Journalist Amy Goodman Detained and Questioned at Canadian Border Crossing

Amy Goodman, Independent Journalist, author and host of Democracy Now! was traveling to Vancouver, Canada on Thanksgiving when she was detained and questioned by Canadian officials while trying to cross the border. Goodman and two colleagues were held and questioned for approximately 90 minutes while their belongings, including their notes and computers, were searched.

Goodman was on her way to speak at the Vancouver Public Library at a benefit for local community radio stations and the border guards seemed quite concerned over whether Goodman was going to speak out against the 2010 Winter Olympics which are being held in Vancouver.

To address why these border authorities were so concerned over the possibility of Goodman speaking out against the Olympics as well as the implications that this incident has on free speech, Goodman hosted a couple of guests this morning on Democracy Now!

Christopher Shaw, professor of Ophthalmology at the University of British Columbia. He is also a leading spokesperson for the No Games 2010 Coalition and 2010 Watch. He is the author of “Five Ring Circus: Myths and Realities of the Olympic Games.” and David Eby, Executive Director of British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

Here is the video from the broadcast:

From Exclusion to Misrepresentation: Chicago Tribune Reporter Raises More Questions Than She Answers

On September 17, 2009, the Chicago-based non-profit group Save-A-Life Foundation (SALF) filed for voluntary dissolution with the Illinois Secretary of State's Office, effectively closing down the embattled organization that was founded by Carol Spizzirri. While the organization was once well-known for teaching schoolchildren first-aid skills and how to respond in emergency situations, controversy over both the credibility of Spizzirri as well as the claims that she made about the accomplishments of the non-profit, have cast a dark shadow on both SALF and those who have provided the organization with millions of dollars in funding.

In 2006 and 2007 Spizzirri and SALF were the targets of a four-part investigative series by Chuck Goudie of Chicago's ABC 7. Goudie's investigation uncovered multiple red-flags about the organization. He found that Spizzirri fabricated her medical credentials by claiming that she was a Registered Nurse, he found that serious questions exist over Spizzirri's claims that SALF trained over a million school children since 1995, and Goudie found that SALF was under the medical advise of Dr. Henry Heimlich despite controversies over medical scenarios in which Heimlich believes that his "Maneuver" is appropriate.

The Cincinnati Beacon, and more specifically Jason Haap (The Dean of Cincinnati), has had a history of reporting on the controversies surrounding Dr. Heimlich, so when Goudie's investigation ran in 2006 and 2007, Haap continued to cover both Dr. Heimlich and the new questions that were stirred up about Carol Spizzirri.

SALF responded by suing Haap, Peter Heimlich (son of Dr. Henry Heimlich), and Dr. Robert Baratz (President of the National Council Against Health Fraud) claiming that they conspired to harm the reputation of SALF by spreading false information to agencies that gave funding to the non-profit. The lawsuit continued for the next two years until July, 2009 when SALF dropped the charges against the trio, just two months before the organization filed for voluntary dissolution.

As I reported a few weeks ago, Chicago Tribune reporter Lisa Black wrote an article entitled "Save-a-Life Foundation in limbo" that was published on the Tribune's website on October 11, 2009.

Black's piece told her readers that SALF was "in limbo" despite the fact that the dissolution paperwork was filed a month before her piece was written and Black also gave Carol Spizzirri the definitive last word on many of the controversial issues that have surrounded both her, and her organization over the years.

As I also reported, Lisa Black was one of two Tribune reporters on the potential witness list for SALF in the lawsuit that was filed against Haap, Heimlich, and Baratz. Since Black had failed to disclose this information to her readers and since the only voice that was represented in her piece was that of a noted controversial figure, I decided to take a closer look at both what was said and what wasn't said in Black's piece.

Peter Heimlich is the son of Dr. Henry Heimlich (who invented the famous "Maneuver" that bears his name) and runs a wholesale textile business with his wife in the Atlanta area. In Heimlich's spare time, he runs the website medfraud.info on which he posts research that is critical of many of his father's claims. Heimlich was one of the three named in the defamation lawsuit and in my initial piece, I wondered why there were no quotes from either Heimlich or any of his co-defendants in Lisa Black's piece which specifically mentions the case. Instead, Black quotes Carol Spizzirri as saying the lawsuit "took its toll" and is partly responsible for SALF's closure.

I contacted Peter Heimlich and asked if Lisa Black had reached out to him for comment on this issue. Heimlich stated that he was in fact contacted by Black, but that her line of questioning raised his suspicions. "She seemed determined to focus on me and portray me in a negative light," Heimlich stated, "For example, Black asked me to answer a half-dozen loaded questions that had nothing to do with the case and were based on bizarre false claims about me. I asked Black where she got this ridiculous information and she wrote back that it came from Carol Spizzirri."

Heimlich also told me that Black "refused" to interview his co-defendants in the defamation case or anyone that would be critical of SALF, so I contacted both Jason Haap and Dr. Robert Baratz.

Jason Haap, co-founder of the Cincinnati Beacon (to which I am a regular contributor), confirmed that Lisa Black never contacted him and Dr. Baratz (speaking to me on his own accord and not on behalf of the National Council Against Health Fraud) confirmed the same. Dr. Baratz added that Peter Heimlich had made him aware of Black's interest in the legal case and that he had sent Black the following email:

“Peter Heimlich indicated in an email you may want to speak with me regarding the SALF lawsuit (now withdrawn), and perhaps other matters regarding potential fraud with grants, contracts, and other activities.
I am happy to speak with you.”

He never received a reply.

I also contacted Attorney Wayne Giampietro who represented Haap, Heimlich and Baratz in the defamation lawsuit. Giampietro told me that he did speak with Black regarding the case. "We talked about the case, what it alleged, why it was dropped, etc." he stated, "Virtually nothing I told her during that conversation was included in her article."

What also wasn't included in her article was that her name was on the list of requested witnesses on behalf of SALF for the very lawsuit on which she reported. I sent Lisa Black, as well as her editors Peter Kendall and Peter Hernon, multiple requests to comment on whether they were aware that Black's name appeared on this list and if they felt that this information should have been disclosed to readers. While I didn't receive a reply from any of them, Peter Heimlich tells me that he did make Black and Peter Kendall aware that her name appeared on this witness list and that she didn't view it as a problem. According to Heimlich:

I sent her an e-mail asking if she was aware that she was on SALF's witness list. She replied, "I had no idea I was named on a potential witness list. I did some reporting on SALF a few years ago but we never published an article." I then asked if being named as a witness would affect her reporting a story about the lawsuit. She immediately replied, "I don't see why it would be an issue since the suit has been dismissed and I don't remember being contacted about it by any lawyers."

Heimlich then told me that he wrote a letter to Peter Kendall on October 2 that expressed his concerns and requesting that a different reporter be assigned to the story. Heimlich says he never received a reply.

While Attorney Wayne Giampietro verifies that he never contacted Black about her name being on the witness list, the issue of disclosure may not be as clear-cut as Black seemed to indicate to Heimlich.

Dr. Richard Campbell is the Director of the journalism program at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. Campbell has written books and numerous articles on the media and journalism for publications such as the Columbia Journalism Review, Journal of Communication, and Media Studies Journal. He received his MA from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and his PhD from Northwestern University. I spoke with Dr. Campbell about this topic.

"Of course the reporter should have disclosed the information," he says, "The point of good journalism is to insure that readers know as much about the events or issues being covered as possible, and this includes full disclosure of the reporter’s connections to what he/she is covering." Dr. Campbell believes that the mainstream media has "general credibility problems" and that the claim of objectivity isn't necessarily realistic. "The best you can be is to try and be fair," he says and that in critiquing journalists one needs to ask if they have been fair, complete, and if they tell multiple sides of the story. Dr. Campbell concludes, "In this situation, that's leaving stuff out that should be there."

With Black failing to disclose that she was on this list, it only manages to raise more questions about her connections to SALF and to Carol Spizzirri. Dr. Robert Baratz: "Ms. Black was a named witness by SALF in the litigation. She never appeared, was deposed, or generated a report. Thus there was no opportunity to even find out why she was a witness, let alone what she knew that would contribute to the plaintiff’s (SALF’s) case, or what her relationship was with SALF or its principals that would put her on the witness list."

It isn't just the fact that Black left this disclosure out of her piece that raises questions about her objectivity. In Black's piece she wrote (emphasis mine):

Spizzirri launched a nonprofit organization dedicated to teaching children emergency response techniques, raising at least $8.6 million in federal and state grants for her Save-A-Life Foundation. Firefighters and paramedics were recruited to offer instruction on how to apply CPR and stop bleeding and choking, said Spizzirri, who estimates 2 million children took the classes, many of them from the Chicago Public Schools.

[...]

Much of the foundation’s work, Spizzirri said, focused on Chicago’s public schools. City school officials did not respond to inquiries about how many students received emergency training, but officials previously confirmed that the foundation taught classes that were arranged by individual schools.

Peter Heimlich informed me that when he was in communication with Black prior to the publication of her article, he provided her with the subpoenaed records from his case (which can be viewed here). "Training hundreds of thousands of kids should have produced piles of supporting paperwork," Heimlich said, "but our subpoena to the Chicago Board of Education produced a skimpy 19 pages showing only a few hundred people received SALF training at a handful of Chicago schools."

While Black did not mention this subpoena in her piece she did state that "officials previously confirmed that the foundation taught classes that were arranged by individual schools." This sentence gave Peter Heimlich pause, "Was Black basing that on the subpoenaed records?" he asks, "If so, she was not only ignoring the elephant in the room -- the lack of supporting records for SALF's claims -- she was trying to hide the elephant."

I attempted to obtain comment on many of these issues from Lisa Black, Peter Kendall and Peter Hernon, but after multiple attempts to reach all of them I have not received a response to any of my inquires.

As is usually the case, secrecy and actions that are not transparent only create more questions than they do answers. Among the Code of Ethics listed by the Society of Professional Journalists are the following items:

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

These standards seem to stand in stark contrast to how Lisa Black and the Chicago Tribune decided to report this most recent story, especially considering that this is how Chicago Tribune Editor Gerould Kern recently described the Tribune's commitment to "keeping their promise" to their readers:

In a special report in June, we told you about our commitment to watchdog reporting, and we promised to stand guard for Chicago. Local investigative reporting is at the heart of our mission, and it drives everything we do.

We are keeping that promise. Each day we make watchdog reporting a defining characteristic of our news report.

The recent reporting on SALF lies in sharp contrast to both Kern's comments about the Tribune as well as the standards outlined by the Society of Professional Journalists. Given that journalism is supposed answer questions, shine a bright light on the truth, and tell a complete story, it is problematic when an organization fails to adhere to these standards. Reporter Lisa Black's failure to give Tribune readers a fair and complete picture of the controversies surrounding SALF, as well as her failure to disclose relevant information regarding her connection to a lawsuit on which she was reporting, only raises more questions than are answered. If the Chicago Tribune views this kind of reporting as "keeping their promise", then their readers may be inclined to wonder how other stories are being presented.



This article is cross posted here.

Citizens Gather for "End the Fed" Event in Downtown Cincinnati (Video Report)

This is cross posted here.

Can You Smell What Sarah Palin is Cookin'?

There are many times where I would like to bang my head against a wall when I read the numerous stories that center around the one-woman drama show that is Sarah Palin. I am sure that many of you have felt the same way. There are those out there who dismiss her as being a mere blip on the Conservative radar that has no future chance of winning office and there are those who take her very seriously as a new face of the Conservative movement.

I am somewhere in-between on this one. I have yet to be convinced that she is a new brand of Conservative that will redefine the Republican Party, but I also don't think that she should be just ignored with the hope that she goes away. Palin has this raw appeal that resonates with many angry Conservative Americans. Even when she is factually wrong, even when she says ridiculous things in interviews...she still connects emotionally with a large number of people. That is interesting and really can't be simply dismissed.

Matt Taibbi over at Rolling Stone has a new piece up on his blog which breaks this issue down in greater depth. It is worth the full read, but I have included just a couple of clips below:

Sarah Palin’s battlefield, on the other hand, is whatever is happening five feet in front of her face. She is building a political career around the little interpersonal wars in the immediate airspace surrounding her sawdust-filled head. And in the process she connects with pissed-off, frightened, put-upon America on a plane that’s far more elemental than the mega-ditto schtick.

Most normal people cannot connect on an emotional level with Rush’s meanderings on how Harry Reid is buying off Mary Landrieu with pork in the health care bill. They can, however, connect with stories about how top McCain strategist and Karl Rove acolyte Steve Schmidt told poor Sarah to shut her pie-hole on election day, or how her supposed allies in the McCain campaign stabbed her in the back by leaking gossip about her to reporters, how Schmidt used the word “fuck” in front of her daughter, or even with the strange tales about Schmidt ordering Sarah to consult with a nutritionist to improve her campaign endurance when she herself knew she just needed to get out in the fresh air and run (If there’s one thing Sarah Palin knows, it’s herself!).

[...]

Sarah Palin is on an endless crusade against assholes. It’s all she thinks about. She doesn’t really have any political ideas, in the classic sense of the word — in fact the only thing resembling real political convictions in Going Rogue revolve around the Trans-Alaska pipeline and how awesome she thinks it is.

Most of the rest of the book just catalogs her Gump-esque rise to national stardom (not having enough self-awareness to detect the monstrous narcissistic ambition that in reality was impelling her forward all along, she labors in the book to describe her various career leaps as lucky accidents or mystical acts of Providence) and the seemingly endless parade of meanies bent on tripping her up along the way.

[...]

She is the country’s first WWE politician — a cartoon combatant who inspires stadiums full of frustrated middle American followers who will cheer for her against whichever villain they trot out, be it Newsweek, Barack Obama, Katie Couric, Steve Schmidt, the Mad Russian, Randy Orton or whoever. Her followers will not know that she is the perfect patsy for our system, designed as it is to channel popular anger in any direction but a useful one, and to keep the public tied up endlessly in pointless media melees over meaningless nonsense (melees of the sort that develop organically around Palin everywhere she goes). Like George W. Bush, even Palin herself doesn’t know this, another reason she’s such a perfect political tool.

Lou Dobbs Continues his Post-CNN Media Tour

Lou Dobbs, freshly departed from his gig at CNN, stopped by The Daily Show last night. Jon Stewart extended the segment into a three-part conversation that is posted at The Daily Show's website and also right here:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 3
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

I thought Stewart was pretty good in this conversation, but it wasn't his best. The conversation stayed very down to Earth and Stewart was able to challenge Dobbs on a few key points, but Stewart didn't touch on Dobbs' controversial stance on "illegal" immigration or on his recent birther comments. Stewart also allowed Dobbs to paint President Obama as a "far left" President which, in turn, framed Dobbs as being a centrist. Then again, Stewart is just the host of a satirical comedy show right?

One of the more important points that Stewart did bring up, which I believe is both revealing and central to this conversation, is the past silence of those who are suddenly criticizing the so-called destruction of our freedoms by the government. I have stated this in the past, but it is quite clear that during the last eight years, the tea-partiers and 9/12'ers were totally silent on these issues. It is only now, when there is a black Democratic President in the White House, when there is sudden outrage from the right and being adopted as a viable business strategy by a major "news" corporation.

If you want to take a look at a really interesting interview of Dobbs and a subsequent discussion, I point you to this interview that was conducted by Democracy Now! hosts Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez in December of 2007. Dobbs is confronted and forced to try and explain apparent inaccuracies that he stated on his broadcast. I will post some of the transcript below, but I highly recommend you follow that link and watch the entire conversation.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Lou, you said a third of the prison population are illegal aliens.

LOU DOBBS: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: The fact is, it’s something like 6% of prisoners in this country are non-citizens, not even illegal, just non-citizens.

LOU DOBBS: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: And then a percentage of that would not be documented.

LOU DOBBS: Well, it’s actually—I think it’s 26% in federal prison.

AMY GOODMAN: But you said of all prisoners.

LOU DOBBS: I said about—yes, but I—and I misspoke, without question. I was referring to federal prisoners.

AMY GOODMAN: But you didn’t say that, and so it leaves people with the impression—

LOU DOBBS: Well, I didn’t, but then I just explained it to you.

AMY GOODMAN: But you have a very large audience on CNN.

LOU DOBBS: I have a very large audience and a very bright audience.

AMY GOODMAN: And you told them that a third of the population of this country are illegal immigrants. 6% , which is under the population of immigrants—

LOU DOBBS: 6% , right.

AMY GOODMAN: —in this country, of prisoners—

LOU DOBBS: In state prisons.

AMY GOODMAN: —are immigrants.

LOU DOBBS: In state prisons. In state prisons.

AMY GOODMAN: No, 6% overall are immigrants. You said 30% are illegal.

LOU DOBBS: Well, I think we’ve established—we could sit here and say this all day, Amy. The fact is, the number is 26% in federal prisons. That’s what I was referring to. I did not—I misspoke when I said “prisons.” I was referring to the federal prisons, because that’s the federal crime: immigration. And that—

AMY GOODMAN: Have you made a correction on your show to say that 30% of—?

LOU DOBBS: I’m sure we have. We’ve reported—absolutely.

AMY GOODMAN: We didn’t see it.

[...]

AMY GOODMAN: Another guest that you’ve had on the show—now, this is a very important point, and this is one that you would agree that you’ve covered, and that is Arizona—this is very important—the Protect Arizona Now referendum. In late 2004, it was revealed that the new head of the national advisory board to Protect Arizona Now, an anti-immigration organization, was a longtime white supremacist who was also an editorial advisor to the racist Council of Conservative Citizens. Although Virginia Abernethy’s controversial selection was reported prominently in virtually every Arizona paper, and despite the fact that Lou Dobbs heavily cover the anti-immigration referendum that Protect Arizona Now was advocating, you never mentioned the affair at all, her controversial selection as head of this group.

LOU DOBBS: And she was featured in how many reports?

AMY GOODMAN: The point is, you covered Protect Arizona Now extensively, and this is certainly significant, when it turns out that the head of the board of Protect Arizona Now is—

LOU DOBBS: And when was the last time she was on the show?

AMY GOODMAN: No, the important point is, you didn’t report the news of this very controversial—

LOU DOBBS: Is it possible—

AMY GOODMAN: —racist woman who headed Protect Arizona Now, which was virtually in every Arizona paper. The question is—

LOU DOBBS: Concurrent with our reporting?

AMY GOODMAN: —what you report and what you don’t.

LOU DOBBS: Concurrent with our reporting?

AMY GOODMAN: Of course. This is in 2004. The point is, what you report, Lou, and what you don’t report.

LOU DOBBS: Well, you know, Amy, I don’t know what to tell you, because, you know, based on your focus here today, you have focused on probably three or four reports, as best I can figure, out of more than five years of reporting on the issue. If that smacks at all to you of reasonable proportionate journalism on your part, I mean, God bless you. If that’s what you believe, God bless you. But I think you’re coming from an ideological position that has just absolutely skewed that perception and that perspective.

Palin's Interview with Barbara Walters

As it appears many do, I find Sarah Palin's widespread appeal to Conservatives very interesting. Every time she gives an interview, it is clear that to some, the accuracy of her claims have no bearing on her popularity. Even when she lies through her teeth.

The Huffington Post has compiled "18 of the Biggest Falsehoods" in Palin's new book and the Associated Press also did a fact check of the book. The New York Times summarizes:

The A.P. suggests that history and Ms. Palin diverge on a number of points, adding that her recollection of the awarding of lucrative natural gas contracts seems at odds with what happened, that her campaign financing included its share of high rollers in spite of her suggestion to the contrary, and that her warm feelings toward the Exxon Valdez settlement are a recent development. The A.P. knocks her for persistent historical revisionism and tartly concludes, “‘Going Rogue’ has all the characteristics of a precampaign manifesto, the requisite autobiography of the future candidate.”

Frankly, it should not a surprise to anyone that Palin has a rocky relationship with the truth, but what is noteworthy is her continued support despite her blatant contradictions that are exposed so publicly and so thoroughly.

Here is her most recent interview with Barbara Walters:





Watch her response at about 6:22 in the second video. Does anyone actually believe that Levi has "nothing" on her?

Counter-Protester Tricks Participants in an Anti-Immigration Rally

Over the weekend, some anti-immigration protesters gathered on the steps of Minnesota's State Capitol building to hold a rally. (h/t Amanda Terkel)

The interesting part? There were some counter-protesters that had gathered with this group and one of them, a concerned citizen from Minnesota named "Robert Erickson", actually got on the list of speakers.

Erickson delivered a scathing speech denouncing immigrants who come to take American jobs and encouraging the crowd to send the immigrants "back where they came from". It wasn't until the last third of Erickson's speech that it became clear that he was actually talking about European immigrants.

By this point it was too late as the crowd was already solidly behind Erickson as he denounced how European immigrants inflicted genocide on an entire population and stole land from this county's true inhabitants. He even finishes his speech by leading the crowd in a "Columbus go home" chant.

Here is video of his speech:



This piece is cross posted here.