By Bruce B. Brugmann

I have often referred to the New Times/Village Voice Media chain as Desert Libertarianism-on-the-rocks, with large stalks of neocon politics. Adam Reilly, writing in the current Boston Phoenix alternative, has a better line:

"It's no surprise that the ex-New Times brass who now lead VVM, including CEO Jim Larkin and, as executive editor, the famously irascible MIke Lacey--want the Voice and its fellow papers to conform to their standardized, apolitical, SunBelt-baked vision of what alternative journalism should be. What is striking, though, is how quickly and decisively defenders of the old left-leaning, decentralized VVM ethos has been routed. The battle just began--and its already over."

Reilly has done some good reporting and good analyzing and come up with the best piece so far on the dreadful impact that the l7-paper chain is having on journalism and the cities where it has papers.

But let me add a key point: the NT/VVM formula, successful as it might be without competition in the deserts and the foothills, simply doesn't work in cities where they have real competition with community based newspapers, such as in San Francisco with the Guardian and in the East Bay with the Guardian, Berkeley Daily Planet, the Berkeley Monthly, and the Daily Cal. And in Seattle with the Stranger. And in Cleveland with the Free Times.

For example, the SF Weekly/VVM and East Bay Express/VVM papers lose millions each year. In Cleveland, the NT/VVM paper has lost millions over the past few years. And, given the strength and competition of the Guardian and others, there is little prospect the NT/VVM can turn their papers around. And so the tantalizing question is: what are they going to do?

STOP THE PRESSES: The Village Voice/New Times has fired its editor after six months, according to a Saturday March 3 report in the New York Times. This would be the fourth editor in little more than a year since the New Times took over the Voice in the fall of 2005.
The firing only underscores my point: the formula that worked in Phoenix doesn't work and won't work in sophisticated/liberal/competition rich cities like New York. B3

See also Gawker's coverage of this.

By Bruce B. Brugmann

Marvelous. Simply marvelous. While ten of the l9 witnesses testifying in the Libby trial were singing journalists, and three of them were central to securing Libby's conviction, Howard Kurtz, the media critic of the Washington Post and the voice of the inside-the-beltway media establishment, did not raise any of the obvious issues and questions in this unprecedented mass outing of sources by journalists in federal court in Washington, D.C. It was a "spectacle that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago," as Adam Liptak put it rightly in the New York Times March 8.

Instead, one day after the Libby guilty verdict, Kurtz went after Josh Wolf, the longest jailed journalist in U.S. history for contempt of court, in his March 8 column headlined "Jailed Man Is A Videographer And a Blogger but Is He a Journalist?" Kurtz, who tosses softballs about every Sunday morning in his media show on CNN, hit Josh hard with a lead that said, "He is being cast by some journalists as a young champion of the First Amendment, jailed for taking a lonely stand heavy-handed federal prosecutors."

Then: "But Wolf's rationale for withholding the video, and refusing to testify, is less than crystal clear. There are no confidential sources involved in the case. He sold part of the tape to local television stations and posted another portion on his blog. Why, then, is he willing to give up his freedom over the remaining footage?"

And then he quoted, not a media lawyer nor a journalist with knowledge of
California law, but a professor who ought to be flunked out of law school (Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles). Kurtz quoted Volokh as saying without blushing, "It's one thing to say journalists must respect promises of confidentiality they made to their sources. It would be quite another to say journalists have a right to refuse to testify even about non-confidential sources. When something is videotaped in a public place, it's hard to see even an implied agreement of confidentiality."

Tom Newton, general counsel of the California Newspaper Publishers Association, had the appropriate polite response in an email to Kurtz: "Huh?"

"That, as they say, would be a settled right in California. In California, the people have flatly rejected the idea that police and prosecutors ought to be able to deputize journalists whenever they can't figure out how to do their job themselves."

"Moreover," Newton continued, "the test for whether Josh is a journalist or not should not be based on who the U.S. attorney says he is, ("simply a person with a video camera"), or even who Josh says he is (an "artist, an activist, an anarachist and an archivist"), but on what he does and what he was doing when gathering the information at issue (i.e., creating videotape of a public and newsworthy event and actually selling portions of it for a profit to a news organization which made it part of the local evening TV news)." Read Newton's full comment below.

So, when the chips are down and the question is raised in time of war, who stood the test of being a real journalist? Josh Wolf, who went to jail on principle, and is still there, and may be there until a new federal jury is impaneled in July? Josh Wolf, who was put in jail in my view by the Bush administration to send a don't-mess-with-us message to anti-war protestors inside and outside of San Francisco and to journalists at large. Or the l0 journalists warbling away in federal court and thereby avoiding jail (excepting Judith Miller from the New York Times, who did jail time but still ended up testifying)?

I stand with Josh Wolf. I think he is not only a real journalist in the best sense of the word, but a journalistic Hero and a First Amendment Hero who is paying his dues and more every day he serves in federal prison in Dublin, California. As for Howard Kurtz and the Washington Post and the inside-the-Beltway gang, well, they helped George Bush march us into Iraq, no real questions asked, and they are now helping keep us there with this kind of logic and reporting.

There are lots of real questions for Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post/inside the beltway gang who asked the is-Josh-a-journalist question the day after the verdict and to some extent for Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle who asked the same question a few days before the verdict. The questions do not involve whether whether Josh Wolf is a journalist or not. The questions are, how in the world did those hotshot inside-the-beltway journalists with access and those hotshot inside-the-beltway media organizations with access so screw up the story of the biggest foreign policy mistake in U.S. history? And how did they so screw it up when millions of us without access, in San Francisco and around the world, figured out the real story, knew it was a terrible mistake to go to war with Iraq, and went into the streets to protest the decision? And when will they start reporting the real story behind the Libby trial: that Bush and Cheney lied us into war, that Libby was key to the much larger story of the cover up of the campaign of lies, that the war is now lost but the lies go on, and that our only option left is to get out as quickly as possible? Kurtz and the inside-the-beltway gang are the journalists who have the explaining to do, not Josh Wolf.

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/07/AR2007030702454.html>

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/washington/08fitzgerald.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fL%2fLiptak%2c%20Adam

Newton's email to Kurtz:

"While the national attention on shield law issues has focused almost entirely on the protection of confidential sources, out here in California we have for many years granted journalists the ability to protect both their confidential sources and unpublished information associated with newsgathering. Had the San Francisco situation not rather bizarrely become a federal case (it was, after all, an incident involving a San Francisco crowd, a San Francisco peace officer and a San Francisco police car), there would be no question that Josh, assuming for a moment he is a journalist covered by California law, would be immune from a contempt order for his steadfast refusal to disclose his unpublished information to a state prosecutor. This immunity is squarely set by popular vote in the state's constitution (Article I. Sec. 2).

"I am totally puzzled by this quote in your column from an esteemed constitutional scholar: "It's one thing to say journalists must respect promises of confidentiality they made to their sources," says Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. "It would be quite another to say journalists have a right to refuse to testify even about non-confidential sources." Huh? That, as they say, would be a settled right in California. In California, the people have flatly rejected the idea police and prosecutors ought to be able to deputize journalists whenever they can't figure out how to do their job themselves.

"Moreover, the test for whether Josh is a journalist or not should not be based on who the U.S. Attorney says he is, ("simply a person with a video camera"), or even who Josh says he is (an "artist, an activist, an anarchist and an archivist"), but on what he does and what he was doing when gathering the information at issue (i.e., creating videotape of a public and newsworthy event and actually selling portions of it for a profit to a news organization which made it a part of the local evening TV news). Based on a recent California case involving a blogger's attempt to quash a subpoena pursued by Apple in an attempt to identify an internal leak, it's clear to me Josh would be found to be a journalist for purposes of California's Shield Law and would be a free man right now, but for this becoming a federal case."

Full disclosure: I asked CNPA, as a member publisher, to support Wolf, his cause, and a federal shield law. To its immense credit, the CNPA board and staff rose to the occasion and has supported Wolf, a member of no media organization, with skill and passion. From CNPA to the Society of Professional Journalists to the California First Amendment Coalition to the International Free Press Institute in Vienna to other international free press groups to labor unions to the grassroots movement of Andy Blue and Julian Davis in San Francisco and beyond, this is quite a massive and growing coalition of the willing for Josh Wolf. Keep it rolling till Josh is out of jail and the U.S. is out of Iraq. B3

By Bruce B. Brugmann

Byron Calame, the public editor of the New York Times, spent an entire column in the Sunday New York Times (March ll) answering an important question:

"Why," Calame asked in his lead, "were readers of the New York Times left without a word of news coverage of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal for six days after it had been exposed by the Washington Post?
That was the question posed to me in the wake of the Post's Feb. l8 scoop by readers thirsty for readers thirsty for news of the poor care given those wounded in Iraq."

As attentive readers of the Bruce blog will recall, I raised an even more important question as to why the Times and its sister paper in Santa Rosa (the Press Democrat) have for 30 years refused to run the Project Censored story from the local Sonoma State University. I have also asked Calame, and Times and PD editors, why they won't run the Project Censored story, even though its stories before and during the Iraq War laid out much of the key neocon policy behind the war and the anti-war strategies in opposing it. Neither Calame nor any Times nor editor would answer me nor provide an explanation to Carl Jensen, the project's current founder, nor Peter Phillips, the current director, for their censorship of the Censored Project through the years.

This is highly significant in light of Calame's Sunday column. "Readers have every right to be angry about the Times's slowness in telling them about the compelling news in The Post's two-part series," he wrote.
((I won't raise the question here as to why neither the Post nor the Times, nor any of the beltway journalists, didn't get the stories months earlier at nearby Walter Reed and why they didn't respond earlier to the accelerating drumbeat of criticism of lousy treatment of returning soldiers from veterans, their families, and veteran's organizations.)

Calame did find the culprit: "Excessive pride, I believe, is the fundamental problem. The desire to be first with the news still permeates the newsroom at the Times and other newspapers in a way that makes editors and reporters feel defeated when they have to conclude that the information in another publication's exclusive article is so newsworthy that it has to be pursued." Good point: but what about newsworthy stories broken by other publications, picked up by Project Censored, stamped "Censored," and put out as a major package that the Times and other mainstream media then refused to print? Was "excessive pride" at work here for 30 years? Is that much of an excuse on stories as big as Iraq and Bush?

I pointed out in my earlier blog that the Censored stories were particularly timely during the war years.
For example, on Sept. l0, 2003, while the Times and the PD and affiliated papers on its news service, were running the stories of the disgraced Judith Miller that helped Bush make the case for the Iraq War and then seeking to justify it, the Guardian ran the Censored package with a headline that read, "The neocon plan for global domination--and nine other big stories the mainstream press refused to cover in 2002." I noted that our introduction to the timely censored package made the critical point: "If there's one influence that has shaped world-wide politics over the past year, it's the extent to which the Bush administration hs exploited the events of Sept. ll, 200l, too solidify its military and economic control of the world at the expense of democracy, true justice, and the environment. But President George Bush W. Bush hasn't simply been responding to world events. The agenda the administration has followed fits perfectly with a clearly defined plan that's been in place for a decade."

I noted that the neocon story, and the many other such stories that Project Censored put out during the war years and again this year, laying out the drumbeat to war and the dark side of the Bush administration, got no play in the Times nor the PD and very little play in the rest of the mainstream press and its "embedded" and "mission accomplished" journalism that marched us into war and is now keeping us there. Who was right, the Guardian and Project Censored stories or Judith Miller and the Times?

Calame wrote that "readers would benefit if the
Times could swallow a bit of its pride and make use of two readily available approaches to dealing with important news in the scoops of competing competitors." He said the Times could put the stories of competitors up on its web and they could be encouraged to use "solidly reported wire stories" of significant exclusives in other publications. What about the Censored stories?

Calame concluded, "The reality is that when significant news breaks--even in the form of an exclusive in a competing publication--the Times must be committed to getting on the story. Anything less seriously damages the paper's value to the readers."

Another good point: so repeating for emphasis: Why won't the Times and the PD run the Project Censored stories
that were so often on target when the Times wasn't? And why won't the Times and its public editor answer or even acknowledge the question and underlying issues of biased reporting, flawed news judgment, and too much lapdog access to the Bush administration? I'm sending this blog to them and asking once again.

I am waiting for the public editor and Times/PD editors to reply. Is this like waiting for Godot? Stay tuned. B3

Project censored blog:

http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/bruce/2007/02/new_blog_project_censored.html

Byron Calame's The public editor:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/opinion/11pubed.html?ex=1331269200&en=7f7f89dff165cf09&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

I am off to Cartagena, Colombia, for an assembly of the InterAmerican Press Association (IAPA), a free press organization for the Americas. I will keep you posted. B3

On the eve of the historic House vote to end the Iraq War, I sent the following note to Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), with a copy of the current Guardian editorial and editor's notes updating our longtime position opposing the war and occupation. I urge others to do the same. (Pelosi office in Washington: (202) 225-4965. pelosi@mail.house.gov.)

Rep. Pelosi:

The Guardian, and many many people in your district and around the country, urge you to push hard and harder to cut off the funding for the Iraq War. Thanks very much, Bruce B. Brugmann, editor and publisher, San Francisco Bay Guardian


Editorial

Cut off war funding

The cost is spectacular and almost unfathomably tragic

While the Democrats have offered an alternative plan to withdraw from Iraq, party leaders are still refusing to do what Congress has every right to do: demand that no more money be spent on combat operations in Iraq, set a timetable for pulling out the last troops - and specify that not a single dollar will be spent on anything except safely removing US personnel.

Full editorial:
http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=3150&catid=4&volume_id=254&issue_id=287&volume_num=41&issue_num=25

Editor's Notes

We can still end this war

By Tim Redmond

Four years ago we shut down the city. None of us who were there will ever forget it: so many peaceful protesters showed up that the police had to close down Market Street. Mission Street was pretty much the same way. You couldn't get anywhere downtown; nobody seemed to be at work. The police were, in more than a few instances, out of control - but there were no water cannons or rubber bullets, just a lot of arrests. Overall, it was a day of joy: the United States was going to war, and San Francisco would have no part of it.

Full editorial: http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=3148&catid=4&volume_id=254&issue_id=287&volume_num=41&issue_num=25

By Bruce B. Brugmann

Cartagena, Colombia March l9--The Inter American Press Association has condemned the U.S. government for jailing Josh Wolf and called for his immediate release from federal prison.

IAPA, at its annual mid-year meeting in Cartagena, noted that Wolf "remains in jail for refusing to turn over his videos and has now been in jail for refusing to comply with a subpoena for longer than any journalist in U.S. history."

IAPA said that "numerous journalists in the United States have been subpoenaed by prosecutors and required to testify in state and federal court, including the requirement that they name their confidential sources."
It noted that San Francisco Chronicle reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams faced l8 months in prison until their confidential source recently came forward."

IAPA relied on principle 4 of the Declaration of Chapultepec, the organization's version of the First Amendment,
that states, "Freedom of expression and of the press are severely limited by murder, terrorism, kidnapping, intimidation, the unjust imprisonment of journalists, the destruction of facilities, violence of any kind and impunity for perpetrators. Such acts must be investigated promptly and punished harshly."

IAPA is a non-profit organization dedicated to defending freedom of expression and of the press throughout the Americas. It has a membership of more than l,300 representing newspapers and magazines, with a combined circulation of 43,353,762, from Patagonia to Alaska.

In other action, IAPA found that six journalists were killed and one disappeared in the last six months in Mexico, and another was killed in Haiti. "The assassinated journalists were all victims of drug and gang wars, reflecting how throughout the region organized crime was a bigger physical threat to journalists than old-fashioned political differences," IAPA said. "There were nearly two dozen more cases of reported death threats, in Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, Paraguay, Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Peru,Venezuela, and Brazil, some related to the reporting of corruption."

IAPA said that Cuba and Venezuela were the worst countries in terms of government pressure on the press.
President Hugo Chavez threatens to shut down the country's leading television network, Radio CaracasTelevision, by not renewing its license. And in Cuba, after Fidel Castro replaced himself with his brother Raul as the president, repression has escalated against independent journalists and foreign correspondents.

IAPA reported 47 acts of harassment of journalists (police threats, interrogations, 'acts of repudiation' organized by the government, public beatings, temporary arrests, fines for disobedience, raids of people's homes, evictions, seizures of money and personal items, firings, and restrictions on travel within Cuba). Three foreign correspondents were expelled from Cuba on the grounds that "their approach to the situation in Cuba is not in the best interests of the Cuban government." In an attack on news sources, four people are being prosecuted for manufacturing or repairing satellite television equipment and may go to prison for three years. Meanwhile, IAPA said, 28 journalists remain behind bars, serving sentences of up to 27 years.

Cuba is now extending its repression to internet users. No Cuban may access the internet freely. Ramiro Valdes, the minister of computers and communications, ahs announced the government's intention to tame the "wild horse" of new technologies, which it describes as "one of the most horrible means of global extermination ever invented."

Argentina, Uruguay, Ecuador, and Bolivia had "lesser but still worrying" tensions between their governments and the media. In Argentina, the government continued to "arbitrarily classify journalists and media outlets as friends and enemies, and use the placing of official advertising to support the one and punish the other. B3

http://www.sipiapa.com/pulications/informe_usa2007ca.cfm