Newsweek & Michael Isikoff

As noted in the announcement, 123 Real Change invites all members of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, other active (covert or overt) government whistleblowers, and reporters, to publish their experiences in regard to their own first-hand dealings with the media, where their legit disclosures were either intentionally censored/blacked out, tainted, or otherwise met with a betrayal of trust.

Here is the first project report, this one based on my own first-hand documented experience. In 2003 Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff interviewed me for, and then published a story on the FBI translation program. His report knowingly omitted crucial facts, directly relevant cases, witness statements and confirmed official reports, while advancing the FBI’s already-discredited point of view…

Name, title, and/or background:
Name: Sibel Edmonds
Title: Founder & Director of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), former FBI Language Specialist.
Background: For my bio click here. For relevant case background click here.

Name of Publication and/or Editor and/or Reporter:
Publication: Newsweek
Reporter: Michael Isikoff
Editor: Unknown

Description of Disclosure and Significance:
On October 27, 2003 , Newsweek published ‘Lost in Translation,’ an article by Michael Isikoff on the FBI translation program, its problems, and the impact on the post-9/11 war on terror.

For more than a year prior to the publication of Mr. Isikoff’s article, the following facts had become official and public:

1. My case was the FBI Translation Division’s first publicly known and officially confirmed whistleblowing case. At the time that Newsweek published their article, the case had already become public. It had been filed and was being fought before the courts. Senate investigations had resulted in official public confirmations, and an FBI Inspector General’s investigation was well on its way.

2. A joint Senate investigation of the FBI Washington Field Office Translation Division by Senators Grassley (R) & Leahy (D), and several press releases and statements by their offices had confirmed security breaches, possible espionage incidents, and severe mismanagement involving the FBI Translation Division. You can view a few samples of these statements and confirmation by Congress here [PDF], here, here and here.

3. There were also two separate ongoing investigations into the FBI Translation Division by the Justice Department’s IG. One investigation [PDF] was focused on espionage-related reports in my case, while the other was an audit on the performance of the FBI Language Division requested by Congress. The IG’s ‘audit’ had already been released, in August 2003, before Mr. Isikoff’s article, and here is a very relevant conclusion of the IG’s report [emphasis added]: “Some of the most serious weaknesses still have not been fully remedied and expose the FBI to the risk of serious compromises by other moles.“

4. Several major news releases and extensive coverage of the FBI Translation Division by the MSM had already occurred. Examples include: CBS-60 Minutes segment ‘Lost in Translation’ (from which the title of the Newsweek article by Mr. Isikoff was taken) and Washington Post articles.

5. Other witnesses and whistleblowers had come forward to confirm serious issues and problems involving FBI translation management, hiring, and security issues. Examples include Veteran FBI Counterintelligence Operation Director John M. Cole and Veteran FBI Language Specialist Behrooz Sarshar.

6. No denial had been issued by either DOJ or the FBI regarding revelations from any of the investigations or the various media reports. In fact, during the Senate investigation the FBI had confirmed almost all allegations.

One evening, about a week before the publication of Mr. Isikoff’s piece, I met with him, as a source, in the Mayflower Hotel’s lounge area. I had a witness in the background to observe the meeting. During the hour-long meeting I provided him with information regarding the FBI Language Division, and gave him names of witnesses and sources who were willing to meet with him and corroborate the information I had given him. At the time, some of the sources were willing to do so on-the-record: FBI Operations Director John Cole, FBI LS Behrooz Sarshar & Amin Neshati, and certain Senate staff members involved in the investigation of my reports; while others would have done so ‘anonymously’ due to fear of protecting their employment. I also made his job easier by giving him relevant Congressional, IG, and legal public documents, reports, and references. Of course all the previous press coverage of these issues, and the case itself, was available to him in any news archive or online.

Back to Mr. Isikoff’s lengthy article – the article did not cite a single fact mentioned above. The confirmed security problems, possible espionage cases and compromised intelligence, severe problems in hiring and vetting translators, the absence of quality & accuracy control for translation jobs that were produced…None of them were mentioned. In fact, as FBI bureaucrats and management had done consistently, the article too blamed all problems on a ‘shortage‘ of translators.

I know Mr. Isikoff was well aware of the facts and points cited above. I had given him information, documents and sources that were 100% relevant and central to his upcoming story. I am certain he had access to other official documents and statements as well — all available in public records.

Despite that, Mr. Isikoff’s story instead advanced the FBI’s already-discredited point of view that; the FBI’s Translation Division’s problems could be summed up as a ‘shortage.’ The article completely ignored and omitted established cases, problems, and severe weaknesses in the FBI’s background security check of applicant translators, security measures in preventing espionage and security breaches, and quality control for translated work.

Mr. Isikoff was given the DOJ-IG audit report on the performance of the FBI Language Division. According to this report, the shortage of translators was not the only or main problem, but that the division was infested with major security problems, systemic difficulties, and an astounding lack of organization. Yet, he cherry picked the ‘shortage’ and completely disregarded and omitted the rest; the exact same trend and position followed by the FBI itself.

I provided Mr. Isikoff with background information which included Congressional letters and other documents on the Dickerson Case; a case characterized by Senator Grassley as “a very major internal security breach, and a potential espionage breach.” In that case, Melek Dickerson was hired, given Top Secret Clearance, and placed in charge of translating sensitive intelligence (including terrorist targets) by the bureau, despite her previous membership and employment with organizations that were the targets of FBI investigations, and despite her on-going relationship with individuals who were also the targets of FBI investigations. Based on confirmations by the FBI and the United States Congress, Ms. Dickerson, in fact, blocked and mistranslated intelligence gathered from these targets.

Here is an IG report/investigation [PDF] confirming the Dickerson case.

Mr. Isikoff was also provided with another major case which involved a Pakistani translator at the FBI who was hired and given security clearance, even though her father was a Pakistani retired general who still worked with ISI (the Pakistani intelligence service) in DC, the very target of FBI counterintelligence investigations. John M. Cole, FBI Counterintelligence Operations Manager, was available to provide Mr. Isikoff with details and facts regarding this case and several others, as he had done in 2002.

I gave Mr. Isikoff names and contact information for other FBI translators who had first-hand information on other cases involving major security breaches and possible espionage at the FBI language units. One of them, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, FBI Farsi translator, had first-hand documented information regarding an Iranian translator working for the FBI-New York Field Office who was found to be working for the target(s) of FBI counterintelligence and criminal investigations. This translator was providing the FBI targets with tips/information, and was tampering with intelligence in Farsi gathered by the FBI. The FBI asked this translator to resign and leave quietly. No criminal investigation and no damage assessment were conducted. Mr. Isikoff chose not to contact these sources.

On the major security breaches and possible espionage issues, Mr. Isikoff knowingly disregarded not only the confirmed facts on my case, and other witnesses who were available to him on additional cases, he also omitted those established by previous IG reports such as this one; Congressional reports; and misreported the ‘Robert Hansen case’ as the only known ‘flap’, as follows:

…The FBI can rightly point out that its attention to security has so far avoided any comparable flaps. “We haven’t loosened our standards one bit,” said Margaret Galotta, chief of the FBI’s Language Service Division.

Now, a real reporter would have pressed Ms. Galotta by pointing at facts, at several IG reports, Congressional reports and statements, and established cases such as mine. But Mr. Isikoff did not. A real journalist would have given the readers the facts and the entire picture, not the misinformation fed to him by the government. Again, Mr. Isikoff did not. Not only did he write/repeat the FBI’s spin and misinformation, he even went further by ‘selling’ it to the readers as [emphasis added] ‘…the FBI can rightly point out that its attention to security has so far avoided any comparable flaps.‘

At the time, I didn’t know who Mr. Isikoff’s editor was; I still don’t. Did this editor have anything to do with the ‘flavor’ and apparent angle/agenda given to this story? Did he have any role in sanitizing and/or removing the well-known and highly relevant cases and related witnesses, documents, facts, and investigations from a story that was focused on the FBI Translation Division, but which failed to detail well-known, and well-detailed allegations that ran contrary to the FBI’s published point of view? Was it an editorial decision at Newsweek to black-out all the current (at the time) and established related facts and information from this 1,900 word, three-page story solely focused on the FBI Translation Division?

I don’t know the answer. However, I know the following facts:

• The DOJ invocation of the State Secrets Privilege (SSP) by Attorney General John Ashcroft in my case — the first case of SSP use/abuse by the Bush Administration — was never reported by Newsweek at all. It’s unlikely that was because it was not ‘newsworthy’, since most major publications, including the television news networks, deemed it important enough to at least report.

• The DOJ’s Retroactive Classification of Congressional investigations, reports, and statements, which was considered by Senator Grassley to be ‘gagging the Congress,’ was never reported by Newsweek.

• The closure [PDF] of the (Federal District Court) session to all reporters and the public during the appeal hearing of my case, where I was represented by the ACLU, was also never reported, or mentioned, by Newsweek. That, despite the fact that a large group of both MSM and alternative media groups had joined in filing a motion challenging the ban on courtroom coverage.

• The release of the IG report vindicating the core claims of my case was similarly never covered by Newsweek.

• The security breach and possible espionage confirmed by the Senate investigation was never mentioned by Newsweek, even though they certainly seem to have known about it, as they ‘borrowed’ their article title from a segment aired by CBS-60 Minutes (‘Lost in Translation’), which covered the espionage angle of my case in detail.

Suffice it to say that during the last eight years, throughout many outrageous gag orders, draconian uses of the State Secrets Privilege, Court Closings, Vindicating IG & Congressional Reports, Newsweek has consistently maintained one position: Blackout every fact of this particular case. You may check it out yourself by searching their archives. Your search result will come back as ’0.’

I would like to know why; wouldn’t you?

Response from Isikoff and Newsweek:

• We attempted to contact Mr. Isikoff twice. To our second request he replied via email:

  
  

  Sibel-
  sorry. No comment.
  Regards,
  Mike

• Despite several notices over the last week, submitted through their website’s “Contact Us” page, we received no reply to our requests for comment from any Newsweek editor(s).

Project Expose MSM is an experimental project created to provide readers with specific mainstream media blackout and/or misinformation cases based on documented and credible first-hand experiences of legitimate sources and whistleblowers. Those with direct knowledge and experience are encouraged to join the project, by sharing your stories. Please E-mail me with your report, following the format described in the introductory announcement. Private information, and the privacy of sources where needed, will always be full respected.

Cross-posted at The BRAD BLOG…


Please Digg this story by clicking here

Project Expose MSM

We all have been tirelessly screaming about issues related to Congressional leaders abdicating their main responsibility of ‘oversight.’ We have been outraged for way too long at seeing ‘no’ accountability whatsoever in many known cases of extreme wrongdoing. I, and many of you, believe that the biggest reason for this was, and still is, the lack of true journalism and media coverage — which acts as the necessary pressure and catalyst for those spineless politicians on the Hill and in the Executive branch. Or, at least it’s supposed to. So, in our book, the MSM has been the main culprit.

Well, here is a chance to turn the tables.

At my new blog, 123 Real Change, I’m happy to present an experimental project, Project Expose MSM, created to provide readers with specific mainstream media blackout and/or misinformation cases based on the documented and credible first-hand experiences of legitimate sources and whistleblowers.123 Real Change is inviting all members of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), other active (covert or overt) government whistleblowers, and even reporters themselves, to publish their experiences in regard to their own first-hand dealings with the media, where their legit disclosures were either intentionally censored, blacked out or tainted.

Yes, we will be naming names — myself included.

We will even do so below, in one real-case example, intended to help illustrate how the project will work. In the absence of the real investigative journalism and unbiased independent media we need, this is one way to set the record straight…

Not only that, we also know there are many potential whistleblowers out there who are seeking ‘trust-worthy’ reporters and/or publications in order to inform the public. At the same time, many of us in the whistleblower community have learned the hard way that there are many reporters and publications who should be avoided. It is our responsibility to offer those whistleblowers guidance, based on our own knowledge and experience, and maybe save them from some of the traps we ourselves fell into.

Project Expose MSM will select and publicize legitimate, credible, and documented/witnessed stories. It will provide a forum for those with first-hand experience to share their stories with the public. It will raise awareness and allow people to discuss these cases openly. And hopefully it will help to foster improvements to the current, sorry state of our MSM by bringing the wrongs to light.

Here is an important point to remember: Things are never purely black or white. I have emphasized, for example, during my own case and other NSWBC activities, that by pointing criticism generally at the FBI, the good agents get unfairly lumped together with those whom the criticism is actually being leveled at. So to avoid that as much as possible we always try to be both specific and fair. Same is true for this project. There are some good solid reporters who work in the MSM and try to do their best, and in some cases they do, and are ‘allowed’ to do so. Let me give you an example. I have given specific New York Times related examples in several analyses posted in my series on the MSM at 123 Real Change, such as the delay in publishing the NSA Illegal Wiretap story. I was very specific in questioning motives, reasons, or excuses in that particular case.

On the other hand, if I were to give a few examples of who I consider to be solid, trustworthy, professional, and dependable reporters, my fairly short list would certainly include Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, both of whom work for the same New York Times. I hope I make this point clear. This new project will certainly acknowledge and credit positives, whenever possible, along its course. We will also offer the opportunity for anybody whose names are named to reply in response.

I encourage those of you with direct knowledge and experience to join this project by sharing your experiences. Please E-mail me with your report, and carefully follow the format provided below which includes an example of the first, of hopefully many, real-case stories to come:

1) Your name, title, and/or background:

Name: Mike Levine

Title: Retired Supervisory Special Agent/Covert Operations Specialist, DEA

Background: Michael Levine, one of DEA’s most decorated international undercover officers, is a veteran of 25 years of service. As an international undercover operative he witnessed the intentional destruction of undercover investigations targeting major international heroin and cocaine trafficking organizations who also happened to be CIA assets. Among the actions reported was blowing the cover of an undercover operation-Operation Trifecta- that had penetrated the top of a corrupt Mexican government, by Edwin Meese the then US Attorney General. When Michael’s attempts at alerting his superiors via in-house memorandums, and then mainstream media, were “buried,” and Michael himself placed under investigation, he went directly to the public in his books, the New York Times best-seller Deep Cover and the national best-seller The Big White Lie.

See more at Wikipedia…

2) The Name of Publication and/or Editor and/or Reporter:

Publication: Newsweek

Reporters: Larry Rohter and Steven Strasser

3) Description of Disclosure/Case/Issue and its Importance:

While stationed in Argentina, the CIA’s actions in sabotaging the undercover sting operation targeting La Mafia Cruzeña, resulted in the July 17, 1980 coup [Bolivia], wherein, as the State Department described it, for the first time in history, a drug trafficking organization took over a sovereign nation. It would be the beginning of what came to be known as “The Corporation,” described by Felix Milian Rodriquez — Medellin Cartel Money launderer, convicted of laundering $1 billion — as the most powerful drug smuggling organization on earth, in a secret session before the Kerry Commission.

At the time I was the DEA Country Attaché in Buenos Aires. I sent a registered letter, return receipt requested, to two Newsweek journalists, Larry Rohter and Steven Strasser-who had just written a rather long article that pretty much whitewashed the case and totally obfuscated US government involvement in aiding the traffickers to avoid prosecution and then in overthrowing the Bolivian government that had, in fact, aided DEA in conducting the sting operation that would have, in the opinion of many, crippled the traffickers. I asked them to contact me, at which time I would have given them the inside scoop of what I believe may have been the greatest act of deception and treason against the citizens we had all sworn to protect, perhaps in history, if one considers the aftermath of said revolution.

In any case, I received notification that the letter had been received by Newsweek. Two weeks later I was notified that I was under investigation by Internal Affairs, and that I was being removed from my post in Argentina. I would never hear from the two journalists.

4) The Method of Blackout or Tainted Outcome:

The story was buried-blacked out. Possibly the identity & provided information/documents were disclosed to government employer.

5) A brief personal message to any potential whistleblowers or our readers:

This information was published in my book THE BIG WHITE LIE in great detail and would be libelous as hell, were it not true. [Note from Sibel: As long as you are factual, credible, and speaking the truth, they can't touch you for divulging their 'unreported deeds.']

We will attempt to contact the reporter, editor or publication in question for comment before publishing any revelations like the above, from whistleblowers and other sources, in order to include any response those named may wish to offer along with the publication of your story. In the case above, Rohter and Strasser’s responses are below:

Response from Rohter and Strasser:

• Despite several requests for response, Steven Strasser did not reply.

• Larry Rohter, who now works at the New York Times replied to our first request for comment — which included the material above — as follows:

  
  

  Dear Ms. Edmonds: From what I see here, you’re not actually offering me a chance to respond to a posting you intend to make. Instead, you’re asking me to comment on an an old and discredited implied accusation made against me by someone I have never met and who, contrary to what he may claim, has never at any time made the slightest attempt to contact me personally or directly. The conspiracy brigade has been feeding off this carrion for years, and I’m really not at all interested in giving it new life on the internet. But if you are in fact willing to explain what it is that makes this paranoid rant relevant to what you intend to write, it might be possible to continue this exchange in writing. Are you saying that any comments of mine would be included in their entirety as part of your post?

  Or is it your intention to use any response selectively? Are you writing for the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition site, or are you writing on a personal site in connection with your individual grievances against the FBI? All of these issues are relevant and will guide me in determining whether or not I want to take this any further. Regards, Larry Rojhter

  We responded to all of Mr. Rohter’s questions, explaining where we intended to post this article, and that we planned to run any response he may have in full. Though we even followed up a second time, we received no further response in return.

IMPORTANT: Please adhere to the following in any submission:

• Don’t get too wordy and too lengthy in your account and description of the case.

• Be as specific as you can.

• Be fair: Make it clear if you are not sure whether the suspect party was the ‘reporter’ or the ‘editor’ or your government employer… We don’t want to accuse ‘unjustly.’

• If you wish to remain anonymous, you’ll need to directly persuade me of the legitimacy of your claim. I will keep all correspondence and your personal information confidential. As a whistleblower myself, and the founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, I understand the necessity for that in variou cases.

With your help, I look forward to helping to restore the important, once-vital Fourth Estate, so necessary to this country’s very survival.

* 123 Real Change attempts to authenticate the veracity of claims made by our sources whenever possible. However, all claims made are ultimately the responsibility of the sources making them.

Update 1:

Response by Mike Levine: “A copy of the letter and the original return receipt are still in my possession. They were presented to lawyers during the libel reading of “The Big White Lie,” and are available for all who want to see them.“

Cross-posted at The BRAD BLOG…

Part 2- Pressure Points

‘Pressure’ is one of those buzzwords you hear in almost all discussions involving the mainstream media and related topics: Government Pressure, Corporate Pressure, Special Interest & Lobby Pressure, Management Pressure, Colleagues Pressure…It’s always pressure – whether its pressure placed directly on the reporter, editor, or on the board and or ownership…So how does it work? How much pressure? What methods are used? Of course, the answer largely depends on ‘who’ the pressure comes from (government or corporate or …), ‘who’ is the target of the pressure (is it the source, the reporter, etc.). For this post I am going to focus on what’s referred to as ‘government pressure,’ provide you with my take by providing context and case examples, and then let you bring in yours.

Just to make sure you understand – I don’t claim to be an expert, nor do I pretend to have all the right answers. I am drawing upon eight years of direct first hand experience in dealing with the media on my case, four years of interaction with the MSM on and with our organization and our National Security Whistleblowers, and years of association and friendship with many journalists, authors, attorneys and experts active in the area of national security and civil liberties. I am still seeking answers and looking for solutions…


Flexing Muscles

Many cases of the government resorting to intimidation and harassment to prevent a story from coming out go unreported. I suppose this proves the effectiveness of this method. The flexing muscles method ranges from subtle threats to overt harassment. Many of these cases go unreported simply because the ‘pressure’ takes care of the ‘problem,’ and the ‘pressured’ party, either due to the shame of giving in or the fear of ‘further pressure,’ goes mum into their grave.

Here is a case where government agents’ muscle flexing through overt harassment did not go unreported because the target happened to be an investigative journalist with a proven track record and integrity; a rare breed, indeed:

Bill Conroy is an editor at the San Antonio Business Journal and a contributing journalist for Narco News and an author. The Reports Committee for Freedom of the Press was one of very few outlets to report the story of the government’s harassment and intimidation, targeting Conroy for his reporting of a leaked memo regarding the centralized database for tracking terrorists.

“A leaked memo from the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security sparked its officials to interview a writer last month in an attempt to discover his source for an article on the online news service Narco News.”

You can read the story and the leaked memo in question here. The memo divulged that DHS supervisory agents in the field were directed to alter terrorism related files without preserving their original versions. This is equivalent to shredding during the pre-computer era. Rather important, right? The government then sent some agents who apparently were instructed to teach Conroy a lesson or two:

“Two agents came to his home and spoke to his wife while Conroy was at work, and appeared at his office the next day. Conroy, an editor at the San Antonio Business Journal, contributes to Narco News. The agents spoke to Conroy as well as his boss at the Journal in an apparent attempt to intimidate him into revealing his source, said Ron Tonkin, Conroy’s attorney.”

So they send a couple of tough looking agents with a mission to intimidate and harass. Send the agents to the target reporter’s office and have them treat him as a ‘criminal suspect,’ and make sure his colleagues and boss are around to watch… Send them to his house, make sure the neighbors see the agents knock on his door and flash their badges, and instruct them to intimidate the spouse and or the children. You might be surprised to learn how many ‘targeted reporters’ actually do get ‘pressured’ out of reporting in cases like this; how many divulge sources; and how many pledge not to ever enter the ‘no no zone’ again. Bill Conroy didn’t, but Conroy is among a tiny group…

“Bill Conroy did not divulge the source of the leak in his article and refused to when agents visited his home and workplace on May 23 and 24, respectively, asking for his sources in the department.”

And guess what? In the end, they couldn’t do anything to him. Shouldn’t this be a lesson to reporters who follow a different path?

“Although the agents reportedly mentioned speaking to the U.S. attorney, implying they might obtain a subpoena for the information, no such order has been issued. A spokesman for U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton of the western district of Texas declined comment. Calls to the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Office of Professional Responsibility were not returned.”

Intimidation can also come in the form of a legal bluff. This approach seems to be gaining popularity since the September 11 attacks. The government can, and has been, using ‘National Security’ to declare many embarrassing or incriminating stories ‘classified.’ This allows them to flash their ‘we’ll take you to court’ card, and wait to see whether the target publication or reporter decides to ‘hold or fold or walk away.’

Let’s look at New York Times reporter James Risen’s case:

“A federal grand jury has issued a subpoena to a reporter of The New York Times, apparently to try to force him to reveal his confidential sources for a 2006 book on the Central Intelligence Agency, one of the reporter’s lawyers said Thursday.”

The same article emphasized that this trend is not isolated:

“Mr. Risen, who is based in Washington and specializes in intelligence issues, is the latest of several reporters to face subpoenas in leak investigations overseen by the Justice Department.”

How many reporters can afford the hefty legal fees to fight a case like this in court, when the government has at its disposal unlimited resources in dollars, legal maneuvering expertise, and manpower? Not many, I can assure you. Lucky lucky Risen! As for publications, also not many who’ll be willing. And unfortunately, not many reporters can easily secure pro-bono representation by a civil liberties organization with enough muscle to challenge the government. Thus many at an early stage, when ‘pressured’ by threats of legal action, give in and abandon a story yet to be written. Then add to this the recently revealed NSA targeting of journalists and you get the kind of pressure that may even eliminate the need for legal threats. Just the knowledge of being monitored is enough ‘pressure’ to dissuade many editors and reporters from pursuing‘radioactive’ cases in the first place.

The same government intimidation and threat tactics are also applied to ‘sources.’ Here is a brief account of my own experience:

In 2002, a few days before the airing of the CBS-60 Minutes segment on my case, my attorneys received a letter by fax from the Justice Department attorneys. The letter was to let us know that I would be pursued legally and severely if I went through with this interview. They strongly claimed that any information I was to disclose was being considered ‘classified.’ Of course, my attorneys knew better, and we didn’t bulge. And low and behold no ‘action’ ever came from the government following the airing of the segment. It was bluff, threat and intimidation; just that.

Not only did the government try to stop my appearance on the program, they took similar action with another FBI whistleblower, John Roberts, who also was interviewed for that same segment.


Source Pressures

Everyone knows ‘high-level government sources’ to reporters on politics and intelligence related matters is what the rolodex is in business. The net-worth, the value, of these reporters is frequently judged based on their ‘access.’ Sure; it makes sense. First, a reporter tries to make his/her way up the chain and establish the ‘relationship and trust’ necessary for this access. Next, and equally important, is to ‘maintain’ this relationship. This too makes sense, and is part of the job. Now, the question is, at what price? What are the things a reporter is willing to do, how far is he/she willing to go to ‘maintain’ his or her access?

Successful experienced journalists with a solid sense of ethics and integrity are good at ‘balancing’ when it comes to ‘source maintenance.’ This appears to be one of those disappearing qualities within the mainstream media. When the publication, the editors, lean towards, sorry, bend over, the government’s angle on stories, the reporters follow by compromising ‘a lot’ to keep and maintain their news/information ‘feeders’ within the government agencies.

I am going to provide you with another first-hand witnessed and documented incident. The only reason I am not naming ‘the well-known reporter & publication’ is to protect the source who obtained and passed on the incriminating documented evidence – the communication that occurred in writing between him and this particular ‘reporter.’

The individual who dealt with the congressional and press side of my case during the early stages of my whistleblowing journey wrote an e-mail to a well-known and well-placed journalist, saying, ‘Man, I can’t believe you guys did not cover this!!! Ashcroft comes out and invokes the State Secrets Privilege, first time ever asserted by the Bush administration, and you don’t write about it?! What the hell, man?! What’s the deal? I sent you the press release and attached a bunch of documents on that e-mail…’

Here is the response from that well-known journalist, and stupidly enough in writing: ‘I was going to call you. A few months ago I finally got this big DOJ guy, I mean BIG! Our deal-exclusive. You can’t do better than that in Washington. Anyhow, he doesn’t want us to touch Edmonds’ story. Period. I am not going to piss off my source for some God Damn translator whistleblower…’

The reporter’s refusal to cover the story was irrational – the State Secrets Privilege invocation was first released through an official DOJ press release and other major publications ran with the news. So what does this tell you? To maintain high-level government sources well-known reporters cut deals like this: You be my man, and I and what I cover will be yours. Unfortunately, through several reporter friends I was given many more examples and was told ‘that’s the name of the game when it comes to covering politics and government in this city.’

Soft Pressures

I touched on this type of pressure in the previous piece and in my last op-ed, and the recent revelations on Harman-New York Times provides both the context and case example. The fact that the NSA, DOJ and whatever other agency can softly ask the editors and management of the New York Times to sit on a major story involving criminal government action against it’s own people for over a year, and the request be complied with. The fact that a Congresswoman has enough ‘ins and pull’ to dial the decision-makers’ number at the New York Times and ask them ‘as a favor’ to not publish a story. The fact that a LA Times editor dutifully reports to NSA its source’s disclosure on wiretapping and the AT&T, takes his marching orders, comes back, and kills the story.

You see what I mean? There are many, many ‘soft pressure’ cases out there.

As with the various theories on the factors contributing to MSM degradation, the pressure styles can also be applied in combination. While the Justice Department attorneys are ‘flexing muscles’ by threatening the information source with legal action, their Attorney General or Deputy or whomever can be making his ‘soft’ call to dissuade the editor from moving forward with the story, and their Special Agent in Charge of whatever department may be summoning his ‘pet reporter’ to ban him from working on this same target story.

Those of you who’ve been following my case, and those familiar with my previous writings and speeches, surely have a pretty good idea as to how I view the MSM. As a reminder here are a few excerpts from my latest piece:

But the story is almost dead – ready to bite the dust, thanks to our mainstream media’s insistence on burying ‘real’ issues or stories that delve deep into the causes of our nation’s continuous downward slide.
…

The absence of real investigative journalism and the pattern of blackout by our mainstream media are known universally and seem to have been accepted as a fact of life.

For me, the importance and impact of the current state of our mainstream media go beyond my own personal take or direct experience. This happens to be a central issue for our organization, NSWBC, and its 150+ whistleblower members. We have yet to announce it (call it a dreaded un-pleasantry if you will), but our organization has suspended all its congressional activities. We did so in spring 2007, a few months after the new majority took over. So what have we been doing, advocating? In a nutshell, we’ve been advising those who may be in the process of disclosure, to do so, if they can, anonymously, and directly, by making the criminal and or wrongdoing cases and the supporting documents/sources public. As many of you already know, case after case, filing with IG offices, and briefing the appropriate congressional committees, has proven to be futile. In fact, considering all the latest on the true-workings of our ‘real’ congress, approaching them with whistleblower cases involving law enforcement and intelligence agencies would be a true mockery…

Okay, back to the media. How does the media fit into this? Well, we, the NSWBC, are in the position where we are asked to provide guidance to potential and current whistleblowers on ‘who’ or ‘where’ to go to disclose. Based on my experience and knowledge of ‘who-is-who’ in the MSM sector, based on cumulative direct experiences of our current members, and based on advice by a few trusted experts in this sector, to say we have a very short list would be an understatement. Let me put it this way: we provide them with a fairly extensive list of ‘No-No’ people in the MSM

I know many of you want to stop me right here and say, ‘but there’s the internet! There are these fairly visible alternative news sources and forums on the net they should go and offer the info to…’ I will get to that and address the pros and cons of it later. But the majority of whistleblowers or those in the process of decision making on disclosure are weary and skeptical of the blogosphere landscape. Again, let’s keep that thought, since we’ll be discussing it soon.

In the next few days I’ll be posting a series of either 4 or 5 pieces on the MSM, examining brief important historical facts and cases, current relevant cases, and of course adding my own un-bashful comments. Most importantly, I am hoping to get your input via your comments, whether by additional links to relevant information, or your own view and theories – I would love to hear them all.

It’s impossible to pinpoint the current sorry state of the MSM to one or two factors, since, at least to me, it seems to be caused by several factors, but here are the usual theories we hear out there on the mainstream media’s current state:

1. Government Agents: CIA-Media reporting as seen in Operation Mockingbird, or embedded Pentagon pawns like Judith Miller, or Hoover style censorship of the MSM.

2. Lazy Journalism on the Cheap: The publications no longer pay for, budget for, real ‘investigative journalism,’ thus, you get your typical stenographers who make their one or two calls to their ‘usual sources’ right from their desks, and write as dictated.

3. Government Pressure, Harassment, and even Blackmail: Cases like James Risen (NY Times) and Bill Conroy (an editor at the San Antonio Business Journal) are good examples.

4. Self-Censorship: Based on this theory, with just a little massaging patriotism kicks in with many of these so-called journalists (whether it’s the Cold War, or, the Post 9/11 war on terror), and that does the job for the government propagandists.

5. Americans Want Entertainment not Real News: Some suggest that after commute-work-commute-kids & household chores, basically, exhausted with day-to-day work, hassles, stress, and pressure, people don’t want serious and grim realities. They want to tune in to Brittney’s latest panties, or Brangelina’s latest baby conquest.

6. Corporate Owned Media: Powerful Corporations are becoming a major influence, and ownership concentrated as a result of mega mergers…

7. Combination of some or all of the above

8. None of the Above

I am sure I have missed some other equally important theories/hypothesis, so at this point I am turning this discussion over to you. Which explanation, or call it a theory if you like, do you subscribe to? Why? Here is what I’d like us to do. I will be covering the theories in the 4 or 5 part upcoming series, but before the detailed coverage, on this post I’d like to ask for your preliminary input: Please take a look at them, give each some thought, and let me know which one(s) you subscribe to, and why? If your stand is #8, then provide us with your own view not listed and enlighten us as to why.
It will be interesting to have this done again, after the upcoming series, after we discuss and debate each theory/angle, and see whether we have narrowed or expanded our diagnosis of this diseased fourth branch.