spocko

Last active
1 day, 22 hours ago
User Picture

Murdoch’s Favorite Editor, Rebekah Brooks, Cleared of Phone Hacking Charges

By: spocko Tuesday June 24, 2014 4:12 pm

News International in front of the Select Committee

Former News of The World editor Rebekah Brooks cleared of all charges. Fellow former editor Andy Coulson found guilty of conspiracy to hack phones.

The former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks has been cleared of all charges in the phone hacking trial at the Old Bailey.<

Brooks, the one-time editor of the News of the World, was overcome with emotion as she was found not guilty of involvement in a conspiracy to hack phones between 2000 and 2006, as well as misconduct in a public office and perverting the course of justice.

But while Brooks walked free from court to a waiting black cab today, her fellow former editor and ex-Downing Street spin doctor Andy Coulson was found guilty on one count of phone hacking.

The jury returned this morning after continuing its deliberations for an eighth day, following the high profile trial that began in October last year.

Brooks and Coulson, along with retired managing editor Stuart Kuttner, had been accused of being part of a conspiracy to hack phones over the course of a six-year period.  – The Independent, Adam Withnall

In July of 2012 I hosted a Book Salon on Tom Watson’s and Martin Hickman’s book: Dial M for Murdoch: News Corporation and the Corruption of Britain. At the time I remember thinking what a great story it was and I wanted to learn how we could have a similar impact on Fox News and News Corp here in the US.

Now we see what political power can get you. I’m sure there is a lesson for us here in the US. I remember thinking, “With a combo of good journalists, lawyers and politicians we could uncover dirt at Fox News.” We could even use the Corrupt Foreign Practices Act. But the trick was to find others who felt as strongly as I did.

I’m an idealist and a fighter. I’m not a prosecutor or politician. One of my big take aways from this trial is that your target and goals don’t have to be the same. The King will protect his favorites but he will also sell out almost anyone else to do it. Aim for the top knowing the King will even burn the Prince if necessary, which gets you the Prince! The Prince’s crimes are just as bad, and that can lead to reforms.

Always Look on the Bright Side of Life?

This last week I’ve been rather depressed about the ability of powerful people to skirt and use the law, the political system and a cooperating media to avoid accountability. 

But I don’t want to discount all the good work that was done by the journalists, lawyers and politicians like MP Tom Watson who brought this hacking case to light. It was used to reign in some of Murdoch’s power.

I sometimes wonder, “What can we do to reign in Roger Ailes power?” Is there a strategic campaign to make it happen? We can see that it’s not just money in politics that has an impact, it is also the media in politics. Murdoch loses 100′s of millions of dollars on some newspaper properties because he knows that is a different kind of power. (Which reminds me of the old joke, “Sure we lose money on every paper we sell but we make it up in VOLUME!”) Murdoch wants and has VOLUME!

LOL Comedy Media, But We Need the Real Media Too

The people that really cover the media today are the comedy media. The comedy media is great, but their work doesn’t lead to prosecutions, firings, civil damages and prison time. I’m sure Colbert and Stewart will have a hilarious story about this case but they are just reacting to and mocking the media. The non-comedy media shouldn’t be afraid of taking on Fox News, but they are since they think they might get a job there some day.

Maybe Fox News Shouldn’t get the Press Exemption 

I don’t think Fox News is a “Press entity” but the house PR and advertising firm for the Republican party and the conservative agenda. (FEC might even agree with me see press exemption part some day.) A story about illegal actions going on behind the scenes at Fox would help make this clear. The story about Alies and his PR guy could have been a criminal case if we had some of that zeal for prosecution here in the US instead of pay offs.

 

How Foster Farms Used the USDA, Big Chicken Lobbyists and Lawyers to Avoid a Recall

By: spocko Thursday June 19, 2014 8:12 pm

On the surface this story is good news. But read further as I dissect this announcement, the media coverage and wonder what levers were pulled and words tweaked to get there.
All Safeway Chicken Is Foster Farm Chicken!
Amid Outbreak, Foster Farms Steps Up Food Safety

Foster Farms poultry producers announced Monday that they’ve dramatically lowered levels of salmonella in chicken parts — and invested $75 million to do it — even as the firm battles a food poisoning outbreak that has sickened nearly 600 people in more than a year.

Most recent 10-week data shared with the U.S. Department of Agriculture showed that salmonella levels in the firm’s chicken parts had dropped to 2 percent — far below the industry benchmark of 25 percent, Foster Farms officials said. 

The announcement came at a Modesto, California, gathering aimed at marking the family-owned firm’s 75th anniversary. Foster Farms was lauded by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Dr. David Acheson, former chief medical officer of the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service and former associate commissioner for foods at the Food and Drug Administration.

‘Certainly there was a problem,’ said Acheson, who is now serving as a paid member of the Foster Farms Food Safety Advisory Board. ‘They are definitely addressing the problem going forward.’

Why does this make me sick? Three reasons:

1) This phrase is cleverly misleading: “salmonella levels in the firm’s chicken parts had dropped to 2 percent — far below the industry benchmark of 25 percent.

This “industry benchmark” is suggested by the poultry industry saying, “This is our average. Some better, some worse but on average one out of four packages of chicken parts is contaminated.”  The phrase that really means something, because it can have regulatory teeth, is performance standard. However, right now there is no USDA performance standard for chicken parts. 

The performance standard the USDA has is only for whole chickens and it is 7.5 percent. (BTW, getting the USDA FSIS to admit this was like pulling teeth.) Here is the note from them:

In 1996, FSIS set the first performance standards for young chickens (broilers). At that time, the national average for Salmonella on young chickens (broilers) was 20%. Today, the national average of Salmonella on young chickens (broilers) is 7.5%. The performance standard for young chickens (broilers) is not the same for chicken parts. FSIS recently completed the first baseline survey of chicken parts and determined the national average of Salmonella on this product type was 24%. FSIS will use the information gathered in the baseline survey to develop a performance standard for chicken parts.

What this means is that until the performance standard for chicken parts is set and violated, often over a few months, there will not be a suggestion for a recall. With whole chickens when you go over 7.5% you are in category 3 danger zone and get extra monitoring.

Also, with a few exceptions, the USDA can’t mandate a recall. When they are serious they will do things like remove their approval unless things are fixed. That often triggers a recall, but even that action can be forestalled with the right set of strategies, connections and understanding of the system.

The other brilliant part about using “industry benchmark” and setting it at 25%  is that it gets people to think 25% is average, so 15% looks good, 7.5% is great and 2% is a heroic miracle.  

We are all familiar with the Overton Window and the power of word choice in shaping the narrative. It is in the best interests of the industry to start with a high “industry average” so any progress won’t be too hard to show. But note who is driving the bus to use that top line number. Why not take the best number in the industry and demand the others meet it?

2) Lauded by Sen. Dianne Feinstein. I’m really glad I didn’t go to Feinstein’s office to ask why my FOIA request about the lack of a recall on the Foster Farms outbreak was rejected. Now I need to expand it to include Foster Farms’ correspondence with her office. If they won’t provide it, maybe the NSA can.

3) Dr. David Acheson, is now serving as a paid member of the Foster Farms Food Safety Advisory Board. I’m sure Dr. David is a great guy and at least he’s transparent that he is being paid. 

Anyone else a little queasy? Before I go further I’m going to give a huge tip of the hat to the lobbyists, lawyers, former USDA people and the communications people at Foster Farms. You have protected your industry, client and employer, but what about the chicken eating public?

I attempted to find out exactly how and why this Salmonella Heidelberg outbreak didn’t lead to a recall. The power of industry to work the system is  almost awe inspiring. If you weren’t a victim of food poisoning, you might agree.

“I was sick for seven unsolid days.” 

Last year I got sick from eating Salmonella Heidelberg contaminated Safeway Farms chicken parts. I prepared the leg and thighs myself and used my high-end digital thermometer to ensure it was over 165 degrees. Mrs. Spocko was fine. I was sick for seven unsolid days–if you know what I mean.

FTC Busts Company for Using Dr. Oz To Sell Products — Is Halliburton Next?

By: spocko Tuesday June 17, 2014 6:00 pm

Last month the Federal Trade Commission sued Pure Green Coffee for using footage from “The Dr. Oz Show” to sell a weight lost supplement on their websites. 

The sites featured footage from The Dr. Oz Show, supposed consumer endorsements, and purported clinical proof that dieters could lose weight rapidly without changing their diet or exercise regimens. The defendants also ran paid banner and text ads that appeared on search engines and contained phony weight loss claims.

The defendants set up websites to look like legitimate news sites or blogs.  

The fake news sites featured mastheads of fictitious news organizations such as Women’s Health Journal and Healthy Living Reviewed, as well as logos they appropriated from actual news organizations, like CNN and MSNBC.

This week Dr. Oz went before the Senate subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance to examine protecting consumers from false and deceptive advertising of weight-loss products. Dr. Oz admitted there is no medical evidence verifying the efficacy of many supplements he promotes, including green coffee beans. 

‘Not only did these defendants trick consumers with their phony weight loss claims, they also compounded the deception by advertising on pretend news sites, making it impossible for people to know whether they were seeing news or an ad,’ said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

Now let’s do some parallel construction here folks (I learned this from watching a lot of TV).

In 2003 retired generals went on TV using bogus claims plus false and deceptive information to sell a war. Many worked for military contractors, which would make money in a war selling weapons and other goods and services. Their relationships with their contractors were not made public at the time.

The generals’ information, as well as other deceptive information from the White House went onto the “fake news” sites like Fox News. Actual news organizations, like the New York Times, CNN and MSNBC also used this information. Years later participants admitted there was no evidence verifying weapons of mass destruction.

The actual story of how the war was sold to us is worse.  In his Pulitzer Prize winning story, Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand David Barston describes how it was done, who did it and how the media cooperated. 

False info spread:

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

Unlike Dr. Oz, who didn’t profit from the companies using his image, for many of the military analysts financial gain and conflicts of interests were clear.

The group was heavily represented by men involved in the business of helping companies win military contracts. Several held senior positions with contractors that gave them direct responsibility for winning new Pentagon business.

Now everyone is pointing to Paul Wolfowitz or Bill Kristol getting another bite at the war apple. I wonder if the media is going to look at all these military analysts they had on at the time. Will some of them be back? Will they look at their business interests this time? Will they mention the business interests they had at the time of the war?

The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield White House people understood just how powerful military analysts were to the sale. Torie Clarke, assistant secretary of defense for public affairs and a former public relations executive, oversaw the Pentagon’s dealings with the analysts. She believed in our current spin-saturated news culture opinion is swayed most by voices perceived as authoritative and utterly independent.

That is why the retired generals didn’t talk about their business relationships and the networks either didn’t ask or blamed the analysts:

If I’m Right, China Will Step In and Stabilize Iraq

By: spocko Friday June 13, 2014 5:59 pm

This time around with the Iraq war I want to be on the “winning side” I don’t mean being right, I mean getting paid to be wrong. What good is being right if you can’t monetize it? My contract work at one of the Big 8 peace firms is up, so I’ve been shopping around for new clients.

I can’t reveal who they are but this client wants a stable Middle East. They aren’t as concerned with Iraqis as they are with keeping the spice (I mean oil) flowing. They also believe war is the answer. I can’t dissuade them of this, and as I said, it’s not profitable being right, so I came up with a solution.

Get China to step in and stabilize Iraq.
War Is A Racket

It’s their turn to be muscle for Big Business.

As Old Gimlet Eye, Smedley Butler, told us back in the 1930′s. US troops are used to protect industry players and their assets around the world. Why do people in the US have to do all the dying, spending all the money and still not have any control? It is especially annoying if we aren’t getting the benefits anymore. Let some other country throw a couple of trillion down that bloody sand hole.

Now some of these companies have a sentimental attachment to using the US military because that is where they started. They aren’t so attached to the US that they pay full taxes here, but their wives tell them that “American boys” dying in a war is a bad thing. 

So I’m getting the idea out there now, let China fix the problem. It will be like we are the French leaving Vietnam and they are the US coming in later.

Think about how many ways that this will work for us (and by us I mean me and my new client.)

The Chinese are sitting on tons of money from making crap for the people in the US. They can send pallets of 20 billion Yen to Iraq and not even notice it unless someone starts talking about raising taxes. If they do, imprison them.

They have a surplus of men. They can can balance their whole population gender problem with a couple of poorly thought out ground deployments against the well-armed ISIS groups.

Now of course this isn’t how I will sell it to the Chinese. I would first work up some historic grudge between Iraq and China. Then I would find some kind of story about how Iraq was behind supporting Falun Gong or the Tienanmen Square riots or something. Oh, I know, I’ll plant the story that “Iraq is where Tank Man went to hide!” finally I would leak though the Great Firewall of China that Iraq used all those US pallets of cash to buy some nukes, but it’s not Israel that should be afraid–it’s China. China is getting too big and their desire for resources is too much. Tank Guy has been telling everyone in Iraq how terrible China is–they are worse than the US! They all know how bad we are plus China has human rights violations! Also, ocean’s can’t protect them!

What is great about this plan is that the state controlled media will love this, it is a drama they can show on TV that is not about attacking their own countrymen! Besides, if everyone is going to get cars, they need more oil. If people complain about picking up a war they didn’t start they can be ignored, locked up or conscripted. In fact conscription might be better than working at a Foxconn plant, if they want to commit suicide they just have to walk into enemy gun fire trying to “rescue” someone and they die a hero. Win Win!

Speaking of winning, as a capitalistic country their weapons manufacturers will have a chance to make some real money. They will have to maintain the same level of technology that the US had. Since they are already making most of the parts for the drones, they will just hack into our computers, get the few extra bits of code, change the location of the deliveries and it’s off to the races!

I’m working on some of the backing documents now. Look for my Project for a New Chinese Century coming out soon.

Sunday’s Shooting: 2 Vegas cops, 1 bystander killed in ambush; 2 suspects dead

By: spocko Sunday June 8, 2014 8:47 pm

Cici Pizza shooting street signs

Five people were dead Sunday after a man and a woman ambushed two police officers at a Las Vegas pizzeria and then stormed a nearby Wal-Mart, where police said they killed themselves after a gun battle with officers.

An unidentified woman, described as a Wal-Mart customer, was also found dead inside the store just inside the door.

No motive for the tag-team attack is known, police said, although witnesses said at least one of the suspects shouted remarks about the arrival of a “revolution” and alluded to some kind of war. – LA Times

The shooters walked into CiCi’s Pizza and gunned down Officers Alyn Beck, 41, and Igor Soldo, 31, Las Vegas police officials said. One of the officers was able to fire back before he died, but it’s unclear if he hit the suspects, Sheriff Doug Gillespie of the Las Vegas Metro Police Department said at a news conference Sunday afternoon. - Yahoo News.

Following the most recent shooting I went to Google Street view to get an idea of what the location and what shops were in the area of the shooting. What jumped out at me was the sign on the street, “Gun Shop” It referred to On Target Guns which is right across the parking lot. Next to it is a State Farm Insurance office and a U-Swirl Frozen Yogurt shop.

Across the street from Cici’s Pizza is the Wal-Mart, where the bystander was shot and where the two suspects shot and killed themselves.

I have no idea if On Target Guns was open on Sunday. I wrote the owner today to see if he had any comment. Monday I’ll call the State Farm office and U-Swirl Frozen Yogurt to see if they have any comments about insurance for gun owners, open carry in retail stories and if they know any of the people involved.
OnTarget across the parking lot
When I was working on the open carry issue in the Bay Area I went around to the shops where an open carry event was being planned. I asked them what their policy was on guns. I asked the customers at a yogurt shop where members of California Open Carry had discussed visiting. I found out a few things.

1) Not one of the clerks working in the stores knew their policies.

2) The managers and owners didn’t know the law, and either didn’t have a policy or didn’t know it.

3) The retail workers would not know what to do if a person carrying a gun came into the store.

4) The national HQ of the stories didn’t always have a policy.

If the shops didn’t have policy I gave them a copy of both Peet’s and California Pizza Kitchen’s policy and informed them of their rights as property owners.  If the national HQ had a policy I informed them that the local shop managers did not know it and the retail workers weren’t aware of it. I suggested that they inform them of their rights. (This was a few years ago and I spoke to both Target and Chili’s national HQs)

Finally, I alerted everyone I spoke to of the date and time of the planned Open Carry event so that they would make sure to be prepared. Maybe I should not have told the people at the stores about the event. Some people might call the police in a panic. But I felt that it would be best if the stores knew in advance so nobody would over react. When there is misunderstanding and tension with guns people can get hurt. I wanted owners and workes to be ‘armed with knowledge, prepared with policy.

In my experience the open carry people were very well informed of their 2nd Amendment rights, but they were not going to remind the store owners of their property rights, nor could they alert all bystanders of the event in advance.

My primary goal was to show the shop owners that I was a calm, rational person explaining the situation. They could feel free to agree or disagree with me, without the intimidation factor of a perfectly legal gun in a holster, on strapped around my neck.

Open carry people want to “normalize” guns in the community so that people won’t react and run away. But is that really the instinct we want people to have? 

How to Get Gun Makers and Lobbyists to Fund Massive Mental Health Programs

By: spocko Tuesday May 27, 2014 8:25 pm

After the Sandy Hook shootings one response of the NRA was a program to put more guns in schools. From a marketing and sales perspective that was a brilliant move. Almost worthy of the cigarette manufacturers, “New cancer cure might surprise you. It’s tobacco!

Mental Health Clinic, Las Vegas

The current rhetorical tactic is to shift the conversation to the mental health of the shooters. However, the weapons manufacturers do not want to have a program that will find and help treat people with mental illnesses. Heck, they don’t even want to help make sure that people with a history of mental illnesses get into the state databases that feed the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). These state programs still need help and many states aren’t complying fully.

So to people who say, “It’s not about the guns, it’s about the mentally ill.” I would ask, “So, what are you doing to help fund mental health programs? How supportive are you of expanded funding for mental health care?” and a simple one “What steps have you taken in your community or state to make sure info about people’s mental health problems go into the NICS?”

By asking these questions, instead of talking about guns, we can move to discussions about patient confidentiality, fears of people never getting off the list, who is considered mentally ill, not trusting the system with this information etc. etc. etc. These are important issues to address and I’ll like discuss them now, when everyone is saying, “We really need to do something about mental illness.”

How Can Companies Make Money On the Mentally Ill?

If the issue really is mental illness, what kind of new funding is directed to this issue? Who will get  money for more mental health programs? Why aren’t they going for it? Here is a suggestion: Let’s ask the medical insurance companies, Pharma and health care professional associations to unleash a few lobbyists looking for funding.

The health insurance companies can go to the gun makers and the weapons lobbyists first and ask for funding. As a PR move they might even throw in a few million. But it really is only the federal government that can move the needle.  But, as we know, nothing is done “for the public good” anymore unless someone is going to make money.  So let’s use that impulse.  We have the demand for more and better mental health care, this could be a profit center for some big hospital chain. They can bill the insurance companies or the federal government.  Or we can create thousands and thousands of fully-funded and staffed community mental health care centers.

So what kind of legislation is being created to address this issue and who is moving it forward? Who is supporting it? Who isn’t? Why not? These are a bunch of questions we can throw up to elected officials, lobbyists, health care professionals and people arguing on the internet.

What is great about this discussion is that the weapons lobbyists can find bedfellows in unusual places. There are people who really are concerned about confidentiality and fears of incorrect diagnoses of mental illness being used by the state to lock people up and take away their rights.  This is an excellent place for the weapons manufacturers and their lobbyists to see that their concerns are addressed.

Everyone agrees that privacy is important, peoples’ rights need to be respected, mental illness issues need to be addressed, and the overall level of public safety needs to be increased. And since the “tool” isn’t really the focus, we are addressing a common problem.

I’m quite sincere about getting greater resources to deal with mental illness. And I know that there are people in the gun-owning community who feel the same way. So let’s all get on board and push this.  Who’s with me?

Funding Peter to Help Paul

Here is something else I know.  Unless there is a direct correlation of money spent on dealing with mental illness to the sale of more guns, the weapons manufacturers and their lobbyists really won’t get on board.  From a messaging point of view the focus on the mental illness is nice, but it’s designed to direct attention away from guns.  Because frankly having untreated mentally ill people shooting people is good business in the long term.

Speak Ill of the Pre-Dead: Prepare Your Obits Now!

By: spocko Tuesday May 20, 2014 8:37 pm
Dick Cheney against a flag backdrop

Not dead. Yet.

In the post, “Cheney is Confronted About Imprisoned Torture Whistleblower John Kiriakou,“ jamesjoyce made a comment.

Upon R. Cheney’s death my flag will not be lowered to half mast. May he rot in hell.

I was going to make a snarky comment about him never dying. But he will. And, for the first 24 hours of his death the right wing will chastise anyone who uses the opportunity to vilify him. This tactic is primarily directed to empathetic humans. The right will scour tweets, comments, news programs, Facebook posts and video clips to find anyone who shows happiness at someone else’s death, no matter how vile that person has been in life. “The libs can barely contain themselves, they are jumping for joy, it’s disgusting!”

There will also be a lot of self censorship on the left. Official commentators will want to rise above it all and hope that by being civil, the other side will display the same civility upon the death of an icon of the left. Still others will admonish people, “Don’t sink to their level.” A number of people see dancing on anyone’s grave as tasteless, no matter how vile the person was.

So, here’s an idea: Let’s speak ill of the pre-dead now. Before they die.

Pretend you are a time traveler and this is a loophole. You can share your thoughts, emotions and potential actions before the event you know will happen. In the process you can now worry about external criticism and or self censorship.

Here is how it would work.

  1. Write the obit you would want to see, “He had a black heart and he lead the country into a dark place where our values and our constitution were destroyed in these ways…”
  2. Describe the sadness or joy that you might be experiencing. “When he dies I will be very sad. That means that he will no long have the possibility of being prosecuted for war crimes.” Or “I will be happy when he dies because Satan needs more demons.”
  3. Finally, we could talk about the actions you will take, like James Joyce did, upon his death. “As a response to this man’s actions, I will donate money and time to “The Military Profiteering Crimes Investigation Fund, two organizations that support journalists doing research on torture documents, and purchase a sticker of Calvin peeing on the head of Dick Cheney for my pick up truck”

During the first 24 hours following his death you link back to your thoughts about the dead person. Technically you can say, “Hey, I’m not saying anything bad about him NOW. I wrote this months ago.”

The MSM always prepare their obits in advance, they know what they are going to say and will use careful neutral language like, “A polarizing figure,” “controversial” and  ”arguably the most powerful Vice President in modern history” but your future obits don’t have to be that way. You can detail actions that you think need to be included that might get left out of neutral speak. It might also get you to fund that profiteering crimes fund now so that qui tam laws can be applied by the time he crumps. Then the official obit can include the multi-million dollar judgement against Halliburton that impacted it’s stock and profits in the weeks before he died. That would be a nice send off, especially when the judgement nets you 15%.

The recreation of the legacy of powerful figures in America is a full time job for some people. Did you know that there is a group of people who want to have monuments or buildings named after Reagan in all 50 states? That doesn’t even count St. Reagan’s deification on Fox News nightly.

Rove Knows What The Media Likes: ABC Radio’s Case Study

By: spocko Wednesday May 14, 2014 4:41 pm

I know what boys like
I know what guys want
I know what boys like
I’ve got what boys like
The Waitresses, from “Wasn’t Tomorrow Wonderful?”

A week before Dr. Karl Rove’s comment about Hillary Clinton’s medical status some friends and I were discussing how the left doesn’t aggressively pursue certain media strategies. I responded with a rant about all the roadblocks that are in place or thrown up by organizations and individuals to block certain ideas. They might be happy to benefit from the results but don’t want to hire, pay for or provide legal and technical support for people who can pull it off. Then they see what Rove did and bemoan their inability to do the same.

I’ve told my clients in the past, “You want to make headlines? Burn down your building.” They laugh, but file that nugget away. If I was an arsonist, and they wanted to collect insurance money and help the stock tank, that might have been some excellent and profitable advice.

If you want to, you can create all sorts of stories that are media friendly and move an idea or story forward. But your side, company or cause has to have the right personality to do it. I’ve pretty much given up on suggesting how to create certain types of stories to some groups. They don’t want the risk. Great, I get that, but later when they are talking about how the right is great with messaging and the media I want to say, “No they aren’t. They just know what the media likes and gives it to them. You could too. But it takes brains, courage and support.”

If you aren’t going to make your own news, can you beat back their news? Yes! Follow my friends at Media Matters. But trying to get the media to be better is not as effective as using their needs for your own purposes. But it might weaken the next story the right wing pushes. They might look up a second source or reframe a story.

Here is today’s case study. This morning I heard ABC Radio News at 10:00 on the right wing station KSFO in SF. It was about Karl Rove’s comment about Hillary Clinton. I tried to find the audio on line, but it was not up yet in SF. However, the same story was up on the ABC Radio website. The story had a very different tone than the one I heard on KSFO. Later, I got the audio from the KSFO broadcast. I was right. Although it was the same story, the intros were very different. One was tailored to the right wing station, the other for a more mainstream audience. I put them together in a video so you can hear the differences. Then, if you are so inclined you can tweet at ABCradio and ask, “Hey what’s the deal?”

Will calling their attention to this have any impact for the next time the right wing feeds them the kind of juicy stories they like? Maybe. Remember, they have a reporter dedicated to Hillary. Or maybe they will just wonder why we haven’t figured out what they like.