August 19, 2006
One of the most important federal court rulings in the last 50 years was swept off the nation's front page this week by breaking news in the ten year old JonBenet Ramsey murder case.
Bush Propoganda on MSNBC
In her ruling Judge Taylor said, in part, "The defendants are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III."
The ruling was in response to a law suit filed by 17 separate interests and included both individuals and civil rights groups which challenged "the constitutionality of a secret government program to intercept vast quantities of the international telephone and Internet communications of innocent Americans without court approval." It came as no surprise that the White House is appealing the ruling, claiming that the warrantless spy program is legal.
Sins of Both Omission and Commission
We were not able to find any news coverage which mentioned the fact that there was already an existing law in place passed in 1978 which allowed eavesdropping by the National Security Administration on suspected terrorists provided they obtained a warrant from a secret court. Under existing law, in emergencies the government can place the taps first and before going before the special judge, and has three days to do so. But even this Constitutionally questionable power was not enough for the Bush administration, which wants to be able to secretly tap anyone's phone or computer they feel like without any judicial oversight, however weak it may be.
Furthermore, not a single major media outlet identified the fact that under current existing law (the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA), it is a criminal offense to eavesdrop on Americans without first obtaining warrants. Thus, can there be any doubt that the Bush administration knowingly and deliberately defied federal law in attempt to upsurp judical power and strenghten what can legitimately be described as "the Bush/Cheney imperial presidency"?
In perhaps the most creative approach to undermining Judge Taylor's historic ruling we've seen so far, The New York Times Saturday coverage, titled "Experts Fault Reasoning," managed to bash her ruling and support its conclusions in the same breath. This is consistent with paper's evolution over the years into a stealth conservative rag posing as a liberal one. What better way to demoralize the forces battling the Bush administration's grab for total power then by condemning Judge Taylor for being "partisan" and "rhetorical." Not only does The Times get to be on both sides of the issue at the same time, they also get to kick start the process of paving the way for Judge Taylor's ruling to be overturned, with the blame going not to the Bush administration but to progressives whose agenda was "too radical."
The Rise of Mainstream Tabloid Journalism
Likewise, when the more squeamish of her citizens complained to Roman emperors like Caligula that things were getting out of hand at the games, he could legitimately reply, "Blood and gore is what the mob wants, and that is what I aim to provide."
On a more positive note, the evolution of both the internet and the blogosphere -- which are increasingly scooping established outlets like Fox, CNN, and the Associated Press -- have broken the domination of news coverage by the major media. However, far too many voting people still rely upon the major media for their news and information. The difficult task before us is to broaden the distribution of alternative news beyond those with computers and create a full time presence on the air waves.
|