Below is the letter to the editor I submitted to Connecticut Post, a truncated sanitized version of which was printed today:
Earlier this month Hearst Newspapers' chief political correspondent for Connecticut Ken Dixon wrote on his blog: "Got A Bright Idea, like Hang the Lawmakers?" Really. He was referring to an upcoming meeting of the Commission on Enhancing Agency Outcomes (CEAO) chaired by Democratic State Senator Gayle Slossberg, which is looking for ideas to streamline government and cut spending. That was Mr. Dixon's notion of a bright idea: "Hang the Lawmakers". Later, attributing criticism to "a couple of the more sensitive, or possibly guilty, lawmakers", Dixon retracted his remarks. But referring to hanging lawmakers, then stating that those who complain are "guilty", actually makes his words more threatening.
Though Mr. Dixon might have thought he was being funny, he wasn't. And it is certainly not the sort of comment that should ever come from the chief political reporter for Hearst Newspapers, the largest newspaper company operating in Connecticut. Certainly not today, given the rise in violence and threats of violence across the country.
Right-wing provocateur Hal Turner is being prosecuted for threatening the lives of federal judges and elected Connecticut state legislators on his webcast. He stated, "Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed," according to the June 24 indictment. "Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions." The FBI indicated that Turner threatened the lives of State Senator Andrew McDonald (D-Stamford) and State Representative Michael Lawlor (D-East Haven). As the late Capitol police chief Michael J. Fallon remarked,
"(Turner) is inciting others through his website to commit acts of violence and has created fear and alarm. He should be held accountable for his conduct."
In light of Chief Fallon's remarks, should Mr. Dixon be treated differently?
Let's also recall that Dr. George Tiller, a doctor in Kansas who provided abortion services, was murdered earlier this year. Far-right Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly had for years demonized Dr. Tiller, repeatedly labeling him "Tiller the baby killer" and once said,
"..if the state of Kansas doesn't stop this man, then anybody who prevents that from happening has blood on their hands."
O'Reilly didn't actually tell people to murder Dr. Tiller, but he used inflammatory language that could be interpreted to support violence against him. The weak-minded can be egged on to violence by this sort of inflammatory speech in the media.
Mr. Dixon's "hang the lawmakers" remark was made in an atmosphere of rising threats of right-wing domestic terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis issued a report in April warning that, "Right wing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for right wing radicalization and recruitment." Death threats against President Obama have surged, according to author Ronald Kessler, running 400% higher than against George Bush, and stretching the Secret Service to its limits.
Mr. Dixon's "hang the lawmakers" remark is especially troubling coming from a journalist, a profession whose practitioners are themselves particularly vulnerable to violence. The Committee to Protect Journalists lists 795 journalists as having been killed around the world since 1992, including 93 in 2009 alone, making this the deadliest year ever. And journalists are far more likely to be killed investigating political and economic corruption than to be killed in war zones. So for Mr. Dixon to display such blindness to the violence perpetrated against fellow journalists, while hinting that violence against politicians is a "bright idea," is shameful and irresponsible.
Mr. Dixon might try to suggest that he was only joking. But no one should find it funny, not his readers, and certainly not Hearst management. In these times, no one should be making jokes about killing anyone, least of all journalists suggesting violence against government officials.
Ken Dixon, the political reporter for Connecticut Post, just wrote on his blog "Got a bright idea, like Hang the Lawmakers?". Really. No joke. He was referring to an upcoming meeting of the Commission on Enhancing Agency Outcomes (CEAO), chaired by Gayle Slossberg, which is looking for ideas as to how to streamline government and cut spending. That was Dixon's notion of a bright idea: "Hang the lawmakers".
The thing is, it's not funny. And it is certainly not the sort of comment that should ever come out of the pen of the chief political reporter for Hearst Newspapers, the largest newspaper group in the state of Connecticut, indeed, the chief political reporter for one of the country's largest newspaper congomerates. Right-wing provocateur Hal Turner is being prosecuted for threatening the lives of Connecticut judges and elected legislators on his web broadcast. He said on his broadcast, "Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed," according to the June 24 indictment. "Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions." The FBI also indicated that Turner had threatened the lives of state senator Andrew McDonald (D-Stamford) and state representative Michael Lawlor (D-East Haven). Should Ken Dixon get a pass when he hints that hanging elected officials in this state is a "bright idea", especially when his suggestion of violence was carried not on an obscure website, but in one of the state's most widely read newspapers? Just how much difference is there between Turner's call to kill judges and lawmakers and Dixon's "bright idea" of hanging lawmakers? Given the violent and hateful behavior of the tea party nutjobs during last summer's town hall meetings, and the dramatic rise in death threats against President Obama, is this really the sort of comment that should be coming out of anyone's mouth or pen? Is anyone in doubt that there are violent nutjobs out there who might just take Dixon up on his "bright idea"? Even for Ken Dixon, this is a truly stupid- and dangerous- thing to write.
Hearst Newspaper Company Senior Vice President Lincoln Millstein continues to slime Democrats in his Greewich Time blog, "Lincoln's Log". Let's keep this straight: Millstein is one of just four senior vice presidents in the entire company, and he reports to the company president. He is also the Senior VP responsible for all digital media at Hearst. Yet he promotes his own blog on the online edition of the newspaper for which he's responsible. And he still continues to mislead readers by not clearly identifying himself. The front page of his blog only says, "Lincoln Millstein offers his unique views and insights on Greenwich and its community". No mention on the front page that he's a senior executive, senior, in fact to everyone working at Greenwich Time.
He writes a very twisted version of the truth:
"(In a previous post, I was lambasted for referencing dictator Chang Kai-shek's regime, under which I spent my formative years, because he built both good schools and police stations."
No, I lambasted him for comparing the government and political system of Greenwich to the repressive regime of Chang Kai-Shek. He was not criticized for saying that Chang built good schools and police stations. That speaks volumes about the low standard of journalistic ethics with Millstein and Hearst. His suggesting that our town government in any way was equivalent to Chang's repressive dictatorship was highly insulting. But Millstein doesn't seem to think insulting our town's government in that manner is a problem.
The funny thing is that he is also writing critically about the town's educational system, which their education beat reporter Colin Gustafson refuses to criticize. Now how is it that a senior VP is writing about education in Greenwich Time when the paper has its own education reporter? Talk about making his own employees look bad. Is he sending Gustafson a message? If so, it's a lousy, very public way to embarrass one of the newspaper's reporters.
He writes:
School board issues self-congratulatory report on latest test scores (what's more important is not whether scores go up or down in one year or another. How we compare to the rest of the state is more important. I will follow with a detailed analysis in a separate post ...)
He says that comparison with other towns is most important. But shouldn't that message be conveyed by the GT publisher or editor to Gustafson? Why is Millstein trying to show him up? No class, that's for sure. Colin, get your resume together.
Why Hearst permits a senior executive to write a blog insulting local political leaders, while continuing to mislead readers by not pointing out clearly his position in the organization is inexplicable. The only answer is that the organization has no attachment to journalistic ethics.
Just how stupid do you have to be to write this sentence:
"It you like this fiscal crisis, thank a Democrat. They have dominated the Legislature since 1997, when the $10.4 billion budget had a $263 million surplus."
That pearl of wisdom came from Ken Dixon of the Connecticut Post in his February 6 column. Now let's just start with the fact that this is the same character who referred to Congressman Jim Himes just after his election as "a forty two year-old blank slate". Yep, Harvard grad, Oxford Master's, Rhodes Scholar, Goldman Sachs exec, chairman of the Democratic Party in Greenwich, top national executive for a major affordable housing non-profit- yep, Ken, that's a blank slate, alright! A man entirely void of accomplishment. You nailed it, Kenny Baby!
So that Ken Dixon now blames the Democrats in the state legislature for engineering the current fiscal crisis. Nope, he doesn't blame George Bush's policies that plunged us into the steepest job losses since the end of WW II, that have seen per capita auto sales fall to those during WW II, that have bankrupted our banking system, that have decimated Wall Street, that resulted in the worst stockmarket performance for any president since Herbert Hoover, that resulted in the worst job creation since Herbert Hoover. Nope, Kenny D blames the majority Democrats in the Constitution State, even though the state achieved fiscal surpluses for years until this current national crisis broke out. And he doesn't blame congressional Republicans for shortchanging Connecticut by returning back to the state barely 69 cents on every dollar of federal taxes we send to Washington, the third worst mark of any of the fifty states. Nope, for Kenny D, none of that reality is important. That's all for those silly denizens of the "reality-based community" to consider. In Kenny D's journalistic Lalaland, none of that matters.
Peter Urban wrote a press release for Chris Shays and published it in the Connecticut Post, trumpeting Shays as a "friend" of Obama who supports Obama's legislation. Urban, a noted Shays loyalist from way back, should get a special award -- (your suggestions here) -- for this effort.
Urban completely ignores the fact that Shays, for the past several weeks, has been publicly lying about Barack Obama's legislative record.
Here's how Urban's press release article begins:
WASHINGTON -- When it comes to his legislative priorities in the 110th Congress, Sen. Barack Obama has had no better friend in Connecticut than Rep. Christopher Shays.
The 4th District Republican has effectively signed on as a co-sponsor to a quarter of the 40 bills that Obama -- the Democrat's presidential nominee -- has introduced in the Senate over the last two years that have a companion bill in the House.
This must come as news to Shays, because Shays' claimed that:
Barack Obama has no record. None. Zero. Zip.
Here's the video:
The fact that Shays has co-sponsored Obama's legislation -- and then claimed Obama has no record -- is THE political story here. Any journalist worth his keyboard would see that.
Also, Shays lied about Obama's ability to work across party lines to write bipartisan legislation. Shays said:
Barack is as far left as any senator in the senate. Never has he shown an instant where he has come to the middle ...
So what does that make Shays? A leftist? No, he's just the CT Chairman of John McCain's campaign deliberately distorting Obama's record and then trying to ride Obama's coattails. None of which is mentioned by Urban. Peter Urban just writes what Shays wants him to write as if he's on the Shays payroll.
Urban did allow Rosa DeLauro to make the point "that how you vote is fundamentally more significant than the bills you sponsor.
"When there is a close vote, Chris Shays stands with George Bush and the Republicans," she said.
And Urban printed the Obama campaign's statement:
"[T]he good people of Connecticut should know that Barack Obama supports Jim Himes and believes Himes is the candidate who will bring the change American families need to Washington."
Then Urban ignores both points -- that Shays is in fact undermining the kind of change Obama stands for, and that Himes clearly wouldn't.
We have a disclaimer here at MLN: it's "where Connecticut Dems Scratch that Progressive Itch."
What I'd like to know is what itch is Peter Urban scratching.
I love the "tubes" of the "Internets" because when so called mainstream newspapers subtly distort stories with their biases in their news sections, they can easily be debunked.
The Connecticut Post http://www.connpost.... attempted to smear Bushman. Here's the breakdown. (See the end for why it failed.)
At a time when young men from Connecticut are losing their lives in the Iraq War, the Connecticut Post brings us some happy news from the land of the Young Republicans. In a story about one of Republican Congressman Chris Shays's interns, we are reminded that the Iraq War doesn't touch a great many Americans:
WASHINGTON - As a self-professed political junkie, Thomas Lambert is in heaven these days.
Since the end of August, the native of Fairfield, Conn., has worked as a college intern for Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4, where he has witnessed democracy played out on a daily basis.
"Having an opportunity to work in D.C. for Chris Shays is a dream come true," says Lambert, 20, a sophomore at Pepperdine University in Malibu, Calif.
Lambert ... has always viewed Shays as a model politician. "He is seen as a maverick, independent guy but if anything he is not marching to his own drum but the drum of the people he represents," Lambert says.
Of course, the story fails to mention that many of Shays' 20-something constituents are marching not to their own drums, but to war drums.
The glaring omissions from this story are these questions: How does Mr. Lambert feel about the Iraq War, which Congressman Shays has consistently supported? And if this intern does support the war -- and, like Chris Shays, feels threatened by "Islamofascists" -- why doesn't he enlist? Has he ever visited Walter Reed hospital, and what were his impressions? (Do interns for Democratic Congressmen, who were not interviewed for this story, feel the same way?) Based on those answers, we can better discern the type of future leaders the Republican Party and Chris Shays are grooming in Washington.
Instead, we find that the intern is escorting Sputnick and meeting the actor Chevy Chase.
"Going to school at Pepperdine, you're supposed to play off meeting actors, but Chevy Chase - the guy was in 'Caddyshack.' He's a hero," says Lambert, who worked as a caddy at The Country Club of Fairfield.
This month, Lambert served as an escort for Sputnik, which the Russians launched into space 50 years ago.
Chevy Chase is a hero because he was in the movie Caddyshack? Perhaps Mr. Lambert never heard of Killington's Jason Lantieri, or other CT residents who failed to make it safely back from the war. Perhaps it was just a poor choice of words from a kid wowed by celebrity. Perhaps, if he were asked, Mr. Lambert would have told us how torn he is about this conflict. Maybe he did express such thoughts, but the Post failed to print them. We don't know.
The Post and other CT newspapers would better serve its readers, especially the young ones, by reminding them that there's a war on, and the war comes with a price.
Instead, the Post tells us how great it is to be an intern in Washington and to meet a "hero" like Chevy Chase.
Most of us already know that press censorship and propaganda have replaced a media that formerly served to inform the public. What may be less obvious to some readers is an additional "dumbing down" of the news, prompted by an apparent failure of our education system. An avid news hound and hopeless bookworm, I have become acutely aware of the fact that many otherwise good writers -- if you simply evaluate ideas or creativity -- no longer understand the concept of noun-verb agreement and also cannot distinguish between a noun and an adjective. In the latter case, politics have come into play. I recently submitted the following letter to two Connecticut publications; however, it is unlikely that either paper will print it, as my comments reflect poorly on the publications themselves. Here's the letter:
Maybe Messrs. Shays and Lieberman can clear up a few things. Those two esteemed congressional representatives are recently back from trips to the never-ending war in Iraq, but neither of them seems especially downbeat. U.S. troop deaths are reaching all-time highs, but, apparently, there's reason for optimism. Who would've guessed!
Here's Sen. Lieberman: "Overall, I would say that what I see here today is progress. Significant progress from the last time I was here."
Shays, never one to contradict his Best Friend Forever, concurred. But just to make sure he was covered on all fronts, he made sure to temper his enthusiasm. "We have just encouraged the insurgents to throw everything they have at us. [U.S. officials] think it will be a very hot summer."
One can only wonder what in the world he's talking about. If the insurgents aren't "throw[ing] everything they have at us," then what to make of recent developments?
May 28, 2007 - 10 U.S. troops killed;
May 26, 2007 - eight U.S. troops killed;
May 19, 2007 - nine U.S. troops killed. [...]
As for Shays and Lieberman, their credibility on Iraq is so shot that it hardly matters what they say. They've been wrong over and over, time after time, year after year. Why should anyone possibly care what they have to say?
Holy well-deserved vitriol, batman. Read the whole thing. Did an MLNer sneak into the editor's office and take control of the keyboard?
I would officially like to welcome the Connecticut Post editorial page into the reality-based community on Shays and Lieberman. It's great to have you here. Please stay.
Peter Urban of the Connecticut Post writes an article today about Lieberman threatening to switch parties. Like almost every other article about this week's Lieberman Party threats, it completely ignores the Senator's promise to constitutents during the campaign that he would unequivocally caucus with the Democrats in the Senate:
"I'm giving the same answer to the question that I've given since the election last year," Lieberman said in Hartford. "I have no desire or intention to leave the Democratic Party.
Urban leaves this bogus claim unchallenged. On November 7th, the day before the election, Lieberman said "I'd said I've been a member of the Democratic Caucus; I'd stay that way."
This is the same reporter who, in a Connecticut Post article titled "Senate race: Shrill, nasty, expensive" on November 5th, 2006, correctly reported that:
Lieberman has pledged to caucus with the Democrats. And if the party can gain six seats Tuesday, he says he would be in line to become chairman of the Senate Homeland Security panel, a powerful committee dealing with the issue of terrorism.
As Brent Budowsky comments today at the Huffington Post:
Had Lieberman told the voters of Connecticut in October 2006 that he promised to blackmail the Senate to support an escalation of the Iraq War, Senator Lamont would be giving true voice to his constituents.
The only thing lower than Joe Lieberman's self-respect for Joe Lieberman's word of honor, is Joe Lieberman's lack of respect for the voters of Connecticut.
They should have asked for a lie detector test before voting last November.
Urban can be contacted at purban@ctpost.com. Or you can send a letter to the editor at edit@ctpost.com, or contact the Connecticut Post here. You might ask why this reporter in particular has chosen not to report on Lieberman's broken promise, when he reported on the promise itself last fall, helping convince Connecticut voters of its veracity in the process.
(And if you haven't seen it yet, there's more on this at Media Matters.)
(Wow. This is an awesome letter. Thanks Sue! - promoted by spazeboy)
Yes, the luau-shirt wearing reporter who spent Ned Lamont's campaign badgering him about his money finally receives a well-deserved kick in the pants by Doug Hardy, an associate editor of the Journal Inquirer in Manchester. This letter appeared in Dixon's own paper, The Connecticut Post.
(Unfortunately, the Connecticut Post doesn't put their letters to the editor online, so a link is unavailable. If you don't believe me, go buy Sunday's edition).
Here are pieces of a diary by Matt Stoller, which questions were our Connecticut press (*ahem*, Peter Urban, *cough* Ken Dixon and Susan Haight) are on the issue of Joe's latest lies.
MLN is powered by