Fox News, a brilliant think-tank of some of the best & brightest right-wing anchors and “journalists” working in television today, (falsely showcasing themselves as “Fair and Balanced” – thus having the un-intended side effect of immediately making their viewers question their objectivity without so much as watching a clip of news), further showcased how even a network of their questionable journalistic stature, couldn’t sink any lower in a humorous attempt to smear a sitting President, thus coming up with a brilliant poll out of questioning Obama’s appearance on The View with the following poll generated out of clear desperation:

Is It Right For Obama to Skip the Boy Scouts’ Jamboree?

They couldn’t stop there, they even came up with a huge article portraying Obama as irresponsible for missing this jamboree as well ending with the following quote from Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a Democrat:

“I think the president should be accessible, should answer questions that aren’t pre-screened, but I think there should be a little bit of dignity to the presidency,” Rendell told MSNBC, at one point comparing “The View” to “The Jerry Springer Show.”

There’s many reasons to “report” on the President the last time we checked. Actual NEWS for example? World affairs? White House Press briefings? In the meantime, we had a better recommendation for a Fox News poll and follow-up article:

Was Fox News coverage of Shirley Sherrod, decidedly racist and based on tampered video clips?

As the article and edited clip here suggests, Fox should expect a resounding “yes” in their poll results, regardless of what Bret Baier tries to further spin against Howard Dean’s claim of racism.

If you’re a Fox News Viewer, feel free to call their news hotline at: 1-888-369-4762 or feel free to email any of them and demand “actual news”, not sad attempts at political theater that are purely fabricated for entertainment ratings.

See Fox News’ amusing “defense” here against Howard Dean:

Here’s the story according to the recent Guardian piece:

“US authorities have known for weeks that they have suffered a hemorrhage of secret information on a scale which makes even the leaking of the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war look limited by comparison.

The source for these leaks is Wikileaks, the website which specializes in publishing untraceable material from whistleblowers, which is simultaneously publishing raw material from the logs. Washington fears it may have lost even more highly sensitive material including an archive of tens of thousands of cable messages sent by US embassies around the world, reflecting arms deals, trade talks, secret meetings and uncensored opinion of other governments. [Imagine that - the general public might get a free glimpse into their own government's shady dealings!].

The Guardian continues: “Wikileaks’ founder, Julian Assange, says that in the last two months they have received yet another huge batch of “high-quality material” from military sources and that officers from the Pentagon’s criminal investigations department have asked him to meet them on neutral territory to help them plug the sequence of leaks. He has not agreed to do so.”

While “true” US foreign policy has always been held close to the chest with a closed fist by the US government, (and more or less deemed “classified” to the public), when information rears it’s head, history has shown it’s been often heavily edited and/or santized by the media depending on the content.

Wikileaks might be the beginning of the end of such a process, and the American public has every right to be witness to the various atrocities and financial dealings of their own government.

Instead of saluting this leak of free information, the mainstream US media has instead started a backlash against Wikileaks. This reads thin as jealousy (at the free publicity Wikileaks is generating), and publicity means revenue for a struggling mainstream media company that’s answering to shareholders.

Media companies should remember that if you’re NOT going to expose information and truth, you don’t have the right to criticize others that will at their own potential legal expense, and only for the benefit of an unknowing public. Where you clearly failed, someone else only succeeded.

In 1984, photojournalist Steve McCurry was in an Afghan refugee camp in Pakistan. He followed the sound of voices to a tent where he found a group of girls. “I noticed this one little girl off to the side that had his incredible set of eyes that seemed almost haunted — or very piercing,” he tells NPR’s Audie Cornish.

McCurry snapped a picture that ended up on the cover of National Geographic’s June 1985 issue. “The Afghan Girl” became one of the magazine’s most widely recognized photographs — and one of the century’s most iconic. To get that shot, McCurry used a type of film that has become iconic in its own right: Kodachrome.

Listen to the excellent NPR piece on this photographic legacy

As a journalist, Schorr was able to bring to contemporary news commentary a deep sense of how governmental institutions and players operate, as well as the perspective gained from decades of watching history upfront.

“He could compare presidents from Eisenhower on through, and that gave him historical context for things,” said Donald A. Ritchie, Senate historian and author of a book about the Washington press corps. “He had lived it, he had worked it and he had absorbed it. That added a layer to his broadcasting that was hard for somebody his junior to match.”

Schorr’s 20-year career as a foreign correspondent began in 1946. After serving in U.S. Army intelligence during World War II, he began writing from Western Europe for the Christian Science Monitor and later The New York Times, witnessing postwar reconstruction, the Marshall Plan and the creation of the NATO alliance.

Read more at the NPR piece about Schorr’s life

“These wells could pose an additional danger to the Gulf Coast environment and economy,” wrote U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., who heads the subcommittee on energy and environment. They asked for details on the number of wells as well as leaking and inspection requirements. They asked for an initial reply by Monday….read more
AP Oil Coverage here

“Photographers and journalists reporting from the Gulf on the Deepwater Horizon spill are now subject to $40,000 fines and Class D felony convictions if they are found to be in violation of a new Coast Guard directive.

The directive established a 20-meter [65-foot] safety zone around all oil containment boom in the gulf. According to The Deepwater Horizon Unified Command press release, “[v]essels must not come within 20 meters of booming operations, boom, or oil spill response operations under penalty of law.”

In a blog post over the weekend, journalist Georgianne Nienaber argued that this new regulation effectively prevents photographers from getting near affected areas. “If the Coast Guard has its way, all media, not just independent writers and photographers… will be fined $40,000 and receive Class D felony convictions for providing the truth about oiled birds and dolphins, in addition to broken, filthy, unmanned boom material that is trapping oil in the marshlands and estuaries,” she wrote.

According to the Coast Guard directive, “[t]he safety zone has been put in place to protect members of the response effort, the installation and maintenance of oil containment boom, the operation of response equipment and protection of the environment by limiting access to and through deployed protective boom.”

Read more about this troubling directive here

After serving 39 years for her participation in this crime (which was committed back on August 10, 1969, and she was sentenced in 1971 at the trial’s conclusion), this was her 19th parole board denial. While the drumbeats of “justice” are prevailing from some of the victim’s family members (and even some mainstream news channels), one can’t help but ponder the following rhetorical situation:

Let’s say you (a male or female residing in the state of California), are convicted of a horrible murder (that you took part in as part of a group). You originally pleaded “Not Guilty” largely based on the defense that you (the killer) were either: 1. Under the influence of psychedelic drugs and/or 2. You were brainwashed by a self-admitted “madman” (both of which are actually true) – and you’re found guilty of this crime, and you’re given a sentence of “Life in Prison.” Now, after this sentencing, you do your best to live the next 40 years in prison as a “model prisoner”, you give very few interviews over the years to the media – (who has always maintained a grim, bizarre fascination with certain OTHER Manson murders – after all, a famous actress (Sharon Tate) was one of the victims), you admit over & over again that you’re ashamed of this horrible crime, and you ask the family for forgiveness for your participation in this heinous crime. All of the above is true in the case of Leslie Van Houten.

The resounding question is, can you legally remain locked-up “forever” – purely at the mercy of a media-coverage-biased prosecution, a media-polluted-parole board, and an angry family member who wants you behind bars for life without any chance of parole? The answer is a resounding “yes” if you reside in the state of California, and this case raises alot of troubling questions about California penal codes.

The Hearing – is Manson’s reputation up for parole or Leslie Van Houten?

For evidence of some obvious media-bias in this case, one need not look further then the Los Angeles DA who addressed the parole board: “It’s been said he turned people into mindless robots,” the DA Patrick Sequeira said of Manson, “but there were people in the commune who did not participate in the murders.” Wait a second – is Charles Manson’s reputation up for parole? Or is this Leslie Van Houten’s parole hearing? Is that a real prosecuting argument? That some members of a drugged-out cult were rumored “not to kill anyone” and it’s based entirely on media hearsay and not a shred of evidence? In an ordinary case, such an argument wouldn’t hold water. Van Houten’s case, like all of the other Manson-related criminal cases, are anything but normal.

The Manson Case background vs the LAPD

Historically, the LAPD has always had a major beef with the Manson case. The Former prosecuting DA’s Vincent Bugliosi’s book Helter Skelter had painted a very unflattering picture of the LAPD’s investigation, and even suggested in one chapter that “in-fighting” and “competition”, in several of the police department’s investigative divisions might have inadvertently bungled the case back in 1969, (and might have had the caustic side-effect of actually giving the Manson “family” more time to commit more murders), by continually over-looking “obvious connections” in the Tate and LaBianca murder scenes. With two separate divisions investigating the Tate crime scene and the LaBianca scenes, and despite having a ton of similar evidence found at both scenes: (the word “Piggie” being written on the walls with victim’s blood, barefoot prints found at both scenes, etc), it was nearly 2 weeks before the LAPD discovered the two cases might be connected when one member of a division happened to stumble across some evidence the other department was investigating. Then there was the LAPD’s troubled relationship with the victim’s families. The author Ed Sanders had noted one episode in his book The Family, about how one LAPD officer, instead of simply telling one of the victim’s parents that their son (Steve Parent) was brutally murdered, recommended that the victim’s father “please call this phone number”, (without any explanation whatsoever). You can imagine the father’s confusion and grief upon his dialing this number, and then hearing a person answer with: “Hello, Los Angeles County Morgue.” So it’s safe to say the Manson case has always been a thorny issue for the LAPD in every possible facet of the case, so the current District Attorney (Sequeira) must have had a serious dose of bitter-history about this case passed down to him.

The Hearing’s Conclusion

At the conclusion of Van Houten’s hearing, the chairman of the parole board, Robert Doyle, said Van Houten was “not yet suitable for parole” because “she had failed to gain complete insight into her crime and its motivation.” This is the Chairman’s way of saying something of “moral value” to the press, but ultimately fails to communicate any message of substantial legal value whatsoever. Van Houten didn’t address the board, since her attorney stated that “her words would only be used against her”, so how could they make the determination that she “failed to gain complete insight into her crime” if she didn’t give a single statement to the board?

While the board commended Van Houten for her “adjustment to prison and her work on behalf of other prisoners”, Doyle and deputy commissioner Carol Bentley said the crimes involved “were so atrocious and heinous that they must be considered in the decision.” It’s easy to agree with the ruling that these crimes are “atrocious and heinous”, with two innocent family members found brutally murdered in cold blood, but that was also determined back in 1969. What we don’t agree with is a blatant violation of the California penal code by depending on polluted, and outdated (and painfully obvious) media-bias and a flimsy prosecution. Sadly after 39 years of research into this case, the parole board and the LAPD has accomplished nothing other then accept Manson’s past media reputation as “credible evidence”, in a largely un-related murder case.

Once you suspend Manson’s name from this case – (after all, he’s not up for parole here), this case suggests that a sentence of “Life in Prison” can be easily commuted to “Life in Prison without possibility of parole” – based on the above shakey justifications (or lackthereof).

Not surprisingly, Van Houten has some supporters that want to see her released after all these years. Just recently in the Huffington Post, the director John Waters, argued “I do believe in rehabilitation. … Leslie has taken responsibility, and she has followed the rules.” As horrible as these crimes were, every citizen of the United States should have access to an un-biased jury, parole board, trial and subsequent sentence. Having Charlie Manson’s name attached to one’s case, shouldn’t exempt a citizen (guilty or not) from basic due process.

More on the case here, more on John Waters’ friendship with Van Houten here…
Books about the case:
Helter Skelter,
The Family

Saberi was forced to spend 100 days in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison, eighteen of those in solitary confinement, before her sentence, which had attracted worldwide media attention, was overturned.
In Between Two Worlds: My Life and Captivity in Iran, she documents her arrest, imprisonment, and the goes into details about her Iranian interrogation. She recently discussed these matters with Nazanin Rafsanjani, a producer at National Public Radio’s On the Media, who began the conversation by asking Saberi about the day she was arrested. Check it out here