From: "Ernest Hua" <hua@teralogic-inc.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 11:01:38 +0800
To: <HEDGES@infopeace.com>
Subject: Re: Censored news topic censored ...
Message-ID: <009301bdfe2d$970c6fc0$4164a8c0@mve21>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Ray & Mark,

Well, I found the show, so Mr. Suarez get the
bonus credit for having actually talked about
this topic on air.  Ray did talk about the
item because a caller brought it up.  He did
allude to the fact that these items might not
be given much attention.

However, my point was that
this was passed deliberately passed at a point
when the FBI knew too much other noise would
drown this item out of most mainstream media
outlets.  This subtle calculation of the media
response is the topic I am concerned about.

Any PARTICULAR media outlet, such as TOTN, may
not necessarily be guilty of censorship in the
deliberate sense, but lots of stories drop on
the proverbial cutting room floor, and the Wag
The Dog effect where the embarassing stuff was
manipulated into page 23 of NY Times while
bogus news items were fed for front page is
the effect I wanted to discuss with Ray.

Again, Ray, I am not saying YOU deliberately
censored anything, nor am I saying ANY news
outlet deliberately censored this story.  I am
accusing the FBI of counting on a particular
behavior on the part of Congress, news outlets,
and the American people at a time when lots of
budget items are flying by to slip their agenda
in, and this is particularly bad behavior for a
agency charged with protecting the constitutional
rights of law abiding citizens.

Ern

-----Original Message-----
From: Ernest Hua <hua@teralogic-inc.com>
To: TOTNMAIL@npr.org <TOTNMAIL@npr.org>
Cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net>;
letters@nytimes.com <letters@nytimes.com>; HEDGES@infopeace.com
<HEDGES@infopeace.com>
Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: Censored news topic censored ...


>Mr. Suarez,
>
>Ah ... I see where the misunderstandings are ...
>
>I am listening to the program on "The Budget Deal",
>which is the hour most likely to have any mention
>of the roving wiretap provision.
>
>On-the-air transcripts or not, however, I think you
>still miss the central point.  The issue is that
>most major news outlets did NOT report on HOW this
>provision was rammed through Congress.  I did not
>specifically accuse YOU of not reporting, which is
>probably why you are so defensive.  Certainly, the
>Market Place show reported this, and so did the San
>Jose Mercury, but not New York Times.  ABCNEWS only
>said that something was passed to help law
>enforcement, as if anything passed to help law
>enforcement is necessarily a good thing.
>
>The issue is not whether the issue of roving wire
>taps got any light of day.  The issue is that the
>process of the roving wire taps being rammed
>through Congress did NOT get the light of day,
>specifically because the FBI lobbyists did this at
>the last minute to get it hidden in all the noise
>of the frantic 11th hour budget deals ... which is
>why I thought the topic was most appropriate to the
>discussion of relevant news today.
>
>I did not claim to have a solution to the problem
>of too much noise to valuable news ratio.  However,
>some insight from someone like you, Ray, could have
>been a good discussion and education for all of us
>concerned with the FBI's legislative tricks.
>
>I would have also brought up the lack of reporting
>on the EU's concerns about US/UK mass wire tapping.
>It's clear that the NSA does not want this topic
>discussed, and in fact, had pressured the EU to not
>bring up the topic.  Wired magazine reported this
>within the last week, but S J Mercury had nothing
>on it, nor the N Y Times, etc ...
>
>Ray, please do not think I am accusing YOU of
>censoring the wire tap topic.  What I am concerned
>about is the news media's role in not shining a
>bright lights on these topics, and that is a very
>serious issue.
>
>Ern
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Hedges <hedges@infonex.com>
>Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 3:29 PM
>Subject: Re: Censored news topic censored ...
>
>
>>Interesting. Back to you, Ernest.
>>>From: TOTNMAIL@npr.org
>>>Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1998 18:24:54 -0400
>>>To: HEDGES@INFOPEACE.COM
>>>Your "evidence" of NPR collusion and stifling of the news would be most
>>>disturbing, except for the fact that I have discussed roving wiretaps on
>the
>>>air, explained the manner in which they were being rammed through with
>little
>>>debate, and talked about how it was a departure from years of precedence
>>>regarding warrants and court permission. I have the on-air transcript,
you
>>>have
>>>the hearsay of a caller who is disappointed because he didn't get on the
>air.
>>>
>>>Ray Suarez
>>
>>>This is most distressing.  I was one of the very first
>>>callers to your Talk of the Nation show today whose
>>>topic was relevant news reporting in the US.  My topic
>>>was the lack of reporting on the FBI's last minute
>>>sneak of the roving wire tap proposal into the
>>>intelligence budget bill.  I wanted Ray to talk about
>>>the editorial process and how these things get dropped
>>>on the floor as this item is extremely important to
>>>our democracy because it is an agency charged with
>>>protecting our Constitutional rights (the FBI) who is
>>>deliberately circumventing the democratic legislative
>>>process to pass a law which was sounded defeated two
>>>years ago in open debate.
>>>
>>>Ironically, my topic was censored, and I waited an
>>>hour, while other people wanted to discuss things
>>>like how they can vent about their divorce
>>>difficulties through the Monica Lewinsky scandal, only
>>>to be dropped in the end.
>>>
>>>Would any of the NPR staff or Mr. Suarez would like
>>>to explain just what happened here?