Media Matters exposes CNN’s nondisclosure of a regular contributor’s affiliation with a consulting firm that buys ads for the health care industry

Media Matters for America ran this story on October 14,2009. They have obtained evidence that CNN contributor Alex Castellanos' political consulting firm, National Media, is the ad buyer for the insurance industry group America's Health Insurance Plan's (AHIP) new ad blitz attacking Democratic health reform plans. You can read the entire story here.

The Daily Show reveals what CNN deems worthy of fact checking

This clip is from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Monday, October 12, 2009.

FBI and Pennsylvania State Police employ tactics that would make Iranian authorities proud——and apparently the New York Times.

According to a New York Times article Sunday, October 4, 2009, titled, “Arrest Puts Focus on Protesters’ Texting” Elliot Madison, 41 a social worker from Jackson Heights, Queens was arrested September 24, 2009 by the Pennsylvania State Police and charged with hindering apprehension of prosecution, criminal use of a communication facility and possession of instruments of crime. The article also reports that the FBI conducted a 16-hour raid of Madison’s residence in Jackson Heights, Queens the following Thursday.
The article reports that a “criminal complaint in Pennsylvania”, claims that Madison was, “directing others, specifically protesters of the G-20 summit, in order to avoid apprehension after a lawful order to disperse.” Here the article takes law-enforcement at their word. They do not dispute what law enforcement is claiming to be a “lawful order to disperse”. The First Amendment grants every American the right to “peaceably assemble”. So the police only have the authority to disperse the protesters that are not being peaceable if and when they are not. But the charges against Madison take an even stranger turn.
During an interview on Democracy Now with Madison and his attorney, Martin Stolar, Tuesday, October 6, 2009, Stolar claims that the police are charging Madison with “hindering apprehension of prosecution” because Madison repeated the Police’s dispersal order over Twitter. If what Stolar claims is true, the police are charging that it is a crime to repeat a dispersal order through social-networking websites and mobile-phones (in this case Twitter) to individuals that the dispersal order is intended. These details, along with others, are not only left out of the article but are completely contrary to what the article is describing since the Times reporters didn’t bother trying to get a comment from Madison, his attorney or the Tin Can Collective, nor did they run any further information in Wednesday’s edition after the interview with Democracy Now.
As a matter of fact, the article mentions that the affidavit used to secure the search warrant for Madison’s residence may have something to do with Madison’s affiliation with a group (the Tin Can Collective) that according to the Times article, “collected information and used Twitter to send mass text messages describing protest-related events that they observed on the streets.” The Times Writers then point out that, “There were many such events during the two days of the summit. Demonstrators marched through town on the opening day of the gathering, at times breaking windows and fleeing.” The Times article really reaches to show their readers how Madison could be guilty of associating with a group that coordinates events with protesters who are at the same place where there are other criminal activities, and they leave out any comment from Madison, his attorney, anyone at the Tin Can Collective and they omit any follow up information after the Democracy Now interview.
The reporters for this story are really reaching to convince their readers that Madison and the collective he’s associated with are guilty of something.
The New York Times chose to run this article by piecing together a far reaching accusation instead of obtaining comment from some of the parties involved.
This perspective is a stark contrast from the series of articles that The New York Times ran last June when the Iranian Government used similar tactics towards Iranian protesters after their national election. Then, Iranian authorities accused many of the protesters of being foreign infiltrators in order to justify their crack down, and showed televised confessions that were likely forced because of the absurdity of the claims made during the confessions. The New York Times showed its unwavering support for the protesters and condemned the state of Iran. In one article, the Times even explained how their readers can support the protesters through social-networking sites—just as Madison had in Pittsburg. A June 15, 2009 New York Times article read,
Twitter-users are posting messages, known as tweets, with the term #IranElection, which allows users to search for all tweets on the subject. On Monday evening, Twitter was registering about 30 new posts a minute with that tag.
One read, “We have no national press coverage in Iran, everyone should help spread Moussavi’s message. One Person = One Broadcaster. #IranElection.”
“#IranElection” is a method for Twitter users to communicate directly with protesters.
And in a June 22, 2009 article titled, “Web Pries Lid of Iranian Censorship”, The Times condemned the Iranian government as “authoritarian”, partly for their censorship of social networking sites used by Iranian protesters and their online supporters.
In June, The Times played its role as a competent critic of state power, Iranian state power. It even went beyond its role by aiding the Iranian protesters. But when the opportunity for the Times to fill that role presented itself this past week we saw a different paper, one that is only willing to fill its pages with acceptable state doctrine.

Fox News Channel producer caught rallying crowd at protest

Fox News Channel Producer, Heidi Noonan caught rallying crowd, out of view from the show's live camera

Here is the show's live picture.

Los Angles Times stops short of refuting Israeli claims about "Hamas operatives"

During a severe crisis like the one in Gaza, when every single day of warfare means more large scale violence in and around one of the most densely populated cities in the world, we rely on the media to inform citizens so they in-turn can make informed choices in response. The media has a profound responsibility to examine claims made by the parties that are directly or indirectly responsible for the death and destruction. When they fail us they are complicit in the crimes.
In the Jan 7, 2009 Los Angeles Times there was a report about a United Nations school shelled by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) : “Calls for Gaza truce mount after school hit.” The attack was on the Al-Fakhora school in the Jabalia Refugee Camp in north of Gaza City on Jan 6, 2009, which killed at least 30 civilians. After giving the basic facts of the attack The Time’s writers cite Israeli officials justifying the attack by saying, “the school was targeted because Hamas militants had launched mortar rounds from its grounds…”, but the article does not cite the statement made by Christopher Gunness, an Official of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), on Democracy Now: “It’s important to say that the coordinates of all of our facilities in Gaza were handed over to the Israelis well before this offensive began.” Or the Associated Press article which states that the UN had given the IDF the GPS coordinates of its 23 schools being used as a civilian shelter during the incursion. The statement by the Israeli official coupled with the information given by the UNRWA official and AP (of which is undisputed by the State of Israel) acknowledges a clear war-crime of intentionally targeting civilians under the Protocol II, article 13 of the Geneva Convention.
The Times article also doesn't clarify that it is extremely unlikely that the persons firing mortars from the school were targeting anything outside of the Gaza Strip, since most mortars have a maximum range of 2.15-2.89 status miles. There is an extended range mortar which has a maximum range of 3.46 miles; however, it is very expensive and it is not commonly used by Palestinians. If said persons wanted to target civilians it is far more likely that they would have been using Qassam Rockets instead of mortars.
Given that they couldn’t have been targeting civilians and were very likely targeting IDF positions within the Gaza Strip, their actions are protected by Article 51 of the UN Charter as defense against an invasion of the Gaza Strip by the IDF; furthermore, the IDF invasion violates Article one, two, and thirty-three of the UN Charter.
In summary The Times fails to: refute the Israeli claims of mortars being fired by "terror operatives", or “Hamas operatives”; defend the actions of the persons firing the mortars as internationally recognized acts of defense; or expose Israel's actions as war crimes.
The article does offer a comment of the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon about the "dangers inherent in the continuation and escalation of this conflict", but it does not give an impression of how dangerous it was for the IDF to shell the refugee camp. The Al-Fakhora school is located in the Jabalia Refugee Camp. The Palestinian refugees living in the camp are from the war of 1948 which established Israel’s independence. The conditions in the camp are extremely dismal and cramped. According to UNRWA as of 2005, 106,691 refugees live in make-shift shelters within the .87 sq. mile camp. The IDF had to know that the density of the population along with the conditions in the camp made it almost certain that a high level of civilian casualties would result from such an attack.
Finally, the citations within the article give a heavy voice to the State of Israel, but very little to Palestinian officials. The Times cites official Israeli sources eight times (including the first after the introduction) while Palestinian ones get two. There were two official US sources, three UN and no citations of independent media or humanitarian aid, and in the last four paragraphs of the story there were two Palestinian civilian sources (including a doctor at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City).