Nolan French's Journal

Steven Aftergood, (very ironic name) is the head of the Federation of American Scientists’, “Project on Government Secrecy”. The Project is an internet watchdog that reports on the: who, what, when, where, why, and how’s of the United States Government secrets. Aftergood accuses several government agencies of “with holding information” that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) legally allows the public to view. Specific accusations derive from the Defense Department issuing internal memos stating that no information should be reported, even if it is just embarrassing and contains no national security implications, e.g. Iraqi prisoner torture, should be released. The memo continues, by saying that even if the government breaks laws the story is to remain classified.

Obviously the regular watchdogs like the ALCU, and others are fighting secrecy in court, but now capital hill lawmakers are chiming in on their opinions of government secrecy. Republican representative, Christopher Shays agrees with the watchdogs by accusing some agencies of “over classification”, but Shays does go on to say that secrets are a two way street; the media loves stories about secrets, because controversy sells. In other words some stories of secrecy are leaked in bite size portions to keep the media satisfied, and not researching real secrets that should be made public.

So what can be done about government secrecy? Aftergood, who says that more than 23 million new secrets are created each year due to the vast intelligence network, believes that education of the public is the best way to combat secrecy. Aftergoods website site not only focus on Dept. of Defense wrong doings, the highlights on the home page deal with Vice President Cheney’s energy task force, the 28 pages missing from the 9-11 report, and the decision to go to war. It is my belief that congress is too passive, and does not look into secrecy matters enough, or even worse just looks the other way in order keep away from controversy. Mr. Bush, a.k.a. President Bush has been the most secretive administration in recent history, and nothing indicates that changes will occur in the near future.

Even todays college students know a cast with names like, (Frank
Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., Angie Dickenson, and joey
Bishop) will lead to popular success. This band of buddies plot to
rob five Las Vegas Casinos in the feature film Ocean's 11. Sounds
just like the twenty-first century movie with Brad Pitt, George
Clooney, Matt Damon, and Julia Roberts where the buddies once again
rob Las Vegas Casinos. You ask how anyone could want to see an
action film set in the early sixties?

According to William Grimes' "Popular Culture", the original movie
has all the markers in order to remake a film, allowing a new
generation discover new and exciting things in the old stuff.

The 2001 version sites the writer as, George Johnson, the original
writer for the sixties version, but thats where the similarities
spread way. The new version has emediate explosions, with the actors
wheeling guns, and gismos. The original lacks any technology (even
by 1960 standard). The classic Rat Pack singing is replaced by
an uptempo play list, along with the fashion, and sarcasm of 2001.
The cast itself is updated to represent the diversity of America,
by adding asian, african american, and hispanic characters. Even
inflation has been taken into account, where the original thiefs
were stealing $11 million, now they are going after $150 million.

In my humble opinion the recent version of Oceans 11 is far
Superior to the original. I can relate better to the modern cast,
the humor, special effects is in place, and lets face it, the
1960's acting is corny by todays standards. Warner Brothers thought
so much of the remake that, the sequel to the remake will be
released over the Christmas break.

When Did a Bush become the Fox’s House?

Fresh off the box office success of Michael Moore’s documentary style film, Fahrenheit 9-11, other directors are producing their own films to get in on the newest genre craze. Robert Greenwald recently added his own documentary, Outfoxed, which criticizes Rupert Murdoch’s media conglomerate Fox, for overtly being unfairly biased in favor of the Grand Old Party.

Following traditional documentary style Outfoxed is made up of interviews, Fox outtakes, and documents discovered by Greenwald and his associates. Along with ex Fox employees, other media theorists and watchdogs are interviewed in order to make sure all grounds are covered to uncover Fox’s agendas.

From the onset of the film we learn that through Fox, Rupert Murdoch owns one-fifth of all the media viewed by the not only America, but internationally. This tactic is done to lay a foundation of fear and distrust of Fox, so that anything said against Fox is heard with open ears. This scare tactic works if done correctly, however the editing done by Greenwald is horrendous. Every interview is taken out of context, as evidence by the blatant cutting off in mid sentence of the interviewee. That is to say the actual film is cut, with a slight pause, and then the same person is speaking again in an entirely different context. Editing of interviews discredits the film, because any educated viewer knows that by taking a persons quote out of text, one can manipulate the quote to mean something entirely opposite than the original intended meaning. Not to mention the editing is rather annoying, and takes away from credible information which Greenwald desperately wants you to hear.

In comparison to Fahrenheit 9-11, Outfoxed isn’t exciting. That is to say background music isn’t current, or has little to no bearing on the content of the film. Furthermore, while photographs presented of internal memos are quite damning for Fox, they are simultaneously quite bland and have no viewer appeal. The American public has been conditioned so that movies these days need to have action, humor, or other gimmicks to subsidize the content that Fox is not presenting real news.

After complaining about Outfoxed, anyone reading this is not inclined to spend money to view it. On the contrary, any person who relies on television news for their main source of information (which is a lot of us) needs to suck it up and watch Outfoxed. The content is eye opening, especially the chapter titled, “Some People Say”. The phrase, “Some People Say” is a tactic that even I, an educated communication student was not aware of, where Fox news correspondents and hosts use the phrase to spread lies about anyone opposed to the Right Wing, Republican, Conservative, anti abortion, Bush is the Best view. For example Hannity of the Hannity & Combs Live, a Fox political show, proclaimed, “Some people say that John Kerry is unpatriotic”. Hannity made this quote with out having even a viable source to quote from. This is one example of how Fox tells its employees to spread opinions as facts to mislead the public.

By now you probably think you know all the issues regarding the upcoming elections. Terrorism, Iraq, the economy, and healthcare are on the front lines, but a little known subject called “Tort Reform” could play a major role in how Americans find important information from dishonest companies. Most people agree that too many so called frivolous law suits are filed in America’s courts; and a lot of politicians, including, Mr. Bush, want to reform Tort Laws to make it harder for lawyers to file suit against: large corporations, doctors, hospitals, insurance, and numerous other industries. Sounds good right? Wrong says Morton Mintz, a former trial lawyer, who has had his hand in dozens of suits which have uncovered the illegal wrongs that companies have attempted to keep under wraps.

Without people like Mintz, and other lawyers, the public would never have had important information released that directly relates to our safety. Some examples include tobacco companies that know their products cause cancer, or that Ford’s Pinto had exploding gas tanks. Other information that didn’t emerge until court litigation revealed so are, the Bic lighters that caught fire, or the Dalcone Shield which killed or scarred thousands of women in the 80’s.

According to Mintz reports, it appears obvious that politicians should allow lawyers to continue to file suit against wrongful companies. There’s a glitch in this process though, many of the industries which have been sued along the way for illegal procedures, are the major financial contributors to specifically republican elected officials.

While this little known subject may pale in comparison to other election issues, it is one which we need to keep an eye on, so that corporate America doesn’t get another tool to mask any wrong doings.

According to Fred Weir, a writer for the Christian Science Monitor, Russian media outlets have been lying to its viewers for years when it comes to tragedies. In light of the Beslan School terrorist’s attacks coverage, persons within the world media community are asking the question, “Will the Russian media stop lying to its people?” The answer according to Weir is, no. The Kremlin, or Russian media office, still has a hold on the main media outlets, and when Rov Shakirov (editor) placed gruesome pictures on the Russian newspaper, Izvestia, he was fired by the Kremlin who believe that the newspapers should reflect the mood of its people.” President Putin allowed a four hour press conference for foreign media only, completely neglecting his own citizens. And it is not as if the Russian people are dumb they know they are being lied to, so they resort back to soviet experience where word of mouth is how reliable news travels.

If Marshal McLuhan is right then the Medium is, and has been lying to the Russian people for years. Everything from the 2002 Moscow Theater hostage takeover to the twin terrorism plane bombings has been criminally reported to the Russians. The more I read about the horrible Russian media coverage it only makes me more aware of our own media downfalls. Just today Dan Rather of CBS gave an apology for giving false reports on live national TV. There are other questions Americans must ask, such as does our President appointed (not “elect”) Bush, allow Americans enough of his time concerning our own tragedies? Bush has only had three question and answer sessions since being appointed president. Shouldn’t the leader of a democracy, who criticizes Putin, give its public more exposure, especially in these trying times? We do not want to become what we criticize.