Frack MixPlex Gives Vincent Alabama Confidential and Others A Much Appreciated "Attaboy!"

And we thank them for it, along with their hard work on advancing issues that we all should care about. Kudos to our fellow like-minded bloggers and the mighty keyboards they sit behind. We would add the work of Dr. Robert Bullard as high on our own list, because without him there would be no modern day environmental justice movement.

Mixplex Environmental Justice Blogroll Note

On Martin Luther King Day (MLK Day Jan. 17, 2011), America deserves to be reminded that hard on the trail of King's Civil Rights legacy in Alabama is the way Alabama's poor have been victimized by negligent environmental law.

The daily posts of Max Shelby and his group, blogging in Alabama about the environment, politics, big business and corruption are some of the boldest independent voices writing in the U.S. on environment justice today.

If you're not following writers like Shelby's Vincent Alabama Confidential, Sharon Wilson's Bluedaze, Shelly Thomas on Futurism Now, Ken Ward Jr.'s Coal Tattoo, the late Karen Korell's Splashdown, Bill Wolfe's Wolfenotes, Amy Mall's blog on NRDC Switchboard, Rick Plitz on Climate Science Watch, and the many other personal and professional authors, videomakers, humorists, and journalists located by scrolling through these double pages: Background, Companies, Experts, Government, Legal, Opinions and Press, you are missing out on the most entertaining, free, participatory, First Amendment, punch the bully in the nose shows in this nation.

This writing takes courage and sacrifice and I want to recognize them all here on MLK Day through Shelby's 2010 post as the proudest way that we demonstrate to the World that we will manage our industries without the sacrifice of liberty by ensuring that our laws are fair and just to all.
(2011-01-14, nz.)

 Subscribe in a reader

The Fourth Method of News Suppression--Unleashing the "Attack Poodles"

Filed under--Kingfishers of the Mainstream Media

Here are the three most common ways that the "news" media makes information safe for Corporate America (the actual rulers of the country):

1. Ignore the story completely (a favorite)

2. Dilute daily TV news shows and newspapers with so much junk reporting there's no room for real stories (they've got to put something on the screen)

3. Allow blatant lies on the part of "officials" and bought and sold "experts" to stand without even rudimentary research and analysis (it cost too much, don't you know)

However, occasionally a story gets away from them (think Gary Webb and his Dark Alliance reporting.)

Then somebody actually has to do some work - that work being the attempted destruction of the reputation and career of the news source (usually a lone reporter or a publisher that's not safely "in the loop.")

There's a revolving door between the "news" industry and the PR "professionals" who take on this kind of work.

Catherine Austin Fitts charitably calls them "attack poodles."

"If you can do dirty and secret and still be socially acceptable then crime will always pay in that kind of economy."

In Wikileaks Fight US journalists Take a Pass

Assange supporters see U.S. journalists' ambivalence as inviting other government efforts that could lead one day to the prosecution of journalists for doing something that happens fairly routinely now — writing news stories based on leaked government documents.

Glenn Greenwald a lawyer and media critic who writes for Salon said he thinks journalists aren't rallying to defend WikiLeaks because it has no building, no ties to the U.S. and doesn't feel obliged to consult with the U.S. government before publishing. The issue, he said, is that American journalists too often befriend the government and seek its approval for their work.

Previous posting on The Kingfishers of Alabama's Mainstream Newspapers

More to come soon on this issue and the Birmingham News new ad campaign which is basically the uncool kid claiming he is cool and "it's all about me."

 Subscribe in a reader

Wikileaks Threatens "Doomsday Files" Info Drop If Harrassment Doesn't Stop

Updated--12/8
Filed under--Waiting for the other shoe to drop

Whichever side of the fence you're on about Mr. Assange he's exposing secrets that has both the right and left up in arms, so he must be doing something worthwhile. What we're puzzled by is the vilification of Assange by the so-called "transparency in government" right-wingers who regularly meet behind closed doors with the elites and special interests out of public view and scrutiny. The same group who wants Assange's head on the block for allowing the world a front row seat into the inner workings of governments.

Double standard anyone?

We'd love to see the BP and energy company documents!

The latest on this fascinating drama:

Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, has circulated across the internet an encrypted “poison pill” cache of uncensored documents suspected to include files on BP and Guantanamo Bay.

One of the files identified this weekend by The Sunday Times — called the “insurance” file — has been downloaded from the WikiLeaks website by tens of thousands of supporters, from America to Australia.

Assange warns that any government that tries to curtail his activities risks triggering a new deluge of state and commercial secrets.

The “doomsday files” are part of a contingency plan drawn up by Assange and his supporters as they face a legal threat. He is wanted in Sweden over sexual assault allegations, and the US administration is reviewing the possibility of legal action after the release of 250,000 diplomatic cables.

Ben Laurie, a London-based computer security expert who has advised WikiLeaks, said: “Julian’s a smart guy and this is an interesting tactic. He will hope it deters anyone from acting against him.”

The file is 1.4 gigabytes in size, which would be big enough for a compressed version of all the files released this year and additional data.

Assange said last year that he had been leaked a computer hard drive from an executive at Bank of America and warned this month he was planning a major release on a large American bank. He also claims to have confidential files on BP and other energy companies. Tens of millions of personal computers were hijacked last week in an act of sabotage that crippled the WikiLeaks website. WikiLeaks revealed that a “denial of service” attack that temporarily shut down the website used a network of “zombie” computers, which were infiltrated by the hackers. Read more here

Assange is probably not the kind of guy to piss off any more than he already is, but with big egos comes small judgment, and we predict they'll push him over the edge. Probably not the best idea to play chicken with a Mack truck.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the near future.

But, there is another side to this and some independent news sources and bloggers have raised questions about the authenticity of Wikileaks and Assange--is he a plant, a fraud and is this for real? The government (CIA) is a master at deception and the "authoritative" MSM press follows along dutifully more often than not, so anything is possible. 

*Update--Senator Lieberman is trying to change the law, after the fact we might add, and make Wikileaks illegal, in addition to going after the NY Times for publishing documents. Here's a link to a petition if you think that's suppression of information and Wikileaks should continue.

 

The Kingfishers of Alabama's Mainstream Newspapers

**Updated Thursday pm

In an archived article from Harper's Magazine the problems with Alabama's newspapers is spelled out in pointed language--they are too close to the state's "political powers that be" to function as true news sources and in actuality they're nothing more than the daily platforms of special interests and political operatives.

Nothing's changed from 2007 to the present which makes the Harper's article still relevant today.

Whether it is environmental issues, political ethics issues (often these two are joined at the hip) or simply "general news" nothing seems to go into print without sanitation and outside influence directing the content and the overall theme of  "news stories."

That makes our job at the Confidential even more difficult in attaining accurate information on Alabama environmental issues to deliver to our readers--but we are not without alternate sources to get at the real story despite the concerted efforts of Alabama's newspapers to under-report items of interest to the general public's welfare and right to know.

The long-standing history of collusion and influence in Alabama's press is worthy of some discussion in our opinion.

As we have said before, news organizations have an obligation to their readers to present the news fairly and accurately without hidden agendas and special interests sway of their coverage. Time and time again Alabama's press ignores that basic tenet of professional journalism and continually resists disengaging themselves from certain established political and corporate powers that dominate Alabama.

From the Harper's article "All the King's Men Reloaded";

The major papers in the state (three of which are owned by the same company, S.I. Newhouse’s Advance Publications—though the Newhouse family is famous for letting former local owners continue to run the show even after acquiring them) have the outward appearance of newspapers, with the requisite supply of paper, news ink and photographs. But when you look into their coverage of local politics generally, you quickly get the sense that there’s something extremely foul afoot. They have a very sharply focused political agenda. It not only affects their call about what is and isn’t news; it creeps right into the coverage of the news they report.

The bottom line is that these papers have an amazingly warm and cozy relationship with the current political powers-that-be in the state. I have no idea what they get out of this relationship, but on matters such as this I am far too cynical to think that they’d engage in such reputation-damaging factual contortions without very strong incentives.

The Birmingham News hired a new publisher not long ago and the Birmingham Business Alliance [BBA] welcomed her warmly with an invitation only reception in her honor:

Fom: Birmingham Business Alliance [mailto:laura@birminghambusinessalliance.ccsend.com]  

On Behalf Of Birmingham Business Alliance
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 9:37 AM
To:
Subject: RESENDING: BBA working new business investments totaling $1 billion

From the Birmingham Business Alliance's own newsletter----

BBA to welcome Birmingham News Publisher Pam Siddall

Thanks to the sponsorship of Trinity Medical Center, the BBA is hosting a CEO Welcome Reception honoring Pam Siddall, the new publisher of The Birmingham News. This event is an exclusive, by invitation only affair for investors on the Chairman’s Circle, Board of Trustees and members of the Board of Directors and Executive Committee.

"Invitation only affair, exclusive."

We do understand the surface implication of why the BBA did this and don't find it unethical that they would welcome Ms. Siddall to the community. Where we find fault with it is when we look at the history of the BBA and the controversial projects they have proposed in Jefferson County that often require the county to "put up" money in one form or another to help the obscenely wealthy corporations that make up this alliance fund their own projects. The winner in this twisted relationship is always the corporations (along with their political operatives) and we think that is against the basic concept of business--that successful ventures rise and fall based on their own abilities not bailouts and propping up from funding borne by the taxpayers and municipalities.

**And here's the Birmingham News allowing one its business writers to openly attack a commenter (a citizen) in a recent column who does not fall in line with his ideal and that of the BBA's "Blueprint Birmingham";

This is what has held back the Birmingham region forever: People criticize, blast, naysay and rip a plan when they haven't even read it, or at least read it closely. Clearly Sasquat hasn't, or he wouldn't make the claims he's making, unless he's just being dishonest. But that's OK. There will be these loud do-nothings out there.

That business writer is certainly allowed his opinion but doesn't it send the message that the News condones unleashing it's dogs on those who dare to have their own opinions and question the BBA's proposal? Doesn't the acerbic and insulting attitude of the News writer serve to discourage rather than encourage free and open debate on the issue, thereby sending a signal to all of its readers that if they disagree with the "message" prepare to be made a public target by the News?

When you have a major newspaper to "carry your water" then the unsavory relationship of tilted propaganda and active suppression of all sides of the issues begins-- unbiased reporting is not possible in this  incestuous atmosphere between the press and special interests.

No doubt you once read Robert Penn Warren’s All the King’s Men, and remember how the Kingfish managed newspapermen.

Some traditions are slow to die in the Southland. And the danger is, of course, that many people down in Alabama don’t realize that what they’re getting served up as news doesn’t pass minimal professional standards. On the other hand, the other issue is all the news that the publishers suppress because they’re concerned that it will harm the powers-that-be. 

The Birmingham News should have a recorded message for callers to its offices that goes something like this:

"You have reached the offices of the Birmingham News...press "one" for our department of ignoring news we don't like...press "two" for our department of making stuff up.."three" for the BBA and any other number for BARD."

There's an old saying that goes "never pick a fight with a guy who buys ink by the barrel." Maybe that's true, but in the age of the Internet that long-standing uneven playing field has become more level. When there's a questionable alliance of interests, which we submit this ongoing relationship between the Alabama Press and big business is, the media should expect some fight picking from the Confidential along with a myriad of bloggers and independent papers who refuse to accept the status quo any longer.

So say we the Opinion Board of the Vincent Alabama Confidential

**Editor's note--The Birmingham Business Journal ran a 2009 article about the Trinity Hospital move that took a tone far outside of their normal pro-business to a fault purview and scrutinized this project, raising questions about the political involvement (Governor Riley) at play here. Shocking, but appreciated, however, the Kingfisher News never followed suit and as far as we know nothing like that ever ran again.

*"500 years of news reporting walked out the door in 2 years"

 

Digg Censorship Confirmed Through Undercover Investigation

From AlterNet.org August 5, 2010

A year long undercover investigation into one of the most powerful social media sites on the web reveals a deliberate effort to target users and accounts on stories submitted from subjects ranging from the environment to politics.

One bury brigade in particular is a conservative group that has become so organized and influential that they are able to bury over 90% of the articles by certain users and websites submitted within 1-3 hours, regardless of subject material. Literally thousands of stories have already been artificially removed from Digg due to this group. When a story is buried, it is removed from the upcoming section (where it is usually at for ~24 hours) and cannot reach the front page, so by doing this, this one group is removing the ability of the community as a whole to judge the merits or interest of these stories on their own (in essence: censoring content). This group is known as the Digg “Patriots.”

We thought Digg was created so users could choose which stories they did or didn't like, silly rabbits we are, but tricks are for kids and this reminds us of a playground fight with two groups fighting over the ball. If you won't play by my rules I'm taking the ball and going home.

The ball is the issue (Digg stories) and the rules are the separate ideological viewpoints (progressives vs conservatives) going home is the attempt to influence if the game gets played at all (stories submitted are not influenced).

This would be an amusing circumstance if it were not so serious--censorship and undue influence in any form is dangerous and the organized efforts by conservatives to impinge upon this giant of a social website are quite disturbing, but not surprising considering their usual modus operandi.

What these groups did involved deliberate violations of Digg's TOS and that steps it up a notch and moves it into another area of "not fair."

But doesn't this raise the issue of what the inherent flaw is with social websites? Large segments of people are able to organize and influence results. What bothers us is that the "enemy" on either side resorts to raiding each others "play areas" when both sides have an abundance of avenues that singularly support their view. Digg on the other hand, should be somewhat of a neutral zone and relatively free from these communist style tactics by conservatives who claim to be freedom lovers, that is until it goes against their agenda.

Taking their pissing contest against progressives to Digg isn't a new game, but it's a dirty one just the same.