Libby's Motions
/in Press and Media /by emptywheelYesterday and today, we’ve gotten more news that Libby’s defense team is requesting all manner of stuff. ReddHedd explains that this is normal operating procedure, not to read too much into it. And while I’ll cede to RH’s expert judgment on legal issues, I wonder whether there isn’t something more going on.
After all, this is only nominally the "Libby Defense Team." In reality, Libby’s team of lawyers is attempting to ensure that the Plame scandal reaches no further than Libby, that it doesn’t taint the rest of the Neocon cabal who participated in outing Plame and, more importantly, made the false case to bring the country to war. The fund is managed by a lifetime Republican operative, Barbara Comstock and chaired by Mel Sembler, Ambassador to Italy when the whole Niger caper was planned. In addition, the fund includes such notable contributors as Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Bernard Lewis, and James Woolsey. These folks are not just trying to bail out (literally) a good friend. They’re trying to prevent their entire Neocon project from being severely damaged by the trial.
So what do I think they’re after, this Neocon Defense Team with their motions? Well, they’re after stuff that Libby knows about–but that the Defensedoesn’t know whether or how Fitzgerald knows about. They’re trying toascertain, I suspect, how much evidence Fitzgerald has against othermembers of the team. And if they can figure that out, they may adjustLibby’s defense accordingly.
Which Came First, Daou's Triangle, or the Egg?
/in Blogs Internet and New Media, Bush Administration, Press and Media /by emptywheelI’m not sure I buy it.
Lefty blogosphere is agog over Peter Daou’s latest assessment of Democratic woes. And while I absolutely agree with Daou’s description of the predominance of a Republican narrative…
Matthews, Moore, Murtha, and the Media:What’s the common thread running through the past half-decade of Bush’spresidency? What’s the nexus between the Swift-boating of Kerry, theSwift-boating of Murtha, and the guilt-by-association between Democratsand terrorists? Why has a seemingly endless string of administrationscandals faded into oblivion? Why do Democrats keep losing elections? It’s this: thetraditional media, the trusted media, the "neutral" media, have becomethe chief delivery mechanism of potent anti-Democratic and pro-Bushstorylines. And the Democratic establishment appears to be either ignorant of this political quandary or unwilling to fight it.
There’s a critical distinction to be made here: individual reporters may lean left, isolatednews stories may be slanted against the administration. What I’mdescribing is the wholesale peddling by the "neutral" press ofdeep-seated narratives, memes, and soundbites: simple, targeted talkingpoints that paint a picture of reality for the American public thatfavors the right and tarnishes the left.
…I don’t buy the picture of media responsibility Daou paints.
The First Amendment, WaPo, and Native Americans
/in Press and Media /by emptywheelWe’ve been hearing a lot from journalists and newspapers about the First Amendment of late. "It’s under assault! They’re coming after the journalists! Defend the First Amendment!" Now I don’t want to dismiss those complaints (and will return to Phelps’ article in the near future).
But it goes without saying that, when the same newspapers crying about their First Amendment rights shut down the voice of their reader, the proclaimed concerns about the First Amendment begin to ring hollow. And it’s in the treatment of Native American campaign donations that this false concern really begins to ring with the sick sound of a cow bell.
You see, the Right has spent a lot of time in the last few years defending unlimited campaign donations on free speech grounds. In Buckley v. Valeo, SCOTUS confirmed the legal basis for this notion. Campaign donations are protected under the First Amendment because they are a kind of free speech. And well-funded fundies will repeat that equation until they’re red in the face.
Risen Makes Editors Sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement
/in Press and Media /by emptywheelThe increasingly indispensible NY Observer Off the Record reports this week that James Risen required his NYT editors to sign a non-disclosure agreement before they could see the manuscript for his book. And they didn’t see the manuscript until after they decided to run the wiretap story.
When they decided to send the long-gestating N.S.A. piece to press in December, Timeseditors couldn’t confirm whether Mr. Risen’s manuscript contained thewiretapping story or not. In the end, they didn’t see the book until aweek before it was in bookstores.Through several months in late 2005, Mr. Risen and bureau chief Phil Taubman had clashed over whether Timeseditors would get a preview of the book’s closely guarded contents,sources said. It was not until Dec. 27—11 days after the wiretappingstory had run—that Mr. Risen relented and allowed Mr. Taubman to seethe manuscript. Mr. Risen insisted that senior editors who viewed thepre-publication copy sign nondisclosure agreements and agree not todiscuss the book’s contents.
This news adds an intriguing wrinkle to speculation surrounding the publication of the NYT scoop. Was Risen withholding his manuscript in order to force the NYT into publishing the story? Did he violate NYT’s ethical guidelines in order to ensure the stories he tells in State of War got to print?