(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 judge in the murder trial of music impresario Phil Spector said Wednesday he's leaning toward allowing the trial to be televised and will make a decision after hearing from lawyers later this month.

The 67-year-old music producer -- famed for creating the "wall of sound" recording technique that revolutionized rock music -- is charged with killing actress Lana Clarkson in his suburban mansion on February 3, 2003.

"This is a trial of public interest," said Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler. "I always have a problem with commentators telling people what is going on rather than letting the public see the trial for themselves. I'm a firm believer in having the public see it."

"We do not oppose cameras in the courtroom," said Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the district attorney.

Great.. Just what daytime TV needed.. Another big trial to fill the channels with crap. The OJ Trial ratings were amazingly high. There were some people that spent more time watching OJ in the court on TV, than OJ actually spent in the court.

I hope this just gets largely ignored. A movie about it two years from now, that would be different...

Here is a some background on Spector via Wikipedia:

Spector has had many conflicts, sometimes bizarre, with the artists, songwriters and promoters he worked with. His domineering attitude toward Ronnie Spector led to the dissolution of their marriage. Ronnie Spector has claimed that Spector showed her a gold coffin with a glass top in his basement, promising to kill and display her should she ever choose to leave him; he had earlier forbid her from speaking to the Rolling Stones or touring with the Beatles for fear of infidelity. During Spector's reclusive period in the late 1960s, he reportedly kept his wife locked inside their mansion. She claimed he also hid her shoes to dissuade her from walking outside. Spector's son later claimed that he was kept locked inside his room, with a pot in the corner to be used as a toilet. Ronnie Spector did leave the producer and filed for divorce in 1972. She wrote a book about her experiences, and said years later, "I can only say that when I left in the early '70s, I knew that if I didn't leave at that time, I was going to die there." In 1998, Spector and her fellow Ronettes sued Spector for allegedly cheating them of royalties and licensing fees, winning a $3 million judgement; however, an appeals court later reversed the decision, upholding the terms of the group's binding 1963 contract.

Stories of Spector's gunplay mounted over the years, including his discharging a firearm while in the studio with John Lennon during the recording of his cover album Rock 'n' Roll, placing a loaded pistol at Leonard Cohen's head during the sessions for Death of a Ladies' Man, and forcing Dee Dee Ramone to play bass guitar to Spector's specifications at gunpoint. The band reportedly had to play the opening chord to the song "Rock and Roll High School" for eight hour straight; Johnny Ramone later described the session philosophically: "It was a positive learning experience. And that chord does sound really good." Marky Ramone said, "A lot of these things were overblown, and a lot of these things were alcohol-induced."

Phil Spector trial might be televised, judge says - CNN.com

Google's decision to censor its search engine in China was bad for the company, its founders admitted yesterday.

Asked whether he regretted the decision, Mr Brin admitted yesterday: "On a business level, that decision to censor... was a net negative."

The company has only once expressed any regret and never in as strong terms as yesterday. Mr Brin said the company had suffered because of the damage to its reputation in the US and Europe.

Both founders yesterday offered some solace to the newspaper industry, which has been most threatened by the growth of online news providers. Larry Page said: "I believe in the future of newspapers," before admitting that he reads all his news online. His colleague said he read a Sunday newspaper "and it's nice".

Rather than suggest paid-for content was doomed, they called for a new model to collect revenues. "I should probably pay for the Wall Street Journal but I don't because it's a hassle," said Mr Page, who is worth billions. "I'm not worried about the money thing, it's just a hassle."

China censorship damaged us, Google founders admit | Guardian Unlimited Business

Colbert on O'Reilly:

O'Reilly on Colbert:

Colbert meets O'Reilly

But Tehran was profoundly disappointed with the United States response. After the 9/11 attacks, xxx xxx xx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xx set the stage for a November 2001 meeting between Secretary of State Colin Powell and the foreign ministers of Afghanistan’s six neighbors and Russia. xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Iran went along, working with the United States to eliminate the Taliban and establish a post-Taliban political order in Afghanistan.

The x's are what the White House told the Times to chop out. A second article here talks about those deletions. References to articles and releases that contain all the retracted information are provided.

I'm glad that at least the absurdity is transparent. The end result of this will be to inspire people to read into the matter in more depth, and that can only be a good thing.

Redacted Version of Op-Ed on Iran - New York Times

Martin Kaplan writes in today's LA Times:

We've had plenty of shouting matches on the war; what we need are better leaders and more capable media.

So I guess, by Decius's First Law of Political Leadership, he is implicitly asking for things to get worse in Iraq. I don't know if I like that idea ...

But I did like this turn of phrase on the upcoming primaries:

... the scene of multi-candidate cattle calls in which entrants will moo canned messages ...

If that wasn't enough to make you see Kaplan more as a comedian than a man of nuanced policy, the article loses all sense of seriousness when we get to this:

Newt has been calling for a series of Lincoln-Douglas debates across the nation. I'd like that. I'd also like a pony, an end to racism, a cure for cancer and a date with Scarlett Johansson.

Speaking of Scarlett, did you know she has five films on tap for 2007? Now there's a hard-working woman in show business. Do you think after that, we could get her to run as a VP in `08?

Here's his pitch for civil war in Iraq:

Maybe we don't need a national debate. Maybe what we really need are leaders with more character, followers with more discrimination, deciders who hear as well as listen and media that know the difference between the public interest and what the public is interested in.

I really like that last thought there, but it's incredibly difficult to achieve through the contemporary model of a "free" press forever at the mercy of fickle, demanding advertisers. If more people were willing to pay their own way for news they didn't want, but, like vegetables and fiber, knew they should have, then perhaps the products of that press would be more useful.

Echoing Kaplan, Mike wrote:

Less "balance," more "fair," meaning make a damn call.

adam wrote in reply:

I disagree completely; it is for journalists to report points of view, not judge. My ideology tells me -- my liberal bias says -- let reporters report in as balanced a manner as they can and let we the jury decide.

The issue is one not so much of the reporter as of the editor. In any newspaper of significance there is room for a variety of content, from "just the facts" basic street beat reporting, to in-depth profiles, to news analysis, to investigations, to editorials, to letters, to opinion pieces, to regular columnists, and more. Any "balanced" newspaper ought to have all of these, in the same way that a "balanced" investment portfolio will have a little of everything.

What distinguishes a great newspaper from a merely average one is two-fold: first, the quality of its content, and second, the editor's skill in selecting and organizing a small subset of the available content. The requirement for good content goes without saying; even the best editor would be hard-pressed to turn crap into a great newspaper. (Nonetheless, let it be noted that a talented editor can still make crap sell like hotcakes.) The editor's role is perhaps less widely appreciated, but I'd argue it's essential to a top quality product.

An editor, in attempting to "balance" views, relies on internal scales to do so. What is equal? Is it based on word count? How do you equate photographs?

Does Iraq need more debate?

There is an excellent interview with Trey Parker and Matt stone in Reason Magazine. Read the whole thing. This quote has been going around the Internet to much joy:

Reason: When it looked like Comedy Central wasn’t going to rerun the Mary episode, people were still able to download it illegally online. Did you see that as a victory for free speech, or did you think, “My God, these people are stealing our intellectual property”?

Stone: We’re always in favor of people downloading. Always.

Reason: Why?

Stone: It’s how a lot of people see the show. And it’s never hurt us. We’ve done nothing but been successful with the show. How could you ever get mad about somebody who wants to see your stuff?

Parker: We worked really hard making that show, and the reason you do it is because you want people to see it.

The article also goes into their personal political philosophy. Which shouldn't surprise anyone, leans way more libertarian than left..

Parker: To some degree, South Park has a simple formula that came from the very first episode [“The Spirit of Christmas,” which featured Jesus and Santa fighting over who owned the holiday]. There was Jesus on this side and there was Santa on this side, there’s Christianity here and there’s Christmas commercialism here, and they’re duking it out. And there are these four boys in the middle going, “Dude, chill out.” It’s really what Team America is as well: taking an extremist on this side and an extremist on that side. Michael Moore being an extremist is just as bad, you know, as Donald Rumsfeld. It’s like they’re the same person. It takes a fourth-grade kid to go, “You both remind me of each other.” The show is saying that there is a middle ground, that most of us actually live in this middle ground, and that all you extremists are the ones who have the microphones because you’re the most interesting to listen to, but actually this group isn’t evil, that group isn’t evil, and there’s something to be worked out here.

Reason: Each of you at various points have called yourself libertarian. Is that an apt description?

Parker: People started throwing that word around to describe us right around the second or third season. They would sit us down and go, “So are you libertarian?” And I would always say, “I don’t know, am I? You’ve seen my stuff.”

I still don’t really know the answer to that question. I think I am, though.

Stone: I think it is an apt description for me personally, and that has probably seeped into the show. But we never set out to do a libertarian show.

Reason: When you say libertarian, what do you mean?

Stone: I had Birkenstocks in high school. I was that guy. And I was sure that those people on the other side of the political spectrum were trying to control my life. And then I went to Boulder and got rid of my Birkenstocks immediately, because everyone else had them and I realized that these people over here want to control my life too. I guess that defines my political philosophy. If anybody’s telling me what I should do, then you’ve got to really convince me that it’s worth doing.

Reason Magazine - South Park Libertarians

"On 'Larry King Live' Wednesday night, Bill Maher said many of 'the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party are gay... Ken Mehlman, OK, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it.' When CNN re-aired the interview, the mention of Mehlman was edited out with no indication anything was missing. When a minute-long video of the original vs. censored clips was posted on YouTube, a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use — good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use). Relatedly, the Washington Post today was caught silently editing its published stories to make them less informative. Unnamed GOP officials are also saying that Mehlman will step down from his post when his term ends in January."

Slashdot | YouTube Removal Highlights Media Self-Censorship

Stop squinting at tiny web video. Instead, download and watch all the best internet TV shows in one powerful application: any video RSS feed, video podcast, video blog, or BitTorrent file. Fullscreen, high resolution, 100% free and open source. New channels arrive daily in the built-in Channel Guide.

Democracy - Internet TV Platform - Free and Open Source

Google has launched a site that allows you to do searches on keywords for graphs of their usage, as well as the top cities, regions, and languages involved. This is the right way to expose this kind of data. This type of statistical data is useful, but does not infringe on anyone privacy. This will be useful for trend spotting and interest gauging.

Strangely, there seem to be some things missing. For instance, take these two Google queries: "aol search database" and "quicksilver mac". For both, MemeStreams has similar result ranking on Google, either second or third term. I can pull up trend data for "quicksilver mac", but not "aol search database", even though queries for the AOL database are about 5 times more prevalent.

This could just be because the AOL related searches are more current.. (U: It only includes data up to the turnover of the month, a month ago.) However, that's the situation where this might be most useful. I would very much like to be able to gauge interest level associated with issues over the first week or two of their inception. That would be _very_ useful, especially considering that links are provided to news stories that include the term.

Google needs to turn the knob up to 11 on this one. Anything that sends a few dozen referrals to sites from unique users should get included in this.

Update: These are not particular amazing keyword collections, but they display some ways this is interesting: Events, Places, Organizations, People.

Google Trends