Roundtable

Jim: It's time for another media roundtable, by popular demand and by the demand of events themselves. Participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and me, Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man, C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, and Wally of The Daily Jot. The way this works is that we're discussing various topics, Ava and C.I. take notes, the notes are then typed up by the rest of us. At some point, either after typing or before, we edit this 'rough transcript' to get it down to a workable size. That's the basics. We'll be covering some minor things because readers have asked about them and we'll be covering some big topics as well. The big topics include Ehren Watada, independent print media, race, Barak Obama and more. So let's get started. Ehren Watada's court-martial began last Monday. It concluded on Wednesday when Judge Toilet declared a mistrial over the objections of the defense. We'll note that Norman Solomon and John Nichols wrote about the court-martial, Solomon's piece was on the leadup and the rally Sunday, Nichols' piece was written after Judge Toilet declared a mistrial. We'll also note that some people covered it as they have throughout, since Ehren Watada went public, that includes The Honolulu Star Bulletin, The Honolulu Advertiser, Amy Goodman and Democracy Now!, Truthout, the Associated Press, Hal Bernton of The Seattle Times, Mike Barber of The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Free Speech Radio News, The KPFA Evening News, Aaron Glantz, etc. MTV began covering it in the lead up.

Dona: I'm going to stop you for a second to single out Glantz. Aaron Glantz, last week and before, reported on the Watada story for KPFA's Evening News and The Morning Show, he reported on it for Free Speech Radio, he reported on it for IPS, he reported on it for OneWorld.
His voice went out on Wednesday and that's probably at least partly due to his work load so let's single him out for special notice.

Jim: Agreed and C.I. just slipped me a note also noting Ben Hamamoto and The Nichi Bei Times. I'm going to toss to C.I. to see if anything else needs to be added.

C.I.: Well it should also be noted that, collectively, the college press covered this story from the start. Eli Sanders has covered it for Time and The Seattle Stranger. KPFA's Flashpoints, Dennis Bernstein and Nora Barrows-Friedman, covered the topic in depth and frequently. Pacific News covered it throughout, The San Francisco Chronicle and The Los Angeles Times covered it throughout -- by "throughout," I'm referring to last week and months ago. The Berkeley Daily Planet deserves notice, The San Francisco Guardian, WBAI's Law and Disorder did some strong work, Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith did 'online exclusives' for The Nation -- two about Watada, another one that mentioned his teleconference but wasn't about that or him, and last week a piece on the mistrial. Margaret Prescod (Sojourner Truth, KPFK) Sonali Kolhatkar (Uprising, KPFK) and Laura Flanders (RadioNation with Laura Flanders, Air America Radio) are among the others that deserve credit. Pacifica radio, at all their stations, tackled the stand and what it meant. I would also credit BuzzFlash which made a real point to highlight stories on Watada in the lead up to the court-martial, during the court-martial and after the mistrial. These were stories that they linked to from other outlets but, in their link headlines, they repeatedly noted that they stood with Watada. There's probably a few others that would come to mind, if I'd prepared, but those people and outlets deserve to be singled out. Oh, one more. Randi Rhodes, on The Randi Rhodes Show (Air America Radio), addressed the topic repeatedly, not just last week, and she did so seriously. Others may think they did so seriously, such as Terry Gross with her one-off show, but she's fooling herself, she didn't understand the issues involved and she didn't understand procedure. Rhodes served in the military and, if she had any questions, wouldn't have thought twice about asking Ann Wright. That's important to note because Terry Gross was one of the people providing misinformation because they were too stupid to do the work required of them.

Rebecca: Terry Gross of NPR's Not So Fresh Air.

Jim: And we were going to address the people like Gross later but this may be a good time to address it now. I'm going to toss to Wally.

Wally: One of the sites I do go to online is Democratic Underground. They posted about Watada and it resulted in a string of comments -- the day I checked, it was the most commented on post they had which isn't surprising to anyone except the people who decides what makes it into the print versions of The Nation or The Progressive. There was no problem with the post itself but there were two people posting comments that really tried to control the debate and lied, intentionally or not. They kept saying one stupid thing after another. On the United Nations, it was the charter didn't matter.

Rebecca: Which Marjorie Cohn addressed on Thursday's Flashpoints. The United States agreed to the charter, at which point it becomes a treaty and the Constitution addresses the legal nature of agreed upon treaties. I didn't read the thing Wally's talking about but it is dumb ass "logic."

Wally: And then the dumb asses, who said they had been in the military, started saying that an order was follwed and there was no reason not to follow the order. I need to note that they each posted, both dumb asses, about ten to twenty times a piece.

Elaine: Well, obvioulsy, an illegal order should not be followed and Ann Wright has addressed this, when she was in the military, one of the things she did was teach this.

C.I.: The Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Elaine: Right. Thank you. It sounds like, Wally, they were trotting out their military experience -- real or imagined -- to steer the debate.

Wally: Yeah, that's exactly what they were doing. When something like the UCMJ was brought up, they'd be off on their "Well I served and blah blah blahtty blah."

Elaine: You know what? I drive a car. Doesn't make an expert on engines.

Ty: I'm laughing at Elaine's comment but I agree with it. People can speak about their own experiences and should but just because they claim to have done something doesn't make them an expert on something else. The dumb asses didn't know what they were talking about. Wally was really bothered by that nonsense and he showed it to me. They were two jerks who didn't understand anything they were talking about. If they were in the military, if, who knows what they did? But they didn't know what they were talking about and that goes to how the press failed on this case.

Cedric: Right because they didn't get out front on this and when they covered it, they usually didn't address Nuremberg or the training when you thought you received an illegal order. I mean, Ruth, our Ruth in her Ruth's Reports, did a better job outlining those issues in August, a better job than most of the press ever did.

Betty: Terry Gross didn't even grasp the issues. That was reporting malpractice, her two segments, the interview with Watada and then the follow up with an 'expert.' Was she interested in presenting the issues because it didn't seem like she even bothered. She did try to copy Diane Sawyer's shaming of the Dixie Chicks. She's an overrated hack whose delivery, heavy on the sexuality, isn't aging well. A friend at work kept track of the guests, because C.I. had noted that Terry Gross doesn't have all that much Fresh Air to spare for women, so she kept track of the guests last week. Here they are, in order: Valerie Faris and Jonathan Dayton, and writer Michael Arndt, Jon Mooallem, Elif Shafak, Dr. Michael Stein, Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, Ken Tucker, Mark Wahlberg, Ed Ward, David Edelstein and Jack Brokensha and Joe Hunter. Now let me note that a lot of that was canned. The Al Gore segment aired in May of last year. Apparently it's really hard, even with guest hosts, to turn out a whole hour of programming a day. Hunter passed away, his interview was from 2002. For those who have trouble with the count, there were eleven voices featured on The Not So Fresh Air last week and only two were women, Faris and Shafak. That's a little over 1/5 of the guests. And I believe C.I.'s point was Gross usually airs a whopping two female guests each week, despite having multiple segments on each hour. I know we're going to deal with representation in a bit but since Gross came up, I'm tossing that out now.

Ava: It does bear noting and we will talk about this more but, especially with NPR having provided opportunities for women, for one of those women, Terry Gross, to give nothing back to women is appalling. She really is all about the boys and her shtick is not aging well. To get us back to Watada, the expert she provided on Watada was Eugene Fidell and I'll echo C.I.'s point that Fidell crossed over from objective analyst on Watada's case some time ago and doesn't need to be offered as the sole voice speaking on the case because there is nothing objective in his 'analysis.' He thought Watada should be court-martialed. This was not a case of him walking people through the issues, this was a case of his personal opinion. If the press is going to provide someone who is an advocate for one side, they need to provide an advocate for the other. Marjorie Cohn and Michael Ratner can both speak to the issues of Watada's case. C.I. and I both laid into a friend who was using Fidell last week and pointed out that we were being told that Cohn and Ratner had a position but Fidell was "just analyzing." No, he's not "just analyzing." He has advocated court-martial since the beginning. He does not need to be presented as an unbiased expert, he clearly has a position and he has expressed it.

Jess: And that point needs to be made loudly because Fidell keeps popping up in articles and broadcasts because he is seen as "objective." He has not been objective about Watada. I'll speak only to the issue of Watada, but he's not been "objective" on that. The mainstream needs to face reality and stop running to him for Watada commentary unless they're willing to provide commentary from someone who supports Watada. And Cohn and Ratner were said to not be "objective." If Fidell's getting in with the lie that he's "objective," that lie needs to be exposed and people need to start demanding that Cohn, Ratner or Ann Wright be brought on or quoted. Especially Ann Wright because she taught what Watada's basing his stand on.

Mike: I support all three, and more, being brought into the conversation. One of the things Jim and I discussed last week was The New York Times and I'm going to touch on their handling of Watada. Tom Zeller Jr. posted, the Friday before the court-martial began, right?, that Watada was a deserter. He is not a deserter and The New York Times refused to correct that.

Ty: Not only that but they censored people. We've got 27 e-mails on that.

Mike: Right. Zeller got it wrong. And if you tried to correct it in a comment, this is at the paper's hilarious attempt at a blog, if you tried to correct it, they wouldn't post your comment. They pre-screen all comments.

Ty: And that includes something as simple as "Watada is not a deserter. Please correct." That is something their net nannies refused to allow on their blog.

Mike: Why are they taking comments when they won't post when they're called on their 'facts.'

C.I.: Just to back up, because some others have used that, though at least one right winger admitted months ago that 'technically' Watada wasn't a deserter. A deserter, by the legal definition, is someone who leaves. Thirty days is not the rule but it's generally used as the measure stick between AWOL and desertion. Watada didn't leave the military. He refused deployment, as he had told the military he would for months prior, but he didn't leave the military. He continued to show up on base and do his assigned duties while the military figured out their next move. He did not 'desert' and he was not charged with 'desertion.' I haven't read the e-mails Ty's talking about, that came to this site, but I do know that a lot of people have e-mailed The Common Ills about this, about how the corrections department was notified and they refused to address it, how higher ups through the chain were notified and they refused to address it. And I have no idea of how many complaints there were about comments not making it to the paper's blog but there were a ton of them.

Mike: So why allow comments? What is the point of the paper creating online stories and wanting comments? You can praise the article and get posted but if you point out a real flaw in it, The New York Times isn't going to allow it to go up. It's nothing but a damn echo chamber. I'm really furious about that because the impression they give is that this a free flowing conversation and only 'abusive' comments are not allowed. Someone writing: "Zeller is incorrect, Watada is not a deserter" is not abusive. They are playing it like they only censor bad language but they are censoring reality. I find that very offensive. I think they're liars for acting like they have a free exchange except for language when they don't. There is no free exchange when a writer can't be called on getting the facts wrong. C.I.?

C.I.: Um, not sure what you want, Mike?

Mike: I just don't think it should ever be linked to again.

C.I.: Okay, well we're not going to at The Common Ills. We will never link to it again. We've linked to it a few times, Zeller was the last time. One time, we linked as a favor to a friend at the paper. But what Mike's pointing out is very serious and, had I know that their comments were censored for something other than language, I never would have linked. But, no, Mike, we won't link to that crap again. I think Jonah made the point best in his e-mail last week where he pointed out that Time magazine allows comments on their blogs that not only point out flaws but also offer a wide range of opinions, pro and con, about their writers. The New York Times is lying to their online readership when they imply that comments are only censored for language. When simply pointing out a factual error leads the, what Ty called, the net nannies to censor the remark, that's nothing to be proud of. If you want comments, you allow people to comment. If you're censoring criticism than you're not about a free exchange of ideas. That's embarrassing that a newspaper would do that. A newspaper is supposed to support free speech and a reader correcting them on a mistake is not abuse.

Mike: Okay, thanks for that. I don't link to that but it has been in the snapshot before and if it was still going to be linked to in those I was going to go on record saying I will pull that out of the snapshot before posting the snapshot.

Dona: The Iraq snapshot, which C.I. does Monday through Friday, and is posted at all community sites because, as Keesha pointed out, if you've put it in your post, even if you don't cover Iraq yourself, it's in there.

Jim: And to clarify on why we don't post the snapshot here currently, when we switched to Beta, we lost the ability to e-mail posts to the site. So back to Mike who had another point on The New York Times.

Mike: Keesha will love me for this, as is noted in Thursday's "Iraq snapshot," William Yardley's piece on the mistrial was bad, really bad. It's like those recaps of soap operas my sister always reads to find out what she missed on her favorite shows while she was in school. The declaration of a mistrial raised serious issues and Yardley didn't have time for any of that. And, just to back up, we can all delete anything from the snapshot when we repost. C.I. always says that. I don't like to and have only done it once because I'm not as fair as C.I., or as forgiving.

Kat: Well, on mainstream coverage, I want to point out how they bungled the coverage of Judge Toilet raising the issue of mistrial. They've bungled what it means, with few exceptions -- The Honolulu Star-Bulletin comes to mind as an exception, but they started bungling it as soon as the mistrial was called. Now, they act like it's not even interesting but, my belief, they don't want people to know this story. They're comfortable saying that a mistrial was called but offering more than that isn't something they're going to do.

Rebecca: Because, God forbid, anyone grasp what just happened. God forbid others follow Watada's lead and stop fighting the war that the press has sold from day one. Trina's "Chicken Cacciatore in the Kitchen" addresses this and makes a point Trina and Wally's mom had which is "do over," used by C.I. before Judge Toilet announced the mistrial, back when he was just floating it, is the phrase the people can most easily grasp. Double-jeopardy is important but with so few outlets covering the meaning of the mistrial, "do over" is easily grasped. The prosecution took their shot, missed the basket and so Judge Toilet gave them a do over. Everyone can grasp that's not fair.

Kat: I would agree with that because it's very basic. People who can't follow the double-jeopardy discussion, or start trying to think, "Wait, what happened in that Ashley Judd movie?", will be able to grasp what a do over is. By the way, I think Marjorie Cohn explained that very well on Flashpoints Thursday, we just got to hear that Saturday, those of us who were in Tacoma, but she explained it very clearly. But there are not a large number of outlets addressing it in depth. If you missed it and can't listen online, you can check out Rebecca's 'ehren in the clear?' which covers that interview. But if anyone's reading this an having trouble grasping double jeopardy, think do over. The prosectution was losing. They did a lousy job with their witnesses and they had rested on Tuesday. Along comes Wednesday and suddenly Judge Toilet is floating a do over.

Cedric: And just to give the basics here, Watada's side didn't want to stop the trial. They objected. The defense wanted to go forward and was prepared to present their case. Judge Toilet wouldn't allow that. He ruled a mistrial over the defense's objection. This is where being tried for the same charge twice comes in. A mistrial wasn't called on account of the jury. There was no reason to stop the case.

Ty: He said it was due to the stipulation that the prosecution and the defense had agreed to. He had seen it, Judge Toilet, and never had any problem with it until Wednesday. At the point, the prosecution was still willing to go forward, even with Toilet floating mistrial over and over. They picked up on the hint and finally said, "Yeah, mistrial!" That's not how it works.

Jim: It's like the Lakers getting to half-time and deciding that since they're losing, the game needs to be called off and rescheduled. People in the stands would be screaming their heads off, on both sides of the arena, and people should be screaming their heads off over this. Just to wrap this up, I'll add that Marjorie Cohn was one of the people the defense wanted to call and not a lot was made of that or others that Judge Toilet denied, in the mainstream reporting, and I think that also goes into how the coverage was lacking. Not only will they hide behind the non-objective Fidell and deny equal time to those on the other side since the mistrial, they weren't really interested in providing those voices before the mistrial.

Dona: And we're not done with the topic of Watada yet, we're just done with mainstream media. Now we're going to zero in on independent media. Elaine?

Elaine: Well I just think it's appalling that a historic court-martial is something The Nation doesn't see fit to include in their print editions. When you include passed on copies, copies flipped through but not purchased at bookstores, copies in college, school and public libraries, the potential reach of the print edition is tremendous and it's a real shame that The Nation seems to think calling Ehren Watada a coward and then offering a sidebar on him, in a January issue, is somehow providing coverage. It's also a real shame that David Cole, their supposed expert, couldn't weigh in on this. I say supposed because I got phone calls on this, including from C.I.'s constitutional law professor, on what is considered an extremely stupid article by David Cole where he takes Bully Boy at face value that the illegal wiretapping program has ended. As C.I.'s con law professor --

C.I.: Whom I didn't sleep with, but Elaine dated.

Elaine: Yes, let's point that out. That's why he called me. I didn't take law classes, I was already in grad school and met him at a protest, he was never my professor, just to be clear that I wasn't one of the many foolish girls, and I use "girl" intentionally, who went around sleeping with their professors or, worse, married their professors. But as C.I.'s con law professor pointed out, Bully Boy lied about the program for years. He didn't own up to it until The New York Times exposed it, finally exposed it, and he was lying about it to the public while it was going on. So for David Cole to write that idiotic nonsense about how the Democrats control of Congress resulted in Bully Boy ending the program was just really, quote, "Out there and reaching." The easiest explanation is that Bully Boy announced it was being discontinued to avoid investigation but since the program was always conducted in secret with denials of its very existance, for anyone to make the leap of faith that the program is over just because Bully Boy says it is reveals, quote, "Gross ignorance of the history of the program and the history of disassembling on the part of this administration." While he was on the phone, I asked if he had read the weak-ass 'defense' of Lynne Stewart that Cole also provided in The Nation some time ago and he agreed that was embarrassing as well. His words there were, quote, "If you're not going to stand up, then shut up." I asked him, by the way, if I could quote him and told him I'd work it in somehow at my site or here. When Mike phoned me from Tacoma last week and told me there was a strong possibility that we'd be doing a roundtable, I immediately called the professor and asked, "Can I use your quotes in that?" He said, please do. He thinks its embarrassing, and he's only recently retired from teaching constitutional law after a lifetime of teaching it, that The Nation's legal correspondent comes off like CNN's. And I would strongly agree with that and every other comment he made.

Rebecca: Though I know that wasn't aimed at me, for the record, I did sleep with professors. I wasn't in need of a Daddy figure, so I never married one.

Elaine: That is true and you were hit in the cross-fire. It wasn't aimed at you. The 'girls' in need of Daddy figures was my target. My apologies to all readers who have slept with their professors.

Jim: So Mike, do you ever worry when Elaine's talking to old lovers?

Mike: When you're packing what I'm packing, you never worry 'bout nothing.

Rebecca: I knew there would be a cock joke. I wasn't sure where, but I told Elaine, who is groaning loudly, that Mike would do a cock joke this week. And I'm willing to bet that was floated ahead of time between Mike and Jim.

Jim: Actually, you're right, I did tell Mike I might bring it up somehow because we keep getting e-mails on it. We've dealt with it, at the request of readers. So Elaine's point is that Cole's writing very timidly?

Elaine: Yes. And that gets to a larger point that Mike and C.I. were discussing this week in Tacoma.

Mike: Right. People are really just bored with a lot of the print independent media.

Ava: In too many instances, they've failed to adapt. I'm not even talking about the changing landscape of print publishing, I'm talking about they've failed to adapt period. I came in on the end of that conversation, Mike wasn't sleepy and he and C.I. were up Tuesday, I think, talking really late. I joined the conversation in progress but I think Mike needs to make the point about the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Mike: Thanks because I forgot that and it's really getting at the heart of it and building on Elaine's comments. Michael Ratner's not going to try to play appeasement and that's how Cole's columns sound to me. He's a strong voice and he is a sign of the failure of print independent media. I had read The Nation every issue since about 2003 and probably glanced at it before that because it used to be a magazine we kept in the house. When I was out in California last May, I was going through issues of it and there was an ad from the Center for Constitutional Rights on the back cover. I've posted that ad to my site. But why didn't I know the Center then? I remember that 2004 issue when it came out. I remember looking at it. I had no idea who the Center was. Now why didn't I know? That goes to the problem.

C.I.: We were discussing both The Nation and The Progressive. On the latter, I was noting that Ruth Conniff, when she's not tickled by Joe Klein, can actually write a very strong book review. And I was sharing my opinion, this is just me, that she's spent too much Beltway time and it's effecting her writing in a negative manner. If she's going to cover DC, my suggestion would have been have her cover CREW, have her cover watchdog groups. What is the point of independent media if they're citing the same groups that are being cited in the mainstream. Do a story on Institute for Policy Studies, the Center for Media and Democracy, the National Lawyers Guild. And Ms. magazine has a story on CREW in their current issue -- "The Most Feared Woman on Capitol Hill?"-- just to toss that out there. But I don't know that there's a place for a DC beat covering Congress as a monthly magazine. I'm not impressed at all with Conniff's coverage of it but, my opinion, it's been very sad to see someone who could do more offering these puff pieces on Congress that, even if written amazingly well, are dead by the time they show up in print. Dead due to the time lag, dead due to the fact that everyone has already covered them. And that's when Mike brought up the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Mike: Right, I was talking about how The Nation could be doing something more than their fawning coverage of Democrats. I don't think they want to do more but they could make a real contribution. Why am I learning about the Center from an ad on the back of the magazine? And they have had 'online exclusives' by Michael Ratner but, my point, I should have known about the organization from the magazine. And Ava and C.I. were pointing out that, with Democracy Now!, you do get these organizations. But the magazine? It just seems to want to be a weekly version of The New York Times.

Betty: It's got a bad case of Times' envy.

Mike: Exactly.

Ava: What are they accomplishing? What are they trying to accomplish? Both The Progressive and The Nation should be utilizing and covering something other than Brookings. In fact, the Brookings Institute really shouldn't be the citation the magazine goes for in their coverage. You want to give the left some power? Start giving it power and power doesn't come from elections, power comes from awareness and from making connections. In fact, this community is built on that. I don't think spitting out what you read a day ago, or more, in The Washington Post or The New York Times cuts it.

Rebecca: I know exactly who Ava means with that last sentence but I'll mind my manners.

Ava: You can jump in, Rebecca, I won't be offended, believe me. But, and obviously I mean The Nation, it's so useless. Yes, John Nichols wrote about Ehren and I appreciate it and I congratulate him on it, but what was that garbage others were offering last week? Vote! Vote! Good God, can you imagine how awful the magazine will be in 2008? We made that joke, in The Elector, about how the gearing up for the 2008 coverage would start in a matter of weeks, but damned if they didn't play bad rag imitates humor. How many times is that one going to be churned out? Is there a place for it? Yes, there is but there's an issue of covering what is breaking and what is happening and they don't even bother, with a few exceptions who have been noted. The magazine would do more for the left if it would stop the non-stop, "Meet the candidate!" and "Meet the elected official!" and offer some actual exposure to groups and organizations that are working for change. Obviously, that should include the peace movement, but if they're too damn scared of the peace movement, they can cover legal groups for the left, press groups for the left, a host of other things.

Jim: C.I.?

C.I.: Hmm. You know what, it's stuck in, this is point Ava, Mike and I all agreed on, remedial mode. E-mails are coming in to The Common Ills about that, they don't use the term, but that's the point. We've read it all before. Another reason they're losing subscribers. People want a little more bravery than they got in 2003 and 2004. The American people have come alive, the coverage in The Nation hasn't. It's remedial in the sense that it's the same topic, the same approach and the magazine is standing still. There are exceptions, and we've noted them, but those exceptions were in place years ago. Mike and I were reading ISR, International Socialist Review, in Tacoma and Anthony Arnove, Sharon Smith and others had really hard hitting pieces. They're now offering online content more. I was going to quote from Arnove's story and use the page numbers but Mike looked and it was actually online. If you've read The Nation for a few years, you may be among the ones asking why you need to read it for more than a year?

Jim: And remedial is a good point. Reading it is like we're getting stuck in the same course semester after semester. Does anyone grow up? Does anyone mature? The Elector nonsense is really crap.

Dona: And I'll note, Elaine can jump in on this because this was her "beat," when you're pimping your beliefs to the point that you're lying to readers, that's just embarrassing.

Elaine: Dona's referring to Liza Featherstone's 'online exclusive' where she gave credit for the work the peace movement did to the mainstream media. The space to address Iraq seriously did not come from the mainstream media and the mainstream media, despite Featherstone's laughable claims, is not crawling with voices objecting to the war. You've got voices objecting to strategy, you don't have this plethora of voices objecting to the war itself.

Kat: That really was insulting, as insulting as Featherbrain's earlier slam on the peace movement. That whole piece of nonsense was about trying to mislead and steer and I don't buy bullshit artists lying to me. The peace movement created the space for the conversation, the people created that space. The mainstream media didn't and Featherbrain needs to figure out some other way to derail the peace movement than by lying about it. Elaine captured Featherbrain's nonsense, and debunked and refuted it, in "Tell your local newspaper: Draft Amy Goodman!"

Elaine: Well thank you for that but I think Sharon Smith tackled it better at CounterPunch with "Why Protest Matters." At its most basic, The Nation continues to tell readers they have no power. That was what was so perfectly captured in both The Elector and "2006: The Year of Living Dumbly," and I think that people are getting tired of that message. I think they expect more from independent media than Democratic Party organ. And Jess had a good point there that Mike mentioned on the phone to me last week.

Jess: Well, I just wondered is this some guilt issue? Do they feel they didn't do enough to get Al Gore elected and so they're attempting now to make sure it never happens again? It's amazing, and my parents point this out as well, how Greens and other third parties have just vanished from the magazine. They're also disgusted by the emphasis on a party over the people. It's not just one segment that's grown disgusted with the magazine, we hear it from students when we're speaking on campuses, but it's not just students. And I don't know what the point is in a magazine that would rather cover elected officials than people. It's elitist and it's insulting. Now I'm not a Democrat, I'm a Green, but I can't imagine needing some sort of gossip rag on any party. Who has the power to make change? The people do. And that's not going to happen by just showing up to vote or, in Featherbrain's case, lobbying Congress. Congress doesn't run this country, the people do. The people need to take it back and own their control. Anyone telling you otherwise is just a bullshit artist and there are a lot of those getting into print at The Nation. To be clear, David Corn covers DC, we don't have a problem with him, Alexander Cockburn we consider to be part of CounterPunch, we're not referring to him. And I'll note those two, they aren't the only ones, but I don't feel like noting anyone else. I'm tired of a useless magazine.

Ava: Whose message is: Worship our leaders -- the ones we designate as worthy -- and fall in line behind them, all elected. There actually may be less diversity in their designates than there is their bylines. But it's a dumbed down magazine. Naomi Klein is sorely missed and if I read one more dumbed down article or one more article in need of corrections, I'm just going to scream. You make a mistake online, that's fine. Print magazines are supposed to contain articles that have been fact checked, there is no indication that anyone fact checks at The Nation.

Kat: Well let's note that The Nation is aware that Christopher Hayes's 'quote' of John Kerry was wrong and they've refused to correct it. Let's note that when they get it wrong a blogger, when Christopher Hayes gets it wrong, the crew at The Nation rush a correction into print. That's in the most recent issue that we'll be noting in stats this edition. It's amazing how someone who has such an estranged relationship with facts can be printed issue after issue with so many errors and the only thing more amazing is what they will go to the trouble of running a correction on. Ava?

Ava: Well let's be clear here, Kerry didn't make that comment in the acceptance speech at the Democratic Party Convention in 2004. The magazine knows that, the magazine refuses to correct it. That's not journalistic principles. If I could make it through Hayes' bad writing, I'd recommend that we run a fact check on every article he writes, something C.I. noted months ago was needed, but who wants to torture themselves. And to leave Hayes for a moment, as my father pointed out, when you make as many mistakes as Hayes does, it also goes to the outlet itself and, at this point, The Nation is as guilty as Hayes because the thing they should have long ago done was fact check his pieces. The thing Kat's referring to is yet again another quote. That could be fact checked quickly, as could the Kerry quote. The fact that they aren't goes to the lack of leadership at the magazine and the lack of accountability. But when you're all about worshipping Congress, you don't have a lot of time for anything else.


Rebecca: The current version of The Nation reads like Rona Barrett's D.C.! -- that's how bad it is.

Betty: I just don't know how you pretend to be left and have so little to say on the war, so little to offer on the peace movement and so little to offer on war resisters. Look, I'm a grown woman, I've got three kids, I don't have time for fan clubs and fanzines. I'm living in the adult world. I question what world the likes of Featherbrain are living in?

Cedric: An apparently all White world with only token women.

Kat: Are we going to talk about the special Sandra Lupien did on KPFA?

Jim: Yeah, we can go there next and we've got Obama on the list too. Now Rebecca heard the special, she had it on KPFA or one of the others --

Rebecca: KPFB and Fresno's KFCF are easier to listen to online for me. But I may have been on KPFA. And Cedric, Wally, Elaine, Mike and Flyboy were all listening as well.

Jim: And we heard it Saturday morning because Kat's friend Maggie had recorded it.

Kat: I record The Morning Show for Betty and Guns and Butter as well. Since I was in Tacoma, I'd passed those duties onto Maggie and was honestly surprised they got done. Not only that, good for Maggie, she recorded other programs as well. Friday night, she was telling me I had to listen to something and I was responding, "No, I have to get to bed. I'll call you tomorrow."

Betty: Everybody's heard it except for me. I've heard of it and Kat's sending me the tape.

Dona: I'll jump in with the set up and also note that we haven't heard from Ty that much. Sandra Lupien, co-anchor of The KPFA Evening News, hosted a special presentation entitled "Women's Voices from the National Conference on Media Reform."

Ty: And it was addressing a number of issues, Helen Thomas addressed war and it was noted that women's voices are largely left out of the debate on war. And Rosa Clemente of WBAI also spoke. She was addressing how women and people of color are left out of the discussion. She wasn't talking about big media. She made that point really clear when she noted she could turn on Fox "News" and see women and people of color. She said they didn't speak for her but wondered why it was easier to see them on Fox "News" than in independent media.

Cedric: I'm going to tackle the Bill Moyers' speech because I've heard it for weeks now and she mentioned it. She didn't note what bothered me about it. Now I don't dislike Bill Moyers but I don't need to hear him saying "Yes, massa" -- that bothered me the first time I heard it and has ever since.

Ava: Which I think comes from his race and his age and it does grate, Cedric, I agree with you.

Betty: It's amazing to me because it wasn't that long ago that Hillary Clinton was being attacked for using the plantation metaphor. Now I had no problem with her use of it and thought it was appropriate for the group she was addressing. But Bill Moyers' speech was entitled "Life on the Plantation" and that did bother me. The title and the point Cedric's making, it bothered me. It didn't go down easy for me when I heard it. I only heard it once, I think, when Democracy Now! broadcast it. But my attitude was, you're over 60, you're White, you haven't done that much for African-Americans as a group, why are you using the plantation metaphor? That really bothered me and the section Cedric's talking about did too. Does anyone know that section?

C.I.: "And this is what the plantation owners fear most of all. Over all those decades here in the South when they used human beings as chattel and quoted scripture to justify it (property rights over human rights was God's way), they secretly lived in fear that one day instead of saying, 'Yes, Massa,' those gaunt, weary, sweat-soaked field hands bending low over the cotton under the burning sun would suddenly stand up straight, look around at their stooped and sweltering kin, and announce: 'This can't be the product of intelligent design. The bossman's been lying to me. Something is wrong with this system'."

Cedric: I'm sure that was meant in some affirming way but it was insulting to me. "One day"? Slaves were rebelling all the time, they were uprising. And that "stand up straight" comment really just burns me even now.

Ty: I had the same reaction. For the record, for anyone stumbling by, Cedric, Betty and I are African-American. That speech really didn't include me. It used my ancestors as props, but it didn't include me or welcome me and that "stand up straight," coming from a White man especially, was not something that made me want to cheer. I think that speech was over rated and over played. And I was insulted by it. I know Bill Moyers is supposed to be the great media hero but that speech was lame to me. I wasn't offended when I heard it on Democracy Now! but I thought then, and thought as it was played over and over, that if they wanted a name, they should be playing Jane Fonda who actually had something to say. What is that nonsense from Bill Moyers, MLK, garbarge strike. "Now I'm going to talk plantations." And of course he had to come around the issue of media consolodiation, I'm guessing most people don't know his history of being ping-pong from CBS to PBS. I'll shut up now but I was offended the first time I heard that and ended up hearing the whole back story on our "hero." But if it's not clear, let me state that this African-American doesn't need to hear some elderly White man saying "Yes massa" in a sourthern drawl. There's his race, his age, and his place of origin that combine with the lack of coverage of African-American issues on his final year of NOW, the only year I watched, that really turned me off to that speech. I also think it's ironic that someone serving in the Johnson administration now tries to fix the funding of public television issue that administration created as a means of controlling public broadcasting.

Elaine: There were a lot of good speeches, there were two bad speeches -- one that was cut short and one that was apparently Gidget Goes to, Like, Media Reform -- but the one by Rosa Clemente is what stood out to us when we were listening at Rebecca's.

C.I.: You know what bothered me about her speech? That she had to give it. In 2007, she has to make these points. These points should be self-evident and people should be addressing them. She spoke very passionately, her voice was shaking at points, and that she seemed nervous about the topic goes to the problems with small media. She wasn't pointing out anything that didn't exist. But it took courage for her to address what we're all supposed to ignore. That was a powerful speech and it, not Moyers' speech, is the one that needed amplifying. It needs to be heard and she needs to be congratulated for talking about a very real problem that everyone wants to pretend doesn't exist. She co-hosts Where We Live Now which airs on Thursdays, WBAI, from 8:00 pm to 9:00 pm.

Ty: One of the points she made was about Moyers' use of "founding fathers" and how they aren't her founding fathers. I agreed with that completely and I think that is part of my problem, as a Black man, with his speech. He wants to speak to a White audience and then he wants credit for mentioning MLK and thinks he's done something so amazing that he can give his impression of a Black slave saying, "Yes, massah." And I am glad C.I. pointed out that her voice was shaking at points because, for me, that made the speech all the more powerful. This was a speech filled with points that no one is supposed to make, but those are realities. And it's past time that they were dealt with. We're dealing with the gender issue here at The Nation in our "Nation Stats" pieces and there was an e-mail asking why we weren't dealing with race? We actually considered addressing race. We decided not to because these things are done at the last minute, a short feature, and though the race of writers who are part of The Nation is known, freelancers that get reviews farmed out to them would require phone calls to find out. And then Ava raised the issue, rightly, that there is what others may identify you as and what you self-identify as. Especially in terms of someone like Ava, you want it from the source.

Ava: Ty's referring to a point I've made before. I'm not Mexican-American. People see my skin color and assume that's what I am. I don't mind being lumped into Latina or Hispanic, but my family does not have any roots any Mexico and, yet, people will sometimes say, "This is Ava, she's Mexican-American." My mouth will drop and I'll have to explain what country my roots can be traced back to. I have nothing against Mexico but I don't think Betty would want to be called French-American when she has no known roots to France. So the point was, it's not enough to track it down from someone else. There's a Black woman we all know, who doesn't mind that term, but she self-identifies as Scottish-African. Not as African-American. But there are people who identify her as "African-American" even though that's incorrect. So I was the one nixing that. Let's use Rosa Clemente, we could call around and might hear, "She's African-America" or "She's Black." I believe she self-describes as "Black Puerto Rican." As someone who does get insulted when I'm misrepresented, I didn't want to risk misrepresenting someone. So I was very opposed to the race and ethnicity issue. I assume that most people grasp the bulk of the those who write for and that The Nation publishes are White.

Betty: And Ava didn't decide that unilaterally. She tossed it out there. I'm not going to be offended if someone uses African-American to describe me even though I just say Black. But there are people who would be and there are people who would be offended with it the other way around. Gender is a little more fixed, I didn't say "fixed," than race and ethnicity and tracking gender just seemed an easier way to go. As for Ava's point about assuming most people grasp the bulk of the people writing, and I'd say involved in, that magazine are White, I think that point was made loud and clear when Coretta Scott King's death didn't even prompt a column. So we were all in agreement that gender was more fixed, again not necessarily "fixed," and we decided to focus on that. We're also aware that not everyone who is gay or lesbian is out of the closet, or people who are bi, so we also avoided sexual orientation. Again, I don't mind the term "African-American." I just use Black. I prefer that. Others feel differently and others feel the same and we should all be able to self-define.

Ty: We actually toyed with using "Person of Color" as a statistic but then there was the issue of race versus ethnicity and how Hispanic can be classified as European/Caucasian. And it just seemed better to leave it out.

Jess: And the classification system itself is rooted in racism. The categories used now are basically Asian, Black, European, etc. If you were Spain, you were part of the 'first world' and you were lumped into European. Right or wrong. But the classification system leaves out indigenous people and many others. It just seemed to be more trouble than it was worth, especially if we made a call and had to go back and correct it weeks later when we learned we'd insulted someone by accident. Rosa also made the point how people were getting shoved into "of color" presentations. That's where they got shoved in. Why was that? It's a good question and one that should be addressed before the next reform conference. Reform the media reform conference.

Betty: I can't wait to get the cassette from Kat. But let me note what I've heard of it, that women were largely reduced to panel discussions and not speeches. Online, I read one critique, right after the reform conference wrapped up, about how Jane Fonda wasn't really someone who should be there. Wake up, Jane Fonda gets you attention. For that reason alone, she should be there. She's also one of the people behind GreenStone Media which puts her in a position to address media reform and that's before we even get into her years of producing films with Fonda Films.

C.I.: IPC originally.

Betty: Thank you. So the point is, Fonda gets you attention and she wasn't "just an actress." It's also true that of the speeches, her speech was my favorite. I didn't hear them, I only heard Bill Moyers' speech -- which is a point that probably goes to Rosa's speech. But Fonda was talking about Abeer, she wasn't trying to give some "When this country was founded and there were slaves and we're back on the plantation and I'm so wonderful for an old White man" speech. I'm surprised Cedric hasn't mentioned Tim Wise.

Cedric: I was about to but I wasn't sure how much time we had left?

Dona: We just have one more topic left and I'm not calling time on this topic.

Cedric: Okay. Tim Wise. He is someone who addresses race. And, if you don't know the name, you may be surprised to learn that he is White. If he had spoken of plantations or offered a "Yes, massah," it wouldn't have bothered me. Would it have bothered you, Ty, or Betty?

Betty: Not at all.

Ty: Agreed.

Cedric: That's because he addresses race. We wouldn't be scratching our heads going, "Why is that elderly, White man from Marshall, Texas suddenly wanting to toss out 'Yes, massah'?" I don't think Moyers' speech could have been more awkward if he'd attempted to rap it.

Betty: I have to note that I am laughing hard at that.

Cedric: And if it seems like I'm downing him, I don't have a negative or positive opinion of him. He's just another well paid TV personality to me. I think, as Ty pointed out, it's interesting that someone who could move from media to government and back is now being hailed as hero. I do question that. I don't think real reporters do that. But I don't dislike the man. Ty's upfront that he does.

Ty: And I really do dislike him.

Cedric: But with no real opinion of him, or no strong one, I was seriously offended by that speech. And that joke took forever and wasn't even a reflective one. It didn't reflect media reform and it didn't reflect Baptists because there are a number of other divisions including Missionary Baptist. But I guess a gatekeeper got to decide who'd be included in the joke when it was first roughed out as well. Did I go on too long?

Dona: No, but I think Ava's going to lose out in the discussion because, editing in my head, The Nation stuff is the most easily trimmed. Mike, Wally, Jim and others weighed in there too but I know Ava had several great sections where she was talking. So I would encourage her to speak during the final topic.

Ava: That's fine with me. This section was very lively and that it may raise interest in Rosa Clemente's speech is actually more important to me than the dopey mag.

Jim: Okay, if there's nothing else on this topic . . . No? Okay, the last topic is Obama and community member Carl actually e-mailed C.I. asking that Betty please weigh in on this. Set up, Baraka Obama was elected to the US Senate in the 2004 election. He is running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. Betty has offered serious critiques in roundtables here on the topic and they have been very popular with readers.

Dona: And Carl was highlighting Kevin Alexander Gray's "A Valley of Buzzwords: Obama's Soulless Book" which can be found online at Black Agenda Report and in the print in The Progressive.

Cedric: I was glad Carl highlighted that. I hadn't read it until it went up and I think it's a serious examination of the things Obama lacks. He's very good at pleasing words catered for a White audience but, to this African-American, he comes off like another Juan Williams blaming
African-Americans for systematic problems.

Ty: Which goes to the issue of where he came up from which was the White press and not the African-American community as Betty has pointed out.

Betty: I actually feel pressure and I don't usually. I usually just let it rip. So, Carl, you've put pressure on me. But what I said in December is still true, he's being used as a club on Blacks. He is the White press idea of what a Black person should be which is half-White and not too Black. Joe Biden's idiotic comments only underscored that. For those who aren't familiar, this was how Biden described him, this is from CNN, '"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,' Biden said. 'I mean, that's a storybook, man'." First off, the "man," it reminds me of someone coming into my home, White, and taking off their shoes and lying on the carpet to keep it real. And this is a longer version of the events, from Democracy Now!:

Biden: Obama First "Mainstream", "Clean" Black Candidate
In election news, Senator Joseph Biden entered the presidential race Wednesday with an announcement he’ll seek the Democratic nomination in '08. But Biden drew more attention for comments he made about fellow Senator and presidential contender Barack Obama.
Sen. Joseph Biden: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Biden was speaking to a reporter from the New York Observer. Obama says he doesn't take Biden’s comments personally, but called them "historically inaccurate." He said: "African-American presidential candidates like Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton gave a voice to many important issues through their campaigns, and no one would call them inarticulate," he said. Meanwhile, Jackson and Sharpton rejected Biden's insistence they would know what he meant. In an interview with the New York Times, Jackson pointed out he lasted longer and received more votes than Biden when both ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988. This isn't the first time Biden has made racially-charged remarks. He was criticized last June when these comments about Indian-Americans were broadcast on C-SPAN.
Sen. Joseph Biden: "In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking."

Betty (con't): C.I. had suggested we address that back at the start of February and it was one of those things that everyone agreed on but time ran out. So I want to be sure everyone reading is aware of what was said. Now obviously, Shirley Chishom and Carol Moseley Braun can't be "a nice looking guy" so thank you, Joe Biden, for putting your sexism up front. I didn't care for you before and you only confirmed my opinion of you. I think the man's an idiot and that he insulted Blacks and women of all races and ethnicities. But what I found interesting was the press reaction which is tied into the Obama press reaction. They keep trying to tell Black people that he is our savior, I keep expecting them to start a Church of Obama any second, but did you notice the silence on Biden? You had people rushing in, reporters and columnists, to assure you that it wasn't racism. Even Maureen Dowd, in The New York Times, interviews him and decides to take a pass on it. What does that say? To me it says that race is totally not worth discussing by those defending and covering for him. It also suggests to me that on some level they must agree with him. What he said was highly offensive and racist and I don't need a crowd of White pundits to tell me I shouldn't be offended by it. I am offended by it. And I'm offended by the Obama coverage for the same reason. It's the same game. It's he's Black, but not too Black. That's the underlying message of all the coverage from the mainstream. And we're supposed to embrace him, Black people, as our savior. I don't think he's going to last long in the primaries. He stands for nothing, he issues platitudes and he's honestly rather boring and the more boring he gets, the more neutered he comes off. But there's this notion that Blacks are just going to rush to embrace him and give him the nomination. I question that for several reasons. First of all, the Democratic Party has not been keen to listen to Blacks in recent years so it is laughable to claim that they're going to back a candidate out of some respect for Black people. The truth is he's DLC and that's why he's getting backed -- backed by White people. And before someone e-mails, yes, when he was listed as DLC before he won his Senate seat, 2 years and three months ago, he did object and have his name taken off. Big deal. He's DLC. Second, if Blacks just vote color, and if we're so all powerful, I would assume that Carol Moseley Braun or Al Sharpton would have gotten the nomination in 2004. They didn't. Nor did they get on the ticket. His backing is from White people. The New York Times had an article last week on various people in the entertainment industry who were backing Obama. Let me issue a plea, Steven Spielberg, after nearly destroying Alice Walker's The Color Purple and practically turning Black people into ETs, please don't do the Black race any more 'favors.' We have suffered enough. But that is where he is getting his backing, from rich Whites around the country. He is not interested in Black people, his books, he has two that I know of, make that abundantly clear. He is 'colorless.' Or beyond color, if you prefer. That is how he presents himself and the message isn't lost upon Black people. And since he's biracial, let's be clear that if he ever becomes President, he won't be the first Black, he may be the first biracial, he may be the first part-Black, but he is not Black. The insistence that the White press has upon portraying him as Black honestly reminds me of the same racism that existed in this country where they divided up Black into octoroon and other categories. He is biracial, he is not Black. That may be how the White press likes "Blacks," not really Black, but quit insulting my race by telling me the ideal is to be at least half-White. My children don't need to hear that message, they are Black. He is bi-racial and there's nothing wrong with that but don't present him as "Black" because he's not. The fact that a Joe Biden approves of him over a Chisholm or Moseley Braun, or Jackson or Dick Gregory or Al Sharpton goes to the fact that he's biracial and not Black and the failure of the White press to take seriously the offensive remarks goes to the fact that they are in agreement with Biden, Obama is "their kind of people" too.

Ty: I'm going to make a suggestion.

Jim: Go ahead.

Ty: That's the roundtable. I think Betty just said it all.

Jim: I think that's a great idea. Anyone have anything to add? No? Okay. The joke Mike tells will be left in because the question has popped up in e-mails. The joke reflects that Mike is not at all worried so those of you who are can calm down.

Cedric: Actually, I did have one point.

Jim: Sure, go ahead.

Cedric: I just think it needs to be noted that Laura Flanders addressed this issue, right now the show's on commercial break, but she just addressed it. I know we try to give credit where it's due so RadioNation with Laura Flanders addressed it. Flanders pointed out that "first" may have symbolic value in some cases but the issue of "First Black man, first woman" isn't telling us a damn thing about candidates' position and we need to grow up. She put it a lot nicer but I'm trying to be brief.

Jim: Thank you for pointing that out. We don't have it playing on our end because we actually have a friend being interviewed on another station. So we're listening to that. But those who missed it, like we did, should know that the broadcasts from Saturday and Sunday are edited down to an hour show and that may be included in the archived version. We'll be listening to her show in a few minutes but we did skip the first hour to catch a friend. So thanks to Cedric for catching that and putting it on the record. Another question that comes in is how are these edited? Dona and I generally do that. On a really long roundtable, like this one, which was done on Saturday but we all tried to say Sunday to avoid confusion for readers, we'll make sure everyone has a copy of Ava and C.I.'s notes and that they note what remarks of their own are important to them so we don't end up leaving out something important. From there, Dona and I will edit it down. We don't change people's words. We will drop off sentences to make for smoother transitions. This lasted about six hours and you do not want to read the entire thing, nor do we want to type up the entire thing. You should consider the edited version you're reading a very rough transcript.