As noted previously, the community is attempting to note Pacifica Radio programming. Here's Rebecca discussing Flashpoints and make a point to listen to the Jeremy Scahill and Dahr Jamal broadcast.
flashpoints, jeremy scahill on john f. burns, and more
did i note ava and c.i's review of las vegas? i think i did but it's worth noting twice.
i was reminded of that when i was reading seth's latest. if you haven't checked it out yet, please make a point to read "Some Highlights."
on kpfa this week, there was a lot coming out of flashpoints.
sherry e-mailed me a heads up to thursday's episode. i wasn't on when it was broadcast so i'm listening to it now. jeremy scahill gives an incredible speech about the way journalists are targeted in iraq and especially arab journalists. of course, the 1s targeted are the unembed journalists. not the dexy filkins who reportedly cancel interviews if the military gives him a cross look. but the 1s who are trying to get the story and report it.
'that's what's most threatening' to bully boy and the democrats who go along, witnesses.
what wasn't threatening were the people like john f. burns. 'he was a terrible propagandist for the war,' jeremy scahill said.
he spoke of how in october of 2002, he was at a museum in iraq and seeing gold spurs that ronald reagan had given saddam, seeing photos of saddam hussein and chirac drinking milk. and all the sudden they were told that saddam would be making a big announcement. since this was october 2002, and war was on the horizon, they were curious what the announcement was?
it was that all prisoners would be released except those thought to be spying for israel. jeremy was at a prison, i believe abu ghraib, and it was a big moment as families lined up to greet the people who had been imprisoned.
there was a lot of happiness and a lot of tears. but when john f. burns writes it up in the new york time, 'he wrote for the new york times that many of the prisoners thanked george w. bush' for releasing them from prison. many? approximately 30-40,000 people were released. jeremy didn't hear any of them thanking bully boy.
so he goes up to john f. burns and pulls out his pad and pen and asks '"many"? are we talking like 1,000s that said that.'
burns made it up. but instead of answering jeremy, he has a snit fit and starts screaming 'are you saying that pulitzer committee twice erred' when they gave him prizes.
yes, john f. burns, they did make a mistake. jeremy doesn't say that but i will. they made a mistake because they thought you were a journalist. you aren't. a journalist doesn't go bad overnight. you didn't just get it wrong, you penned propaganda. so yes, john, the pulitizer board made a mistake. as shameful as roxanne's later escpades?
no, more shameful because this had to do with integrity.
i loved hearing that speech, so let's thank sherry because due to volunteer work, i usually am not able to hear thursday's flashpoints.
i'll also say 'way to go c.i.' because c.i.'s been all over the new york times' nonsense from iraq and didn't let up. even when people would write and say 'how can you say that!' when people were averting their eyes online and acting like dexy filkins was a real journalist, c.i. was noting reality.
last week, i quoted c.i. writing about dexy's 'award winning reporting' and i want to note that this was in real time. c.i. wrote about the problems with that 'reporting' the morning it ran in the paper. the site wasn't even a week old, the common ills, but c.i. didn't shirk responsibility or look the other way. if other people had done the same, we'd be out of iraq now.
c.i. got some really rude e-mails, especially when dexy won his award (a polk i think) for his propaganda on the slaughter of falluja in november of 2004. terry gross kissed dexy's ass on fresh air. so she's just as bad as dexy. she brought him on and let him issue his propaganda.
when npr's willing to put an end to terry gross' stale gas and provide listeners with something of actual value, we'll know npr has changed. but the thing is that they will never change.
online, a lot of people wanted to dog pile judy miller but they kept their mouths shut about dexy. and they really kept their mouth shut about judy's coverage of the u.n. c.i. didn't. in the infamous rudith miller post (which i.d.ed scoots libby as the source months before the investigation, in case you missed that) c.i. dubbed it her 'grudge f--k against the u.n.'
c.i. got ripped off weeks later when a print writer basically cribbed those parts of the entry. i bet he feels bad now that he didn't pick up on the clue as to who leaked to judy. if he had, he could have stolen that from c.i. as well. he might look really informed today - to those who didn't realize that he was a thief stealing from c.i. c.i.'s attitude then was 'oh who cares' and c.i. even highlighted the rip-off without saying 'hey doesn't this look familiar?' that's why a number of us were so furious when c.i. got ripped off on the miller story last summer because it's become a pattern. yesterday, today and tomorrow, if you want to know about the times, you're better off reading c.i. the common ills could be all about the new york times. c.i. has friends there and knows all the gossip. (i'm always saying 'write about that!' when c.i. passes on a tidbit. but c.i. tries to avoid the office gossip.)
but that's why c.i. never suffered from the mistaken belief that judith miller was the problem at the paper. she wasn't. she was 1 problem. she wasn't the only 1 and she wasn't the only 1 who was 'reporting' with regards to iraq. judith miller wrote bad reporting. did she do it intentionally? i don't know.
she may have just been a poor journalist who wrote what she was fed without having the brains to question. i doubt it, but that's possible.
it's not possible that john f. burns was just fed information. or dexy filkins. they wrote up fantasies in the paper, fantasies that bore no reality to what they saw.
it really amazes me that, to this day, the strongest critique of filkins comes from c.i. and that most other sites continue to refuse to cover what filkins did. c.i.'s said repeatedly 'if judith miller was one who got us over there, dexter filkins is one who keeps us over there.'
maybe it's just easier or more fun to beat up on a woman?
or maybe some suffer clinton-on-the-brain (like our latter day dylan) and they think it's more productive to turn their sites over to 'they distorted bill!' or 'they distorted hillary!' on a daily basis. maybe some can't look at the calendars and see that the years is 2006, not 1996?
it's past time that the net jumped in on dexy. but it will probably take 6 more months before any 1 will question the 'award winning' dexy. anyone but c.i. that is. (i'm talking online. dahr jamail, christian parenti and jeremy scahill have questioned dexy's 'reporting.')
too bad because if they'd jumped on it while judy was under the gun, we might be more informed. at least we're informed in this community. outside? well the daily bulletins from the clinton fan club must serve some value. i can't imagine what, but some 1 must be pleased.
i searched my links and i see that rudith's been ripped off even more than i knew. it must be 'brave' 10 months later to rip off a well known entry without giving credit - even using the name c.i. dubbed her 'rudith.' i also found it cute how 'reading press releases live from the green zone' was ripped off by some 1 elaine and c.i. loathe. i'll call elaine later tonight to tell her i added the links to her post and that the creep, as elaine calls him, ripped off 'reading press releases live from the green zone.' and it only took the creep a month or so to rip it off.
robert parry will be on a kpfa show called the living room tomorrow night. i don't know that show but c.i. just phoned to tell me (i love robert parry). if you want to listen live, it airs at 3:00 pm my time - eastern, so that's 2 in central time zone and noon in pacific. if you can't listen live, remember that kpfa has archives of their broadcasts. i'm so excited. seriously, robert parry is like my idea of a rock star.
back to flashpoints so i can finish this up. wednesday there was a great interview with father gerad jean jerad juste. monday there was a great interview with ray mcgovern about the bully boy's war crimes and tuesday a report from the occupied territories.
if you're not checking out flashpoints, you're missing a lot. and the hour long program moves really quick. i never knew of this program until i called ruth and asked her to give me a show that she always wants to write about but never gets the time to. ruth has so much to cover and it's asking a lot to expect her to cover all the radio programs so, if you missed it last week, i'm covering flashpoints and i'll probably continue to do that on tuesdays.
begging forgiveness to ruth. elaine had her to be linked to and when i added links to elaine's post earlier, i don't think i did that.
i was reminded of that when i was reading seth's latest. if you haven't checked it out yet, please make a point to read "Some Highlights."
on kpfa this week, there was a lot coming out of flashpoints.
sherry e-mailed me a heads up to thursday's episode. i wasn't on when it was broadcast so i'm listening to it now. jeremy scahill gives an incredible speech about the way journalists are targeted in iraq and especially arab journalists. of course, the 1s targeted are the unembed journalists. not the dexy filkins who reportedly cancel interviews if the military gives him a cross look. but the 1s who are trying to get the story and report it.
'that's what's most threatening' to bully boy and the democrats who go along, witnesses.
what wasn't threatening were the people like john f. burns. 'he was a terrible propagandist for the war,' jeremy scahill said.
he spoke of how in october of 2002, he was at a museum in iraq and seeing gold spurs that ronald reagan had given saddam, seeing photos of saddam hussein and chirac drinking milk. and all the sudden they were told that saddam would be making a big announcement. since this was october 2002, and war was on the horizon, they were curious what the announcement was?
it was that all prisoners would be released except those thought to be spying for israel. jeremy was at a prison, i believe abu ghraib, and it was a big moment as families lined up to greet the people who had been imprisoned.
there was a lot of happiness and a lot of tears. but when john f. burns writes it up in the new york time, 'he wrote for the new york times that many of the prisoners thanked george w. bush' for releasing them from prison. many? approximately 30-40,000 people were released. jeremy didn't hear any of them thanking bully boy.
so he goes up to john f. burns and pulls out his pad and pen and asks '"many"? are we talking like 1,000s that said that.'
burns made it up. but instead of answering jeremy, he has a snit fit and starts screaming 'are you saying that pulitzer committee twice erred' when they gave him prizes.
yes, john f. burns, they did make a mistake. jeremy doesn't say that but i will. they made a mistake because they thought you were a journalist. you aren't. a journalist doesn't go bad overnight. you didn't just get it wrong, you penned propaganda. so yes, john, the pulitizer board made a mistake. as shameful as roxanne's later escpades?
no, more shameful because this had to do with integrity.
i loved hearing that speech, so let's thank sherry because due to volunteer work, i usually am not able to hear thursday's flashpoints.
i'll also say 'way to go c.i.' because c.i.'s been all over the new york times' nonsense from iraq and didn't let up. even when people would write and say 'how can you say that!' when people were averting their eyes online and acting like dexy filkins was a real journalist, c.i. was noting reality.
last week, i quoted c.i. writing about dexy's 'award winning reporting' and i want to note that this was in real time. c.i. wrote about the problems with that 'reporting' the morning it ran in the paper. the site wasn't even a week old, the common ills, but c.i. didn't shirk responsibility or look the other way. if other people had done the same, we'd be out of iraq now.
c.i. got some really rude e-mails, especially when dexy won his award (a polk i think) for his propaganda on the slaughter of falluja in november of 2004. terry gross kissed dexy's ass on fresh air. so she's just as bad as dexy. she brought him on and let him issue his propaganda.
when npr's willing to put an end to terry gross' stale gas and provide listeners with something of actual value, we'll know npr has changed. but the thing is that they will never change.
online, a lot of people wanted to dog pile judy miller but they kept their mouths shut about dexy. and they really kept their mouth shut about judy's coverage of the u.n. c.i. didn't. in the infamous rudith miller post (which i.d.ed scoots libby as the source months before the investigation, in case you missed that) c.i. dubbed it her 'grudge f--k against the u.n.'
c.i. got ripped off weeks later when a print writer basically cribbed those parts of the entry. i bet he feels bad now that he didn't pick up on the clue as to who leaked to judy. if he had, he could have stolen that from c.i. as well. he might look really informed today - to those who didn't realize that he was a thief stealing from c.i. c.i.'s attitude then was 'oh who cares' and c.i. even highlighted the rip-off without saying 'hey doesn't this look familiar?' that's why a number of us were so furious when c.i. got ripped off on the miller story last summer because it's become a pattern. yesterday, today and tomorrow, if you want to know about the times, you're better off reading c.i. the common ills could be all about the new york times. c.i. has friends there and knows all the gossip. (i'm always saying 'write about that!' when c.i. passes on a tidbit. but c.i. tries to avoid the office gossip.)
but that's why c.i. never suffered from the mistaken belief that judith miller was the problem at the paper. she wasn't. she was 1 problem. she wasn't the only 1 and she wasn't the only 1 who was 'reporting' with regards to iraq. judith miller wrote bad reporting. did she do it intentionally? i don't know.
she may have just been a poor journalist who wrote what she was fed without having the brains to question. i doubt it, but that's possible.
it's not possible that john f. burns was just fed information. or dexy filkins. they wrote up fantasies in the paper, fantasies that bore no reality to what they saw.
it really amazes me that, to this day, the strongest critique of filkins comes from c.i. and that most other sites continue to refuse to cover what filkins did. c.i.'s said repeatedly 'if judith miller was one who got us over there, dexter filkins is one who keeps us over there.'
maybe it's just easier or more fun to beat up on a woman?
or maybe some suffer clinton-on-the-brain (like our latter day dylan) and they think it's more productive to turn their sites over to 'they distorted bill!' or 'they distorted hillary!' on a daily basis. maybe some can't look at the calendars and see that the years is 2006, not 1996?
it's past time that the net jumped in on dexy. but it will probably take 6 more months before any 1 will question the 'award winning' dexy. anyone but c.i. that is. (i'm talking online. dahr jamail, christian parenti and jeremy scahill have questioned dexy's 'reporting.')
too bad because if they'd jumped on it while judy was under the gun, we might be more informed. at least we're informed in this community. outside? well the daily bulletins from the clinton fan club must serve some value. i can't imagine what, but some 1 must be pleased.
i searched my links and i see that rudith's been ripped off even more than i knew. it must be 'brave' 10 months later to rip off a well known entry without giving credit - even using the name c.i. dubbed her 'rudith.' i also found it cute how 'reading press releases live from the green zone' was ripped off by some 1 elaine and c.i. loathe. i'll call elaine later tonight to tell her i added the links to her post and that the creep, as elaine calls him, ripped off 'reading press releases live from the green zone.' and it only took the creep a month or so to rip it off.
robert parry will be on a kpfa show called the living room tomorrow night. i don't know that show but c.i. just phoned to tell me (i love robert parry). if you want to listen live, it airs at 3:00 pm my time - eastern, so that's 2 in central time zone and noon in pacific. if you can't listen live, remember that kpfa has archives of their broadcasts. i'm so excited. seriously, robert parry is like my idea of a rock star.
back to flashpoints so i can finish this up. wednesday there was a great interview with father gerad jean jerad juste. monday there was a great interview with ray mcgovern about the bully boy's war crimes and tuesday a report from the occupied territories.
if you're not checking out flashpoints, you're missing a lot. and the hour long program moves really quick. i never knew of this program until i called ruth and asked her to give me a show that she always wants to write about but never gets the time to. ruth has so much to cover and it's asking a lot to expect her to cover all the radio programs so, if you missed it last week, i'm covering flashpoints and i'll probably continue to do that on tuesdays.
begging forgiveness to ruth. elaine had her to be linked to and when i added links to elaine's post earlier, i don't think i did that.
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.
