Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

host · 09-09-2006, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

......Bout the only thing you might have missed is that this docu-whatever-they're-calling-it-now has nothing whatsoever to do with the news business

No....but the stench comes from the controversy of whether....or not....this "presentation" is a $40 million partisan campaign ad:

Quote:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...p-379111c.html
ABC's film flap

Trims 9/11 series as Dems howl

BY JAMES GORDON MEEK and HELEN KENNEDY
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

ABC is frantically recutting its $40 million miniseries about 9/11 amid a blistering backlash over fictional scenes that lay the blame on the Clinton administration.

Also feeling the heat was Scholastic, which yanked a classroom guide tie-in to the program.

Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean, the former head of the 9/11 commission and a paid consultant on the ABC miniseries, told the Daily News yesterday that some controversial scenes in "The Path to 9/11" were being removed or changed.

"ABC is telling me that the final version I'll be pleased with," said Kean, softening his own previous defense of the movie.

Unmollified, Democrats continued to demand that ABC yank the two-night docudrama that former President Bill Clinton's spokesman called "despicable." It is scheduled to start airing Sunday.

And Clinton's lawyer sent Kean a chiding letter expressing "shock" that a man so dedicated to accuracy had worked on a movie "that has been widely criticized for its libelous historical inaccuracies.".........

.........Asked if he had apologized to Clinton for inaccuracies in the movie, Kean quipped, "No, he was out campaigning against my son yesterday, so I didn't reach out to him at all!"

Kean's son is a GOP Senate candidate in New Jersey.

Quote:

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0...itroom.02.html
THE SITUATION ROOM

Bipartisan Report Concludes Saddam Hussein Had No Relationship With Former Head Of Al Qaeda in Iraq; Taliban Claiming Responsibility For Suicide Car Bombing in Kabul; Thomas Kean Interview; Controversy Surrounds ABC Docudrama About 9/11; Ground Zero Air Quality; Samuel Berger Interview

Aired September 8, 2006 - 17:00 ET

.......BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Wolf, we've just received a copy of a letter from former national security advisor Samuel Berger and former secretary of state Madeleine Albright to Tom Kean, the 9/11 Commission chairman who was a consultant to ABC on this film.

Berger and Albright asked Kean to use his influence to get ABC to cancel the airing this Sunday and Monday. We were always seconds ago told of another letter from former Clinton aide Bruce Lindsay and Mr. Clinton's attorney Douglas Band (ph) to Robert Iger of the Disney Corporation also asking for the airing of this movie to be cancelled because of what they call historical inaccuracies.

Now we're getting no indications at the moment that the movie will be cancelled. But the fallout over this film is still at critical mass.........

.........On the political front, ABC is accused of a heavy slant against Democrats. Tom Kean, a republican, and the only 9/11 Commission member consulted for the film, got a letter from Clinton's office saying, your defense of the outright lies in this film is destroying the bipartisan aura of the 9/11 Commission.

Tom Kean's response to me, quote, "What possible political motivation could I have? Everybody who has seen it who is nonpartisan has praised it. The people in both administrations," Kean says, were inept to stop the plot." (END VIDEOTAPE)

TODD: Media observers say all this criticism and buzz over the film will very likely generate huge ratings for ABC on Sunday and Monday night. But there is another snag. President Bush is scheduled to address the nation at 9:00 Eastern Time Monday night, likely right in the middle of part two of this series or at least when that part was scheduled to air. An ABC official tells me they're still figuring out how to deal with that.

BLITZER: Brian, thank you very much. And one of the claims about the ABC movie is that it does not mirror the factual findings of the report from the 9/11 Commission.

My next guest is the co-chairman of that commission, Thomas Kean, he is joining us from Philadelphia. He's the former governor of New Jersey.

Governor, thanks very much for coming in. I want to read to you from this latest letter to you. I don't even know if you've seen the actual letter from the former secretary of state Madeleine Albright.............

...........BLITZER: What about the scene involving Madeleine Albright? You suspect they've changed that one as well so that she is not projected as someone who tipped off the Pakistanis about a missile attack on Osama bin Laden and there may have been a leak which allowed him to escape?

KEAN: Well, I don't know about that scene. I think that scene is a little different because I think there was a real conflict between two areas of government as to whether you don't tell people you're going to hit Osama bin Laden in case he gets away and other branches of government that say if you send a missile over Pakistan, they may think it's India, they could start another war. So that was a real conflict and a real problem. And whether it was Madeleine Albright or somebody else, I suspect that probably took place.

BLITZER: What about -- It was definitely someone else because Secretary Cohen, William Cohen, the former defense secretary said he dispatched the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Ralston, to go to Pakistan to brief the Pakistanis once the missiles were on their way to the al Qaeda target and Madeleine Albright was not specifically involved in that.

But that was another apparent distortion in the film. I don't know if the film has been changed. But what about the bigger picture? Because you investigated the Clinton administration and the Bush administration in the events leading up to 9-11. Those who have seen the film -- and I have not seen it -- say that the Clinton administration over the eight years they were in power, in office, that they -- at least you come away from the movie convinced that they were negligent, that they missed opportunities for a variety of reasons to destroy Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

KEAN: Well, two administrations missed opportunities. This starts on President Clinton's watch with the attack on the World Trade Center I. Then it covers eight years of the Clinton presidency. It covers six months of the Bush presidency. So obviously there's more about the Clinton administration. But you've got to remember the area they were working on. I mean, to be very fair to the Clinton people, a lot of this was done before we knew how bad Osama bin Laden was. This was before the attacks on the embassies in many cases. It was before certainly the attack on the Cole. We knew he was bad and there were people in the Clinton administration pursuing him pretty hard.

But we didn't know he was bad as he was or certainly what he was planning on 9-11. So it's unfair to look back and put their motivations in light of the attack on the World Trade Center, because it just didn't -- it's just not that way. It was a different kind of a world and they made decisions with different facts than we have right now.

BLITZER: I'm going to read to you one more excerpt from this letter that Madeleine Albright and Samuel Berger have written to you, although you haven't received the letter we have. I'll read this section: "Your continued defense of this deeply flawed production is especially hard to understand in light of your commendable leadership of the 9-11 Commission. Like much of the country, we were impressed by the care you and your fellow commissioners took to stick to the facts and to get it right for the American people and for history. Unfortunately, as co-executive producer of this miniseries, you and your new associates have chosen to go another way."

We're going to be speaking momentarily to Sandy Berger. I wonder, Governor, what you would say to him. What would you like to say to him, knowing what you know about this film, knowing your role in helping ABC and knowing, obviously, your role with the other members of the 9-11 commission in putting together that final report.

KEAN: Yeah. This is not a 9-11 Commission report, and this series is based on a lot of other things besides that report. It's a miniseries. It's not a product of ABC News. It's not a product of a documentary. It's very different. And it says right up front with a disclaimer exactly what it is. Nobody should have any doubt about that.

Having said that, I think it's a very powerful, very powerful series, and I think we'll understand a lot more about Al Qaeda when you watch it. But I would encourage people to look at it, make their own decision. We're having a tremendous debate on this and nobody has seen it. Let's look at it and I think perhaps we can have a constructive debate about it afterwards.............

.....and, there is this:

Quote:

http://www.christiancinema.com/catal...0&src=hp200609
News and Information
The Path to 9/11
Posted: Wednesday, August 30, 2006
The Path to 9/11
News Summary:
By Jeremy Reynalds
Correspondent for ASSIST News Service

......Director David Cunningham (To End All Wars) said by e-mail, “(It is) one of the few films ever to be allowed to film at the CIA headquarters at Langley. I ... spent a year-and-a- half working on this show along with an amazing team film makers.”.....

.........
Note: Director David Cunningham is the son of Loren Cunningham, founder of Youth With A Mission (YWAM).

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001491.php
"Path to 9/11" Maker Has Evangelical Ties
By Justin Rood - September 8, 2006, 2:39 PM

The director of ABC's controversial "Path to 9/11" docudrama has ties to an evangelical Christian group whose goals include "transform[ing] Hollywood from the inside out," according to research by readers of prominent blogs.

"Path" director David L. Cunningham is also involved in "The Film Institute," an offshoot of the Hawaii-based global evangelical group, Youth With a Mission.

One goal of Cunningham's Film Institute is to "fast-track" students from a digital film program associated with the YWAM organization into positions "within the film industry, not to give them jobs, but so that they can begin to impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out," http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:o...d=3&lr=lang_en according to a cached version of page from a YWAM Web site. The original appears to have been moved or deleted.

The digital filmmaking program at YWAM's University of Nations appears to provide Cunningham's institute with its interns. The school's Web site encourages potential students, "If you are serious about allowing the Lord to use either your professional background in film and television, or your God-given desire to learn, don't miss this opportunity. Apply today!"

Our phone calls to Cunningham, the school, YWAM offices and YWAM directors in the United States were not immediately returned.

Cunningham's involvement with the Film Institute was http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:o...d=3&lr=lang_en disclosed on the now-missing YWAM Web site.

David L. Cunningham is also the son of YWAM founder, Loren Cunningham, <a href="http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/newsdesk_info.php?newsdesk_id=250&src=hp200609">according</a> to the evangelical film site, ChristianCinema.com.

On its Web site, YWAM describes itself as "an international movement of Christians" performing "evangelism, training and mercy ministry" in 149 countries.

Cunningham's ties to the evangelical organizations were discovered and reported by <a href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115741601128096709">Digby</a>, readers and bloggers on <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/8/133335/7036">DailyKos</a>, <a href="http://journals.democraticunderground.com/EarlG/75">Democratic Underground</a>, and elsewhere.

If a muslim fundamentalist was a director of ABC's docudrama, it would certainly be something to note, and object to, wouldn't it? Why is it any easier to accept the fundamentalist religious influenced politicization of this ABC docudrama if the religious fundamentalists are christian political partisans?

Just throwing out, here....what I've found unusual.....we'll know much more, after this "program" actually airs.....

The reason that we cannot have an actual discussion on this, or any other TFP politics thread, is because, for one "side", it goes against "the culture" to discuss the actual "issues"...by providing details intended to sway an actual debate on the "merits", as I struggle to do here, with such feeble results:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...ail/components
In a Pivotal Year, GOP Plans to Get Personal
Millions to Go to Digging Up Dirt on Democrats

By Jim VandeHei and Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 10, 2006; Page A01

Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies, GOP officials said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, which this year dispatched a half-dozen operatives to comb through tax, court and other records looking for damaging information on Democratic candidates, plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads.

The hope is that a vigorous effort to "define" opponents, in the parlance of GOP operatives, can help Republicans shift the midterm debate away from Iraq and limit losses this fall. The first round of attacks includes an ad that labeled a Democratic candidate in Wisconsin "Dr. Millionaire" and noted that he has sued 80 patients.

"Opposition research is power," said Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (N.Y.), the NRCC chairman. "Opposition research is the key to defining untested opponents."

The Republican National Committee, meanwhile, has enlisted veteran party strategist Terry Nelson to run a campaign that will coordinate with Senate Republicans on ads that similarly will rely on the best of the worst that researchers have dug up on Democrats. The first ad run by the new RNC effort criticizes Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) for voting against proposals designed to toughen border protection and deport illegal immigrants.

Because challengers tend to be little-known compared with incumbents, they are more vulnerable to having their public image framed by the opposition through attacks and unflattering personal revelations.

And with polls showing the Republicans' House and Senate majorities in jeopardy, party strategists said they have concluded that their best chance to prevent big Democratic gains is a television and direct-mail blitz over the next eight weeks aimed at raising enough questions about Democratic candidates that voters decide they are unacceptable choices.

"When you run in an adverse political environment, you try to localize and personalize the race as much as you can," Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said.

In a memo released last week, Cole, who is running to succeed Reynolds at the NRCC, expanded on that strategy. The memo recommended that vulnerable incumbents spend $20,000 on a research "package" to find damaging material about challengers and urged that they "define your opponent immediately and unrelentingly."

GOP officials said internal polling shows Republicans could limit losses to six to 10 House seats and two or three Senate seats if the strategy -- combined with the party's significant financial advantage and battled-tested turnout operation -- proves successful. Democrats need to pick up 15 seats to win control of the House and six to regain power in the Senate.

Against some less experienced and little-known opponents, said Matt Keelen, a Republican lobbyist heavily involved in House campaigns, "It will take one or two punches to fold them up like a cheap suit."

Republicans plan to attack Democratic candidates over their voting records, business dealings, and legal tussles, the GOP officials said.....

The links from CNSnews.com and newsbusters.org that are posted on these threads, never contain the references to "main stream" news sources that the articles authored by competitor mediamatters.org , always contain.

For at least 15 years, L. Brent Bozell, funded by Richard Mellon Scaife and the Sarah Scaife foundation, has dominated, along with folks like David Horowitz, virtually all of what filters through to the folks here....and in America, who could honestly argue the "nuts and bolts" of their political "positions", but sadly.....and obviously, the Scaife funding bought Bozell the ability to influence some folks to be more concerned about the "BJ" that Clinton received, than about healthcare for their own families, or about accountability in spending by the federal government, or whether it was necessary to go to war in Iraq. Scaife and Bozell, and the RNC....will make sure, over the next sixty days, that the focus shifts to "dirt", as in the example of Clinton's sex life, instead of why our troops are still fighting in Iraq, and whether it was ever necessary for them to be there, and to stay there,, in present numbers, much longer.........

Quote:

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2002/2/flag-scherer.asp
IN REVIEW
Framing the Flag

BY MICHAEL SCHERER

One month after the first U.S. bombing of Kabul, Fox News correspondent Brit Hume delivered a short but stinging report on his nightly broadcast. "Over at ABC News, where the wearing of American flag lapel pins is banned," said Hume, his own pin firmly in place, "Peter Jennings and his team have devoted far more time to the coverage of civilian casualties in Afghanistan than either of their broadcast network competitors."

Citing a new study, Hume said that ABC spent exactly fifteen minutes, forty-four seconds covering these casualties over the previous several weeks, nearly twice the time spent at NBC and about four times as much as CBS. The implication was clear: war coverage on ABC, free of patriotic accoutrements, was quite possibly drifting from the national interest.

For the Media Research Center, the conservative watchdog that authored the report, Hume's dispatch represented yet another success in its campaign to hew reporters to open support for the war. Already the nation's most vocal critic of the media's perceived liberal bias, the center took on a "new and vital mission" in the months following the attacks on Washington and New York, according to its founder, L. Brent Bozell III. "We are training our guns on any media outlet or any reporter interfering with America's war on terrorism or trying to undermine the authority of President Bush," he wrote in a recent fundraising letter.

In terms of mainstream media exposure, the center has enjoyed significant success in its new role, often framing the discussions of journalistic objectivity. Between September 11 and December 31, MRC reports and staff members were quoted eighty separate times by major news outlets in the Nexis database. This included eleven interviews and citations on Fox News, CNN, and CNNfn. Bozell even made it onto Imus in the Morning in February.

"The fact that we have been received reasonably well during this period is good for us," says Rich Noyes, the center's director of media research. "I think you can tell when we are raising good questions."

Those questions often concerned the patriotic credentials of top broadcast news reporters, producers, and executives. The center praised Rather, Brokaw, and Russert for editorializing their support of the war; it chastised journalists who kept a greater editorial distance. "What we were looking for was home-team sports reporting," Noyes explains.

In practice, the center defined the home team as the Bush administration and its policies. Journalists and pundits who challenged them were tarred with the epithet "political activist," or in the case of the cartoonist Aaron McGruder, "America-hater." In one report, the center took Peter Jennings to task for suggesting on a talk show that Americans respect different views of patriotism. The center's editorial response: "Unlike Jennings, who is still a Canadian citizen, we are Americans."

After CNN submitted six questions to an alleged representative of Osama bin Laden, the Los Angeles Times quoted Bozell calling the questions a "slap in the face of the American people." The Boston Globe and The Christian Science Monitor reported on the center's criticism of Reuters and the BBC for swearing off the term "terrorist." The center also spread the word about ABC News president David Westin's equivocation over whether the Pentagon had been a "legitimate military target," eliciting a prompt apology from the network chief and a flurry of embarrassing press coverage. "They put stuff out there and either it speaks for itself or it doesn't," said Hume, who worked at ABC News for twenty-three years before joining Fox. "The value of these people is their research."

Some media watchers agree. "Senior network executives tend to dismiss the center a bit too reflexively," said Howard Kurtz, media reporter for CNN and The Washington Post. "This is clearly because the organization has such a conservative agenda, but that doesn't mean their barbs aren't hitting the mark sometimes."

In many ways, Bozell's group has continued the mission begun in 1969 by Reed Irvine's Accuracy in Media, which helped found MRC in 1987 by sharing its mailing list. But Bozell, a syndicated columnist who served as finance director in Patrick Buchanan's 1992 presidential campaign, has developed a much larger organization. Funded by such conservative groups as the Sarah Scaife Foundation, his center boasted an income of $15 million in 2000, more than eighteen times as much as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the largest liberal media watchdog.

From September 11 until Christmas, a staff of eight full-time researchers recorded and reviewed all the broadcasts on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, said Noyes. Any possible evidence of "liberal bias" or wavering support of the military mission was flagged for distribution through the group's Web page, e-mail list, and "Notable Quotables," a biweekly newsletter delivered free to many of the nation's newsrooms.

While the center's direct impact on those newsrooms is difficult to measure, television coverage has been far more supportive of the Bush administration's policies than have newspaper reports. In November, for instance, a new study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that 54 percent of broadcast segments "entirely" supported official U.S. viewpoints, compared with 23 percent of applicable newspaper coverage.

At CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and ABC, reporters and producers said that while they are aware of the center's criticisms, they keep partisan assaults from influencing their news judgment. Still, says Tom Nagorski, the foreign news editor at ABC, "I suppose in a subtle way it's in the back of your mind." For supporters of the Media Research Center, that may be all they can ask.

Quote:

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/rec..._id=1002652454
CBS Stations: Indecency Complaints Invalid

Todd Shields

JUNE 13, 2006 -

Virtually none of those who complained to the Federal Communications Commission about the teen drama Without A Trace actually saw the episode in question, CBS affiliates said as they asked the agency to rescind its proposed record indecency fine of $3.3 million.

All of the 4,211 e-mailed complaints came from Web sites operated by the Parents Television Council and the American Family Association, the stations said in a filing on Monday.

In only two of the emails did those complaining say they had watched the program, and those two apparently refer to a “brief, out-of-context segment” of the episode that was posted on the Parents Television Council’s Web site, the affiliates’ filing said.

“There were no true complainants from actual viewers,” the stations said. To be valid, complaints must come from an actual viewer in the service area of the station at issue, the filing said.

“The e-mails were submitted … because advocacy groups hoping to influence television content generally exhorted them to contact the commission,” the CBS stations said.

L. Brent Bozell, president of the Parents Television Council, said that “everything the PTC has said is accurate..........

...........About 8.2 million people saw the Dec. 31, 2004 broadcast, which was a repeat of an earlier airing of the same episode that drew no indecency complaints. E-mails about the episode began arriving at the FCC on Jan. 12, the same day the PTC sent an alert to its members, the CBS stations said.

The FCC in proposing the fines of $32,500 upon each of 103 CBS stations said they had “broadcast material graphically depicting teenage boys and girls participating in a sexual orgy.”.....

Quote:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Pol...ophy/HL380.cfm
Why Conservatives Should Be Optimistic About the Media
by L. Brent Bozell, III
Heritage Lecture #380

January 21, 1992

..........And what was "newsworthy?" According to Leslie Midgley, Walter Cronkite's long-time producer at CBS, "In the print media, news is what the editor says it is... In television, news is what the producer says it is."

There was no conservative network to challenge the liberal press, no magazine powerful enough to compete with the increasingly liberal tilt of Time and Newsweek. Conservatives had their periodicals like National Review and Human Events, the combined circulation of which might compete with one edition of The New York Times, assuming a natural disaster launched most of that paper's fleet of trucks into the East River............

........Media Bias Exposed.......

........ Rather than admit their biases, reporters retreated to their final line of defense: OK, the media may be biased, but I'm not. With that in mind, the Media Research Center was launched to restore political balance in the media by exposing and neutralizing the liberal agenda within the so-called objective press.

The cornerstone of the MRC is its research capabilities. Today the MRC has the most sophisticated research operation ever assembled, more advanced than any university or media organization. Researchers tape, analyze and input into a computerized database summaries of every single network news show, including virtually all ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and PBS news broadcasts, weekly news shows, political talk shows, and special reports.

The MRC research capabilities are virtually boundless.....

......More often than not you won't see the MRC name on much that appears on the subject of media bias. The recent Washington Post Magazine cover story devoted to the rising political power of Hollywood made no reference to us, but the author of the piece used our research for her article. The late Warren Brookes never cited us, yet we provided him with much of his research on the media (and it goes without saying that he provided us with research on virtually everything else). David Shaw of the Los Angeles Times, who wrote the masterful series on the media's promotion of the pro-choice movement, spent considerable time at our offices conducting research for his piece. Indeed, I will go so far as to warrant that 90 percent of the stories in both the electronic and print media which deal with the political bias in the industry have their origins in the Media Research Center........

..............Do not believe for a moment that conservatives have won the day in the battle to restore political balance within the national press. Far from it. The left still controls the press and continues to wield their power relentlessly in order to shape the political conversation. But the tide may have begun to shift against them. If that is so, it is critically important that conservatives understand the reasons behind it and rededicate themselves to the effort like never before.

Imagine, if you will, a future wherein the media willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States. A time when the left can no longer rely on the media to promote its socialist agenda to the public. A time when someone, somewhere in the media can be counted on to extol the virtues of morality without qualifications. When Betty Friedan no longer qualifies for "Person of the Week" honors. When Ronald Reagan is cited not as the "Man of the Year," but the "Man of the Century."

The news and entertainment media will continue to effect the cultural health of America. If we succeed in our mission to restore political balance to this institution, future generations win benefit and thank us. It's worth fighting for, now.

L. Brent Bozell, III is Chairman of the Media Research Center in Alexandria, Virginia.

He spoke on January 21, 1992 at The Heritage Foundation in the Resource Bank series of lectures featuring leaders of conservative education and public policy organizations.

My question for those among us who read and post links from CNSnews.com and newsbusters.org and from Farah's worldnetdaily.com or from David Horowitz's site.....for those who shy away from MSM news reports, because they know that those sites are infected with "liberal bias".....

are you willing to run the risk that you are relegated to a closed loop of information that is the result of the influence that Scaife and Bozell have had over your POV? Have you wondered what

Quote:

....Researchers tape, analyze and input into a computerized database summaries of every single network news show........

.....the "summaries" that Bozell's researchers "input", look like? Who selects the content of the "summaries"? Are the summaries biased by those who compiled them? Has Bozell pulled the same "Op" on you that he pulled after the second airing of that CBS TV show, to influence the FCC. What if your attitude about MSM news liberal bias", is more a direct result of Bozell's '90's info saturation campaign;
....he admitted that 90 percent of what you read about liberal media bias, as of 1992....came from his MRC organization ?
I'm asking because my observation is that you show no indication of combing conventional news reporting to check your own compilation of what is most probably closest to an accurate account of any news/political event that we attempt to discuss here. I don't see that those who believe that the MS news media is "biased", even attempt to seriously discuss anything here....with a vigorous, documented argument.

Just a courtesy to let you in on the documentation that L. Brent Bozell "owns" the accusation and the "proof" that the MSM has a liberal bias, and that, if I were you, I wouldn't let Bozell's employee, newsbuster.org "executive editor", <a href="http://newsbusters.org/node/7482">Michael Sheffield</a>, filter what you "know" about any current event.