Steve Chabot Meets Norman Rockwell

The other day I posted a piece about Rep. Steve Chabot's (R-OH) recent town hall meeting. During this town hall meeting, Chabot banned the use of cameras (though not media cameras) and even had a Cincinnati Police Officer confiscate equipment of those who tried to record the public meeting. This was all done for, as Chabot claimed, "security purposes" of those in attendance but as ThinkProgress pointed out, the real reason was so that people "didn't make a show" of the event.

The backlash from First Amendment advocates was intense and led to Chabot announcing that cameras would be permitted at his next event.

It is curious why some Conservatives claim to champion "personal freedom" while campaigning, but then deploy Orwellian tactics that are anything but open and honest when at a public event. Remember Ohio State Treasury Candidate Josh Mandel, whose staffer tried to block my camera during a public event in 2010? Or how about Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL) who recently distributed a "blacklist" of local activists who may criticize him at town hall meetings?

It appears that Rep. Chabot has fallen in with the crowd who are first to preach love for the Constitution and love for protesters (especially when speaking to them), but who take a much different stance when it is time to put those words into practice.

This leads me to a reader submitted graphic that might make an appropriate campaign sign for Chabot in the future. The artwork on this one is credited to Roger De Bris, "with apologies to Norman Rockwell":




This piece is cross posted here.

Steve Chabot Bans Cameras at Public Town Hall Meeting "For Security Purposes"

Thinking about taking a camera to record Rep. Steve Chabot's (R-OH) next public town hall meeting? Think again! According to this report from ThinkProgress, Chabot banned constituents from filming the town hall meeting:

Fearing pushback on issues like ending Medicare and corporate tax dodging, Chabot took an extraordinary step in order to prevent a possible “Youtube moment”: he banned constituents from filming the town hall. Outside the town hall were multiple signs reading, “For Security Purposes, Cameras Are NOT Permitted.” In fact, on at least two separate occasions, middle-aged constituents who tried to record the public event had their cameras confiscated and were asked to leave.

Oddly, media were permitted to film the event which undercuts the claim that cameras were banned "for security purposes". What is the real reason for Chabot's ban on public filming of the event? ThinkProgress has the answer:

...as one of Chabot’s staffers told ThinkProgress, they wanted to “prevent” people from “making a show” of the event. Indeed, Chabot and his staff were worried enough about citizens voicing their anger at his policies that they only accepted pre-screened questions chosen by the congressman’s staff.

Check out this video that was captured of Cincinnati Police confiscating cameras from citizens who were attempting to tape this public town hall meeting:

General Electric and News Corporation Censor Their News Divisions

One of the most disturbing stories that came out over the weekend was this story in The New York Times:

For years Keith Olbermann of MSNBC had savaged his prime-time nemesis Bill O’Reilly of the Fox News Channel and accused Fox of journalistic malpractice almost nightly. Mr. O’Reilly in turn criticized Mr. Olbermann’s bosses and led an exceptional campaign against General Electric, the parent company of MSNBC.

[...]

At an off-the-record summit meeting for chief executives sponsored by Microsoft in mid-May, the PBS interviewer Charlie Rose asked Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of G.E., and his counterpart at the News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch, about the feud.

Both moguls expressed regret over the venomous culture between the networks and the increasingly personal nature of the barbs. Days later, even though the feud had increased the audience of both programs, their lieutenants arranged a cease-fire, according to four people who work at the companies and have direct knowledge of the deal.

Yes, you read that correctly, the parent companies of NBC and Fox (General Electric and News Corporation respectively) negotiated a cease-fire between two of their commentators which has resulted in Keith Olbermann ceasing to attack Fox host Bill O'Reilly and O'Reilly backing off of his criticism of General Electric Chairman, Jeffrey Immelt. Why did executives of these parent companies feel that these actions were appropriate? (emphasis mine):

“It was time to grow up,” a senior employee of one of the companies said.

The reconciliation — not acknowledged by the parties until now — showcased how a personal and commercial battle between two men could create real consequences for their parent corporations. A G.E. shareholders’ meeting, for instance, was overrun by critics of MSNBC (and one of Mr. O’Reilly’s producers) last April.

“We all recognize that a certain level of civility needed to be introduced into the public discussion,” Gary Sheffer, a spokesman for G.E., said this week. “We’re happy that has happened.”

In other words, the decisions by the hosts of these programs were negatively effecting the business interests of the parent corporations. General Electric and News Corporation then decided that it would be a good business maneuver to exercise control over their news divisions by dictating what kind of coverage is off-limits. Can there be a more explicit example of how media consolidation and the corporate control of newsrooms has a negative effect on free speech and journalistic independence? It is for this very reason that I often use the phrase "stenographers to power" in describing the so-called "mainstream" media.

Glenn Greenwald has his usual insightful analysis:

Does anyone need it explained to them why it is so dangerous and destructive to have our political debates controlled by GE executives, sitting in their offices censoring the journalism of our leading media outlets in the name of "civility," code for: you will respect those who can harm us? Our entire political culture is already designed to ensure corporate control of our political institutions. Their lobbyists literally write the laws enacted by Congress and control their implementation. The reason the journalism industry insisted for so long on the ludicrous fiction that corporate parents never violated the sanctity of journalistic independence is precisely because everyone understood why that would be so dangerous. Apparently, they no longer feel a need to maintain that fiction.

Late Night Developments

A couple developments being reported:

Andrew Sullivan's blog links to Der Spiegel which is apparently reporting that Iran may bring in 5,000 Hezbollah troops for a "showdown".

Publicus thinks that the success of Twitter in Iran could end up being shut down:

Twitter is obviously one of the big stories to come out of the Iranian election. And it's been a remarkable development -- no argument there. The tweets have been inspiring and courageous. And there's an aesthetic dimension to them that's hard to resist.

But understand... the tweets could be stopped (more on that below). In fact, I worry that Twitter's success in Iran will create a false confidence that the Internet can't be stopped, and that people's digital voices can't be silenced. They can -- and we should understand that keeping an open global Internet requires aggressive effort and activism.

There are even apparently rumors within Iran that certain tags are being blocked on some feeds. Here is a Tweet from IranRiggedElect:

Still not confirmed if the #iranelection hashtag is blocked. KEEP USING IT. Could be a propaganda to disperse everyone.

and an interesting piece just up at the New York Times:

But many analysts say the differences between factions have never been quite so pronounced nor public as in the past few days. Former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, once a close Khamenei ally who helped him become supreme leader, sent an open letter to him in the days before the election warning that any fraud would backfire, Mr. Milani noted. If he allowed the military to ignore the public will and to destroy senior revolutionary veterans, the decision would haunt him, Mr. Rafsanjani warned: “Tomorrow it is going to be you.”

Everyone speaking of Ayatollah Khamenei tends to use the word “cautious,” a man who never gambles. But he now faces a nearly impossible choice. If he lets the demonstrations swell, it could well change the system of clerical rule. If he uses violence to stamp them out, the myth of a popular mandate for the Islamic revolution will die.

“The Iranian leadership is caught in a paradox,” said Ms. Nafisi, the author of memoirs about Iran.