Source Detective Work: Digging Deeper...

Today I viewed a television ad by America's Power.org.  Like many other "energy" commercials, something didn't seem right, something seemed 'hidden.'  As a result, I visited the recommended internet site http://www.americaspower.org.  A professionally produced, aesthetically pleasant site, America's Power promotes clean coal energy, which is immediately obvious once the site's home page opens.  With news like quality, the site touts the benefits of clean coal technology.  What the TV ad didn't mention that America's Power.org is essentially a publicity arm of the coal industry.  To be fair, the website does disclose this fact, but one has to search for the information.  First, one must select the "who we are" tab, then find the "view a list of our members" link.   But one must look at the fine print at the bottom of the web page to see that this is a product of a political action organization of the coal industry, namely "American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy" (ACCCE). 

 

It didn't take much digging to find additional information about the ACCCE, but one finds significant political debate about the ACCCE.  The America's Power.org site portrays the ACCCE as a "partnership of the industries involved in producing electricity from coal."  In contrast, http://www.sourcewatch.org describes the ACCCE as "astroturf support for coal-based electricity . . . [that] promotes the interests of mining companies, coal transporters, and electricity producers."  With the exception of the negative political spin, the Source Watch site provides nothing significantly different from the ACCCE's own site.  In fact, the ACCCE's site is more detailed and complete in its disclosures than the highly critical Source Watch article.

 

When one digs a little deeper into Source Watch, however, one finds that it is linked to the liberal Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), founded by radical activist and Bush hater John Stauber, who admits his political activism began during the late 1960s when his views became radicalized.  Source Watch, run by Sheldon Rampton, another left-leaning political activist writer, co-authored a number of anti-Bush books with Stauber.  Rampton, a student of Princeton's "new journalism" advocate John Angus McPhee, seems to have adopted the 1960s-1970s "new journalism" practice of subjectivist, political advocacy coupled with the use of exaggerated, embellished descriptions in pieces pretending to be objective news articles.  This intentional distortion of hidden political activism presenting itself under the mask of objective news seems to be a tactic that both Rampton and Stauber adopt as legitimate.  What makes matters worse is the fact that this personal history is left undisclosed in CMD and Source Watch material.  In contrast, they claim to present information with "accuracy and fairness," while hiding the fact that the Center for Media and Democracy controls editorial policy and access.

 

My point here is simple:  we must be diligent enough to dig as deeply as possible into the sources of our information.  We must not take anything at face value, whether the source is right-leaning or left-leaning.  The political convictions of our sources matter.  Sources that disclose their biases may not be any more accurate than other sources, but at least we know what we're getting.  Dig a little deeper.  Maybe in this way, we'll gain a better perspective on what's really happening in our world.

 

-- David Adcock, Editor     

General Stanley McChrystal and the Limits of Free Speech I suspect that most of us have a clear understanding that there are some restrictions as regards our rights under the United States Constitution. I, for example, know full well that while The First Amendment provides for my freedom to speak my mind, it does not necessarily guarantee my continued employment if I decide to publicly ridicule the owner of my company. Whether we like it or not, in the real world I think there are limits, and if this is true in civilian commercial life it is, or should be, even more a certainty for the military. I am therefore baffled and more than a little dismayed by the recent actions of General McChrystal, especially the latest affront, which was evidently the final affliction for our commander-in-chief. What was he thinking? What would lead a very talented, dedicated, and, in my opinion, eminently qualified officer down the path that led to dismissal? Last September I read a transcript of the "60 Minutes" profile on the general with considerable interest, and I was duly impressed. He struck me as not only being a soldier's soldier, but his understanding of what was needed to win over the Afghan people, the only true road to success in the conflict, was dead on. The only reservation I had at the time was a concern that he might be selling his ideas and agenda to the public via the media, not the traditional or orthodox approach for military commanders. One of my colleagues, a former military man himself, agreed with this line of thinking. Perhaps we are just old fashioned, but active officers talking directly to journalists about strategy and tactics was and remains something we find troublesome, especially when these ideas may be seen as contrary to the official position of the government. There is a chain of command, in other words, and this sort of "talk" probably needs to be left to either the President or one of the key Secretaries, i.e., State, Defense, or Army. In October, General McChrystal followed up with a controversial speech in London before the Institute of International and Strategic Studies, an event that led to an almost immediate summons for a face-to-face meeting with President Obama. Judging from the President's reaction it would seem that he was not only surprised but also more than a little upset with McChrystal, and understandably so. The General's comments in London were blunt, critical, and, depending on one's point-of-view, bordering on insubordinate. The whole affair was reminiscent of some of the antics of Douglas McArthur or George Patton, and McChrystal was probably lucky to retain his command after what amounted to a gross violation of protocol. Finally, we have "The Runaway General" interview published in Rolling Stone Magazine just last week. In this article by Michael Hastings—really another profile compiled over the several days Hastings spent with General McChrystal and his inner circle—we are exposed to a healthy dose of what these fellows truly feel, along with a glimpse of how they doubtless interact with one another on a daily basis. I found nothing is this article either surprising or particularly shocking, apart from the obvious fact that they had a reporter in their midst, and they had to fully understand that all of this banter was likely to make it into print! As I mentioned above, General Stanley McChrystal is a man worthy of our respect and gratitude for a life of service to this country. Men and women do not rise to field grade ranks in our military without being very intelligent, dedicated, diplomatic, and highly motivated individuals, and we can rest assured that McChrystal is representative of his class. In other words, it is difficult if not impossible for a fool to reach these ranks. These people are typically going to be outspoken and aggressive, and while we would doubtless not want them to be any other way, it goes without saying that there is the proper time and place for these views to be aired. Among other issues, the spectacle of a military commander blasting our government is likely to aid the enemy. Once more, what was he thinking? We may have to wait for General McChrystal's memoirs to know the true answer. The whole affair could easily be written off as the actions of an arrogant hothead, but nothing in this gentleman's service record makes this a credible argument. I have to wonder if this may be the result of the massive stress imposed on our military over the last decade. We have a volunteer service bearing the brunt of multiple, lengthy deployments, while for most of the country events in Iraq and Afghanistan may as well be taking place on the moon. We are demanding more from less, the rules of engagement are more complicated than ever, and at least in the case of Afghanistan we seem to be watching a repeat of the Vietnam War. I hope that General Petraeus can pick up where he left off in Iraq. For the sake of the troops and their families, not to mention the budget, these conflicts need to come to an end sooner rather than later. Good luck and Godspeed General! —John Stegall