations and federal lands -- that is, from

U.S. Taxpayers. Then they used the money they stole from taxpayers --

that is, from you -- to fund right-wing think-tanks that advocate policies that would help people like Charles Koch at the expense of, well, you. (Koch Industries <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/27/60II/main252545.shtml">agreed to pay $25 million in penalties</a> for stealing all that oil.)

Anyway, I'm sure that's all just coincidence.

Oh, and it's probably also a coincidence that Newsweek is owned by the Washington Post Company, and that the Post got caught earlier this year trying to sell off access to its reporters to corporate sponsors.

</div>

</li></ul>===<a href="http://grist.org/media/the-washington-post-speaks-the-truth-on-climate-change/">
</a><a href="http://grist.org/media/the-washington-post-speaks-the-truth-on-climate-change/">http://grist.org/media/the-washington-post-speaks-the-truth-on-climate-change/</a>

==It is just over one week since Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma read Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/31/1183622/-Sen-Inhofe-Takes-Chuck-Hagel-Sec-of-Defense-Hearing-Questions-From-Jennifer-Rubin-s-WaPo-Post">four questions</a> suggested to him by Washington Post

blogger Jennifer Rubin during Hagel's confirmation hearing. The

substance of the questions Inhofe delivered to Hagel in the Senate

chamber -- a typical Rubin laundry list of neoconservative wisdom

gleaned from her January 28 post titled, <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAA&url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/01/28/our-dimwitted-state-department/&ei=DcQTUbC0Naea0QHAwYDoBw&usg=AFQjCNHvEpoIQTqFxg4yqc-k8numuVPgmQ&sig2=M3bRgj4F-4CStzNAMoXcfg&bvm=bv.42080656,d.dmQ">"Our Dimwitted State Department"</a> -- was quickly overshadowed by the public reaction of Post

senior correspondent and associate editor Rajiv Chandrasekaran. When

Inhofe described Rubin's post as "kind of an interesting article,"

Chandrasekaran shot off an angry tweet. "I hate it when senators refer

to WP opinion blogger posts as articles," he growled. "<a href="https://twitter.com/JRubinBlogger">@JRubinBlogger</a> is NOT a WaPo reporter."

That he's right is a fortunate thing for the Post. If the daily employed Rubin to cover national security and international affairs, they'd have a bit of a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/06/03/bill-keller-speaks-out-on-judy-miller-iraq-war/180289&ei=UsYTUe-rCpSF0QHzu4CoCA&usg=AFQjCNFSEIw_BUEXqp4h51r_l_709kGJug&sig2=7PXG0t-TCcx1LfBN4DB0jQ&bvm=bv.42080656,d.dmQ">Judith Miller problem</a>. Since the Post hired Rubin in late 2010, she has routinely <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/192479">embarrassed the paper</a> by <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/05/wapos-rubin-repackages-romney-press-release-as/190378&ei=osYTUcr4L4e_0QHrmYGwAg&usg=AFQjCNH8ZZq1CBIO5IXesYuAA_DOjDZwjw&sig2=vOz26P94iR7JqFruKmyBOQ&bvm=bv.42080656,d.dmQ">putting bylines</a> on Romney campaign press releases; <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/omblog/post/post-roast-jennifer-rubins-retweet/2011/11/07/gIQAxxLQ1M_blog.html">endorsing</a> blood-thirsty calls for revenge against Palestinians; and successfully experimenting with the manufacture of <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/24/who-started-the-benghazi-real-time-video-falseh/192380">durable conservative fantasy narratives</a>.

Chandrasekaran likely isn't the only Post editor displeased with Rubin's frequent assaults on the standards and reputation of his newspaper. But among Post

brass, it seems right he'd be the one with the shortest fuse (he has

not responded to repeated requests to discuss the tweet). Chandrasekaran

spent <a href="http://rajivc.com/about-rajiv/">much of the last decade</a> reporting for the paper from the Middle East, including stints in Egypt, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. He was a key part of the Post's widely praised all-star coverage of the Iraq war and occupation, serving as Baghdad bureau chief in 2003 and 2004.

While the Post failed its readers in many ways during the <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2009/09/15/like-the-iraq-war-thank-the-washington-post/154597">selling of the war</a>,

its coverage from Iraq was often unmatched. Chandrasekaran's reporting

colleagues during those years included Steve Coll, Anthony Shadid, and

Tom Ricks, who together wrote much of the first draft of the sordid

history of the Bush administration's refusal to plan for the aftermath

in Iraq and the widespread suffering that resulted....<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/07/the-wash-posts-jennifer-rubin-divide-and-the-ir/192570">http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/07/the-wash-posts-jennifer-rubin-divide-and-the-ir/192570</a>

===

Even more Orwellian is the sight of reporters at news outlets like the Washington Post – which has outsourced much of its financial reporting to an organization run by right-wing billionaire Pete Peterson – to use labels such as “extreme” and “fringe” to describe politicians and organizations who are advocated for policies which in some cases are supported by 75 or 80 percent of all Americans. This creates a false reality which supports our final loss of freedom:  alternet