In a report issued Sunday, the RSF (Reporters Sans Frontieres) announced the detention of five more journalists. RSF says 41 journalists are currently imprisoned in Iran a month after the country’s contested election.

RSF says Iran is currently the world’s biggest prison for journalists, and is becoming the world’s most dangerous place for them to operate.

RSF says the recently-detained journalists include photographers Majid Saidi and Tohid Bighi, blogger Henghameh Shahidi, and journalists Somaieh Nosrati and Said Matinpour.

According to RSF, four of the five are being held in secret locations with no information about their condition being released to their families or legal representatives.

VOA News

Related posts:

1. Journalists warned to get out of Afghanistan
2. Journalists Witness American Torture

Profits fell 100.1% since 2004 at newspapers with circulation greater than 80,000, said Tim Mather, the analyst at the trade association who collated financial date reported by 120 papers across the nation.

Compared with other industries, however, publishers on average still are doing remarkably well.

Notwithstanding the triple-digit profit plunge occasioned by a 28.09% drop in advertising sales, the largest newspapers reported profits averaging 12% of sales at the end of 2008, according to the Inland study.

A 12% profit margin is more than double that achieved last year by Wal-Mart Stores, the largest of the Fortune 1,000 companies. A 12% pre-tax profit is just about a percentage point light of the margins run by Exxon and Chevron, the second and third largest corporations behind Wal-Mart on the Fortune list.

The reason margins could fall 100% and profits could still average 12% is that some newspapers plunged from proftabiliy to steep losses but other pubications still generated healthy, double-digit margins, said Mather in response to queries (see comments below) as to the validity of the data.

If average profitability were calculated on a weighted basis, then it might be lower than 12%, he explained. But the association took a simple average of the profitability of each publication in each of several circulation brackets and “that’s the way the math works,” said Mather.

As you can see from the table below, sales in the last five years fell at all but the smallest papers. However, operating profits tumbled in each and every circulation category.

Papers with less than 15k circulation reported that they were able to lift revenues despite a slump in advertising that started in 2006 and has accelerated every quarter since.

Papers with circulation of 15k to 25k suffered the least damage to their bottom lines, according to data volunteered by publishers who were guaranteed anonymity by the industry association.

When the Inland survey originally was released last week, an error in computing the data indicated that papers in the 25k-50k bracket had suffered a 190% plunge in profitability. But Mather said the actual drop was 90%.

The results in the original report were counterintuitive, because the abundance of anecdotal evidence suggests metro papers have been most deeply affected by declines in readership and advertising revenues.

Combined with high and intractable cost structures, it stood to reason that their profits would be squeezed the most.

Related posts:

1. Zogby: Alternative Media Replacing Mainstream News
2. Mainstream Media Promotes Medical Myths by ‘Dispelling’ Them

In a report posted on its website, the Pentagon’s inspector general said “we found the evidence insufficient to conclude that RMA (retired military analysts) outreach activities were improper”.

The report said the controversy, which erupted in April following an expose in the New York Times, warranted no further investigation.

The Times found that the Pentagon laid on special briefings and conference calls for the retired officers, many of whom then repeated the talking points as military experts on television news shows.

It also found that many of the media analysts also worked as consultants or served on the boards of defence contracting companies, but that those ties often went undisclosed to the public.

US law bars government agencies from using funds for domestic propaganda, but the inspector general’s report said the definition of propaganda was unclear.

The report said historically it had been interpreted to mean publicity for the sake of self aggrandisement, partisanship, or covert communications, and that by those standards the evidence did not show a violation of the ban.

“Further, we found insufficient basis to conclude that (the office of the assistant secretary of defence for public affairs) conceived of or undertook a disciplined effort to assemble a contingent of influential RMAs who could be depended on to comment favourably on DoD (Department of Defence) programs,” it said.

It said the Pentagon invited retired military analysts to 121 meetings, 16 Pentagon briefings, 105 conference calls and nine trips - four to Iraq and five to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“We determined that those activities were conducted in accordance with DoD policies and regulations,” it said.

It said some 70 retired military officers were involved with the program at one time of another.

One, retired general Barry McCaffrey, was not invited back after he criticised the war effort, the report said. Another was blocked from attending, possibly because of a dispute with an unnamed senior military officer, it said.

It said it found no instances where retired officers with ties to military contractors “used information obtained as a result of the … outreach program to achieve a competitive advantage for their company”.

“Of the 70 RMAs that we examined, we found that 20 (29 per cent) had some type of corporate association,” it said.

Related posts:

1. Pentagon Propaganda Worse Than We Thought
2. Democrats introduce bill to outlaw Pentagon propaganda

Canada’s corporate media is either vocally supporting Thursday’s “constitutional coup” - the minority Conservative government and the unelected governor-general shut down parliament so as to prevent the opposition parties from ousting the government in a non-confidence vote—or keeping a guilty silence.

Never before in Canada or any other country that follows the British parliamentary pattern has a government prorogued parliament to avoid defeat in an impending non-confidence vote.

That Stephen Harper’s Conservative government had lost parliament’s support and was facing defeat is incontrovertible. The three opposition parties, who together have a parliamentary majority and polled substantially more than half of the votes in an election less than eight weeks ago, had officially informed Governor-General Michaëlle Jean that they would defeat the government at the earliest opportunity. They had also formally notified her of their intention to form an alternate government, a Liberal-NDP coalition supported by the Bloc Québécois.

Since Prime Minister Harper manifestly did not have parliament’s support, the governor-general, according to all constitutional precedent, had no choice but to rebuff his request that parliament be shut down till the end of January.

The anti-democratic nature of the Conservatives’ attempt to cling to power in defiance of parliament was further underscored by the visceral, anti-democratic campaign they mounted in the run-up to Thursday’s shutting down of parliament. The Conservatives and their supporters in the corporate media openly incited anti-Quebec chauvinism and labeled the opposition’s attempt to form an alternate government “illegal,” even treasonous.

But rather than telling Harper that the no-confidence vote scheduled for this coming Monday had to proceed, Governor-General Jean, bowing to the wishes of Canada’s ruling class, ordered parliament shut down, thereby ensuring the survival of a government without parliament’s support.

Given the import and unprecedented character of Jean’s actions, one would have expected all of the country’s major newspapers to have published editorials Friday analyzing and critiquing them. In fact there was scant editorial comment.

Predictably, the neo-conservative National Post and several other right-wing mouthpieces hailed the governor-general for doing the “right thing.”

But most of the press was silent. Neither the Globe and Mail nor La presse, respectively the most influential English- and French-language dailies, commented editorially on the governor-general’s action.

The Toronto Star, a newspaper closely allied with the Liberal Party, stated in passing, in an editorial devoted to urging Harper to pursue a less “adversarial” course, that Jean “probably had no choice but to grant” the prime minister his request for parliament to be prorogued “lest her office be accused of partisanship.”

The opposition parties, it needs by emphasized, have acted in a like fashion. They have failed to vigorously condemn the shutting down of parliament as a major attack on democratic rights, let alone called on the public to oppose it. As of Friday evening, the web site of the New Democratic Party, Canada’s social-democratic party, carried no statement of any kind on the shutting down of parliament. But it did feature party leader Jack Layton’s tribute to three Canadian Armed Forces soldiers killed Friday in Afghanistan fighting to uphold the US-installed government of Hamid Karzai.

The media silence has a double-purpose.

First, to stifle public debate of what has taken place and why.

Second, to protect the office of the governor-general and the fictions and fabrications that surround it. The representative of the monarch, the governor-general is a supposedly non-partisan and almost exclusively ceremonial institution. In fact, as the events of the past week have demonstrated, the governor-general has vast “reserve” powers, powers that are subject to no legal check. Jean has not, nor will she provide any explanation for her actions.

The bourgeoisie has maintained this feudal relic precisely so as to arm itself with a means of short-circuiting parliamentary democracy in a time of crisis. And all sections of the bourgeoisie, especially now under conditions of mounting economic crisis and social conflict, are determined to preserve this institution, armed with unlimited constitutional power and utterly insulated from the will of the people.

Given the general lack of editorial comment on Thursday’s suspension of parliament, the position adopted by editorial board of the Ottawa Citizen is especially revealing. In an editorial titled “The wounded body politic,” the Citizen, conceded that “Canadian democracy” had “sustained long-term damage” as a result of this week’s event, but ultimately argued this damage was the necessary price of preventing the coming to power of a Liberal-NDP government.

“A fundamental principle of our democracy,” propounded the Citizen, “is that the executive branch cannot govern without the consent and participation of the legislative branch. For the next month and a half, Mr. Harper proposes to govern without a parliament.” The Citizen went on to warn that future governments “can now try to escape” parliament’s judgment by appealing to the governor-general.

These concerns were raised, however, only to be smartly dismissed: “Practically speaking proroguing parliament will probably make for a better few months for the country, and for the economy, than the alternative that the Liberals and NDP had planned.”

In truth, the Liberals and NDP were planning to form a right-wing government committed to Canada continuing to play a leading role in the Afghan war till the end of 2011 and to implementing the Conservatives’ plan to slash corporate taxes by more than $50 billion over five years.

But the most powerful sections of the bourgeoisie preferred a government of unabashed reaction and toward that end were quite ready to run roughshod over parliamentary norms and democratic rights.

Whilst the editorial pages largely avoided commenting on the shutting down of parliament, the dailies did publish many copy-inches of reportage. The common refrain of this reportage was that the governor-general had called a “time out.”

The “time out” metaphor has a very definite political significance. It is meant to lull the population to sleep, to foster the notion that little, if anything, of significance has taken place and everything will, in any event, soon go back to normal because parliament has merely been “suspended.”

The truth is otherwise. The suspension of parliament and of MPs’ right to defeat and replace the sitting government strikes at the most fundamental democratic principle—the right of the people to choose their own government.

If not overturned by a movement from below, Canada’s constitution, through the power of precedent, will have been rewritten and the powers of the executive, of both the sitting government and of the governor-general, to ignore parliament and rule by decree will have been significantly increased.

As for the question of “suspension,” this is precisely how democratic rights are taken away. Governments moving in an authoritarian direction don’t generally outright abolish democratic rights; they “suspend” them, claiming that they need to be temporarily withdrawn so as to confront a purported crisis or emergency.

Working people must take heed: The corporate media’s support for the constitutional coup engineered by the Conservatives and the governor-general attests to the fact there is no significant constituency within the ruling class committed to the defence of constitutional principles and democratic rights.

Related posts:

1. Should Corporate Media Be ‘Wiped Off the Map’?
2. Chavez Revamps His Intelligence Services: The Corporate Media React

The AP also has strengthened its internal procedures for ensuring the integrity of photos from outside sources.

The temporary ban was imposed last week after the Army released a digitally manipulated photo of the U.S. military’s first female four-star general. The photo of Gen. Ann E. Dunwoody was the second Army-provided photo the AP eliminated from its service in the last two months.

Santiago Lyon, the AP’s director of photography, said he spoke with Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell, who told him the military branches would be reminded of a Defense Department instruction that prohibits making changes to images if doing so misrepresents the facts or the circumstances of an event.

“Anything that weakens or casts doubt on the credibility of official DOD imagery in or outside the Department of Defense shall not be tolerated,” the instruction states.

The instruction does not bar cropping, editing or enlarging a photo to improve its quality. An image can also be changed for security or privacy reasons.

The AP has revised its internal procedures for handling handout photos from any outside source. These images must be closely examined in Photoshop, a photo editing program, by at least two editors. If there’s any question about the integrity of an image, it won’t be used.

In rare cases where an image from an outside source has been altered but the AP still elects to use it, the caption will explain why the photo was changed.

“AP pictures must always tell the truth,” Lyon wrote in a message to AP’s photo staff.

Related posts:

1. MILITARY HEAVILY CENSORING PHOTOS OF THE WAR
2. Torture Photos “Will Not See The Light Of Day”

RT | Citizens of the Big Apple got a big shock when they picked up a ’special edition’ of the newspaper on the streets on Wednesday morning.

About 1.2 million spoof copies of the New York Times, dated July 4, 2009, were handed out by the liberal group the ‘Yes Men’, famous for their practical jokes.

Using an authentic New York Times template, they created a 14-page edition, which they also put online.

The parody newspaper announced the abolition of corporate lobbying, a maximum wage for CEOs and a recall notice for all cars that run on gasoline. It promised Americans national health insurance and resolution of the problems of the economy and global warming.

Time will tell if its predictions prove correct but some say that the newspaper came as a vision of what American Democrats would love to see under Barack Obama after he takes power in January

Related posts:

1. Iraq body count: BBC and other mainstream media use misleading figures
2. Public, media losing sight of Iraq, study finds

“Credible reports suggest terrorists may be targeting journalists, including Australians, in Afghanistan,” an updated travel advisory from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade says.

“We continue to advise Australians not to travel to Afghanistan. If you are [there], you should consider departing.”

The advisory had previously warned of the continuing strong threat of kidnapping against Westerners, including journalists and those working for non-government and international organisations.

The department yesterday contacted senior management at large Australian media outlets to advise them of the threats and is seeking to contact freelance journalists in Afghanistan. At least four journalists have been killed there in the past year.

Jonathan Pearlman

Related posts:

1. UK takes to arresting journalists
2. 41 Journalists Jailed in Iran

The change — which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle — is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel’s perceived shift to the political left. . . . When the vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin lamented media bias during her speech, attendees of the Republican convention loudly chanted “NBC” . . . . Mr. Olbermann, a 49-year-old former sportscaster, has become the face of the more aggressive MSNBC, and the lightning rod for much of the criticism. . . . The McCain campaign has filed letters of complaint to the news division about its coverage and openly tied MSNBC to it. . . . Al Hunt, the executive Washington bureau chief of Bloomberg News, said that the entire news division was being singled out by Republicans because of the work of partisans like Mr. Olbermann.

This was preceded by an episode in May in which White House Counselor Ed Gillespie “sent a scathing letter to NBC News, accusing the news network of ‘deceptively’ editing an interview with President Bush on the issue of appeasement and Iran.” Gillespie warned NBC as follows:

I’m sure you don’t want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the “news” as reported on NBC and the “opinion” as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network’s viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don’t hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.

Yesterday, Gillespie got exactly the “response” that he demanded from a super-compliant MSBNC. There is no question whatsoever that the Bush administration, the McCain campaign, and the Right generally have recently made it a top priority to force MSNBC to remove Olbermann (and Chris Matthews) from playing a prominent role in its election coverage, and MSNBC has now complied with the Right’s demands. Does it need to be explained why it is disturbing in the extreme that the White House and the McCain campaign can so transparently dictate MSNBC’s programming choices?

Second, in response to media criticism that the press is insufficiently substantive and adversarial to political power, the claim is frequently made that media outlets are simply driven by the profit motive, and that their programming choices are nothing more than a by-product of ratings. But in MSNBC’s case, that is plainly untrue. Back in 2003, they actually canceled their highest-rated program, Phil Donahue’s show, for purely ideological reasons — because, at a time when the establishment “liberal media” were systematically amplifying the Government’s pro-war views and excluding anti-war views, that short-lived MSNBC show was one of the only venues in America where one could hear anti-war viewpoints, and NBC’s fear of angering the Government and the Right clearly caused them, first, to impose extreme and unusual restrictions on the show’s content, and then to cancel it altogether.

And now here is MSNBC publicly removing (and therefore diminishing) the person who is, by far, its most valuable asset: Keith Olbermann. The NYT article noted:

As Mr. Olbermann raised his voice, his ratings rose as well, and he now reaches more than one million viewers a night, a higher television rating than any other show in the troubled 12-year history of the network. As a result, his identity largely defines MSNBC. “They have banked the entirety of the network on Keith Olbermann,” one employee said. . . . At an anniversary party for Mr. Olbermann in April, [NBC CEO Jeff] Zucker called “Countdown” “one of the signature brands of the entire company.”

The irrefutable fact is that nothing attracts ratings for MSNBC — and nothing has attracted ratings in the entire history of that channel — the way that Olbermann does. Yet here is MSNBC removing him from the anchor position, reducing his role in its political coverage, and clearly diminishing his stature (and implicitly criticizing his coverage). That is extraordinary for a media company to publicly embarrass, diminish and tarnish its own principal asset. It is plainly doing so for ideological, not ratings-based, reasons: namely, it fears doing anything to anger the White House, the McCain campaign and the Right in this country.

Third, this episode demonstrates what Eric Alterman documented several years ago: that the greatest and most transparent myth in American politics is that the U.S. has a “liberal media.” That is a myth that is maintained, first and foremost, by defining anyone who isn’t Rush Limbaugh as a “liberal.” Hence, people such as the wife of Bush official Dan Senor (Campbell Brown) is a “liberal,” as is Alan Greenspan’s wife (Andrea Mitchell), along with establishment-worshipers such as Rush-Limbaugh-admirer Brian Williams, right-wing-talking-points-spouting Charlie Gibson, and anyone who writes for the war-enabling New York Times and Washington Post.

Perhaps nothing demonstrates this absurd dynamic more than the painfully inane perception that Chris Matthews — for years a prime target of liberal media critics — is some sort of “liberal.” That’s the same “liberal” Chris Matthews who, over the years, has said things like this:

I like [George Bush]. Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left . . . We’re proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who’s physical, who’s not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who’s president. Women like a guy who’s president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. . . . Why don’t the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He did well today. . . . Thank you very much. James Jeffrey, assistant to Condoleezza Rice. We’re huge fans [of Rice] — bring her back with you next time.

Or see the “liberal” Matthews fawning over Fred Thompson’s attractive manliness and Rudy Giuliani’s powerful authority and the charming masculinity of Republicans versus the “geekier, nerdier” Democrats. That is who is deemed to be a “liberal” in our political culture because the reality, as Atrios frequently puts it, is that the only hard and fast rule is: “Your liberal media: no liberals allowed.”

This has been going on for years. As I wrote in response to the uproar generated at places like The New Republic over the fact that MSNBC has now given an actual liberal, Rachel Maddow, her own show and is thereby jeopardizing non-partisan, objective, high-minded journalism:

Over the past seven years, the following people have hosted prime-time cable news shows: Joe Scarborough (MSNBC), Michael Savage (MSNBC), Glenn Beck (CNN), Tucker Carlson (MSNBC), Nancy Grace (CNN), Bill O’Reilly (Fox) and Sean Hannity (Fox). None of that seemed to bother the likes of [TNR's Sacha] Zimmerman. None of that was depicted as the downfall of objective journalism or the destruction of civil, elevated, high-minded discourse.

Several of those hosts had and continue to have atrocious ratings (Carlson, Beck, Scarborough), yet were kept for years.

Beyond that, network and cable shows routinely convene panels filled with right-wing views and devoid of anything remotely approaching liberalism, and that creates no controversy. Just this past weekend, I subjected myself while traveling to ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and the panel discussing Sarah Palin was composed of right-wing ideologue George Will, establishment-spokesperson Cokie Roberts, and reporter Sam Donaldson. That is typical for television panels: right-wing partisans such as Will are “balanced” not by any liberals but by allegedly “neutral journalists” such as Roberts or Donaldson. That’s because the Right has created a reality where anyone who isn’t explicitly Rush Limbaugh is deemed to be a “liberal” (hence, Donaldson likely qualifies) and no actual liberal ever needs to be included. That’s how we have a “liberal media” where the principal rule is that actual liberals are systematically excluded, and it’s why the ascent of Olbermann (who is, in fact, far more of a Bush critic than a doctrinaire liberal) has created such turmoil — because it violates that central rule prohibiting liberals from appearing in the Liberal Media.

Finally, and perhaps most notably of all, Olbermann’s role as anchor somehow destroys the journalistic brand of both MSNBC and NBC, while Fox News continues to be deemed a legitimate news outlet by our political and media establishment. Fox does this despite (more accurately: due to) its employing Brit Hume as its main anchor — someone who is every bit as partisan and ideological as Keith Olbermannn is (at least), who regularly spews the nastiest and most vicious right-wing talking points, yet because he’s not a liberal, is deemed to be a legitimate news anchor.

The Washington Post’s Howie Kurtz — while repeatedly lamenting the ascent of Olbermann (and Maddow) as a threat to objective journalism — proclaims that “Hume is no partisan brawler” while Charlie Gibson gushes: “He has a wonderful style which makes you want to hear what Brit has to say, in an age when so many people are in your face.” The Associated Press recently declared that Fox News has never gone as far as MSNBC in producing partisan news coverage, asserting that “Olbermann’s popularity and evolving image as an idealogue (sic) has led NBC News to stretch traditional notions of journalistic objectivity” and that “Fox has never done that, perhaps mindful of the immediate controversy that would result.” Even the NYT article this morning echoed this view of Fox, noting:

While some critics argued that [Olbermann's] assignment was akin to having the Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly anchor on election night — something that has never happened — MSNBC insisted that Mr. Olbermann knew the difference between news and commentary.

The proper analogy to Olbermann as anchor is not O’Reilly as anchor, but Brit Hume as anchor. Hume explicitly acknowledges his political conservatism. His entire show relentlessly promotes a right-wing narrative. Every night, he convenes panels composed of right-wing partisans such as Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, and Mort Kondracke, and — at most — sometimes “balances” that with one of those allegedly neutral journalists such as Mara Liasson. Everything Brit Hume touches is designed to promote a right-wing perspective, yet he continues to be held out as some sort of legitimate news anchor — he actually hosted a Democratic Party presidential debate in 2004 — while MSNBC’s promotion of Keith Olbermann is some unique threat to the profession of journalism.

The single dumbest claim in our political culture is that the huge corporations which own our establishment media outlets promote a “liberal” ideology. Why would General Electric ever use NBC and its other media assets to promote political liberalism? They lavishly benefit from the whole panoply of right-wing policies — from endlessly expanding defense spending to deregulation. Their multiple businesses depend upon maintaining good relations with the right-wing ideologues who run our Government. Even ignoring all of the above-documented empirical facts, the very idea that a corporation like GE — or Viacom (CBS), Disney (ABC) and Time Warner (CNN) — would actively promote a left-wing agenda in its news divisions and undermine the very Government power centers on which they rely has been the most self-evidently moronic premise one can imagine. As Viacom CEO Sumner Redstone confessed in 2004:

Senator Kerry is a good man. I’ve known him for many years. But it happens that I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican Administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one.

And yet the myth of the large-corporation-owned “Liberal Media” persists, and even intensifies.

This decision by MSNBC is as alarming as it is illustrative. They just implicitly chided and overtly demoted their most popular and valuable news personality because the White House, the McCain campaign and the Right demanded that they do so. It’s fine for Brit Hume to host a “news program” and for hard-core right-wing ideologues to dominate cable news. The fact that Dick Cheney (understandably) viewed Tim Russert’s Meet the Press as the ideal forum to allow the White House to “control the message” bothered nobody outside of a few online critics, and didn’t remotely impede the perception of Russert as the Beacon of Tough and Objective Journalism. But MSNBC’s ratings-based decision to feature Keith Olbermann is a grave threat to modern journalism and must be stopped. So decrees the White House and the McCain campaign, and so the GE-owned MSNBC complies.

UPDATE: There’s one other point really worth making here. Throughout the primary season, Clinton supporters were furious at what they endlessly complained was MSBNC’s biased coverage in favor of Obama and, more so, its intensely hostile coverage of Hillary Clinton. Whatever one’s views on the primary war were, there is no question that Olbermann and Matthews in particular were extremely hostile to Clinton and supportive of Obama. But MSNBC executives ignored those complaints, even derided and mocked them, with MSNBC executive Phil belittling angry Clinton supporters in The New Yorker as nothing more than abused, disillusioned girlfriends with nowhere else to go:

[J]ust as Obama must work to win Clinton supporters for the fall campaign, Phil Griffin has to repair a fractured audience base, a portion of which saw sexism in his network’s Clinton coverage and vowed to boycott MSNBC. Griffin knows that some of that anger is aimed at his star anchor. “It was, like, you meet a guy and you fall in love with him, and he’s funny and he’s clever and he’s witty, and he’s all these great things,” Griffin said of the relationship between Olbermann and the Clinton supporters among his viewers. “And then you commit yourself to him, and he turns out to be a jerk and difficult and brutal. And that is how the Hillary viewers see him. It’s true. But I do think they’re going to come back. There’s nowhere else to go.”

Again, regardless of what one thought of the primary wars or even MSNBC’s coverage of the Clinton/Obama race, the contrast between (a) MSNBC’s dismissive reaction to complaints of bias from Clinton supporters and (b) its obedience to similar complaints from the Right is stark and revealing. The overriding attribute of the Liberal Media is a deep and abiding fear of angering the Right.

Relatedly, I’ll be on Rachel Maddow’s radio show tonight (exact time posted once I know it) to discuss the Right’s complaints about media bias in the context of the presidential campaign. Local listings and live audio feed are here. Rachel’s MSNBC show debuts tonight.

Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book “How Would a Patriot Act?,” a critique of the Bush administration’s use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, “A Tragic Legacy”, examines the Bush legacy.

Related posts:

1. President Bush is guilty of terrorism
2. Clinton missed key policy decisions

In an extraordinary and emotional interview, Steve Schmidt said his campaign feels “under siege” by wave after wave of news inquiries that have questioned whether Palin is really the mother of a 4-month-old baby, whether her amniotic fluid had been tested and whether she would submit to a DNA test to establish the child’s parentage.

Arguing that the media queries are being fueled by “every rumor and smear” posted on left-wing Web sites, Schmidt said mainstream journalists are giving “closer scrutiny” to McCain’s little-known running mate than to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

The McCain camp has been unusually aggressive in pushing back against the media, and it seems to hope to persuade journalists to back off in their scrutiny of Palin. Obama campaign officials have complained to news organizations that their man has been subjected to considerably more investigative reporting than McCain has, but they have done so in more low-key fashion.

By contrast, Schmidt spoke on the record in denouncing as “an absolute work of fiction” a New York Times account of the process by which the McCain campaign vetted Palin. He also charged that Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman was predicting that the governor might have to step down as McCain’s vice presidential choice.

Fineman said that he has “never, ever said that,” and that he has pointed out positive aspects of Palin’s candidacy. “They decided a long time ago that they were going to work the refs,” he said.

Elisabeth Bumiller, the lead author of the Times report, said she is “completely confident about the story.” As for the campaign’s criticism, she said: “This is what they do. It’s part of their operation.”

McCain also canceled a scheduled appearance on CNN’s “Larry King Live” on Tuesday in retaliation for an interview a day earlier in which prime-time host Campbell Brown repeatedly pressed campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds to provide one example of a decision that Palin had made as commander of the Alaska National Guard.

“The interview was totally fair,” Brown said. “I was trying to get an answer. I was persistent, but I was respectful. That’s my job. Experience is a legitimate issue when John McCain raises it about Obama, and it’s also legitimate for us to raise it about Palin.”

Schmidt, a former spokesman for President Bush and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, talked openly about his frustrations in an interview with The Washington Post. He said the McCain camp is in the middle of the worst media “feeding frenzy” he has ever seen.

The fact that unsubstantiated allegations appear on the Internet “is not a license for smearing” Palin, he said. “The campaign has been inundated by hundreds and hundreds of calls from some of the most respected reporters and news organizations. Many reporters have called the campaign and have apologized for asking the questions and said, ‘Our editors are making us do this, and I am ashamed.’ ”

The intensity of media inquiries hit a new level after an anonymous blogger on the liberal Web site Daily Kos last weekend charged that McCain’s running mate is actually the grandmother of Trig Palin, the 4-month-old baby born with Down syndrome, and that the real mother is her daughter, 17-year-old Bristol Palin. That led to mainstream media inquiries, which prompted the McCain camp to disclose in a statement Monday that Bristol is five months pregnant and plans to have the baby and marry the teenage father.

Markos Moulitsas, the site’s founder, said he did not know the contributor’s identity but thought that the admittedly “weird” pregnancy questions were a legitimate line of inquiry that he should not suppress.

Some journalists, Schmidt said, have demanded to see Trig’s birth certificate, or have asked when Palin went into labor and whether her contractions increased or decreased as she traveled from Texas to an Alaskan hospital in her home town, Wasilla. Others, he said, have asked whether Palin’s eldest son, Track, who serves in the Army and is deploying to Iraq, is a drug addict. “Categorically false,” Schmidt said, adding: “This is crazy.”

News organizations routinely ask questions about allegations in an attempt to determine their veracity, and Schmidt did not contend that they were publishing or broadcasting false information about Palin and her family. But he said the media is asking more questions about Palin’s pregnant daughter than about Obama’s real estate deal with fundraiser Tony Rezko, who recently was convicted on corruption charges. Obama has called that transaction a “boneheaded mistake.”

Bloggers on the left and right increasingly drive media coverage by turning up the volume on questions until they are difficult to ignore. Sometimes they are right, as when they questioned what CBS’s Dan Rather said were National Guard documents in a 2004 report on President Bush’s military service that led to Rather’s ouster as the network’s anchor. And sometimes they are wrong. Last year, the New Republic retracted a soldier’s dispatch on petty wartime cruelty in Iraq, and National Review Online acknowledged that two blog postings by a former Marine about military movements in Lebanon were misleading.

Major newspapers, magazines and networks no longer play their traditional gatekeeper role in the digital age, as was evident during the eight-month period when the National Enquirer was charging former senator John Edwards with fathering an out-of-wedlock baby. Most national news outlets did not report the allegations until last month, when Edwards acknowledged an affair with a former campaign aide but denied being her child’s father.

Still, traditional media outlets can amplify and legitimize such reports, which may be why the McCain campaign is fighting so hard to keep the Palin allegations confined to the Internet. Denouncing the news media as biased also plays well with many Republican voters.

Palin has been unavailable to the media since she became McCain’s surprise choice Friday, adding to the difficulties for news organizations pursuing stories about her life and career. Campaign manager Rick Davis said it would be unrealistic for her to grant interviews as she prepares for “the most important speech of her life,” her acceptance address at the convention here. Schmidt said she will be made available for interviews after the convention, a similar timetable followed by Obama’s running mate, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.).

Perhaps the greatest concern to the McCain campaign is that the constant inquiries, amplified by cable television debates over whether a mother with a pregnant daughter and four other children can effectively function as vice president, will create a perception that her nomination is in trouble. “We are being bombarded by e-mails and phone calls from journalists asking when she will be dropping out of the race,” Schmidt said.

Related posts:

1. McCain-Palin Campaign Increasingly Staffed by Bush Administration Officials
2. McCain Suggests Bush Has Endorsed Torture