The Smoking Gun on Third-Party Media Blackouts???

UPDATE: I got hoaxed by at least a dozen e-mails (some from very credible sources) in the last 3-4 hours. Feeling REALLY REALLY stupid right now! I guess I wasn’t expecting an April Fool’s joke dated April 3. That doesn’t change the key points of (the non-Fox portions) of what I wrote, however.

While serving as communications director for the Badnarik presidential campaign, I was often contacted by reporters from major media outlets. They’d start a story and then I’d never hear from them again. On follow through, several junior level reporters and one very senior one (from one of the national television networks) told me off-the-record that their stories (or intended interview or television coverage) was squashed from the very top of their respective organizations. The closest I came to an on-the-record response was from Tom Hannon at CNN. In this case, we weren’t asking directly for media coverage, but for moderators for the first presidential debate of that election cycle. For the record, the Bush-Kerry debate that was promoted by the MSM as “the first presidential debate” wasn’t — and they all knew it, as we sent them e-mails, faxes and made personal phone calls to their news and political departments. I requested:

Dear Mr. Hannon,

While the final details have not been finalized between campaigns, we are completing arrangements for a third-party presidential debate in Manhattan during the Republican Convention.

As one of the coordinators for this event, I would like to extend an invitation for CNN to provide the one or two moderators necessary for this debate.

Please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience…

The response:

Mr. Gordon,

Thanks for the information. Please forward additional details on the event as they become available, but given the programming and editorial demands on our staff that week I think it’s unlikely we’ll be able to provide the one or two moderators you’re requesting.

Of course, I provided them with timely updates — but I never received any response from them. They not only didn’t provide a moderator, they didn’t provide any coverage, either. As this was on a slow night during the Republican National Convention, they had a significant amount of reporters and equipment available just a few blocks up the road. Somehow C-SPAN (with significantly fewer resources) managed to get a film crew there to carry the event on television.

Here’s an e-mail from a volunteer on our media team:

I was just on the phone with Bob Campbell of the Detroit Free Press – Bob is in charge of assigning political reporters, this was what he told me: I don’t want to take away reporters from Bush and Kerry, that’s what people want to read about, people aren’t interested in the Libertarian candidate.

Here’s a clip from an e-mail I received from someone of national political significance:

I am slightly acquainted with a NY Times reporter, Kit Seelye. She covers the presidential election from the NY Times office in Washington, DC. I asked her why the BBC covers Badnarik (in connection with the subpoena he tried to serve on the Commission on Pres. Debates and his arrest), and the NY Times doesn’t.

She said in an e-mail I just got, “I have never heard of this person” (meaning Badnarik!). I thanked her for responding and didn’t express my amazement, but I am truly amazed that she could say that she had never even heard the word “Badnarik”.

I also asked her why her article about Nader today says he is on in 30 states when he is on in 35. She said she wrote in her story that Nader is on in “3 dozen states”, but that someone with final authority changed it, without even notifying her. So that is interesting evidence of anti-Nader bias at the top levels of the NY Times.

Another interesting trend (I don’t have real numbers on this, but it would make an interesting study) is that in many cases, most of the newspapers in a region would provide at least reasonable coverage — except for the dominant paper in the state or large city. The New Mexico campaign and a comparison of Washington Post to Washington Times coverage serve as examples.

Some of my sources will not come forward for fear of losing their jobs or other forms of retribution. However, this story from Fox News may shed some light on the pressure from above to squelch Libertarian coverage in the main stream media.

In a disturbing turn of events for an administration already plagued by sagging poll numbers and waning support for the Iraq war, Friday’s revelation that the Bush Administration issued direct guidelines for programming to media outlets is troubling even die-hard conservatives.

Late Friday a series of memos between senior Bush Administration officials and management at Viacom, Inc. were leaked calling for the media giant to focus on stories and programming choices that “reinforce the Administration’s positions” and to “ignore and/or discredit points of view in opposition to the Bush Administration’s foreign policy objectives for the purposes of National Security.” [snip]

Debra L. Lee, president and CEO of Viacom’s Black Entertainment Television, agrees. “Even though our moniker is BET, our allegiance lies with our government and its directives, not the African-American community. Anyone who believes that we will endorse messages in contrast to our government’s wishes, or that express dissent, is sorely mistaken.”

Some entertainment industry insiders are becoming increasingly concerned, however. One longtime employee of Interscope Records, a leading record label and home to rap superstars 50 Cent and Eminem, stated recently under the condition of anonymity that the company “has a unique relationship with Viacom” and that it “deliberately focuses on marketing campaigns that depict black people in the worst possible light.” When told of Rev. Sharpton’s likening of the practice to ‘genocide’ on African-Americans, he agreed wholeheartedly, but expressed fears of reprisal should he publicly address his concerns.

“It’s beyond national security. That was the reason given at first, but now they just tell us what we have to endorse, and what we have to avoid.” He added, “these kids eat it up. They don’t know the difference between what’s real and what’s fake.”

If in any doubt about the fear of reprisal being reasonable, take a look at this quote from the same article:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist took a more defensive stance. “Of course it raises some concerns, but we can’t let this issue be blown out of proportion. Of course there have to be media guidelines. Hell, if we want to plant I.D. chips in people and torture their loved ones until they break, we will. I know the idea of governmental control over what the media can or cannot say during wartime may be an uncomfortable topic for some to digest, but it is a necessary fact of life when our enemies are trying to kill us.”

I’ll add the following to Frist’s quote: It was also governmental control over what the media can or cannot say during a presidential election.

I’ve left names and other identifying information off of the aforementioned correspondence for obvious reasons. However, I’m not too scared to stand up and tell my part of the story. Props to Aaron Russo for the lead on the Fox News article.

Stephen Gordon

I like tasteful cigars, private property, American whiskey, fast cars, hot women, pre-bailout Jeeps, fine dining, worthwhile literature, low taxes, original music, personal privacy and self-defense rights -- but not necessarily in this order.

  1. Go to and support their campaigns to:

    Free the Internet
    First Amendment Restoration Act
    Stop FDA Censorship
    Stop the “Don’t Let People Decide Act”

    Eternal vigilence, no kidding.

    Meanwhile, make sure your favorite news outlets know they’re losing followers to sites like HoT who cover real problems and solutions.

    It’s incredibly scary that people are so intimidated because you know they wouldn’t be if they knew their rights and knew how the free market would reward them for doing a good job.

  2. Of course, it’s really encouraging that the powers-that-be are scared of us.

    This is progress!

  3. So to be clear, Bill Frist didn’t actually say that, right?

    Not publically.

  4. I was hoaxed — putting up a disclaimer now. Talk about embarrassing. I wish Van Dyke would get back so I’d have more time for verification.

  5. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: “Hell, if we want to plant I.D. chips in people and torture their loved ones until they break, we will.”

    Lovely! Frist, you will only put a chip in my cold, dead body!!!

  6. George, this article may be a hoax, but microchips for people is the next step once they get animal ID (NAIS) going.

  7. If you read the site of the hoaxers, they opine on why so many people got duped.

    What Frist says, and the entire gist of the article, really isn’t that far-fetched in light of what the Bush administration and their lackeys have actually done.

    People believe the government officials, like Frist, THINK these things in their heart, but no better than to say them publicly. That’s why instead of a reaction of “That’s not true!” from the reader, there is instead a reaction of “I can’t believe they finally admitted it”, or something like that.

    It’s unfortunate we have a leadership in this country that is so easy to parody and satirize in such a grim way.

  8. That Fox News story is fake, it came from a Fox News parody site…

    The trouble with the parody is that they were probably,
    if inadvertently, accurate beyond belief.

    Frist may not have actually said that on public record,
    but the probability is astronomically high
    that he has already said something like that in private.
    If he hasn’t said it, he has certainly fantasized about it.
    He has spent his life inspiring the wrath of a widely diverse
    collection of people he would like to silence. Permanently, Discreetly.


  9. That particular article was indeed a hoax but, the plan for implantable microchips under the skin is for real and is documented. To refer to this as “nonsense” is naive.

  10. Gahhh – putrimalu – you beat me by 10 minutes.
    (Bagaimana kabar, shy child?)
    I guess I type too slow.

    But that said, we agree that the parody should not
    be disregarded outright.
    I believe that it points out that a good investigator
    could probably discover something of similar or worse
    intent if given the time and effort looking
    in all the right places (disgruntled employees?).

    The intent is obvious, the proof remains in hiding….

  11. hei, PA. saya suka bioskopmu “Event Horizon”. Ha! Bercanda.

    You’re only the 2nd person to paham namaku. But it doesn’t describe me, I was visiting North Sulawesi and someone told me about the plant of the same name, and I liked it. I didn’t realize the other meaning until later!

    I agree that we shouldn’t discount the parody, but to the public it will be meaningless. I mean, they’re more than willing to ignore PROVEN FACTS, so a funny parody is unlikely to breach their “stupidity force fields” they have around the reasons centers in their brain. I sometimes think we could have video of these people molesting babies and their supporters would still give them a pass.

  12. Rudolf Giuliani told a friend of mine “the difference between me and Hitler is we will finish the job” – he was talking about a final solution to the drug problem when he was personally confronted about it afterwards at a public forum. This was when he was DA for the Southern District of NY.

    Giuliani and Al D’Amato bought crack from one of the guys I knew in our old neighborhood in NYC (dubbed crack street on the original episode of 48 Hours).

    Friends of ours were supplying at least 30 Congressional offices with cocaine by the kilo in the 1980s.

    There’s a lot more but enough for now.

  13. I remember this:

    Candy Crowley, the newsbroad on CNN, saying that John Effing Kerry “ran unopposed” in his last Senate bid.

    Oddly, CNN never replied to me pointing out Michael Cloud’s campaign…

  14. When I, running for congress, used the words, “economy in ruins,” our local paper said I had lost all credibility because of that. When Hilary Clinton used the same words, they printed it without comment on her credibility.

  15. Erik,

    I’m running too and I’ve broken into every small market media. The exception is the Times Union in Albany. Despite a significant press release about endorsements, an FEC filing and a plan for a debate, nada.

    Letters to the Editor from many people might do the trick. Scan the local blogs and have many people post their protest.
    Unless interested people speak, the campaign’s voice will only get drowned out.