Media Suppression, That Telltale Sign

I trust you have some awareness of the "affaire Froomkin," as I think at least one blog-pundit has it. If not, I'll try to provide a clue or two to help you get up to speed. A yahoo/dogpile/google on the name is one idea. And I should caveat here and now that I am a fan of Froomkin - I suspect my back pages mention him at least a couple times.

The short version is that Dan Froomkin has a periodic column in the on-line Washington Post. I believe he is generally considered a formally published blogger. He is definitely an opinion-offerer versus a reporter. His piece is entitled White House Briefing. It's almost always good stuff. I've missed it recently, perhaps partly due to hoo-hah over supposed concern that his post title could mislead "someone" to think he is an actual White House "reporter" (and therefore presumably devoid of "opinion") on behalf of the Post. The complex but fascinating intertangled sub-plots, mostly documented by tetchy interviews and posts with various levels of WP editors, certainly give the sense that someone at this paper has gotten a nasty infection from recent White House scolding.

The most probable reality from what I can tell is that this is a seriously scary case of attempted intimidation by the White House. They of course don't like anyone who writes stuff I like. I suppose that once I talked up White House Briefing here it was all over but the wake (!).

Seriously, though, while the ridiculous row, while sadly further demonstrating the Bush-suck-up propensities of the Post management (ok, most mainstream media now), may have the happy effect of drawing terrific readership for Mr. Froomkin. That is all to the good, as he is one of those with an audience several orders of magnitude more numerous than mine who is not inclined to play along with the whiffle-ball version of news that the Busharchy know they have to preserve to stay out of prison.

If you're un-Froomkin'd, beshamed. It's an important story if you have any interest in how the critical role of the press in questioning government is being eroded in order to allow a general program of plunder and corruption, the standard fare of such as the Bushes and Cheneys, to hold sway. You can get a start here:

From Pressthink:
John Harris and Jim Brady Get Into It About "White House Briefing." Dan Froomkin Replies

Josh Marshall was also into this issue a few days back at Talking Points Memo

I'm here tonight though to talk up another blog sponsored by the Post. As with Froomkin's periodic columns, this one tends to modestly counterbalance my concern with the Post's clear tendency as a general news-gathering organization to grant the White House at times an almost uncensored platform as well as continuing to sponsor the non-journalistic people-mag kissy-kissy work of Bob Woodward in the past few years. The blog in question, which I encourage you to bookmark, is William Arkin's "Early Warning:"

The Pentagon now says that it has ordered a "review" of the collection of information about U.S. citizens, particularly those who pose no plausible terrorist threat, after my NBC Nightly News piece ran Tuesday and my blog yesterday revealed some of the contents of a Pentagon database compiling "suspicious incidents."

Shocked that there is gambling going on in the casino, here's my prediction of what the Pentagon "review" will find:

They will conclude that information collected on certain incidents fell within Pentagon guidelines for "force protection."

They will find that no information naming U.S. persons was disseminated outside of valid law enforcement or intelligence channels.

They will find that perhaps over-zealous anti-terrorism and law enforcement personnel retained information beyond a 90 day limit set to determine if real threats exist.

They will order a further review of the practices of the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA) in compiling and disseminating databases of incidents deemed non-threatening.

In other words, the Pentagon will not conclude that the military shouldn't spy on peace groups and anti-war protestors.

The problem here is that the United States is seen as another battlefield in the war on terrorism. We, ladies and gentleman, are the potential enemy.

I am unhappy to find that for some reason the Early Warning link is not working for me here and now, although I'd swear the pasted content came to hand on with same equipment not long ago. My apologies if that link is bad. I will test again in a few hours.

I've found good stuff at Early Warning on a regular basis. The question is what pretext will be used to try to stifle Arkin if he keeps speaking truth to power - and how soon?