You may also like this site: https://www.consortiumnews.com/: Easily scannable word and natinal headlines and articles from a progressive-politics viewpoint.
h, and if you’re not familiar with Democracy Now, this hard-hitting and highly ethical one-hour news program airs five days a week and has broken story after story. The show has an excellent website, too.
Looks like famous hatemonger Ann Coulter doesn’t always write her own stuff. A very informative article in the New York Post (owned by Rupert Murdoch, last time I checked, and not exactly a bastion of liberalism) documents at least three instances of cribbing in her latest book, “Godless,” and numerous more instances in her columns.
She even cribbed a section from one of her frequent targets: Planned Parenthood:
One 25-word passage from the “Godless” chapter titled “The Holiest Sacrament: Abortion” appears to have been lifted nearly word for word from Planned Parenthood literature published at least 18 months before Coulter’s 281-page book was released.
And this woman is supposed to be telling us about morality? Yuck on her politics, and yuck on her ethics.
BBC/The Guardian Investigative reporter Greg Palast first broke the story about the disenfranchisement of over 90,000 heavily Democratic Florida residents of color prior to the 2000 election–without which Gore would have been the clear victor and thus become President.
Now, he tells us that the GOP around the country systematically sent do-not-forward letters to the home addresses of soldiers stationed overseas who lived in mostly black, mostly Democratic precincts, and then when they came back as undeliverable, challenged these soldiers’ right to vote. Also targeted: residents of homeless shelters.
There’s quite a bit more, but here’s a little excerpt:
What about black soldiers? Here’s what they did. They sent, we found out – here’s now what we’ve just found out. They sent first-class letters to the homes of African-American soldiers shipped overseas. They wrote on the envelopes “Do not forward. Return to addressee.” Well, of course, they’re shipped overseas, so the letter can’t be forwarded, to Baghdad or Germany, or wherever. Letters are sent back to the Republican National Committee, filtered back out to the state committees, and then elections officials are told, ‘These people don’t live at that address. We have evidence that they’re falsely registered.’
Now, here’s the trick. You send in your absentee ballot. That is a great act of faith, probably the greatest religious act of faith since Moses walked across the Red Sea, you know, hoping that he wouldn’t get drowned. You just mail in that ballot, and soldiers – this is, remember the Republican Party made a big deal about Al Gore complaining about soldiers’ illegal absentee voting. These people knew that these soldiers couldn’t defend themselves, would not know that their ballot would not be counted, would be challenged. And there’s no way, I mean you could – from Baghdad you can fight George’s war, but you can’t fight for your ballot – massive, massive, nationwide challenge.
In places like Wisconsin, by the way, we’ve just discovered – How did they even know how to challenge these people? They were using Blackberries loaded with the names. This is one expensive multimillion-dollar operation, and by the way, Amy, it’s illegal, okay? One of the reasons why the Republican Party didn’t ‘fess up when we showed them the sheets and they said, ‘Oh, it’s donors,’ is that if you target black people, or Jewish voters, as they did in a few districts, because that’s a democratic demographic, if you challenge these people, that’s against the law. That’s against the voting rights act of 1965. It’s a felony crime, you know.
WHY do we still let these thugs and crooks stay in office?
Aside: Isn’t it ironic that Palast, an American, works for two of the most well-respected British journalism outlets. Why won’t any major US media hire him? His website and books are accessible to us, though.
This is too weird: The New York Times went back and forth with senior General Motors executives about a letter to the editor from a GM vice president, attempting to rebut a highly critical article by Thomas Friedman. The letter said accusations in the column were “rubbish”; the Times refused to allow that word in the letter.
Writes the PR guy, Brian Akre,
Now, you’d think it would be relatively easy to get a letter from a GM vice president published in the Times after GM’s reputation was so unfairly questioned. Just a matter of simple journalistic fairness, right?
You’d also think that the newspaper’s editing of letters would be minimal — to fix grammar, remove any profane language, that sort of thing. Not so.
The US House of Representatives struck a major blow against our Internet freedom the other day, voting for the so-called Communications, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006.
This disastrous bill, if also passed by the Senate, would take away the principle of “Net Neutrality”–that every website gets to load as fast as the server can manage and be found as easily as it shows up in the search engines. A vast coalition of 752 groups on both the left and right joined forces to block this bill, but the House passed it 321-101, including 92 Democrats.
Contact your Senators NOW and speak out against this bill–or face a world in which not the government but big telecommunications corporations effectively decide which websites you will see, and promote the sites that pay them the most. The Internet has been the backbone of the independent press, one of the last bastions of people unafraid to tell the real news. We must protect our rights to view these sites, read these blogs, watch these videos–and if content providers have to pay for the privilege of having their sites accessed, that channel will dry up mighty fast. Our browsers will be sold to the highest bidder, and that will not be the alternative voices.
* * * *
Shel Horowitz is the award-winning author of Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First and five other books, and the creator of the Business Ethics Pledge to make crooked business as unthinkable in the future as slavery is today.
How small-minded and unethical they get! the Washington Post, which offers several articles on the incident, and found these examples:
“People in Washington are morally repugnant, cheating, shifty human beings.” is softened to “I learned in Washington that there is an ‘overclass’ in this country stocked with cheating, shifty human beings that’s just as morally repugnant as our ‘underclass.’ ”
Leaving aside for a moment the question about whether you want your president’s domestic policy advisor to think that the poor are morally repugnant–he altered this quote while leaving the name of the New Times reporter on the article!
Helen Thomas was all over White House press secretary Tony Snow about the content of this quote and what kind of man Zinsmeister must be–but it wasn’t reported that she addressed the issue of changing the remarks.
On Iraq…
“To say nothing of whether it was executed well or not, but it’s brave and admirable.” The altered copy deleted any hint of presidential criticism, saying only, “It’s a brave and admirable attempt to improve the world.”
Zinsmeister says he did it to increase the accuracy of the quotes and protect the reporter, Justin Park, from embarrassment. But given the very happy thank-you note he sent to Park immediately after the piece ran, this is highly dubious.
I begin to wonder if there is anyone in the high levels of the Bush administration who actually understands ethics. Note to the administration: chutzpah is not a substitute for ethics.
Last week, at Book Expo America, I attended a panel of NPR producers. I asked how my book on business ethics, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First (published in 2003) could be made timely again for the Enron verdict.
They told me, have something on our desks before the verdict is issued.
So this is what I sent–a different approach to PR:
Expert Commentator: Enron Verdict/Ethics Issues
As a verdict nears in the trial of Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling of Enron, business ethics author is available for comment on Enron verdict and other business ethics issues.
Hadley, MA (PRWEB) May 23, 2006 — As a verdict nears in the trial of Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling of Enron, business ethics author Shel Horowitz is available for comment on Enron verdict and other business ethics issues
Suggested Questions to Ask Shel (or choose your own):
* What does this verdict mean for American business? For business worldwide?
* What’s the business secret that Arthur Andersen, the company founder, understood–but that the Arthur Andersen accountants who conspired with Enron were clueless about?
* You say ‘nice guys don’t finish last!’ How can a ‘nice guy’ attitude generate business success?
* How did the Tylenol poisoning scare actually help its manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson?
* Does an ethical attitude matter more in a big company or a small company?Credentials:
* Award-winning author of Principled Profit: Marketing that Puts People First (and six other books)
* Founder of the Business Ethics Pledge
* Regular columnist for Business Ethics Magazine
* Speaker on ethics to the Public Relations Society of America International Conference, Publishers Marketing Association University, Folio magazine industry conference, UMass Family Business Center, and many other organizations
* Blogger on ethics issues since 2004
* Host: Principled Profit: The Good Business Radio Show (WXOJ, Northampton MA)
* Frequent interviewee in major print and electronic media (seehttps://www.principledprofit.com/press-room.html#media for detailed list) Perspective: In the long run, ethics is *good* for business. Ethical, cooperative businesses make more profit, create intense customer and employee loyalty, and have a much better chance of staying out of legal and regulatory trouble. Greed of Enron’s senior officials blew apart two companies and had a definite human cost. Specific comments will depend on the verdict.
Commentator Personal Profile: Shel Horowitz, 49, copywriter and marketing consultant. Lives on a working dairy farm in Hadley, MA. Married to novelist D. Dina Friedman; two children.
Contact:
Shel Horowitz
Office (and best message number): 413-586-2388
Home: 413-584-3490
Cell:
Email: shel AT PrincipledProfit.com (Subject: Ethics Interview Request)
https://www.business-ethics-pledge.org (Ethics Pledge) # # #
I’ll let you know how it goes.
First of Two Disturbing Trends: Paid News Placement
Within 12 hours, I read two newsletters with deeply disturbing stories–one about the media, and the other in the retail world. Both of them made me want to jump out with a big protest sign that says “Ethics are Important…Ethics are Profitable!”–but in both cases, I’d have rather too many targets to picket effectively.
Joan Stewart, in her excellent weekly e-zine, The Publicity Hound, writes that more and more media are taking the old concept of paid product placement (to which I’m not particularly opposed on the entertainment side) and extending it…to news stories. Unfortunately, I can’t find it on her site or on her blog.
Whoa, pardner! If people have to pay in order to get covered in the news, it’s not news anymore. And it means that what is news may be bounced in favor of the advertorial stuff. Not good! And yet it’s happening, and not just in small markets. her article cites examples of TV stations in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
KRON-TV Channel 4 in San Francisco, for example, once a well-respected
news operation, now offers “product integration fees” to people who want
to be included in news stories. In February, the station broadcast an
11-part “Spa Spectacular,” in which each featured spa paid a fee and
bought advertising. Anchors offered viewers a chance to buy half-price spa
certificates at the end of each segment.
Of course, this ties in with the related bad idea of airing Video News Releases (VNRs) and pretending they are the original work of the station. And the other important story about consolidation of print media, dismissal of long-time and highly competent reporters, etc., all around the country.
Time to get the bean counters out of media management, I say! Yes, a true news department is expensive–but it can be subsidized by the highly profitable mindless fluff that’s cheap to produce–or perhaps by small cuts in the outrageous compensation of media execs and on-air personalities. We don’t need personalities; we need news. News–do I really have to verbalize this?…
It’s bad enough that the news has been so dumbed down that for the most part, it’s doing a very poor job. Switching to a paid model will be the nail in the coffin, and we’ll have to get all our news from bloggers. Don’t get me wrong–bloggers are great. But there’s also an important, even crucial, role for the professional journalist. (See the post I just made on the Pulitzers.)
Let’s reverse this trend!
PS: If you believe as I do that ethics are not only important but contribute to profitabillity, I invite you to sign the Business Ethics Pledge.
I first learned of the Pulitzers going to New Orleans and Biloxi’s newspapers for Katrina coverage (and heroism)from the blog on journalism published by Poynter.org. Some very human reportage of how the newspapers covered the floods.
Nice to see something that makes me proud of my rather troubled profession–unlike the post I’m about to make.
1. My friend and colleague Denise O’Berry, down in Floria, was born to blog. She’s a natural-born connector and networker. I stopped counting the times I got mentioned in some relatively obscure publication and got a clip of the article postally mailed to me with a personal note and Denise’s business card–and this was loooong before I met her in person two years ago. So it shouldn’t surprise me that Denise has put together a wonderful directory of business blogs. Now I just need her to set up an ethics category so I don’t have to try to shoehorn my own blog into one of the existing categories, none of which are quite right for this hybrid beast I’ve created.
2. More and more bloggers are functioning as journalists–but unlike professional journos, we are self-directed, in most cases have no direct supervision (e.g., a boss), and aren’t necessarily schooled in getting the story behind the story, knowing what’s true and what’s rumor, and how to behave responsibly. (Of course many bloggers do have journalism training and experience, including me–but many do not, and there have been consequences).
Cyberjournalist.net has jumped into the breach with a Blogger’s Code of Ethics. I quote it in full here:
Be Honest and Fair
Bloggers should be honest and fair in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Bloggers should:
• Never plagiarize.
• Identify and link to sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.
• Make certain that Weblog entries, quotations, headlines, photos and all other content do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
• Never distort the content of photos without disclosing what has been changed. Image enhancement is only acceptable for for technical clarity. Label montages and photo illustrations.
• Never publish information they know is inaccurate — and if publishing questionable information, make it clear it’s in doubt.
• Distinguish between advocacy, commentary and factual information. Even advocacy writing and commentary should not misrepresent fact or context.
• Distinguish factual information and commentary from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.Minimize Harm
Ethical bloggers treat sources and subjects as human beings deserving of respect.
Bloggers should:
• Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by Weblog content. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
• Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
• Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of information is not a license for arrogance.
• Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
• Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects, victims of sex crimes and criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.Be Accountable
Bloggers should:
• Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
• Explain each Weblog’s mission and invite dialogue with the public over its content and the bloggers’ conduct.
• Disclose conflicts of interest, affiliations, activities and personal agendas.
• Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence content. When exceptions are made, disclose them fully to readers.
• Be wary of sources offering information for favors. When accepting such information, disclose the favors.
• Expose unethical practices of other bloggers.
• Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
As the moving force behind the Business Ethics Pledge, I welcome this, of course. Maybe some of the ethical bloggers will find their way to the Pledge.