Former Vice President Dick Cheney has been making the rounds promoting a new book intended to rewrite the history of his role in the most failed and corrupt presidency, possibly ever.
Here are the facts: the Bush White House outed covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson with the help
of its close ally, the mainstream news media. Shame on them all.
This
story is covered in its entirety in the documentary Broadcast Blues. Here's a 52 second clip:
Fairness Doctrine Demise Gives Rise to the Public Interest
August 25, 2011
But shed no tears: the FCC also made it clear that the broadcasters'
obligations to the "Public Interest" are alive and well!
It's Radio, Stupid! (Or is it Stupid Radio?)
July 26, 2011
Why has the Tea Party flourished? Why are people in the US grossly misinformed? Why can just a few run our country off the cliff?
The Right Wing hijacked Radio fifteen years ago; the effects are just now being completely felt.
Compare these maps representing numbers and sizes of "Conservative",
"Right Wing" radio stations and "Liberal" radio stations across the USA:
"Right Wing" radio stations and "Liberal" radio stations across the USA:
Then look at a map of the 2010 Midterm Election Results:
About 50 million Americans listen to Right Wing Talk Radio.
Now here's the SCARY part:
Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have far more reach on Radio than Fox News.
You won't believe it until you
See These Charts!
Now here's the SCARY part:
Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have far more reach on Radio than Fox News.
You won't believe it until you
See These Charts!
Radio is still the country's number one source of news and information,
but fewer than 10% of the country is able to hear any progressive talk radio.
Those who do tend to vote for more Democrats than those who do not.
How did this happen?
Media Reform Victory: People Win, Corporations Lose!
July 11, 2011
The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia handed the
public a huge victory last Thursday, and giant corporations a rare loss,
in their decision [PDF]
on a case that (ironically enough, given the subject matter) most of
the public knew nothing about, but one which has the potential to
benefit real people with better quality news and information for decades
to come.
The case, Prometheus Radio Project v FCC, pitted "Citizen
Petitioners" who seek more persons owning local media outlets to ensure
diversity in viewpoints and news coverage, versus "Deregulatory
Petitioners" who want fewer persons (spell that "corporations") to own
local media outlets, and the publicly-owned broadcast airwaves that go
with them, in order to enhance their profits.
At stake were the rules determining how many local TV and radio
stations one company can own in a single market; whether a newspaper
owner can also own a TV or radio station in the same town; and how
broadcast ownership by minorities and women should be handled.
The Deregulators challenged the FCC's constitutional and legal
authority to set rules and restrictions on ownership of broadcast
spectrum licenses, while the Citizen Petitioners sought to protect the
FCC's authority, even while challenging a number of new rules the agency
speciously attempted to enact without appropriate public input.
Six attorneys representing Free Press, Media Alliance, The United
Church of Christ, and Prometheus Radio Project went up against 48
lawyers representing such corporate behemoths as Clear Channel, CBS,
Belo, FOX, Cox, Sinclair, Tribune, and Gannett, and groups including the
National Association of Broadcasters, plus another 8 attorneys for the
FCC and 5 more from the US Department of Justice. The case became a
classic David v. Goliath struggle.
The good news this time around, at least for the moment, David finally won one...
The case dealt with current ownership rules, as determined by the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). There are a myriad of rules, among them these, which now allow
that one party may own no more than:
- two TV stations and six radio stations in the same market (or one and seven);
- three TV stations in large markets where 18 or more stations exist;
- up to eight radio stations in the same town.
The FCC is tasked with making sure the broadcast media --- via the
limited broadcast spectrum which is owned by we, the people --- serves
the public interest. Every four years, as required by the 1996
Telecommunications Act, the FCC must revisit the issue of public
interest in media ownership (the "Quadrennial Review.")
In 2003, the FCC Commissioners held public hearings on media
ownership, then essentially ignored what the public told them. The FCC,
chaired at the time by Republican Michael Powell, next laid out a group
of rules that put more broadcast media stations into fewer hands. The
public rose in protest (as covered in my 2009 documentary, Broadcast Blues.)
After Powell's hearings, Prometheus Radio went to court to challenge
the new rules. They won a Third Circuit Court ruling which found that
the FCC had not properly listened to the public and would need to start
from scratch.
So, four years later, from October 2006 to November 2007, the FCC,
this time under Republican chair Kevin Martin, once again held a series
of public hearings on media ownership, but in some cases, as the court
find this time around, they offered the public as little as 10 calendar
days notice before the meetings. Worse, as revealed during the trial,
the FCC actually buried studies with findings which undercut
their own advisement for relaxation of ownership rules. (An Inspector
General's report even found that the FCC had a research strategy
specifically designed to justify their preconceived goal: the repeal of
the newspaper-media cross-ownership rule.)
Then Martin, on November 13, 2007, just four days after the final public hearing, issued an Op-Ed in the New York Times
which outlined the newspaper/broadcast ownership rules he was
considering. Until then, neither the public --- nor even fellow FCC
commissioners --- knew what rules he was considering.
Déjà vu. Hold public hearings, then ignore the public. Just as Powell had done four years earlier.
New York Times Issues PARTIAL Correction on Breitbart
July 1, 2011
As reported today in Bradblog.com, the New York Times public editor, responding to criticism from Brad Friedman, Media Matters and others about inaccuracies in last weekend's Jeremy W Peters' puff piece on Andrew Breitbart, has issued a partial correction, this about a videotape that Peters said showed NAACP members applauding former USDA official Shirley Sherrod when she talked about at first being reluctant to help a white farmer many years ago. (That Breitbart story, which blatantly misrepresented Sherrod's comments, forced Sherrod to resign her post. Sherrod has sued Breitbart for damaging her reputation.) New York Times Reporter Peters apparently didn't look at the video before reporting that tidbit, as it, in reality, showed no such thing. (Apparently words now go directly from the mouth of Andrew Breitbart directly onto the pages of the paper of record.)
But the Times has still not corrected its long ago misstatement that ACORN advised Breitbart protege James O'Keefe and his hidden camera partner Hannah Giles on how to evade taxes and conceal child prostitution. In point of fact, the video shows the opposite. Read the full story over at BradBlog.com .
But here's the takeaway: It was the New York Times misreporting that eventually brought the group ACORN down for no good reason, other than engaging in a political hatchet job.
What does the Times hope to gain? Access? An answer to cries of the "liberal" media?
It can't compare to what they've lost: credibilty, at a time when we need REAL journalism the most.
NYTimes on Breitbart: STILL getting the ACORN story wrong!
June 28, 2011
Wow. Little did I know as I followed Ryan Clayton with a camera as he confronted Andrew Breitbart at the recent NetRoots Nation conference in Minneapolis that New York Times Reporter Jeremy W. Peters was also there, doing an "expose" on the conservative provocateur.
(That's me, behind Ryan Clayton, in this Ben Garvin NYTimes photo, camera in hand.)
But in what has become a disturbing pattern at the so called "Paper of Record," the New York Times reporter then writes a puff piece about Breitbart which downplays his underhanded role in mis-portraying liberals in order to destroy them.
The Times writes,
This would be a great story if this were a fairy tale, but this is the New York Times, which until recent years actually checked facts and reported news."Some of his reader-generated scoops have reverberated all the way to the halls of the United States Capitol, like the Weiner photos and undercover video he released of Acorn workers offering advice on how to evade taxes and conceal child prostitution. After the videos went viral Congress ended grants to Acorn, and federal agencies severed ties with the group. "
Peters did get part of the story correct: after the sham videos hit the halls of Congress, Acorn was regarded as a pariah, and the group which strove to register more voters later disbanded. (I can still hear GOP cheers echoing all the way to California.)
But here's the important part of the story, the part the New York Times left out, the part my colleague, investigative reporter Brad Friedman, has been hammering for more than a year, as he does again today on BradBlog.com:
"... after telling the ACORN worker that her pimp (not O'Keefe!) had beaten her and stolen her money, the sympathetic worker tries to offer advise on how to hide the money from the pimp, not from the government!
You want all the facts on this? Read Brad Friedman's reporting on this, he owns this story.
The other frequently cited piece of misinformation concerns the ACORN worker who advised that Hannah use the IRS code for "performance artist" when filing her taxes, since there is no code for "prostitute" on those forms. As in all of the offices, the workers were explaining how Giles had to report her income and pay her taxes --- rather than evade them --- even if her income was from prostitution."
But here's my point: there is a reason that I am so passionate about calling out the tactics of Andrew Breitbart and his minions. The man is perpetuating a fraud - not just on the American people , but on our very democracy. I am talking about someone who calls himself a journalist who worked to set up the ACORN organization with a hidden camera (like a Candid Camera/ Borat comedy,) asked honest employees bogus questions, then edited the video to mislead viewers and lawmakers, all for political gain. It doesn't matter if it being done on the "Right" or the "Left," it is wrong.
Despite the comment in Peters' article that people today tend to "select facts" they agree with, at the end of the day, nobody wants to be lied to. If people fully understood the lies they are being spoon fed by the Right Wing Media, I think they would be quick to seek out honest, trustworthy reporting.
But, as I reported more than a year ago, the New York Times fails that test. They failed it with Judith Miller, they failed it with ACORN, they failed it with Breitbart. The "Paper of Record" just doesn't seem big enough to correct the record.
Thank God for bloggers, but not all of them are as accurate as Friedman, either.
So let me say this to all who have a microphone on Radio or TV, and to all those who are paid to write for print publications: We the People need you to do the hard job of real reporting. We need real facts to make real decisions.
Just because some may enjoy it, please don't make our democracy into a sideshow. We are counting on you.
Continued Interest in Breitbart: (Not sure why...)
June 25, 2011
More than a week after 100ProofPolitics' Ryan Clayton went after Andrew Breitbart at Netroots Nation in Minneapolis, I am still getting requests for information and clarification about the exchange. The latest came from Radioactive Gavin, who had me on his radio show =Making Waves= on KDVS out of Davis, California.
Lots of fun! !!! Listen here on the Common Frequency website:
From Gavin's description:
"Common Frequency's newest Board member, journalist Sue Wilson,
was the guest for today's =Making Waves= on KDVS. We talked about an
aggressive progressive named Ryan Clayton confronting Andrew Breitbart,
the conservative provocateur, at the Netroots Nation conference last
Friday. Sue was there.
Sue says Breitbart "is trying to run away from the monsters he's created." He is being sued by one of his victims,
but his attacks on NPR, ACORN and Rep. Weiner are all considered
successes. And she also debunks the myth of the focus group-tested meme
that "the liberal media" controls American thinking.
Plus, we discussed the questionable judgment of CNN devoting so much
airtime to Erick Erickson, another incendiary partisan allowed to, as
David Brock of Media Matters
says "disable journalism".
Normally I devote my attention to local,
independent public media but I think what's really important here is
the outrage Sue speaks to, about what Breitbart represents in terms of
the crumbling standards for information dissemination in our democracy.
And stay tuned because we wrapped the show with a clip from Wilson's documentary Broadcast Blues,
a dramatic story of two journalists who were fired by a Fox affiliate
for refusing to lie about a story on Monsanto the station preferred to
silence. Sue took the film on an 11-city tour through Florida, encouraging more citizens to demand public interest obligations from broadcasters.
Listen HERE.
PLUS!
In case you missed it, Radio or Not's own Nicole Sandler scored an interview with none other than Breitbart protege James O'Keefe . He told Nicole he just seeks the truth. This is the guy who pretends to be a journalist but uses Borat tactics of asking crazy questions using hidden cameras, then maliciously edits the answers so they don't resemble the actual interview, but instead furthers his own skewed agenda. The guy I wrote about here who pretended he dressed as a pimp to walk into an ACORN office (that lie was debunked by Brad Friedman over at BradBlog.com.)
(That's O'Keefe, in his pimp get-up, on the left. A journalist he is NOT.)
"If the shoe fits, wear it. If the truth hurts, bear it!" ~Sue
Breitbart Ambush: Fair or Foul?
June 18, 2011
The internet has lit up with stories about the exchange between "Conservative" blogger Andrew Breitbart and Progressive Blogger Ryan Clayton. Public opinion is critical of Clayton's questioning of Breitbart, saying that it is less than objectiive journalism.
But consider that Clayton asked straightforward questions, and clearly has a camera visible when so doing. Consider also that Clayton released the entire uncut video so that viewers may clearly see the entire exchange. Contrast that with the work of Breitbart protege James O'Keefe, who sets up interviews under false pretenses, uses hidden cameras, and edits video to substantially change the meaning of his interviewees answers.
This may not be great investigative journalism, but at least it is transparent. Perhaps Breitbart and his minions could learn from this? (Doubtful.)
Breitbart Ambushed at Netroots Nation
June 17, 2011
Would be journalist and provocateur Andrew Breitbart met his match today when he tried to crash the liberal NetRoots Nation convention in Minneapolis, Minnesota. 100 Proof Politics editor Ryan Clayton was ready - and his camera and hard questions forced right wing Breitbart into a hasty retreat.
The story started the night before when two women ventured into the streets of Minneapolis wearing the traditional Hijab (headscarf.) They were approached by John Hugh Gilmore, a 52 year attorney and self described Conservative who blogs for "Minnesota Conservatives." According to police, he asked the women what they thought of Ayaan Hersi Ali, a Somali who is a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who decries Muslims. The women told him they weren't exactly fans. The inebriated Gilmore then became upset and started harassing the pair, asking what right they had to be in this country, until 60 onlookers intervened. Police were called and arrested Gilmore, but not until Gilmore tried to reach Andrew Breitbart on his phone.
Fast forward to today. Breitbart entered the Minneapolis Convention Center just minutes after Clayton had interviewed Sana Saleem, a blogger of Pakistani heritage and co-founder of Gawaahi.com, who had witnessed the confrontation. Breitbart claimed he knew nothing about the event, and a Breitbart colleague accused Clayton of lying about the whole affair, (but Minneapolis Police Department has confirmed Gilmore's arrest.)
Clayton moved beyond the Minneapolis incident into questions to confirm or deny rumors of Breitbart's alleged drug use and sexual habits. While Breitbart denied having a cocaine habit, he would not answer whether he had personally ever used cocaine. Given Hugh Hewitt's recent interview with Breitbart where Breitbart references the gay magazine "Blue Boy," Clayton also asked about Breitbart's penchant for gay magazines. At that point, without answering directly, the flustered Breitbart left the Netroots Nation convention, hounded by dozens of attendees shouting, "Coward! Coward!"
Mr. President, Don't Just Scold the Media, Fix It!
April 29, 2011 After revealing his "long form" birth certificate Wednesday, President Obama scolded the news media for letting this non-issue become a national obsession. But if President Obama really wants to restore reporting to its rightful role, he needs to act on commitments he made immediately after his inauguration. As I wrote in September 2009 for The BRAD BLOG:
Shortly after Barack Obama was sworn in as President last January, as Brad Friedman reported at the time, the new White House website "Technology" page signaled a hopeful change, and a call to re-examine the oversight of our public airwaves:
Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum.Okay, let me connect some dots here. For more than two years, GOP extremists have made the President's birth certificate an issue that has successfully permeated the country's consciousness. According to a New York Times-CBS News poll last week, 43% of the country is not sure Barack Obama was not born in this country, despite long standing factual evidence to the contrary.
How did GOP extremists manage to make a non issue such a huge issue? They used the power of broadcasting to beat the drums of paranoia into 50 million people across our land. They used the power of talk radio, which they have used to successfully marginalize Democrats and anyone else outside their narrow point of view.
That's right. According to Arbitron, 53 million people listen to talk radio every day in this country. When Glenn Beck loses his Fox "News" audience of 2 million, he still will have his radio audience of 10 million. According to Katz Radio Group (subsidiary of radio giant Clear Channel) President Mark Gray, "The weekly reach of radio is higher now than it was three decades ago -- yet the power of radio to reach and influence consumers unfortunately remains a bit of a well-kept secret."
What's an even better kept secret is that roughly 95% of this nation can hear only Right Wing Hate radio on their commercial dial. Progressive voices are purposely kept out of the national discussion on our publicly owned airwaves. (It's like gatekeepers keeping progressives out of our national parks, only much more important.)
Which takes me back to the first of the President's commitments: "ENCOURAGE DIVERSITY OF OWNERSHIP IN BROADCAST MEDIA."
How can the President keep his commitment to the American people? He can call for a bill to be introduced in Congress which would rewrite radio ownership rules, rolling them back to pre-1996 levels, which would mean one owner could have 20 FM and 20 AM radio stations, rather than the unlimited numbers they can own today following passage of the Telecommunications Act under Bill Clinton. If more than just six "persons" were in charge of radio, as is now the case, we would naturally get more diversity of political thought, more debate over real issues, and more localism, which once was the hallmark of terrestrial radio.
There has traditionally been bi-partisan support for this action, but it has lacked one key component: leadership.
In fact, as Brad Friedman would later note at Alternet, by the summer of 2009, the President's hopeful call for reform of media ownership rules on his White House "Technology" page "had been quietly excised from the White House website without a trace, apology or even an explanation."
For whatever reason he chose to back off then, hopefully the past two years have made the problem of the wholesale rightwing takeover and corruption of our public airwaves clearer to the President than ever before.
The other key media commitment the President made, at least for a short time, back in January of 2009 was to: "CLARIFY THE PUBLIC INTEREST OBLIGATIONS OF BROADCASTERS."
It is critical to understand that we the people own the airwaves. Broadcasters, (local TV and Radio stations) own a lot of fancy equipment which allows them to broadcast over OUR air. They made a business deal with us that they get to broadcast over our air ONLY if they serve the public interest. (This differs from cable TV; once you write a check to Comcast you make a business deal with them to get programming over their cables. It's an important legal distinction.)
After the Reagan administration tossed out the Fairness Doctrine, broadcasters pretended that they had no further public interest obligations. It's another falsehood the right wing is perpetuating, and the President clearly knows it; but their obligations to We the People are no longer well defined. Broadcasters still are required to write reports to the public over how they are operating, on topics like children's programming and shared service agreements between stations that reveal how one news staff is shared by more than one station, but very little else.
And now, in a quiet behind the scenes effort, broadcasters are trying to wiggle out of doing even that. In a tiny April 7th notice [PDF] by the Federal Communications Commission (the agency which is to oversee broadcasting and supposedly ensure the use of the public airwaves in the public's interest) broadcasters, in the name of reducing paperwork, are trying to squeeze a rule change through so they no longer have to report to the public at all. (We have until June 17 to fight this back. Please see this urgent action and make sure broadcasters still have to report to the real owners of the airwaves, you and me!)
On this, the President needs to take control of his FCC and formulate real public interest obligations. Commissioner Michael Copps has created a good list [PDF] for starters. President Obama needs to throw his weight into that effort.
This corporate owned media needs more than a tongue lashing: The President, our Congress and We the People need to take action -- executive, legislative, and judicial -- to restore real fairness and balance to our broadcasters and to our democracy.
The time is NOW.
Sue Wilson is a media activist, director of Public Interest Pictures' Broadcast Blues, and a 22 year veteran of broadcast journalism. Her numerous awards include Emmy, AP, RTNDA, and PRNDI for work at CBS, PBS, FOX, and NPR. She is the editor of the media criticism blog, Sue Wilson Reports.
Dear AOL Members: AOL is Censoring Your Email ... And you have never been told
GUEST BLOGGED BY BRAD FRIEDMAN
(Originally posted on BradBlog.com 4-22-2011)
If you use an AOL email address, AOL is doing you the favor of making sure you
do not receive email containing any links to BradBlog.com in it.
Not email from a BradBlog.com address, mind you, as if I were a
spammer or something (which, obviously, I'm not), but any email from
anybody that has a link to this site, or to one of our news stories.
I learned this swell news early this week when someone was kind enough to let
me know that their attempts at sending a link to this site to a friend bounced
back to them with an error message. That error message was "HVU:B2".
What is that error?:
- 421 HVU:B2
- There is at least one URL or domain in your e-mail that is generating substantial complaints from AOL members. Resolution will require opening a support request.
That's right, "substantial complaints" from someone, whatever that means,
will result in no links to stories at The BRAD
BLOG getting through to any of AOL's millions of members. And they
will never know about it.
Again, these are not even emails from BradBlog.com. They are simply
emails from anybody to any AOL email address which has my domain linked
in the body of the email.
Neat, huh? I wonder what would happen if there were "substantial complaints
from AOL members" about, say, FoxNews.com? Or MSNBC.com? Or NYTimes.com? Would
that result in millions of members not being able to receive any
email that links to anything at those sites? Sounds like a great way
to ratfuck someone you don't care for politically, doesn't it?
So what did I do about this? What level of hell have I had to descend to over
this past week in trying to solve this problem?...
So far, I've spoken to at least 10 different AOL support people on the phone,
since clicking the "support
request" URL they offer in the error message seen above actually takes you
to someplace on the "AOL Postmaster" that doesn't actually give you the form you
supposedly are to fill out to deal with this issue.
It took a day or two, and several more calls to more very nice AOL tech
support people who told me they couldn't help me in the slightest, but a friend
did some digging and finally figured out that this form is the one
to fill out to deal with this particular problem. Or, at least, it's
supposed to be.
After filling out that form, I was given a webpage with a message to the
effect of: "Thank you for filling out the form. We will send a confirmation
email to you with instructions on how to proceed."
That confirmation email never came, despite my having tried about 4 different
times, from several different email addresses throughout the week. My friend
tried as well. He also never received the promised "confirmation email."
Each time afterward I would call AOHell tech support again and was told by
the still almost-always very nice tech support person that they couldn't help at
all, that they couldn't escalate the call, that they couldn't allow me to speak
to a supervisor, that the one and only way to deal with this problem was to fill
out the form at the "AOL Postmaster" webpage --- the one that I told them each
and every time I called that I had already filled out, received a promise of a
"confirmation email," and then never received it.
They were very very sorry, but all that they could advise was that I fill out
that form again and wait for a confirmation email that would never come.
In the meantime, today I received dozens of automated emails from my own
mailing list program --- the one that I use to send out news alerts to media
folks --- informing me that dozens of AOL members on that list had been
automatically unsubscribed today because notes to them had bounced more than 3
times (that's one of the settings in my maillist program.)
After a few more calls to tech support today, asking nicely, then begging,
then pleading for a solution, begging to speak to a supervisor, someone,
anyone, who could help, I was again told there was nobody I could speak
to, the call could not be escalated, I could not speak to a supervisor, that I
should go fill out that form to solve this problem.
I asked for a corporate AOL phone number where there might be someone who
could help, and was --- finally, after much begging --- given one. It turned out
to be the 800# to the AOL billing department instead. You'll be shocked to learn
they couldn't help either --- but they did recommend that I fill out that form
at the "AOL Postmaster" page!
I finally looked up the AOL corporate website online, found the numbers for
the "Corporate Media Inquiries" department, figuring I'd either get help or get
an on the record comment about this mess and about the fact that AOL is
censoring members emails for them, and spoke to another very nice person
whom I told about the situation, explained that I was a journalist, not a
spammer (and besides the notes being rejected didn't even need to come from my
address to get rejected), mentioned the irony that I even write news for
Huffington Post from time to time, and explained that I'm at wits' end, and will
probably need to write a story on this at this point to let people know that
AOL is censoring their users emails!
He promised to report the situation to tech support for me, he promised to
elevate the matter, he promised to have someone who could fix the situation call
me back hopefully today (though it was late in the afternoon on Good Friday, so
he couldn't promise promise, but he promised to try.) It's several hours later, and I've received no call. But it is Good Friday,
when, as everyone knows, the Internet shuts down.
But I did receive a note from an AOL user I know, who I'd explained the
situation too (when they contacted me wondering why they had received a notice
that they were being automatically unsubscribed from my mailing list). They said
they'd asked a friend to send a note with BradBlog.com in it to them and, though
"it took a while," they said it made it through!
Great! The call to the "Corporate Media Inquiries" department did the trick,
I guess! Right? Not right.
I replied to my AOL friend (from a non-BradBlog.com) address, with the text
of their email quoted --- the one that contained www.bradblog.com in it --- and the message
immediately bounced. Same error. Same hell.
In my second-to-last ditch effort today, nearly a full week into this
nightmare, nearly a full week since colleagues on my email alert list have
not been receiving my emails, I once again filled out the same "AOL
Postmaster" form for, perhaps, the 5th or 6th time. You know, the one that
tells me after I've completed it that I'll get a "confirmation email" that never
comes? This time, I got a different response after filling out the form:
Yes. A blank page. A blank page with nothing but their sidebar on it. No
message. No nothing. At least its more honest.
At that point, I figured I'd better write this article if, for no other
reason, some folks with AOL addresses may be wondering why they're not getting
their usual email news alerts from me. This is why.
But also because the world should know how easy it apparently is to keep AOL
users from getting links to "objectionable" websites if enough "substantial
complaints from AOL members" are made. Neat trick, huh? Let's keep that one in
our back-pocket, shall we?
Oh, and also I thought the world should know that AOL is censoring its
members' email and they know nothing about it! And if your own website gets
caught in that censorship there is almost nothing you can do about
it!
I'm reminded of a similar incident that occurred with Comcast back in the
summer of 2005 --- which we covered
exclusively here --- as they, the nation's largest email provider, were not
allowing emails to go to users if they contained "AfterDowningStreet.org" in the body of
the email.
We eventually were able to learn from Comcast that the problem was due to
some automated anti-spam program that triggered a filter to block emails that
had URLs which had suddenly become very very popular on the Internet,
under the presumption that they must be spam. Or so Comcast claimed anyway. It
was a very politically charged summer, and the AfterDowningStreet.org site was
reporting on information which argued that Bush had determined to go to war in
Iraq whether there were WMD there or not.
The problem was eventually corrected and AfterDowningStreet.org was removed
from the filter. But a month or so later --- as Cindy Sheehan took up her famous
stand in Crawford, TX, urging Bush to meet with her to explain the "noble cause"
for which her son had been killed in Iraq --- emails containing "meetwithcindy.org" were similarly filtered
out by Comcast and never reached their intended destination. We reported on that incident here.
In many ways, the Comcast incident was arguably even worse than AOL's shame,
in that their system didn't even bounce an error message back to the sender. The
email was sent off, and nobody ever even knew that it didn't arrive.
Well. Sorry for the long explanation, but I feel better having gotten it out
of my system --- even though, as of now, it is likely that AOL members cannot
get emails which contain links to this news site in them.
If my contact at AOL cares to offer a response from the "Corporate Media
Inquiry" department, I will, of course, be happy to run it (as I offered him
originally --- but he chose to try and solve the problem, rather than give an
on-the-record comment for now, which I actually appreciate.)
But, sorry. This is all bullshit, and folks need to know.
AOL members who wish to complain, request they be allowed to receive emails
with BradBlog.com in them, or would prefer to switch to an email provider that
doesn't censor their mail without telling them first, can call:
800-827-6364, or they can be ignored via
the AOL feedback page here.
UPDATE: Another AOL user tells
me via Twitter: "I just sent from AOL to AOL with your domain and it works;
only from outside AOL in fails."
That would explain why my AOL friend was able to receive an email with my
domain it from another AOL user, and why my reply to her, quoting the same
email, failed. Fail. Fail. AOL. Fail.
UPDATE 4/23/11, 5:11pm PT: Just a quick update for those who've
asked. Yes, emails containing links to any page at BradBlog.com are still
blocked when sent from any non-AOL address to an AOL user. This is more than 24
hours after I directly notified and spoke to their Corporate Media Inquiries
division, who promised they'd escalate the issue. And just about a full week
since I was initially notified about the problem in the first place, and began
my full week of of endless tech support calls and written complaints via the
form mentioned above at the "AOL Postmaster" site. Still censored.
URGENT ACTION! Require Broadcasters to report to the Public!
April 19, 2011
The FCC is asking for public comment as to whether
broadcasters should continue to be required to submit public files for public
inspection. (This is under the Paperwork Reduction Act.) Broadcasters say
almost nobody looks at the public files anyway, and claim it takes too much time and paper
to produce them. But you and I know the Public Files
are critical to the public interest. (And it's part of the media activist toolkit to get the public to monitor their public files
routinely. But let's make sure we have something to
monitor!).
Story: http://bit.ly/fccfiles
FCC Comment Request: http://1.usa.gov/keepfiles
PLEASE mobilize your people to write the FCC
by June 17. So far, the FCC has received only a few comments from the
public. Let's make sure they receive thousands! Say we the people
need to have public files, but that broadcasters need to post them
online. This will not only save paper, it will give us easy access to
the public interest information to which we are entitled. (Broadcasters are
behind the scenes fighting online posting tooth and nail. Let's win this
battle now.)
ADDRESSES:
Direct all PRA (Paperwork Reduction Act) comments
to the Federal Communications Commission via e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov and Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov .
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact Cathy Williams
on (202) 418–2918.
I will be
following this situation closely; please let me know if you have acted, and I will
follow with a report.
~Sue
suewilsonreports@gmail.com
suewilsonreports@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)