A Blogger With U.N. Accreditation (NYT)

"Matthew Lee...a well-known gadfly who often presses banks to revise their policies on mortgage loans to the poor, is the only blogger at the United Nations with media credentials, entitling him to free office space and access to briefings and press conferences." The rest of the story: The New York Times.

U.S. media have lost the will to dig deep

In an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times, BBC reporter Greg Palast notes that several important political stories of the last several years were spiked by American media, or held back until they were no longer relevant; that the cost of investigative journalism is prohibitive in a cash-short, instant-deadline industry; that editors are afraid to venture out with a story until there is some official investigation or allegation made by a politician to provide cover; that investigative journalism is avoided because it risks jeopardizing future access to politicians and the corporate elite.

The rest of the story: The Los Angeles Times

'Devastating' Moyers Probe of Press and Iraq Coming

Editor & Publisher's Greg Mitchell got an advanced look atBill Moyer's "Buying the War," a 90-minute PBS broadcast that Mitchell calls the "most powerful indictment of the news media for falling down in its duties in the run-up to the war in Iraq."

To be broadcast next Wednesday, the show marks the return of "Bill Moyers Journal."

"While much of the evidence of the media's role as cheerleaders for the war presented here is not new," Mitchell writes, "it is skillfully assembled, with many fresh quotes from interviews (with the likes of Tim Russert and Walter Pincus) along with numerous embarrassing examples of past statements by journalists and pundits that proved grossly misleading or wrong. Several prominent media figures, prodded by Moyers, admit the media failed miserably, though few take personal responsibility."

Please follow the link to this important story.
Video excerpt from "Buying the War."
Bill Moyers Journal website.

An Informed Electorate: from Walter Conkrite to Stephen Colbert

The New York Times reports that the best-informed Americans are those that watch fake news, from "The Daily Show" to "The O'Reilly Factor."

According to a new survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, despite the fact that because of cable and the internet there are many more news outlets today than two decades ago, Americans know less about current events now than they did then.

But, the Times says, there's one big change: "the survey respondents who seemed to know the most about what’s going on — who were able to identify major public figures, for example — were likely to be viewers of fake news programs like Jon Stewart’s 'The Daily Show' and 'The Colbert Report;' those who knew the least watched network morning news programs, Fox News or local television news."

On many specifics, Americans are in the dark. Only 69% can identify Dick Cheney, despite his important and controversial role in this administration, compared to the 74% who knew who the hapless Dan Quayle was in 1989. Fewer now can name the governor of their state (66% compared with 74% in 1989) and fewer can name the president of Russia (36% now compared with 47% then). In 1989, 81% of respondents knew that the US had a trade deficit; today, only 68% know.

The survey found that “despite the fact that education levels have risen dramatically over the past 20 years, public knowledge has not increased accordingly.” About 27% of Americans are college graduates.

The six news sources cited most often by people who knew the most about current events were: “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” (counted as one), tied with websites of major newspapers; next came “News Hour With Jim Lehrer;” then “The O’Reilly Factor,” tied with NPR; and Rush Limbaugh’s radio program.

It's not surprising that the best-informed Americans are listening to comedy news. A lot of the riffs by Stewart, Colbert, O'Reilly and Limbaugh would be meaningless without their audiences' familiarity with the topics being lampooned. It's hard to be mad at the attorney general if you don't know who he is.

The rest of the story: The New York Times.
What Americans Know: 1989-2007 (Pew Research Center)

Al Sharpton: Comedy Critic and Dictator

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

How sad to see Don Imus submit to a ridiculous verbal assault by the not so nappy-headed Al Sharpton, who thinks Imus should be fired from his CBS Radio and MSNBC television jobs for having told an edgy joke. As nothing about these employers is really the issue here, Sharpton presumably would also object to another outfit hiring Imus. That’s fair. One controversial comment, and kiss your career goodbye. Maybe all comedians who offend the portly preacher should be banished from show business.

Sharpton contends Imus should be held to a higher standard than, say, Chris Rock, because Imus frequently interviews politicians. Seriously. That’s Sharpton’s position. In the world according to Al, performers whose work is racist or sexist are allowed to earn a living, unless and until they host a show that books elected representatives or candidates as guests on the program.

I say Al Sharpton is a racist, because he’s imposing a requirement on a white performer that he has not imposed on any black performer. Furthermore, I am in GREAT MENTAL ANGUISH about this matter. In fact, it would not be enough for Sharpton to apologize. No, the pain is far too great. The only acceptable remedy is for Sharpton to be relieved of his radio gig and to have his left testicle removed by an alligator. I know it sounds harsh, but that’s what I need. I’m upset, I’m lusting for Al to be tormented, and nothing else matters.

Did I mention how shocked and distressed I am? -- Jeff Norman

Justin Clark and his secret documents

As soon as I read it, an article about a rabbi and child pornography by Justin Clark in the March 30-April 5 issue of LA Weekly, struck me as flawed in several ways. I emailed Clark, who gave me what I think are inadequate answers, so today I am submitting the letter below to the Weekly. Also below is my email exchange with Clark.

To the Editor:

For some unknown reason, in his article about how Rabbi Juda Heschel has been ostracized for deviant behavior, Justin Clark doesn’t bother to describe criminal acts for which the rabbi has been convicted and scorned. We learn only that while visiting an adult porn site one day, Rabbi Heschel clicked to enlarge “two pictures of child pornography.” Beyond that tidbit, readers are kept in the dark. Justin fails to reveal who or what was in the photos, if the rabbi knew (before clicking) any models were under 18, how much under 18 anyone was at the time the photographs were taken, and if Rabbi Heschel has ever been in possession of any other child pornography. It’s as if Justin wrote a restaurant review and critiqued only the salt.

I emailed Justin to point out his omissions, and to find out why even people outside of Rabbi Heschel’s family and the Orthodox community are so outraged by his old habits. In particular, I wondered if the rabbi is known to have possessed child pornography apart from the pictures mentioned in the article. In his multiple replies, Justin maintains the uproar is about only those two photos, and claims to have acquired this knowledge from “court documents” - which he refuses to identify.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice and numerous media reports, Rabbi Heschel (then known as Juda Mintz) pleaded guilty to possessing 10 computer files containing photos of minors engaged in sexual acts, including some images of children under 12, which means Justin presented readers with a mere fraction of the most pertinent information, and then exacerbated the problem by lying to the person who detected his negligence. Instead of coming clean, our intrepid reporter still insists he examined secret “court documents” that contradict all other accounts.

Should Justin Clark be forgiven or shunned?

Jeff Norman
Los Angeles


From: Jeff Norman
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:23:39 -0700
To: Justin Clark
Subject: To Forgive or to Shun

Dear Justin:

Your article leaves me wondering how much the rabbi was addicted to child porn versus adult porn. You mentioned only that he had viewed two photos of child porn. Is that all? What about all the other times he viewed porn? In other words, was he otherwise viewing only adult porn, or was he also sometimes viewing child porn (in addition to the two images we already know about)? This is no small point, because you haven’t informed your readers exactly why the shunners are shunning the rabbi. It seems from what you wrote that all of the following could be inferred:

The rabbi viewed only two images of child porn.
The rabbi viewed more than two images of child porn, and admits it.
The rabbi admits to viewing only two images, but is suspected of viewing additional images.
The rabbi’s addiction to adult porn is the main reason he is being ostracized.

If you would be kind enough to identify/quantify the perceived sins of the rabbi, at least roughly, I’d appreciate it.

Thank you for your consideration.

Awaiting your reply,

Jeff


From: Justin Clark
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 23:24:47 -0700
To: Jeff Norman
Subject: Re: To Forgive or to Shun

Dear Jeff,

So far as I know, based on his own statements and the court documents, the rabbi was not suspected of "downloading" more than two images, and was primarily viewing adult porn. None of my sources suggested his ostracism had to do with porn addiction in general, but rather agreed that his problems in the community owed to his conviction as a sex offender, and the one-size-fits-all stigma that entails here in the States. The rabbi did not begin speaking of his addiction to adult pornography until after his arrest. Hope that answers your questions.

Justin


From: Jeff Norman
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 23:47:10 -0700
To: Justin Clark
Subject: Re: To Forgive or to Shun

Thanks, Justin. What court documents are you referring to? I’m trying to find out what’s really bothering people here. Have your sources said nothing specific about what the rabbi did or how often he did it?

Jeff


From: Justin Clark
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 00:07:03 -0700
To: Jeff Norman
Subject: Re: To Forgive or to Shun

The documents pertaining to his conviction. When I say my sources, I'm referring to those quoted in the article. The rabbi wasn't charged with anything but downloading those two pictures. I don't think there are any big secrets here. The clergy aren't supposed to be interested in pornography, much less child pornography, and most churches, synagogues, etc. are simply terrified of getting sued. In the Orthodox community, the rabbi's actions were associated, rightfully or not, with the high-profile sex abuse cases like those the Catholic Church has faced.


From: Jeff Norman
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:34:47 -0700
To: Justin Clark
Subject: Re: To Forgive or to Shun

But he’s being shunned by people outside the Orthodox community. You wrote about landlords, employers and Vicki Polin. Are you saying with all of them it’s only about the two photos? Isn’t anyone interested in the details? Doesn’t it matter who/what was in the photos, and what other images the rabbi also viewed?


From: Jeff Norman
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:24:07 -0700
To: Justin Clark
Subject: Re: To Forgive or to Shun

Specifically, what court documents did you see? How can I see them? Why the secrecy?


From: Jeff Norman
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:20:37 -0700
To: Justin Clark
Subject: Re: To Forgive or to Shun

I hope you forgive me for allowing a skeptical thought to cross my mind, which is this: Maybe you didn’t really see any court documents, or otherwise work very hard on your story about the rabbi. That would mean you cheated your readers and then compounded your negligence by lying to me. If so, I invite you to fess up.


From: Justin Clark
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 22:56:41 -0700
To: Jeff Norman
Subject: Re: To Forgive or to Shun

Jeff,

I'm not sure what axe you have to grind, nor do I care. When pumping someone for information, accusing them of being lazy isn't a smart strategy. I'm not going to burn my source by pointing you toward court documents that would reveal his last name. If you have an ounce an intelligence and access to the internet, you should be able to find the documents yourself in ten minutes, or get confirmation of what I've written in the dozens of articles already published about the individual in question.

Please don't write me any more. I'm not the rabbi's publicist. If you don't like my article, write the LA Weekly, not me.

Justin


From: Jeff Norman
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:47:29 -0700
To: Justin Clark
Subject: Re: To Forgive or to Shun

It’s admirable that you don’t want to burn a source, but I know the rabbi’s last name is Mintz, and I’m not inclined to disparage him. Actually, it’s the opposite; I feel strongly that he shouldn’t be perpetually punished just for looking at a couple of pictures. Also, I don’t see why he is so widely perceived as a threat, or why you (as others have done) lumped him in with predators.

I have no axe to grind, at least not that’s personal. It’s just that you chose to write an article that’s mostly about how the rabbi has been shunned for his behavior, yet you described his behavior only vaguely. You didn’t explain how potential employers and landlords know he is a “registered sex offender.” You didn’t reveal if the rabbi knew - before clicking - that the two images he clicked to enlarge, depict child pornography, or who/what was in the two photos. (There’s a big difference between a couple of 16-year-old girls diddling each other, and a 40-year-old man penetrating a 9-year-old girl, to cite just two examples of many acts that could be classified as child porn.) Also, you didn’t reveal to what extent, if any, the rabbi viewed other images of child pornography at any time in his life. This information is pertinent, but by omitting it, you treated it as irrelevant.

Now that you know you wouldn’t be burning your source, and why I crave more details, will you send me, or at least identify, the court documents that specify what the rabbi did?