Media for Democracy Action Alert: Lift the Curtain on E-Voting

Media for Democracy has issued an action alert concerning the lack of media coverage of the potential problems and conflicts of interest regarding the new electronic voting machines. E-Voting is estimated to account for some 50 million votes, and many of these machines will get their first test on March 2, Super Tuesday, when voters head to polls in ten states.

Despite the already checkered history of the new machines -- which includes evidence of political favoritism by the executives of the two primary manufacturers of e-voting terminals, and tests that reveal extensive flaws to their software -- the networks have failed to consider electronic voting worthy of coverage. As a result, few voters will see news reports about these glitch-riddled systems before they come face to face with the voting machines on Election Day.

Since election reporting began last fall, network news coverage of the switch to e-voting has been little more than a blip. Media for Democracy analysis shows that since October 2003, ABC, NBC and CBS nightly news programs broadcast only four stories on e-voting machines. A look at CNN.com and FoxNews.com yields an even smaller assortment: a total of three reports between September 2003 and February 20, 2004, all on CNN.

This alert is one in Media for Democracy's ongoing series of investigative reports on mainstream media's coverage of the 2004 presidential elections. For more information on joining MediaChannel's citizens-powered initiative, visit Media for Democracy 2004.

FCC Changes for the Better - Slowly but Surely

No, not another story about cleaning up the airwaves in the wake of the Janet Jackson "performance", but rather some subtle, activist driven changes at the FCC. MediaReform.net has documented two. First is an end to corporate-sponsored junkets for FCC Commissioners. Last year, the Center for Public Integrity revealed that the FCC had accepted over $2.8 million in free travel and entertainment from the very industries they were regulating. Public outrage at this and the loosening of media ownership regulations resulted in the FCC banning this practice.

The other is that the FCC recommended to Congress that it eliminate restrictions that deprived communities of their own locally-oriented radio stations (non-profit low power FM broadcasting). If Congress writes this into law, it will clear the way for hundreds of communities to begin broadcasting targeted, community specific information much to the chagrin of Big Radio. See the MediaReform FM page for continuing updates.

Ralph is In

Ralph Nader announced Sunday on NBC's Meet The Press that he has entered the 2004 presidential election as an independent. This was of course met with cries from the left who still feel that Nader caused Gore to lose the 2000 presidential election to Bush. The New York Times ran a News Analysis (registration required) showing the "math" that proved that Nader had a significant impact and could very well have cost Gore the race. Longtime supporter The Nation ran an editorial entitled An Open Letter to Ralph Nader urging him not to run:

Ralph, this is the wrong year for you to run: 2004 is not 2000. George W. Bush has led us into an illegal pre-emptive war, and his defeat is critical. Moreover, the odds of this becoming a race between Bush and Bush Lite are almost nil. For a variety of reasons--opposition to the war, Bush's assault on the Constitution, his crony capitalism, frustration with the overcautious and indentured approach of inside-the-Beltway Democrats - there is a level of passionate volunteerism at the grassroots of the Democratic Party not seen since 1968.

The last reasons cited by The Nation are precisely the reasons that the Democrats have nothing to fear from a Nader candidacy. There is now a clear choice between the parties, and grassroots activism among the Democrats is at an all time high. The argument that a third party is better that one of two interchangeable parties is not nearly as appealing in 2004.

We at The Monkey have always been passionate supporters of Ralph Nader and do not agree with the assessments of the 2000 election. Gore never fired up the electorate, nor gave people a clear reason to vote for him. Many voters stayed home, and the election remained razor thin. Other third party candidates pulled votes from Gore. There was very real election fraud committed in Florida and neither Gore nor the Democrats chose to fight with the vigor of the Republicans. Finally, Gore had half a million more votes that Bush - and he still did not win. How can you blame Nader for that?

We welcome the Nader candidacy. We feel that it is essential to democracy to keep building third party alternatives. As to whether he gets our endorsement - that remains to be seen.

The Thoroughly Disgusting Ann Coulter - How Does She Live With Herself?

Outrage is not a strong enough word to describe the feelings towards the latest from the souless, loathsome, lying, she-troll, Ann Coulter. This time she libels Max Cleland, a Democratic Congressman and war hero from Georgia who lost both legs and an arm while serving in Vietnam. The Bush administration bent over backwards to defeat him in 2002 with their usual cadre of dirty smears, likening him to Osama of all people. Republicans like John McCain and Chuck Hagel, who both served in Vietnam, were appalled by the treatment. Now, with Bush taking a beating for his cushy, taxpayer funded, daddy-brokered, didn't show up, refused the urine test, got out early National Guard "service" by the likes of Cleland, the usual conservative winged-monkey goons have taken flight, not to support Bush's questionable record, but to smear the critics.

According to Ann Coulter:

"Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman ?–- or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors." Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam."

True, Cleland lost his limbs in a grenade accident. It was not enroute to drink beer, but rather during the battle of Khe Shan where he got his "hero" accolade. BuzzFlash.com provides an account of the incident from Maury Cralle', Battalion Commander:

The 2nd of the 12th Cavalry was engaged in a combat operation at the time of this incident. Max Cleland was with the Battalion Forward Command Post in heavy combat involving the attack of the 1st Cavalry Division up the valley to relieve the Marines who were besieged and surrounded at the Khe Shan Firebase. The whole surrounding area was an active combat zone (some might call the entire country of Vietnam a combat zone). (Is Iraq a combat zone?) Max, the Battalion Signal Officer, was engaged in a combat mission I personally ordered to increase the effectiveness of communications between the battalion combat forward and rear support elements: e.g. Erect a radio relay antenna on a mountain top. By the way, at one point the battalion rear elements came under enemy artillery fire so everyone was in harms way.

As they were getting off the helicopter, Max saw the grenade on the ground and he instinctively went for it. Soldiers in combat don't leave grenades lying around on the ground. Later, in the hospital, he said he thought it was his own but I doubt the concept of "ownership" went through his mind in the split seconds involved in reaching for the grenade. Nearly two decades later another soldier came forward and admitted it was actually his grenade. Does ownership of the grenade really matter? It does not.

Maury Cralle'
Battalion Executive Officer
2d/12th Cavalry Battalion
1st Air Cavalry Division
During the assault on Khe Shan

A further detail of the action at Khe Shan is provided by Matt Blevin's Daily Outrage column for The Nation.

Expect to see more lies and bile from Coulter and the other conservative talking points henchmen as the election heats up.

FAIR Action Alert - Clarification of Language in Federal Marriage Ammendment

An action alert has been issued from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), this one regarding the legal language in the upcoming Federal Marriage Ammendment, and the reporting by the news media.

The media has been reporting that the upcoming ammendment will define marriage as being between a man and a woman while still allowing the states to allow civil unions; however, a closer look at the language shows that states may not actually be able to allow civil unions as stated. The news media has been lax in pointing this out. The complete Action Alert along with media contacts and a more detailed explanation than was given here can be found on their website.

The Freedom of Information Act and the Bush Administration

The American Press Institute has this article and excerpt from The Buying of the President 2004: Who's Really Bankrolling Bush and His Democratic Challengers - and What they Expect in Return, by Charles Lewis. The book published by The Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization based in D.C. that investigates public service and ethics-related issues, deals as one would expect with influence peddling, but the API focuses in on a section that deals specifically with how the administration has attempted to skirt the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The FOIA states that FOIA officials may withhold from requesters those records dealing with classified national security information, trade secrets, personnel or medical issues, and a handful of other matters-decisions that in each case are left to an official's own discretion. Former Attorney General Janet Reno opened government by directing FOIA officers to "apply a presumption of disclosure", and decreeing that, in the event of FOIA-related litigation, the Justice Department would no longer defend an agency's withholding of information merely because there was a "substantial legal basis" for doing so. "Where an item of information might technically or arguably fall within an exemption," she added, "it ought not to be withheld from a FOIA requester unless it need be."

Reno's successor, John Ashcroft, used the September 11th attacks as a reason to rescind the Reno's presumption of disclosure. Attorney General John Ashcroft decreed that a well-informed citizenry may be vital to government oversight, but not at the expense of undermining national security. "Any discretionary decision by your agency to disclose information protected under the FOIA should be made only after full and deliberate consideration of the institutional, commercial, and personal privacy interests that could be implicated by disclosure of the information," he wrote. Ashcroft then assured agencies that non-disclosure would be defended.

The article then details specific impediments that were put into place such as:

- Executive Order 13233, "Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act", in which former presidents or their heirs may veto the release of their presidential papers, as may the sitting president. This order gave George W. Bush the authority to block release of his father's papers, for example, or even those of Bill Clinton.

and

- A March 25, 2003 order that postponed, by three years, the release of millions of twenty-five-year-old documents slated for automatic declassification the following month, along with Executive Order 13292, which amended a Clinton Administration order, that granted FOIA officers wider latitude to reclassify information that had already been declassified, and further eliminated a provision that instructed them not to classify information if there was "significant doubt" about the need to do so.