(270 minutes) In a four-and-a-half-hour special, News War, FRONTLINE examines the political, cultural, legal, and economic forces challenging the news media today and how the press has reacted in turn. Through interviews with key figures in the print and electronic media over the past four decades -- and with unequaled, behind-the-scenes access to some of today's most important news organizations, FRONTLINE traces the recent history of American journalism, from the Nixon administration's attacks on the media to the post-Watergate popularity of the press, to the new challenges presented by the war on terror and other global forces now changing -- and challenging -- the role of the press in our society.

I expect this to be excellent. Frontline is great.

Check out the episode breakdown:

NEWS WAR: SECRETS, SOURCES & SPIN (Part I)

Feb. 13, 2007, 9pm (check local listings)

In part one of News War, FRONTLINE examines the political and legal forces challenging the mainstream news media today and. how the press has reacted in turn. Correspondent Lowell Bergman talks to the major players in the debates over the role of journalism in 2007, examining the relationship between the Bush administration and the press; the controversies surrounding the use of anonymous sources in reporting from Watergate to the present; and the unintended consequences of the Valerie Plame investigation -- a confusing and at times ugly affair that ultimately damaged both reporters' reputations and the legal protections they thought they enjoyed under the First Amendment.

NEWS WAR: SECRETS, SOURCES & SPIN (Part II)

Feb. 20, 2007, 9 pm (check local listings)

Part two continues with the legal jeopardy faced by a number of reporters across the country, and the additional complications generated by the war on terror. Correspondent Lowell Bergman interviews reporters facing jail for refusing to reveal their sources in the context of leak investigations and asks questions on tough issues that now confront the editors of the nation's leading newspapers, including: how much can the press reveal about secret government programs in the war on terror without jeopardizing national security? FRONTLINE looks past the heated, partisan rhetoric to determine how much of this battle is politics and whether such reporting actually harms national security.

NEWS WAR: WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THE NEWS

Feb. 27, 2007, 9 pm (check local listings)

(90 min.) The third part of News War puts viewers on the front lines of an epic battle over the future of news. America's major network news divisions and daily... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

FRONTLINE: News War

"The first startling thing Joy White saw out of her bedroom window was a man running toward her door with an M16. White’s husband, a physicist named Bob Lazar, was already outside, awakened by their barking dogs. Suddenly police officers and men in camouflage swarmed up the path, hoisting a battering ram. “Come out with your hands up immediately, Miss White!” one of them yelled through a megaphone, while another handcuffed the physicist in his underwear."

I had alot writen here but I will let you read the story and decide for you self.

Is the power of regulateing interstate comerce realy necessary if they are going to do things like this?

Rattle wrote:
] MemeStreams is a mini Google bomb for the people. Take your
] MemeStream title for instance.. Because if the way our pages
] interlink, if you are one of the people on this system who has
] used it actively for a long time and is highly recommended
] (yes, it matters, alot), you can pretty much pick your Google
] key words..

Very interesting...

RE: Google Time Bomb - Will Weblogs blow up the world's favorite search engine? - Microcontent News, a Corante.com Microblog

] adio stations must pay royalties to recording companies
] and performers, as they do to composers and songwriters,
] when musical broadcasts are "streamed" over the Internet,
] a federal appeals court has affirmed.

At Phreaknic JonnyX did a talk on how to do independent radio broadcasting. I asked him if the internet was a viable option, and he referenced this recent decision. He basically said this was the nail in the coffin all hope was lost.

Hrm.... This is interesting. Previously it was felt that (and the law literally says that) traditional radio stations that simulcast over the internet did not have to pay the RIAA royalties that people running webcast only stations have to pay. The courts have undone that interpretation. Its an example of how laws mean what they mean and not what they say. Laws are not like code.

However, as this is an issue for traditional broadcasters, and not something that impacts webcast only transmissions, I really don't think it impacts the question I posed. However, it does mean that even more internet radio is going to go away. In particular, college radio stations are probably going off the air because of this. I wonder if any have already...

It probably makes sense for everyone to pay the same royalties. Furthermore, I don't even mind if a royalty structure exists. The critical question is: can a few hobbyists set up a viable internet radio show and make the payments... Can they still make payments as the popularity of their station scales? If the answer is no, then these royalties aren't a way to pay artists, they are a way to stifle innovation. So far I have to say that it feels like the later.

Court Affirms Internet Radio Royalties

] The code in question is found in
] arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c in the 2.4 tree. It carries
] an SGI copyright. It seems that SGI was not entirely
] forthcoming in documenting the source of its source; some
] of the code in question was, indisputably, not written at
] SGI. So where does it really come from?
]
] This code is from sys/sys/malloc.c in V7 Unix. It has
] been widely published; among other things, it can be
] found in Lion's Commentary on Unix (if you can get a
] copy). It featured in this 1984 Usenet posting. And,
] crucially, it has been circulated with the V7 Unix
] source, which was released by Caldera (now the SCO Group)
] under the BSD license. SCO would like the world to forget
] about that release now, but the Wayback Machine
] remembers.

LWN: Why SCO won't show the code

] The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to
] overturn controversial rules adopted by the Federal
] Communications Commission that would greatly increase
] the number of television stations a single company is
] allowed to own.
]
] The FCC last month voted to ease ownership restrictions,
] lifting the national broadcast "cap" -- or reach of any
] single company -- to 45 percent of the national market
] from 35 percent and letting TV, radio and newspaper
] companies buy each other more freely.
]
] But by a vote of 400 to 21 the House rejected those
] changes.

Thank GOD!!! Stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it, Clear Channel.

US House of Representatives nixes FCC rules expanding ownership

What side do you take in a case of such "huge" importance. Should you realy charge someone for what they are useing. Takeing sides might put you in a squeze. Ok its hypersensitive time.

Check out the site.
http://www.iflyswa.com/about_swa/press/additional_seat.html
You might also want to check out the site that directed
me to this article http://www.naafa.org/ its the
national association to advance fat acceptance.

]A Message From Southwest Airlines
]In the past few weeks, Southwest Airlines has heard from many
]people regarding ongoing "news" stories about our policy that
]requires Customers who occupy two seats to purchase both seats. We
]have been truly disheartened by the
]by the inaccurate reports and the hurt and disappointment this
]issue has caused so many of you. We are further saddened that the
]sensationalism of this issue has encouraged many Americans
]to "take sides" or "poke fun" over a subject that we realize is
]very real and often uncomfortable to many people. As a result, we
]appreciate the opportunity to respond to your questions and
]concerns over this policy. We value, want, and need your business,
]and we consider it a privilege each time you call upon our Company
]to serve you.
]
]
]
]-------------------------------------------------------------------
]-------------
]
]
]Is this policy unique to Southwest Airlines?
]
]
]No. Most air carriers have very similar policies of asking a
]Customer who occupies more than one seat to purchase that seat.
]Southwest has had its policy in place since 1980. In short, we ask
]a Customer to purchase the number of seats he/she occupies. And,
]as long as the flight does not oversell, we will refund the
]purchase of the additional seat(s) after travel is completed. Our
]goal is to ensure a safe flight for everyone and to make
]everyone's experience pleasant from beginning to end. By informing
]Southwest in advance of the need for an additional seat, we can
]plan, up front, for two seats, not one, to be taken from our seat
]inventory. With two tickets in hand, a Customer of size can avoid
]any discussion at the Gate with our Employees, and our flight is
]less likely to experience an oversale-which ultimately ensures
]that the second ticket is refunded.
]
]Why are you asking your Employees to request that a large Customer
]purchase an additional seat?
]
]If a Customer takes more than one seat (whether that additional
]seat is needed for a large Customer, an infant traveling in a
]child restraint device, a musical instrument, or other items),
]that Customer should pay for the additional seat. When our
]aircraft are booked to capacity, and one Customer is occupying
]more than one seat, another Customer is left without the seat
]he/she purchased. This ultimately costs us money in denied
]boarding compensation and inconveniences the Customer who has
]been "left behind." It is certainly not safe, comfortable, or fair
]for a person who has purchased a ticket to be left with only a
]portion of a seat or no seat, nor should anyone be expected to
]occupy less than an entire seat. Further, it's not safe,
]comfortable, or fair for the Customer who is occupying more than
]one seat to be placed in the situation of having someone crowded
]in a portion of a seat.

,----
| VANCOUVER - A top White House drug policy official is threatening
| retaliation from the U.S. if Canada relaxes its laws against marijuana
| possession.
|
| David Murray, right-hand man to U.S. "drug czar" John Walters, says he
| doesn't want to tread on another country's sovereignty, but warned
| there would be consequences if Canada proceeds with a plan to
| decriminalize the possession of marijuana.
`----

Oh, really? So now tell me, would that be a 'Shock and Awe' type
retaliation?

CBC News: U.S. warns Canada against easing pot laws

] Liars, all of them, according to Jo Hamlett, the mayor of
] this tiny Fox River town just north of the Missouri
] border, who fills many a day soaking up the stories spun
] around the long table here at A.J.'s. Tired of the
] extra-tall tales, and always on the lookout for cash to
] pave the town's roads, Mr. Hamlett has proposed an
] ordinance to ban lying here.
]
] "I just feel like it would put a little more Midwestern
] honesty back in these people," Mr. Hamlett, 69, said,
] adding that the hunting and fishing here are so good, no
] exaggeration is necessary. "I'm for God, motherhood,
] apple pie and honesty. That is my agenda."

Shh... can you hear that??? It's very faint, but it sounds like the beginning of "Dueling Banjos"....

Hear the One About the Mayor Who Wanted to Ban Lying?

[The Justice Department won't say what Hawash is a witness to or how long they intend to keep him.]

These aren't the only things the Bush administration won't say. It won't say why it's holding individual detainees at Guantᮡmo Bay; it won't disclose the factual basis for its prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui; and it won't say how many immigrants it has detained or deported in INS proceedings. It won't say how many of us are having our telephones tapped, our e-mail messages monitored or our library checkout records examined by federal agents. The administration's defenders say such secrecy is an unavoidable cost of the war on terror, but it's an orientation that predated Sept. 11 and that extends beyond the terror threat. The White House won't reveal who Vice President Dick Cheney consulted in concocting the administration's energy policy; it won't disclose what Miguel Estrada wrote while working for the solicitor general; it won't even release documents related to the pardons that former President Bill Clinton granted during his last days in office.

...

Steven Aftergood, a researcher who monitors government secrecy issues for the Federation of American Scientists, calls Hatch's proposal a "direct assault" on Congress' ability to monitor the Justice Department. "If it goes through, we might as well go home," he told Salon. "The administration will have whatever authority it wants, and there won't be any separation of powers at all."

...

With the Domestic Security Act of 2003 -- the draft legislation dubbed "PATRIOT Act II" -- the administration is apparently contemplating other ways in which it might avoid the inconvenience of operating in the public eye or answering to the federal courts.

The draft legislation, prepared by the Justice Department but not yet proposed to Congress, includes provisions that would allow federal agents to keep secret the names of individuals arrested in investigations related to "international terrorism"; expand the circumstances under which agents could conduct searches and wiretaps without warrants; and allow the attorney general to deport resident aliens in certain circumstances without any possibility of judicial review.

Another good update on the scary legislation that is both in effect and being proposed in the future. Keep getting the information out there so that more people will raise their voice - while they still can.

Dolemite

Salon | The secret society