Archive for March, 2017

Rally Round The First Amendment – TV News Check

Speaking at the NAB's State Leadership Conference Tuesday, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) went after President Trump and his administration for their "unprecedented series" of attacks on the news media attacks thatculminated Feb. 17 with a tweetfrom the commander in chief calling "FAKE NEWS media" namely theNew York Times, NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN the "enemy of the American people."

"Turning reporters into enemies not just adversaries, but enemies is a strategy that strongmen use to silence critics and maintain power," Durbin said after cataloging the Trump assaults. "Their goal is to discredit the messenger. That way, when there is bad news, or news that contradicts the official line, people wont believe it.

Story continues after the ad

"Soon enough, people start to lose faith ... not just in the media, but in all of the institutions that hold a society together. They lose faith in the power of debate and elections to change anything. They become cynical and apathetic."

Well said.

The attacks have provoked a predictable public response from the targeted news media. Bring it on, they say. We are simply going to continue to do what we have always done, provide a check on the government by throwing as much light on its doings as we possibly can.

Rather than intimidate the media, the attacks have energized them and engendered waves of public support that can be clearly measured in "Trump bumps"to Nielsen ratings and paid subscriptions.

At the same time, the Trump thumps have provided an impetus for the news media to rally and redouble their collective efforts to preserve and perhaps expand their First Amendment rights. There is nothing like a hostile outside force in forging solidarity among the beleaguered.

On Jan. 17, representatives of more than 50 news organizations met at the Newseum in Washington to plota common strategy for strengthening news media. It was organized by the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and the American Society of News Editors and hosted by the Democracy Fund.

The journalists, lawyers and other media advocates discussed legal and legislative ways to insure access to government offices and information, protect whistle blowers from government retribution, protect themselves from frivolous libel suits and protect reporters from government harassment.

They also talked about the need to restore trust in the news media and floated ideas about how to do it.

I am happy to report that broadcasters were well represented at the "summit" by the Radio Television Digital News Association in the persons of Executive Director Mike Cavender and General Counsel Kathleen Kirby of the Wiley Rein law firm.

Cavender tells me to expect a full report from the organizers in the next week or two.

Whatever strategy emerges from the summit is just so much talk unless it wins the financial backing of newspapers, the national news networks and, yes, TV station groups. Legal defense funds, legislative initiatives and appeals to the public cost money.

It should go without saying that broadcasters need to support fully the RTDNA. In addition andCavender may hate me for saying this but broadcasters should also consider supporting other worthy organizations like Investigative Reporters and Editors.

I've been arguing that stations should eschew on-air commentary, especially on hot partisan issues, figuring that there is enough opinion out there and that it will only serve to undermine trust in stations' reporting. If a station's commentary is perceived as consistently liberal or conservative, its reporting may be dismissed as such.

However, I'm making an exception to that rule: the First Amendment. Stations should take to the air to defend freedom of speech and the press and argue for expansion of its rights and protections be that access to the dashcam video at the local police station or a federal shield law for whistle blowers.

A CBS affiliate should not allow the president to get away with saying that CBS News is "an enemy of the people." Ditto for NBC and ABC affiliates.

Stations must be careful not to preach or talk down to their viewers. That's how the national media alienated Trump voters. Stations need to listen to their viewers and win them over by convincing them that their interests are aligned, that press freedoms are ultimately their freedoms.

And it would be good to hear from the heads of the station groups, the ones who are always saying what swell jobs they do producing news and serving the public interest.

They can speak out in op-eds and in speeches before civic groups and at universities. They can direct the executives of the NAB and state broadcast associations to do the same.

I fully understand that the No. 1 job and responsibility of the station group executives is to make money, and so they have to be mindful of what they say. They have big issues pending before Congress and the FCC, notably ownership deregulation, the repack and ATSC 3.0. Criticizing the administration is not the way to get your way in Washington.

Go here to read the rest:
Rally Round The First Amendment - TV News Check

Photo captures Hillary Clinton reading about Pence’s emails – USA TODAY

Former secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks after unveiling the U.S. postal service issued Oscar de la Renta Forever stamp during a ceremony in New York on Feb. 16, 2017.(Photo: Jewe; Samad, AFP/Getty Images)

Hillary Clinton might have been president were it not for her use of a private email server.

And here she is readingthat the running mate of the man who defeated her used a private email account to conduct official business as governor:

You might notice in the photo that the former secretary of State is reading the story, headlined "Pence used personal email in office," on the cover of Friday's issue of USA TODAY.

The Indianapolis Star, part of the USA TODAY Network,broke the storyThursday that Vice President Pence used a private email accountto conduct public business as governor of Indiana, at times discussing sensitive matters and homeland security issues.The Staracquired the emails in an effort thatbegan in 2014.

Pence sharply criticized Clinton's use of a personal email server while serving as secretary of State under former president Barack Obama. ButPence said"there's no comparison whatsoever" between his emails and Clinton's. He accused Clinton of "mishandling classified information" and "destroying the emails when they were requested by the Congress," while saying he, on the other hand, had "fully complied with Indiana's laws."

Pence said all private emails used to conduct official business were transferred to the state as required by Indiana's public access laws.

Related:

Pence used personal email for state business and was hacked Here are some of Mike Pence's AOL emails Indiana took months to reveal Mike Pence emails Mike Pence: 'No comparison' between his, Hillary Clinton's email practices

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2lICabU

Original post:
Photo captures Hillary Clinton reading about Pence's emails - USA TODAY

Photo shows Hillary Clinton reading about Pence’s email scandal – SFGate

You guys, my friend is on the same plane as Hillary Clinton. Zoom in on the title of the article she's looking at. pic.twitter.com/356oE9uT0s

Hillary Clinton took a commercial flight from Logan Airpot in Boston to LaGuardia Friday afternoon and apparently used the time to skim some national news.

Fellow passenger on American Airlines flight 2146 Caitlin Quigley sat nearby.

"I was not going to snap a photo of her while she was looking up," said Quigley, "but as soon as she put her head down, I got one."

After texting the photo (see above) to "all of my friends," Quigley "zoomed in and died."

The headline Clinton appears to be reading? "Pence used personal email in office." Clinton's candid facial expression says it all.

If you need a refresher: Two weeks before the election, the FBI investigated Clinton's use of a private email server in correspondence with top aide Huma Abedin.

Documents made available in December revealed that FBI agents had no new evidence of wrongdoing, and some Clinton supporters continue to blame the investigation for her loss to Donald Trump.

On Friday's short flight, Abedin happened to be accompanying Clinton.

Oakland resident John Warren Hanawalt, one of Quigley's aforementioned friends, tweeted the photo to his 18.1k followers and viral stardom ensued. The photo was retweeted over 5,000 times as of late Friday afternoon.

Photo: Seth Wenig, ASSOCIATED PRESS

Click through this gallery for an overview of the Clinton email scandal.

Click through this gallery for an overview of the Clinton email scandal.

Speculation is rampant that Hillary Clinton might run for mayor of New York. But why not governor? (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Speculation is rampant that Hillary Clinton might run for mayor of New York. But why not governor? (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Photo shows Hillary Clinton reading about Pence's email scandal

Quigley noted that Clinton was "skimming the story" and not "reading it intensely."

She added, "She probably just did an eye roll or something."

ReadMichelle Robertsons latest storiesandsend her news tips atmrobertson@sfchronicle.com.

Read the original post:
Photo shows Hillary Clinton reading about Pence's email scandal - SFGate

Hillary Clinton to Visit Harvard Friday – Harvard Crimson

UPDATED: March 3, 2017 at 12:20 p.m.

Hillary Clinton will be on Harvard's campus Friday to discuss her time as Secretary of State and attend a luncheon in Kirkland House.

Clinton will take part in an interview as part of the American Secretaries of State Project: Diplomacy, Negotiation, and Statecraft, a joint project of the Kennedy School, Law School, and Business School, according to a statement from the Kennedy School.

Harvards Institute of Politics will also host a Fireside Chat with Secretary Clinton Friday morning in Kirkland Houses with undergraduate members of the IOPs Student Advisory Committee. Five spots for the Kirkland event with Clinton were given to Kirkland residents Thursday evening.

Clinton served as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013. Clinton ran for President of the United States beginning in May 2015, and lost the election in a victory many across the University found upsetting and surprising. Throughout her campaign, Clinton enjoyed wide support amongst both Harvard students and facultya Crimson survey found that roughly 87 percent of undergraduates planned to vote for the former Secretary of State in Novembers election.

The American Secretaries of State Project is an effort between the Kennedy Schools Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Future of Diplomacy Project and the Law Schools Program on Negotiation. Begun in 2012, it plans to interview all living former U.S. Secretaries of State about their experiences conducting international negotiations while in office.

Law School Professor Robert H. Mnookin, Business School professor James K. Sebenius, and Kennedy School professor R. Nicholas Burns lead the project and will conduct the interview with Clinton. Sebenius said the interviews with the secretaries focus on challenges they faced in office and also their political experiences with three different geographical regionsthe Middle East, Russia or the former Soviet Union, and China.

We cut it two ways, and ones around the challenging negotiations and what we can learn from them, and thats a special interest of all of ours, Sebenius said. And the other is looking at the experiences of each of these Secretaries through kind of a regional focus.

The three professors jointly teach Great Negotiators, Effective Diplomacy, and Intractable Conflicts, a class on political negotiation open to students from the Law School, Business School, and Kennedy School. Burns said he and the other professors will incorporate the interviews into a variety of forthcoming projects, including a book on the negotiations of the American Secretaries of State, a series of PBS documentaries, and case studies for use in Harvard classes.

It really has given us a sweep of American foreign policy through the eyes of the former living Secretaries of State, Sebenius said.

Clinton is the seventh Secretary of State to take part in the project. In spring 2015, the professors hosted former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright at Harvard as part of the project. In her interview with the professors, Albright spoke about her international negotiations in both her roles as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and as the first female Secretary of State.

The projects leaders have also interviewed former Secretaries of State George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Henry A. Kissinger, Colin L. Powell, and Condoleezza Rice about their experiences in international negotiations. The three professors are also currently writing a book on the negotiations of Secretary Kissinger.

John Kerry, who most recently served as Secretary of State under former President Barack Obama, is the only other living former Secretary who has not yet been interviewed as part of the project.

Staff writer Brittany N. Ellis can be reached at brittany.ellis@thecrimson.com. Follow her on Twitter @britt_ellis10.

John Foster Dulles--An Agonizing Reappraisal

For a man who is supposed to have spent a large part of his life preparing for the Secretaryship of

Annual Dinner of Class Secretaries

The annual meeting and dinner of the Association of Harvard College Class Secretaries will be held at the Union Club,

Student Council Notice

Secretaries of preparatory school clubs, who have not sent in lists of the officers and members of their clubs for

Army-Navy Game in Balance

Unless the United States Navy Athletic Association is ready to accept the compromise plan suggested by Secretaries Garrison and Daniels

P. B. H. REORGANIZES SETTLEMENT WORK

A reorganization of the Social Service Committee of the Phillips Brooks House has been made whereby the entire system of

Original post:
Hillary Clinton to Visit Harvard Friday - Harvard Crimson

Susan Sarandon was right: She warned us Hillary was doomed; liberals didn’t want to listen – Salon

Remember that time when Susan Sarandon said she wouldnt vote for Hillary Clinton and all hell broke lose in liberal land?

The actress and activist who had previously been a vocal Bernie Sanders supporter told MSNBCs Chris Hayes in March last year that although she hadnt decided which person to vote for, some people felt that Donald Trump would bring the revolution immediately whereas Clinton was all about shoring up the status quo.

This naturally led to cries of outrage from the Clintonista center-left. Sarandon is not a good feminist, they seethed. Shes a traitor to the liberal cause, they fumed. She would put the country at risk. It was people like her, they said, that risked putting Trump in office. This went on for a while, with articles popping up all over the place condemning Sarandon for not falling in line with the rest of politically-conscious Hollywood. Newsweek writer Kurt Eichenwald called out Sarandons narcissistic purity on Twitter and blamed her for Trumps win.

Sarandon was back on Hayes show recently and was asked this time how she felt now that Trump had won. There was a strong undercurrent of blame throughout the interview:The implication from Hayes was that Sarandon should get down on her knees, grovel and apologize profusely for failing to vote for Clinton. Much to his obvious disappointment, she defended her earlier comments and even doubled down on them.

But heres the thing: If liberals werent too busy tweeting abuse at Sarandon and writing think pieces about her white privilege, they might just be able to see that she makes some salient points about the American political system, the media and the Trump presidency.

So, liberals, hold your fire for a second, and lets look at this with an open mind.

1. Its uncomfortable for Clintonsupporters to admit this, but the fact is, Sarandon was awake when many Democrats werent. She was a vocal supporter of Sanders, the only truly progressive candidate with any chance of securing the nomination. Clinton was a status quo candidate and, as Sarandon has pointed out, if you back the status quo when people are desperate for change, youre going to have a difficult time.

Well never know if Sanders could have beaten Trump, but we do know that Clintoncouldnot. We know that the Democrats allowed Clinton to run a status quo campaign when people were hungry for revolution. We also know they schemed and connived against Sanders and paid the price. For that, Sarandon cant be blamed.

2. Now, how bout that revolution? Sarandon was right there, too. OK, revolution may be too strong a word. But she is correct in saying that Trumps presidency has woken up people in a way that never would have happened if Clinton had won. The popular retort to this is: Oh, but Clinton would have been much better than Trump.So there would have been no need for revolution! Therein lies the crux of the liberal con.

While Trump is brash and in-your-face about his awful policies, Obama and Clinton simply put a kinder, sugarcoated face on some of the very same things. Take fracking, for example. Fracking boomed under Obama. At one point, Clinton even tried to tar the image of anti-fracking environmentalists by linking them to a Russian plot to hamper the U.S. energy industry.

Gasland director Josh Fox whose 2010 documentary went a long way toward reshaping progressive consciousness of the fracking issue said the following in the same MSNBC episode with Sarandon:

Obama is the one thats left us with the legacy of 300 frack-gas power plants. Thats thousands of pipelines. Thats millions of fracking wells. That was Hillary Clintons and Obamas plan Obama was the fracker in chief for eight years.

While Clintons State Department was promoting fracking around the world, we were reading The Huffington Posts 65 Reasons Hillary Clinton Is a Badass and perusing BuzzFeeds 40 Most Adorable Pictures of President Obama.Now the media has suddenly cottoned on to how awful this is for the environment and were all supposed to dutifully pretend that fracking was invented by Trump.

3. Its worth including a note here about foreign policy, too. Sarandon has made multiple comments about Clintons foreign policy record. She told The Young Turks:She did not learn from Iraq, and she is an interventionist, and she has done horrible things and very callously. I dont know if she is overcompensating or what her trip is. That scares me. I think well be in Iran in two seconds.

While it looks like Trump might also be salivating for conflict with Iran, Sarandon was not wrong about Clinton. Comparedwith TrumpClinton is a rabid interventionist.(Trump appears to be at least somewhat more of an isolationist, which is problematic for other reasons.) She is an unashamed hawk and proponent of U.S.-led and -engineered regime changes around the world under the guise of liberal humanitarianism, of course.

Clintons role in supporting the 2009 Honduras coup and subsequent destabilization of that country has been well documented. She led the charge for a failed intervention that turned Libya into a failed state, and she was a proponent of implementing a no-fly zone in Syria, which could have resulted in a shooting war with Russia. As for Obama? Well, he only bombed seven Muslim-majority countries during his time in office.

4. Sarandon has also laid some blame for the current political situation on the media. In one particularly awkward exchange with Hayes, she questioned his journalistic credibility:

Sarandon: You consider yourself a journalist, right?

Hayes: Yeah, I spend 15 hours a day covering whats going on.

Sarandon: So how many hours did you spend on Standing Rock?

Hayes: Not very much.

A while later, Hayes asked Sarandon to look him in the eye and say whether Trump was as bad as she expected him to be as president. She dismissed the question and asked him this:

Can you look me in the eyes and tell me you were doing your job to cover these issues completely? You just told me that you didnt really cover DAPL. Are you covering now all of these [pipeline] explosions that have just happened? Because thats what we need you to do what we need from you is to allow people to understand whats happening.

Again, Sarandon is right. The press treated Obama and Clinton with kid gloves compared tothe battering they are giving Trump. Its not the job of members of the media to decide that a presidents policies are less deserving of harsh criticism if he seems like a nice guy. Its their job to be rigorous in their coverage of every president, with no exceptions.

Democrats who blame people like Sarandon for the Trump mess reveal a lot about themselves. Could it be that the real reason they dont want to listen, or even entertain her opinions, is because if they did, theyd come face to face with their own hypocrisy?

Thats the crux of the matter. When Sarandon says Trump is bringing the revolution faster, what shes really doing is pointing out liberal hypocrisy. Far too many liberals who have developed a newfound passion for environmentalism and world peace displayed little interest in either of those things during Obamas presidency and very likely would not have batted an eyelid over a Clinton continuation of similarly disastrous policies either.

To say all this is not a defense of Trump, lest anyone interpret it that way. Its simply to say that nothing changes if nothing changes. If liberals really want to see progressive policies put into action, theyre going to have to open their eyes and vote for actual progressives.

Read the original here:
Susan Sarandon was right: She warned us Hillary was doomed; liberals didn't want to listen - Salon