We Speak For Earth

Be the change you want to see here on Earth. Boldly protect your rights and the rights of all living things on Earth including the Earth itself.
Contributing Authors
Recent Tweets @
Posts tagged "Media"

mohandasgandhi:

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), formed in 1961 during the Cold War, is a group of 120 states and 17 observer states not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc. The NAM held its opening 2012 session yesterday under the new chairmanship of Iran, which succeeded Egypt as the Chair.

Significantly, an Associated Press story in the Washington Post headlined, “Iran opens nonaligned summit with calls for nuclear arms ban”, reported that “Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi opened the gathering by noting commitment to a previous goal from the nonaligned group, known as NAM, to remove the world’s nuclear arsenals within 13 years. ‘We believe that the timetable for ultimate removal of nuclear weapons by 2025, which was proposed by NAM, will only be realized if we follow it up decisively,’ he told delegates.”

Yet the New York Times, which has been beating the drums for war with Iran, just as it played a disgraceful role in the deceptive reporting during the lead-up to the Iraq War, never mentioned Iran’s proposal for nuclear abolition. The Times carried the bland headline on its front page, “At Summit Meeting, Iran Has a Message for the World”, and then went on to state, “the message is clear.As Iran plays host to the biggest international conference …it wants to tell its side of the long standoff with the Western powers which are increasingly convinced that Tehran is pursuing nuclear weapons”, without ever reporting Iran’s offer to support the NAM proposal for the abolition of nuclear weapons by 2025.

Surely the most sensible way to deal with Iran’s nascent nuclear weapons capacity is to call all the nations to the table to negotiate a treaty to ban the bomb. That would mean abolishing the 20,000 nuclear bombs on the planet—in the US, UK, Russia, China, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel—with 19,000 of them in the US and Russia. In order to get Russia and China to the table, the US will also have to give up its dreams of dominating the earth with missile “defenses” which, driven by corrupt military contractors and a corporate- owned Congress, are currently being planted and based in provocative rings around Russia and China.

The ball is in the U.S. court to make good faith efforts for nuclear abolition. That would be the only principled way to deal with fears of nuclear proliferation. The US must start with a genuine offer for negotiations to finally ban the bomb in all countries, including a freeze on further missile development. It should stop beating up on Iran and North Korea while it hypocritically continues to improve and expand the US arsenal, with tens of billions of dollars for new weapons laboratories and bomb delivery systems, and fails failing to speak out against the nuclear activities of other nations such as the enrichment of uranium in Japan and Brazil and the nuclear arsenal of Israel.

Once again, the New York Times proves to disappoint its readers with deception. It’s dishonest not to include Iran’s call for a nuclear free world, particularly while underplaying the fact that Iran currently does not have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons as the United States and Israel threaten military action that could potentially lead to another disastrous war in the Middle East.

(via kenobi-wan-obi)

thekhooll:

Liu Yang, China’s first female astronaut

It might not be a giant step for mankind, but Saturday’s launch of a piloted space capsule known as Shenzhou-9 marks China’s breakthrough into the exclusive club once made up only of the United States and Russia. And as far as womankind is concerned, there is another first. One of the three astronauts in the capsule is a woman, 33-year-old Liu Yang, the first Chinese woman in space.

Is it a violation of the FCC rules for the TV Media to knowingly falsify a news report. And if so what rule is that? Thank you
Anonymous

The Communications Act of 1934 created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and provided the basis for how it works. It is a violation of the Act for broadcast media to knowingly falsify a news report. The FCC may penalize broadcasters for doing so.

However, another important goal of the Act was to protect free speech. So, the FCC must have real proof that the broadcaster lied on purpose before it can take action. An example of this kind of evidence might be sworn testimony from “insiders” with direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. That’s a high bar, but Congress’s intention was to make it very hard for the government to intimidate or control broadcasters.

Learn more about how the FCC works to balance free speech and regulations or file a complaint against a broadcaster.

Ask usagov a question #communications #laws

USA.gov’s tumblr addresses a GREAT freaking question (here)… for some reason, it’s not rebloggable - So I just copy/pasted it.

Now, it’d be interesting to look at our current rules, compare them to former legislation (like the “fairness doctrine”), and to perhaps consider other ways of evaluating ill intent - or ill consequence - by news corporations (e.g. that their viewers are somehow much more ignorant of certain topics than the rest of the news). Maybe News Corporations could be graded by taking those evaluations into consideration. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see a “B” or “A+” or “D” when certain news shows start-up, which would inform viewers to be wary of its objectivity and accuracy?

I wonder if any News Corporations come to mind…

Oh, and let’s fix that reblog glitch by reblogging the hell out of this. Let’s raise this issue - cause there’s no reason why people shouldn’t discuss how to improve the accuracy of information fed to the public as “fair and balanced” news.

abaldwin360:

Screengrab via the flag-waving Fox Nation

SFist’s photos of a messier-than-usualaftermath at Fort Mason last Saturday got the right wingers frothing at the mouth, apparently. After the story was picked up by the Huffington Post, conservative bloggers from the Gateway Pundit and Fox Nation seized the opportunity to repurpose a couple photos along with an entirely fabricated story pinning the blame on Earth Day partiers and “Green Activists.” Here’s how the story appeared on Fox Nation:

Green Activists Trash Park on Earth Day

Happy Earthday everybody! This was the scene at Fort Mason park in San Francisco after Earth Day activists were through partying ….CLICK HERE FOR MORE PHOTOS

The click-through link leads you right to our original post. In case you were wondering where the scores of Tea Party commenterscame from. Meanwhile, over at Gateway Pundit, they’ve got even more headshaking for San Francisco, which if these folks are to be believed is a city 100% composed of irresponsible and hypocritical Green Activists (emphasis, theirs):

It Figures… Green Activists Completely Trash Park on Earth Day

Leftists will be leftists…
It doesn’t matter if they’re at an inauguration or an annual event praising Mom Earth, they will trash the place and expect YOU to pick up after them.

And this was on Earth Day. Unreal.

To set the record straight here, the people partying on Fort Mason Green last Saturday would hardly identify themselves as part of any particular group that promoted anything other than getting drunk on cheap beer. There was no organized Earth Day celebration, and (perhaps more to the point) the partying occurred on April 21st. Which would be the day before Earth Day, for those keeping score at home.

This kind of blatant fabrication has become something of a trademark move for Fox News and News Corp in general, who seem to base much of their reporting on making outrageous claims and hoping no one calls them out on it. Why, just this morning Fox & Friends host Steve Doocy admitted that he made up part of an Obama quote, so it would sound like a dig at Mitt Romney. And climate scientists recently called out the News Corp-owned Wall Street Journal for printing BS about global warming.

Anyhow, should readers find themselves in need of a wildly incorrect interpretation of Saturday’s park mess, you can find it right here in Fox Nation’s “Culture” section. Stuck between alarmist reports of Mad Cow Disease in California, Victoria’s Secret photo shoots, and a picture of the “World’s Perfect Face.” [Spoiler Alert: It’s a white person!]

source

fox news / newscorp twisting facts and fabricating stories? Noooooo way.

ronpaulsucks:

1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863H.R.5909H.J.RES.46, andH.J.RES.42.

2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392

3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.” Here are the related legislative links: H.R.2030H.R.4604H.R.736, and H.R.2720

4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens. Please see this link for more information: H.R.05484 Summary

5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment.Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”. To see for yourself the possible extent of the damage to the environment that would happen under a Paul administration please follow these links: H.R.2504,H.R.7079H.R.7245H.R.2415H.R.393H.R.4639H.R.5293, and H.R.6936

6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the US withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.”Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes. Please see the following links: H.R.3891,H.AMDT.191H.AMDT.190H.R.3769H.R.1665H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154

7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.

8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47′s and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert Kennedy. Please view the following links: H.R.2424H.R.1897H.R.1096,H.R.407H.R.1147, and H.R.3892.

9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals!Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don’t you think?

10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. This reason is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in regards to Paul’s positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on religion, he stated “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.” (( Koyaanisqatsi Blog: Wrong Paul Why I Do Not Want Ron Paul to be My President )) Though he talks a good talk, at times, Ron Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative views. He would support “alternative views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/

emergentfutures:

‘The protester’ named Time’s person of the year

From the Arab Spring to Occupy Wall Street and the recent Russian rallies, Time magazine says protesters have “redefined people power” around the world and been the force behind the biggest news stories of the past 12 months.

Paul Higgins: So Apt

Full Story: ABC

cwnl:

Science Reporting: Spotting & Correcting The Over-Hype

I just got done with reading an interesting article over at NewScientist that somewhat explains for the behavior that some people in the media business take as they try and sensationalize certain stories. A few moments ago some of you might have seen me in my debating stance over the moon landing conspiracy theory, so for anyone interested in knowing just how overly hyped and many times falsified stories and conspiracies are born here’s some nice snippets I enjoyed from the article:

I am not in favour of treating science as a special case, but I think it can be argued that some science stories are of such great public interest that the highest standards of journalism must apply.

When the press gets it wrong on science, the results can be devastating. The furore over MMR, which started in 1998 after a rogue doctor claimed a link between the vaccine and autism, is the best known example of how poor reporting can cause harm. Vaccination rates dropped to 80 per cent and cases of measles in England and Wales rose from 56 in 1998 to 1370 in 2008.

I would just like to add that while it is extremely easy for the public, myself included, to get sucked into sensationalist news titles the most important and responsible thing you can possibly do as a citizen or citizen journalist is apprehend what part of what you read was sensationalized by further reading into it using more legitimate sources until you understand the story at hand. Then, you correct yourself or your work to better fit these standards of reporting so that we don’t do it again or at least becomes harder for us to fall for anything..

The media was not solely responsible for the MMR scare, but some of the news values that caused the problem are alive and well: the appetite for a great scare story; the desire to overstate a claim made by one expert in a single small study; the reluctance to put one alarming piece of research into its wider, more revealing context; journalistic “balance” – which creates the impression of a significant divide in scientific opinion where there is none; the love of the maverick; and so on.

It’s my view that if you put the best scientists, science communicators and science journalists in a room it wouldn’t take long for them to agree on the basics of good medical science reporting.

A tick list would look something like the following. Every story on new research should include the sample size and highlight where it may be too small to draw general conclusions. Any increase in risk should be reported in absolute terms as well as percentages: for example, a “50 per cent increase” in risk or a “doubling” of risk could merely mean an increase from 1 in 1000 to 1.5 or 2 in 1000. A story about medical research should provide a realistic time frame for the work’s translation into a treatment or cure. It should emphasise what stage findings are at: if it is a small study in mice it is just the beginning; if it’s a huge clinical trial involving thousands of people it is more significant. Stories about shocking findings should include the wider context: the first study to find something unusual is inevitably very preliminary; the 50th study to show the same thing may be justifiably alarming. Articles should mention where the story has come from: a conference lecture, an interview with a scientist or a study in a peer-reviewed journal, for example.

I felt inclined to highlight this bit because this sort of process has been happening to a lot of studies, take global warming for instance. We still have a great many people thinking it’s a hoax, a lie, or miscalculation despite the evidence that says otherwise. This is a direct case in which bad reporting harms public knowledge of a subject and also highlights why it would be important to work on it and legitimize the reporting since people would like be kept in the clear about such dire matters.

And in the end, when all is said and written, it’s hardly ever the news source that reported the misconception or sensationalized article that gets the bitter end of the stick, it’s the scientists doing the study. Which I am not completely ruling out as part of the problem if they genuinely falsify data or maybe not divulge key information, but I am implying that much work is needed on the media reporting side to this as well (myself included).

However, as you can see, a lot of emphasis is being made in the article that highlights a journalists job to legitimize the story to their best knowledge and to expand that knowledge based on reliable sources in order to gain credibility of your own. But remember, we all make mistakes, and the valuable thing to get from it is to learn from the mistake and work on it using new or different methods than what you had originally applied. Head on over to NS for the full article, it’s very worth the read if you’re into the legitimacy of reporting or just have an interest in the workings of sensationalism and how to control and prevent it to yield better stories.

Full Article: A few simple checks would transform science reporting

(via kenobi-wan-obi)

noam-chomsky:

Renowned critic and always MIT linguist Noam Chomsky, one of the classic voices of  intellectual dissent in the last decade, has compiled a list of the ten most common and effective strategies resorted to by the agendas “hidden” to establish a manipulation of the population through the media.Historically the media have proven highly efficient to mold public opinion. Thanks to the media paraphernalia and propaganda, have been created or destroyed social movements, justified wars, tempered financial crisis, spurred on some other ideological currents, and even given the phenomenon of media as producers of reality within the collective psyche. But how to detect the most common strategies for understanding these psychosocial tools which, surely, we participate? Fortunately Chomsky has been given the task of synthesizing and expose these practices, some more obvious and more sophisticated, but apparently all equally effective and, from a certain point of view, demeaning. Encourage stupidity, promote a sense of guilt, promote distraction, or construct artificial problems and then magically, solve them, are just some of these tactics.

1. The strategy of distraction

The primary element of social control is the strategy of distraction which is to divert public attention from important issues and changes determined by the political and economic elites, by the technique of flood or flooding continuous distractions and insignificant information. distraction strategy is also essential to prevent the public interest in the essential knowledge in the area of the science, economics, psychology, neurobiology and cybernetics. “Maintaining public attention diverted away from the real social problems, captivated by matters of no real importance. Keep the public busy, busy, busy, no time to think, back to farm and other animals (quote from text Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).”

2. Create problems, then offer solutions

This method is also called “problem -reaction- solution. “It creates a problem, a “situation” referred to cause some reaction in the audience, so this is the principal of the steps that you want to accept. For example: let it unfold and intensify urban violence, or arrange for bloody attacks in order that the public is the applicant‟s security laws and policies to the detriment of freedom. Or: create an economic crisis to accept as a necessary evil retreat of social rights and the dismantling of public services.

3. The gradual strategy

acceptance to an unacceptable degree, just apply it gradually, dropper, for consecutive years. That is how they radically new socioeconomic conditions ( neoliberalism ) were imposed during the 1980s and 1990s: the minimal state, privatization, precariousness, flexibility, massive unemployment, wages, and do not guarantee a decent income, so many changes that have brought about a revolution if they had been applied once.

4. The strategy of deferring

Another way to accept an unpopular decision is to present it as “painful and necessary”, gaining public acceptance, at the time for future application. It is easier to accept that a future sacrifice of immediate slaughter. First, because the effort is not used immediately. Then, because the public, masses, is always the tendency to expect naively that “everything will be better tomorrow” and that the sacrifice required may be avoided. This gives the public more time to get used to the idea of change and accept it with resignation when the time comes.

5. Go to the public as a little child

Most of the advertising to the general public uses speech, argument, people and particularly children‟s intonation, often close to the weakness, as if the viewer were a little child or a mentally deficient. The harder one tries to deceive the viewer look, the more it tends to adopt a tone infantilising. Why? “If one goes to a person as if she had the age of 12 years or less, then, because of suggestion, she tends with a certain probability that a response or reaction also devoid of a critical sense as a person 12 years or younger (see Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).”

6. Use the emotional side more than the reflection

Making use of the emotional aspect is a classic technique for causing a short circuit on rational analysis , and finally to the critical sense of the individual. Furthermore, the use of emotional register to open the door to the unconscious for implantation or grafting ideas , desires, fears and anxieties , compulsions, or induce behaviors …

7. Keep the public in ignorance and mediocrity

Making the public incapable of understanding the technologies and methods used to control and enslavement. “The quality of education given to the lower social classes must be the poor and mediocre as possible so that the gap of ignorance it plans among the lower classes and upper classes is and remains impossible to attain for the lower classes (See „ Silent Weapons for Quiet War ).”

8. To encourage the public to be complacent with mediocrity

Promote the public to believe that the fact is fashionable to be stupid, vulgar and uneducated…

9. Self-blame Strengthen

To let individual blame for their misfortune, because of the failure of their intelligence, their abilities, or their efforts. So, instead of rebelling against the economic system, the individual autodesvalida and guilt, which creates a depression, one of whose effects is to inhibit its action. And, without action, there is no revolution!

10. Getting to know the individuals better than they know themselves

Over the past 50 years, advances of accelerated science has generated a growing gap between public knowledge and those owned and operated by dominant elites. Thanks to biology, neurobiology and applied psychology, the “system” has enjoyed a sophisticated understanding of human beings, both physically and psychologically. The system has gotten better acquainted with the common man more than he knows himself. This means that, in most cases, the system exerts greater control and great power over individuals, greater than that of individuals about themselves.

If the mass media is dominated by a few corporations, the risk for bias and interference with editorial independence increases.

Thomas Hammarberg, Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe. Public service media needed to strengthen pluralism.

Hammarberg writes:

Media pluralism is necessary for the development of informed societies where different voices can be heard. However, in several European countries there is little genuine media freedom and therefore limited space for pluralism. Independent television and radio channels are denied licences, and critical newspapers are prevented from buying newsprint or distributing their papers.

Other state controls are more discrete. By buying advertising space solely in “loyal” media, governments can signal to businesses to follow their lead, which means that independent media are effectively boycotted. The increase in bureaucratic harassment and administrative discrimination is also of concern.

Of course, a million blogs aside, mainstream media consolidation is accelerating globally. And, of course, with deference to our Italian friends, let’s not forget that Silvio Berlusconi was the largest shareholder of the largest television station while prime minister.

And then there’s Russia and its very… um… troubling media environment.

(via futurejournalismproject)