The Strupp Blog as you have known it is soon to disappear.

But I will not.

My investigative work and reporting will appear elsewhere on the website, principally on Media Matters main blog.

I am looking forward to focusing full-time on producing original stories about the news media.

You can still find my past work at www.mediamatters.org/strupp.

As always, send any ideas, tips or comments to me at jstrupp@mediamatters.org and keep following me on Twitter and Facebook.

Thanks, Joe

Whether or not Juan Williams deserved to be fired from NPR, it's clear that Fox News regularly airs far worse anti-Muslim commentary.

Some examples:

On the October 15 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade defended O'Reilly's View comments by claiming the show's hosts "were outraged that somebody was saying there's a reason -- there was a certain group of people that attacked us on 9-11. It wasn't just one person. It was one religion. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." Kilmeade later repeated the false claim that "every terrorist is a Muslim" on his radio show. He also asked if "Americans have a right to look at moderate Muslims and say, 'Show me you're not one of them,' " referring to terrorists. On October 18, Kilmeade said: "I misspoke. I don't believe all terrorists are Muslims. I'm sorry about that, if I offended ... or hurt anybody's feelings. But that's it." He also revised his remarks on the October 18 edition of his radio show.

On the September 7 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer said of the Park51 Islamic center, "It could also be the first stop for a radical jihadist who comes to America who wants to go pray." On the August 18 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Dick Morris said of Park51: "These Sharia mosques ... have become the command centers for terrorism," adding, "So this one would be, too." The next day, Morris made similar remarks on Fox & Friends; during the show, Fox Business host Eric Bolling also claimed that Park51 "may be a meeting place for some of the scariest minds -- some of the biggest terrorist minds." Kilmeade later said of Park51: "The next Hamburg cell could be right downtown."

On his August 18 radio show, Glenn Beck said of Park51: "You look for things that are uniting, and I'm sorry, but the Cordoba Project is not uniting. If you wanted to unite people, you don't spit in their face. You don't spit in their face. On the 10th anniversary, after you've killed 3,000 people, you're going to now build your mosque on -- there, really?" Beck has repeatedly falsely claimed that Park51 was scheduled to open on September 11, 2011. He has also referred to the Islamic center as "the 9-11 mosque" and has wondered if it is "a possibility" that Park51's location is about "inoculation."

But when asked by Media Matters what their policy on anti-Muslim rhetoric is, Fox News spokespeople did not respond.

The attorney for a former Fox News employee who is suing the news channel claiming he was wrongly fired for complaining about racism and discrimination in the workplace says retaliation against his client is the most serious offense.

Mark Taylor, who is representing Harmeen Jones in the lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court, told Media Matters that his client had taken his concerns about racist comments and harassment to Fox News human resources officials only to be fired for his efforts.

"One of the big issues here is retribution," Taylor said Thursday. "The fact that when someone who works for a company goes through the proper channels to address this and the response of the company is to fire the person who is complaining, that is something that the law takes very seriously."

Fox News did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.

Jones, 32, worked at Fox News from 2005 to 2009, according to Taylor. The lawsuit cites numerous instances of racist comments allegedly made by co-workers in front of Jones, who is African-American. It also notes other claims of a hostile work environment and infliction of emotional distress.

"In my mind, retaliation is the part that jumps out the most," Taylor said. "What we can expect as a society is that a corporation will address these things."

Taylor cited a string of e-mails between Jones and Fox News human resources officials as clear evidence that they dismissed his complaints and fired him because of them.

"A lot has gone on with human resources, his communications with human resources including e-mails," he said. "It makes very clear that sequence of events and timing and the fact that the attitude of his co-workers made it hard for him to do his job and that the response was to terminate him."

Taylor also pointed out that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had reviewed Jones' claim, as required by law, prior to the lawsuit being filed. He also said Fox had not responded to the lawsuit.

Asked if any other employee claims of retaliation played into the decision to file the lawsuit, Taylor cited the recent case of Catherine Herridge, a Fox News Washington, D.C., staffer whose case was taken up by the EEOC itself.

On Sept. 30, the EEOC sued Fox News on behalf of Herridge, a move Taylor said indicates his client is not alone in finding a retaliatory workplace.

"The rarely do that," he said of the EEOC.

The EEOC alleged that Fox News retaliated against Herridge after she complained about discrimination by asking her to sign a contract which included an assurance that she would not allege discrimination in the future.

Several participants in a secret conference sponsored by Koch Industries spoke to Media Matters about Glenn Beck's speech at the event. According to these participants, Beck's talk focused on the "free market," "less government interference," and "the collapse of the Constitution."

The multi-day event held last June in Aspen, Colo., included Beck's session, titled "Is America on the Road to Serfdom?" on June 27.

The conference was first reported on yesterday by The New York Times and Think Progress.

Each participant who spoke with us said Beck pushed a clear agenda for less government regulation and more pro-business approaches.

"It was more about what is happening with the United States, the collapse of the Constitution," said Mary Beth Weiss of Hinsdale, Ill., who attended with her husband, Richard. "The gist of the whole agenda of the meetings is free enterprise, less government. It was a principle of the founding fathers, freedom for unlimited prosperity and less government."

She added that: "I can only take so much of Glenn Beck. His presentation there was not as showman-like as it is on TV. I was far more enthralled with Charles Krauthammer."

Nestor Weigand of Wichita, Kan., and CEO of J.P. Weigand & Sons Real Estate, said Beck "was a guy who appeared to be very sincere in what he was doing. It was a multitude of focus, on free market, less government interference at all levels."

Weigand added about Beck's presentation: "It was about more elasticity in the marketplace and letting people sink or swim on their own. Just looking at a smaller government, less interference and knowing that government can't fix everything."

Weigand said he became a bigger fan of Beck after seeing him at the event. "When you have a chance to look at someone you can change your opinion and mine was more favorable," he said. "I had a chance to talk to him personally, he was sincere."

Weigand declined to reveal what he discussed with Beck.

Sue Wills of Dallas, Tex., who attended with her husband, Don, declined to comment on Beck. But she said she and some others there believe the Kochs are under attack from the government: "Obama doesn't like the Kochs. It is a pretty sad time in our country."

Another participant, Richard Weekley of Houston, said he saw Beck's presentation, saying only, "It was a very strong meeting, it was very stimulating."

Three veteran psychiatrists who viewed a portion of a Glenn Beck program repeatedly cited by alleged gunman Byron Williams are raising concerns about the effect that the conspiracy theory-filled clip might have on viewers.

Beck devoted his June 21 show to an intricate conspiracy theory involving George Soros, Barack Obama, the Center for American Progress, and the BP oil spill.

In the first 17 minutes of the show -- which the psychiatrists watched at Media Matters' request -- Beck used his chalkboard to falsely claim that Obama had funneled taxpayers dollars to the Brazilian oil company Petrobras and had imposed a moratorium on deep water oil drilling in order to enrich philanthropist George Soros.

During the same segment, Beck claimed that Soros had "helped start the Tides Foundation," which Beck said was indoctrinating children to oppose capitalism. Beck also suggested that Soros might try to have Beck killed, saying, "I do have a bulletproof car, George. I just want you to know."

Watch the 17-minute Beck clip here:

Williams, who also spoke at length in a recent interview with Media Matters, has cited Beck's "June" shows repeatedly when talking about the Soros-Obama-Petrobras conspiracy theory, which he said is what informed his assassination plan.

Williams told investigators that he was on his way to kill members of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU in San Francisco when police pulled him over in Oakland and got into a shoot out with him, in which two officers were injured. Williams has said he planned to target Tides because he believed -- falsely -- that it is a front group for Soros to funnel money to radical causes.

Beck has spoken out against the Tides Foundation on dozens of occasions, including in the above clip.

Psychiatrists who watched the Beck clip at the request of Media Matters raised concerns about how Beck's show could affect viewers.

"It is hard to watch the video; it is so blatantly trying to incite people," said Philip R. Muskin, a clinical psychiatrist at Columbia University Medical Center. "You listen to him and say, 'what the heck is he saying?' Is he joking? Is he just trying to be inflammatory? Does he believe this stuff? I don't know, but it is certainly inflammatory."

Muskin adds, "It is said in a very 'I'm telling you the truth' way."

Muskin said that Beck's approach has "great potency because this is a talented man and he uses his talent. When people like Beck say things like this they are not being responsible in understanding that some of their viewers may be unduly influenced. He literally says George Soros is evil.

"When people do that and try to rabble rouse, they are not thinking of Byron Williams or someone who may have a lot of [emotional] issues."

Another psychiatrist, Steven P. Levine of Princeton, N.J., also had concerns about the impact Beck's tirade might have on viewers.

"I could imagine that for a section of the population looking for a consensus to confirm their own suspicions of government in general, this is good fodder for them," Levine said. "Because of his style, for those who are less inclined to be naturally skeptical, who are looking for someone to support their views, it adds fuel to the fire. He loses credibility when he uses inflections to push his point."

Levine also pointed to Beck's own reference to violence as a problem: "One thing that caught my attention was when he was mugging for the camera and telling George Soros he has a bullet-proof car."

Adds Levine: "[Beck] is implying that what he is saying is so inflammatory that people would want to kill him, that there would be an expected response.

Rosalie Greenberg, a psychiatrist based in Summit, N.J., who has written on such issues for Huffington Post, said, "it makes me concerned if anyone really depends on him for news."

After viewing the video, she noted: "I find it frightening if people will take it as the truth. If that is someone's only source of news, they should know it is not a regular news show."

As for the emotional impact on some viewers, Greenberg added, "There is a lot of drama and it is entertainment. But the entertainment and news is getting blurred. If people think they are watching news it is a little scary."

Zurich Financial Services Group, which dropped its advertising from Glenn Beck's Fox News program last year, is considering removing all ads from Fox News in response to a request by the Tides Foundation, according to a company spokesman.

Asked if Zurich would pull its Fox News ads in response to the Tides boycott, Sean Kevelighan, vice president and head of group media relations for Zurich's North America group, said: "at this time, no decision has been made. They are looking into it."

Other advertisers targeted in the boycott have yet to respond to Media Matters since Monday. Media Matters is also supporting the boycott.

Tides, which has been the subject of dozens of Beck criticisms in recent years, launched the boycott request following an incident this summer in which, according to police, gunman Byron Williams admitted he had been on his way to kill members of Tides and the ACLU in San Francisco on July 18. 

Oakland, Ca., police stopped Williams as he traveled to San Francisco, an incident that ended in a shootout in which several highway patrolmen were injured. Williams has since told Media Matters that he was a regular viewer of Beck and that the conspiracy theories aired on Beck's show had helped inform his alleged assassination plot. Beck's show had helped inform his views on Tides.

Zurich last year dropped its advertising from Beck's show, but not Fox News entirely.

"It was a decision made by the company that certain elements of the show did not align with the company's values," Kevelighan said about the 2009 ad removal, declining to offer more specifics. "It was just a conscious decision made in '09."

Zurich recently complained to Fox News after its ads were again shown on Beck's program during repeat telecasts of the show that aired in March and April.

Kevelighan said in an e-mail to Media Matters:

We have been informed that FOX erroneously ran Zurich ads twice during repeat airings of the Glenn Beck program. As such, FOX is working with Zurich's media purchasing firm Mindshare to ensure our directive to not advertise during any airing of the Glenn Beck show is upheld without any future errors.

Kevelighan declined to comment further on Beck or the Tides Foundation boycott request.

Former New York Times Public Editor Byron Calame found problems with Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller's appearance on Fox News Sunday given the news channel's history of ethical problems and parent company News Corp.'s recent political donations.

"If it were me, I wouldn't do it," Calame said Monday. "Is Fox News so biased and perceived to be so one-sided that you are contaminated by going on their air? I don't know. It is a close call."

Calame, also a former Wall Street Journal editor who spent 39 years at that paper, raised the issue of News Corp.'s recent million dollar donations to the Republican Governors Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He said those actions further impact the credibility of all News Corp. outlets, not just Fox.

"It doesn't just affect Fox News, it affects the Journal and other News Corp. outlets," he said. "It creates a perception problem to have such large donations on the books. I am sure News Corp. is giving money to Democrats, but nothing like those amounts. I think it creates needless perception questions."

The appearance of a Times scribe on the Fox News show drew criticism from two other Times veterans, who found the mixing of the respected newspaper with Fox questionable.

"It is a bad idea, period," said Alex S. Jones, director of the Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. "I think the format is calculated to make you say things you would like to put back in your mouth."

Jones spent nine years at The Times as its media reporter from 1983 to 1992 and also co-wrote a respected book on the paper, 'The Trust,' published in 1999.

He said Times reporters appearing on any cable talk show is a mistake, but singled out Fox, stating, "Fox is an organ of the Republican party. I think everyone who goes on there shares in being used by them for their entertainment value. Fox uses them to demonstrate they are open-minded by putting the Times on there. But does it show Fox is open-minded? I don't think so."

One former Times editor who requested anonymity also criticized the move: "I think it is really stupid," the former editor said. "They become a party in the partisan debate. I don't think the reader is served by that."

Former Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent weighed in on the issue years ago. In a February 6, 2005, piece, Okrent explained why TV appearances are "bad for reporters, and bad for The Times," citing Bumiller in one of the instances:

On television, dogged questioning can appear to be oppositional, even harassing. When White House correspondent Elisabeth Bumiller served as a panelist in a televised debate during last winter's primary season, some readers were convinced that her aggressive questioning of John Kerry and a head-to-head scrap with Al Sharpton demonstrated hostility. The same questions and the same attitudes deployed in a private interview could have produced answers that, in the paper, would have seemed absolutely proper and appropriate. But television can transform and distort reality; thinking you know a reporter from what you see on TV can be like thinking you know an actor from the way he behaves on stage.

In the same column, he also stated:

... reporters represent the standards of the entire paper's news gathering effort. It would be overkill for The Times to keep its reporters off television in all circumstances, but surely the top editors understand how publicity that can undermine reader trust is the worst kind of publicity a newspaper can get. They need to enforce a policy ensuring that no staff member will "say anything on radio, television or the Internet that could not appear under his or her byline in The Times."

Should be easy: those words are directly from the paper's "Ethical Journalism" handbook. But mild admonition is no insurance against reporters' getting ambushed, flattered or flustered into saying something an editor would strike in an instant. The only way the Times is going solve this problem is by making it a practice to regulate its reporters' appearances, and letting the paper - the reason everyone's here - speak for itself.

Times Executive Editor Bill Keller defended the appearance, but admitted the paper discourages staffers from appearing on "noisier cable shout-fests."

Following Media Matters coverage of Bumiller's appearance yesterday, Keller responded to a request for comment in an e-mail today, stating:

I missed Elisabeth's appearance. But, briefly: We've never banned our reporters from going on Fox. We do discourage them from going on the noisier cable shout-fests, whatever their political persuasion, because those shows try to enlist reporters as advocates or foils rather than as...reporters. And whenever our reporters go on TV we expect them to apply the same judgment to their on-camera interviews that they apply at The Times -- impartial, accurate, non-polemical.

Diane McNulty, a Times spokesperson, also responded with a statement defending the move, but echoed Keller's view about some cable shows, noting Times staffers "do avoid programs that emphasize punditry or reckless opinion-mongering"

Her entire statement:

Our reporters are not banned from giving interviews on any media. They do interviews frequently, across a wide variety of media, to talk about their stories, or subjects that figure in the coverage they provide. They do avoid programs that emphasize punditry or reckless opinion-mongering.  Generally, as a rule of thumb, a staff member should not say anything on radio, television or the Internet that could not appear under his or her byline in The Times.

Bumiller did not respond to a request for comment, while current Times Public Editor Arthur Brisbane declined to weigh in.

At least one report has numerous staffers at Editor & Publisher, my former home, being dismissed.

Tony Case, a former E&P staffer and veteran media reporter, writes on his blog:

We've been hearing that Mark Fitzgerald, top editor of newspaper-industry mag Editor & Publisher, and possibly other edit staffers were FIRED via e-mail by owner Duncan McIntosh. We've been unable to confirm it this evening (neither Fitzgerald nor others there immediately answered our e-mails). But tellingly, Fitzgerald's name is suddenly, suspiciously missing from the masthead of the E&P site. (Jeff Fleming, longtime associate editor and publisher for McIntosh's publications, is now listed as EIC of E&P.) A publisher of enthusiast titles like Boating World, McIntosh bought E&P this past January, two weeks after owner The Nielsen Co. gave the staff a very special Christmas present by abruptly closing down their magazine and giving them all the shaft.

E&P, long the bible of the newspaper businss, was shutdown late last year by former owners at Nielsen & Co., then reborn under new management in January. But it apparently has hit the slide of advertising that affected all media outlets. No word if the magazine will continue in another way.

Entering the annual meeting of stockholders for News Corp., one would be a bit surprised at how low-key the event was.

I walked into the Hudson Theater, just a block from Times Square in New York City, about a half hour before the scheduled start time of 10 a.m. Friday.  

Only about 200 others were there, some of them News Corp. staffers and at least a few security-looking folks. It could have resembled a large family reunion given the attendance and fancy surroundings.

But they weren't ready to treat me like a long lost cousin.

I was ushered to the press table where they oddly did not have my name on the list despite my response to the announcement of the meeting.

A person handling press badges looked at me with surprise when I revealed my affiliation with Media Matters and produced my business card and identification. After getting approval from several others, I was allowed in, but told no recording devices were allowed.

I revealed my digital video recorder and was told I could not enter with any recording device. Despite promising I would gladly abide by their rules, they had to take it so I gave it up.

Next, all guests went through a security check equal to that at Kennedy Airport, sans removing shoes. They checked through bags, walked us through a metal detector and waved one of those detection wands as well. I passed.

I was also required to wear my press badge during the entire event and carry a white laminated card that indicated I was press, so forbidden to ask a question. Stockholders held their cards and were forced to show them before questioning the board, which sat on the stage.

When I reached the seating area of the small theater set aside for press, at least half of them had their own mini-recorders. When I noted this to staffers later, they said audio-recorders were allowed. That's not what they said before, but that did not apparently matter.

As the stockholders milled about, nibbling on the spread of breakfast items, fruit, Danish and coffee and juice, several discussed their concerns at the issues that would later dominate the day -- News Corp.'s twin million dollar donations to the Republican Governors Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

"It is worrisome on any number of levels," said Laura Shaffer Campos of the Nathan Cummings Foundation, which oversees 3,820 shares of News Corp. stock and has raised concerns about the political donations. "Your first responsibility is to the shareholders, furthering shareholder interest."

Campos said she and several other stockholders were concerned that the donations were made secretly and without shareholder input. She also noted that Murdoch later said he gave to the RGA in part because of his friend John Kasich, the GOP nominee for governor of Ohio. "When the company is making donations from the company treasury, it should be to further the interests of the company and the stockholders."

Per Olstad, a manager at the CtW Investment Group that represents the Massachusetts Laborers Pension Fund --which holds about 11,000 shares -- offered similar concerns.

"There is clear indication from Mr. Murdoch that he is using the corporate treasury to finance his own personal relationship and expressly denied it was some benefit to Fox News," Olstad told me. "It's a clear example of management using corporate treasury for their own personal use."

Inside the meeting, before the stockholders raised questions, the board quickly rejected two proposals brought forth.

One would have created a News Corp. Human Rights Committee to "review and approve all policies and actions taken by the company that may affect human rights observance in countries where it does business or where its products and technologies are used."

The board rejected it with Murdoch stating, "we employ thousands of journalists around the world who spend a great deal of their time tracking the issue of human rights and we don't think that it is necessary to have a special committee of the board because it is part of the DNA of the company."

Another proposal regarded shareholder advisory approval of executive salary increases.

"We do not consider this wise," Murdoch said as he announced its rejection.

When asked during shareholder questions about the million-dollar contributions to the RGA and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Murdoch admitted the donations were "unusual," but also said his reference to Kasich was "a foolish throwaway line."

He still defended the move and brushed aside requests from some shareholders to offer details of the process that went into the donations or promise more open details and shareholder input in the future.

"No, sorry, you have the right to vote us off the board," Murdoch said.

Other stockholders I approached to ask about the donations were almost offended that I would bring up the subject and offered their full support of the company's actions. One even asked a News Corp. staffer why I was allowed in. When I sought his name, he declined.

Few board members spoke, as Murdoch clearly ran the meeting. Even his son, James, remained silent. Lachlan Murdoch, another son and board member, was not in attendance.

Among the most outspoken stockholders was one Evelyn Davis, who asked all members of the press prior to the meeting to look at her booklet of "Highlights and Lowlights" marking her time at various stockholder meetings, from Bank of America to The New York Times.

Davis has made quite a name for herself in the past with publications ranging from People to USA Today profiling her and offering descriptions that range from "grandstanding crackpot" to "obstreperous corporate gadfly."

When Rupert Murdoch entered the theater, he gave her a big hug and a kiss, a move he might later regret as she took up about 15 minutes of the meeting's 60 minutes of time with a wide range of questions. But Murdoch let her continue, despite her going beyond the two minutes set for each speaker.

She claims to be "the most famous stockholder in the country."

Davis commandeered the microphone before anyone else and grilled Murdoch and the board with questions that ranged from concerns about getting better fashion coverage in the newspapers to removing liberals from public office.

"We should get rid of some of the socialist regime in Washington," she told Murdoch. "What are they doing about all of this?"

Murdoch withheld comment, but allowed her to speak longer than any of the other six stockholders who spoke.

At one point, when another stockholder later spoke and Davis wanted to comment, the stockholder yelled at her, declaring, "Don't assault me, step down, do not dare to touch me." It was unclear if she was touching him or not.

The board kept quiet as the man calmed down, proceeded to praise Murdoch, and let the next person speak.

After Olstad and Campos spoke and raised the campaign donation issues, Stephen Mayne, whose business card reads, "Australia's leading shareholder activist," took the mic. He immediately asked Murdoch if he planned to attend the Jon Stewart rally set for Washington, D.C., on Oct. 30.

"I never heard of it," Murdoch said. "I will be in Australia then."

Mayne asked if Murdoch planned to step down with an 80th birthday approaching. "No, when my health gives out, I will get out of the way, but not before unless the board decides to remove me, that's another matter."

When Mayne raised the issue of  wiretapping by News Corp.'s News of the World in Britain and asked if other such incidents had been found, Murdoch said, "There have been two parliamentary inquiries that have found no further evidence of any other thing at all ... If any evidence comes to light, we will take immediate action as we did before."

Mayne noted a  New York Times Magazine report that found the practice "was widespread."

"Journalists who have been fired or unhappy or are now working for other organizations I do not take them as authority," Murdoch responded. "Least of all would I take The New York Times as authority, which is the most motivated of all of these."

When Mayne raised the issue of Glenn Beck's program losing advertisers, Murdoch jumped in to insist that Beck had only lost "four or five" and that they "moved over to Mr. O'Reilly's program."

According to The New York Times, "as of Sept. 21, 296 advertisers have asked that their commercials not be shown on Beck's show (up from 26 in August 2009)." 

When Mayne cited recent reports that Roger Ailes was concerned about Beck and his promotion of "personal interests," Murdoch stated, "Mr. Beck is the least of our stars who take liberties in promoting their interests."

He added, "I don't agree with everything that's said on Fox News because we have all opinions. Unlike other channels, we are completely fair and open and we have Democrats being interviewed, Republicans, we have people who come on and argue. We have all sides of everything."

After a few more bits of business, the meeting ended. I went to collect my property that had been withheld, waiting about 10 minutes, then went off to file a story.

As I left, I asked the opinionated Ms. Davis what she thought of the RGA and Chamber of Commerce donations. She offered little concern, stating, "they all do it in Washington, but most are just more underhanded about it."

A former San Francisco police chief who now heads a police leadership program criticized Glenn Beck for comments that a California man says helped inform his plans for a killing spree, which esulted in injuries to several highway patrolmen in nearby Oakland.

Anthony Ribera, who served as San Francisco police chief from 1992 to 1996 and now heads a law enforcement leadership program at the University of San Francisco, commented on the rhetoric that led  to a shootout between police and right-wing extremist Byron Williams that occurred this summer just across the bay in Oakland.

"Someone gets into a position of power, be it in the media or otherwise, and lets their personal animosity drive the rhetoric and there is no question that some people can embrace the rhetoric and take it to the extreme," he said when asked about the July 19 incident. "They influence people and the key is that when they are in highly-influential positions people listen to them and they have to temper what they say."

He is the second law enforcement leader this week to assail Beck, commenting just days after the top spokesman of the International Union of Police Associations, which represents about 500 local police unions, called Beck's words "inflammatory speech."

Read the full entry ...

The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J. -- the largest newspaper in the state -- is the latest to warn staffers to avoid personal or political comments on social media. Editor Kevin Whitmer sent employees a memo Wednesday that advises them to follow a policy of giving little or no political opinion on Facebook, Twitter or other such outlets.

But Whitmer is a bit unclear, noting at one point, "We do not intend to promulgate rules for how journalists should conduct themselves in an online world," then later stating, " ... we should not be posting photos, comments or links on our Facebook page that betray a political viewpoint or give critics an opportunity to suggest our coverage is biased in any way."

See the entire memo below:

EDITOR'S NOTE:

For news organizations, social networking sites present a double-edged sword. They can be invaluable tools for connecting with sources and readers when used responsibly, as a place for dialogue where transparency is essential. They also provide an immediate outlet to promote our best work and biggest scoops. When they become the cyber equivalent of a barroom, however, our presence there can compromise our reputation for integrity, impartiality and insightful commentary.

We do not intend to promulgate rules for how journalists should conduct themselves in an online world. Rather, we would like to stress some basic beliefs.

When we get a job on a newspaper, we give up two things: the thought of ever making any real money and the right to work on a political campaign. Just as we avoid potential conflicts on interest by not fixing bumper stickers to our cars, we should not be posting photos, comments or links on our Facebook page that betray a political viewpoint or give critics an opportunity to suggest our coverage is biased in any way.

The Los Angeles Times has a policy worth repeating:

"Assume that your professional life and your personal life merge online regardless of your care in separating them. Don't write or post anything that would embarrass the LAT or compromise your ability to do your job. Assume that everything you write or receive on a social media site is public and knowable to everyone with access to a computer."

In all matters, we rely on our journalists' good judgment and common sense. All staffers, excluding our columnists, must know not to offer opinions on stories -- either in print, in radio and television interviews or online. While at work, use social networking sites for their good purposes, to share links to our content, monitor professional responsibilities or to deal with sources.

--Kevin Whitmer

LA Weekly, an alternative tabloid based in southern California, has a lengthy piece out on fraud expert Barry Minkow, who has made a career out of being an expert on such crimes after overcoming his own criminal career.

The newspaper notes that news outlets such as Fox News and The Wall Street Journal had used Minkow's expertise as recently as last spring, but failed to note his recent problems, including a reported SEC investigation.

The story states:

Minkow went to prison for seven years. Afterward, he sought to redeem himself. He became a minister and a fraud fighter, helping the FBI and starting a company dedicated to rooting out corporate wrongdoing. Heartened by the turn of events, some of the nation's largest news organizations have been all too eager to do major stories in recent years on the redemption of Pastor Minkow -- which is why the truth about him today is so maddening.

Tens of thousands of pages of court records going back nearly two years show that Minkow is again not to be trusted. He is leveling unproven allegations against major companies, driving their stock prices down and profiting by doing so.

A Miami judge in one of those cases says Minkow has no credibility, that he "will lie, plain and simple." Since January, the Securities and Exchange Commission has been looking into Minkow's activities.

In an interview with the L.A. Weekly, Minkow acknowledged that he has been a "horrible defendant in the case" in Miami, which is a lawsuit that one of the nation's largest home builders filed against Minkow after he accused the company of massive wrongdoing. Minkow said the Miami judge is right in "thinking I'm an ass."

But you would never know about the challenges to his credibility if you rely on the journalists who helped create Barry Minkow 2.0. To their readers and viewers, Minkow is still an upstanding Christian fraud-buster. (Click here for the interview.)

Mark Maremont, a Pulitzer Prize-winning senior editor at The Wall Street Journal, praised Minkow for his fraud-discovery unit and came to rely on him as a source for investigative stories. But after Maremont learned in January that Minkow was once again the subject of SEC scrutiny, he never wrote a word about it.

In a flattering 2005 profile on 60 Minutes, Minkow detailed how he manipulated the media and even duped Oprah Winfrey. "Nobody knew I was a liar and a thief, but I knew," Minkow confessed to correspondent Steve Kroft. But several months ago, when 60 Minutes was presented with evidence that Minkow was being deceitful again, producers had no interest in correcting the record.

Similarly, Fox News has enthusiastically served as one of Minkow's biggest promoters. Minkow appears regularly on the network as a fraud expert.

During a [March] interview on Your World With Neil Cavuto, the host aired clips from an upcoming movie starring Minkow in his own redemption story and gushed, "Now you're a big movie star. ... This movie is going to win an Oscar."

The spokesman for a national law enforcement association criticized Glenn Beck for comments that a California man says helped inform his plans for a killing spree that resulted in injuries to several highway patrolmen.

Rich Roberts is public information officer for the International Union of Police Associations, which represents about 500 local police unions.

Noting it was his personal opinion, he said Beck "stirs people up and not in a good way. He is a source of problems. I have to watch Beck because I don't have a choice, I have to stay in touch with what is going on."

Roberts, whose group is based in Sarasota, Fla., made the comments following Media Matters' interview with alleged gunman Byron Williams, who was arrested July 19 in Oakland, Calif., after an incident in which several members of the California Highway Patrol were wounded.

Williams told investigators that he was heading to San Francisco to kill members of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU.

In a recent interview with Media Matters, Williams repeatedly cited Beck when discussing his conspiracy theories that informed his assassination plot.

Beck, Williams said, is "like a schoolteacher on TV." Williams added, "... he's been breaking open some of the most hideous corruption."

Williams also said: "Beck would never say anything about a conspiracy, would never advocate violence. He'll never do anything ... of this nature. But he'll give you every ounce of evidence that you could possibly need."

Roberts said Beck's rhetoric is a dangerous thing because it can drive people to violence.

"The Becks of the world are people who are venting their opinions and it is inflammatory, it generates a lot of emotion and generates in some people overreaction that apparently happened in the California case," Roberts said. "Inflammatory speech has a tendency to trigger those kinds of emotions."

Roberts added about Beck: "He is self-serving and has no interest in improving, informing or educating."

Fox Television is demanding that Cablevision of New York increase the fee it pays to broadcast several of Fox's channels, facing an Oct. 15 deadline that could knock Fox's two New York afilliates off the cable system, as well as several Fox cable channels. Fox News Channel is not among those affected.

Multichannel News reports:

Fox's retransmission consent agreement with Cablevision expires on Oct. 15 and involves broadcasters WNYW and WWOR in New York, WXTF in Philadelphia and cable channels Fox Business Network, Nat Geo Wild and Fox Deportes.

In a statement, Cablevision executive vice president of communications Charles Schueler said that Fox is demanding an increase that more than doubles the rate it already pays: "In a difficult economy, it is unfair and wrong for News Corp. to demand huge fee increases from Cablevision customers for Fox's channel 5 and My9 and then threaten to pull the plug if they don't get what they want. Cablevision already pays News Corp. $70 million every year for its channels, and now News Corp. wants more than $150 million a year for the exact same programming. We call on the executives of News Corp. to stop threatening to pull the plug and instead negotiate a fair agreement."

In a statement, Fox said that it has been at the negotiating table for months, and that it has submitted two proposals in the past week and several since May. The programmer also criticized the MSO for paying two of its sister company channels (MSG and MSG Plus, now part of a separate company Madison Square Garden Inc.) in 2009  "considerably more" than it pays all 12 Fox channels it carries, even though those Fox channels have higher ratings.

"It's obvious that Cablevision is not concerned about their customers and rather is taking cheap shots at Fox," Fox said in a statement. "We again call on Cablevision to come to the negotiating table and negotiate seriously. We have been there since May and will continue to be there."

The top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee responded to Media Matters' story on alleged gunman Byron Williams' affinity for Glenn Beck by warning that public figures need to be aware of the impact of their words.

Yesterday, Media Matters posted the report revealing that Williams' alleged plot was inspired by conspiracy theories peddled by Beck and other right-wing media figures.

According to police, Williams said he wanted to start a "revolution" by killing employees of the Tides Foundation and the ACLU.

Asked to comment on the consequences of extremist rhetoric generally and the Byron Williams/Beck story in particular, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) said in an e-mail statement: "It is important that everyone in public life, whether on the right or on the left, realize that words have consequences."

King appeared on Beck's CNN Headline News show in 2008. 

A spokeswoman for Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), meanwhile, said it was unfair to criticize Beck for the Williams incident. Hatch was a Beck guest on multiple occasions in 2009.

"If someone commits a violent act, it is another subject. They must be held accountable," said Antonia Ferrier, the Hatch spokesperson. "But [Beck and others] have the right to express themselves; we would never try to curtail the rights of individuals. No one should fault Glenn Beck or anyone else for raising legitimate concerns against the government."

She also noted, "Glenn Beck has touched a nerve in this country - he is a force to be reckoned with."

Conservative commentator Alex Jones, a repeat Fox News guest and 9/11 conspiracy theorist, said events like the alleged shooting by Byron Williams may occur again given the anger of the country.

"You are going to have unstable people," Jones told me Monday. "When they lose it, you are going to see more of this."

But he defended Glenn Beck, who has spoken out dozens of times against the Tides Foundation - one of the groups Williams told investigators he was traveling to attack on July 18 when he allegedly opened fire on highway patrolmen in Oakland, Calif.

Williams, who recently spoke to Media Matters' John Hamilton, repeatedly cited Beck and Jones when discussing his conspiracy theories that informed his assassination plot.

Beck, Williams said, is "like a schoolteacher on TV." Williams added, "... he's been breaking open some of the most hideous corruption."

Williams also told Hamilton: "Beck would never say anything about a conspiracy, would never advocate violence. He'll never do anything ... of this nature. But he'll give you every ounce of evidence that you could possibly need."

Jones, whom Williams has said he also follows, said Beck should not be blamed for Williams' actions, despite his ongoing campaign of fear-based commentary that targeted The Tides Foundation and other groups.

"That is Glenn Beck's free speech," Jones told me. "We don't want to shutdown everyone's speech because of one lone nut.

"This goes to a classic lie that has been retreaded that this fellow follows Glenn Beck and Alex Jones. This is a classic guilt by association tactic," Jones said. "It is just more of an attempt to imply that anyone who criticizes corruption is contributing to an atmosphere that will cause another Oklahoma City bombing.

"You have a Discovery Channel person who goes into take hostages but I don't think that means that all environmentalists are that way."

Jones said any violence that stems from angry citizens' reactions is based more on the state of the country and its leadership, not on the opinions of talk show hosts.

"This is a corrupt, out of control country. Both parties at the leadership positions are bought and paid for by special interests," he told me. "I think it is a stretch to imply that Glenn Beck was trying to cause this. There are unstable people who go chop up their neighbor because they think there is a devil inside them. Where does this [blame] end?"

Asked if the presence of unstable people in the audience means broadcasters have a responsibility for what they say that might incite violence, he said, "it would be irresponsible to not say what you truly believe is the truth so justice be done. You have your free speech and as long as you don't direct someone to go out and commit violence, you can have your speech."

He also said, "Glenn Beck constantly talks about non-violence," adding, "I speak out against violence unless it is against you or yourself, self-defense."

Rupert Murdoch's recent admission that News Corp's $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association stemmed from his friendship with former Fox News host John Kasich has raised concerns from several campaign finance experts.

Those who follow campaign finance issues, including three attorneys from Ohio -- where Kasich is the Republican nominee for governor -- raised concerns that Murdoch's admission could violate the spirit of the state's $11,395.56 personal campaign contribution limit for statewide races, if not the letter of the law.

"I personally find it offensive," said Craig S. Miller, a campaign finance attorney from Cleveland. "I can't say it is illegal, but I find it very disturbing particularly given the U.S. Supreme Court decision. These new organizations are set up to process and launder campaign contributions all over the country.

"It is part of the same concept, unfortunately. You have legal limits, but it really circumvents all of that and makes the process a bit of a sham because there are not applicable limits."

At issue is the $1 million RGA contribution made by News Corp. in June. Murdoch told Politico earlier this week that the donation was not made to help News Corp. with any influence but because of Murdoch's friendship with Kasich.

Politico reported:

Murdoch, who was in Washington to receive an award from The Media Institute, brushed aside concerns that the gift, which was unusually large and one-sided for a media company, might hurt Fox's credibility as a news organization that reports on politics.

"It doesn't reflect on Fox News," he said. "It had nothing to do with Fox News. The RGA [gift] was actually [a result of] my friendship with John Kasich."

That Kasich connection could be construed as a way to circumvent Ohio's contribution limit for gubernatorial candidates, say some experts.

"If it turns out that that donation was in part earmarked, in my mind it would be circumventing state law," said Kenneth Fisher, a campaign finance attorney in Cleveland. "It probably means that it is wrong. But what can you do about it?"

Fisher said a review by the State Elections Commission would have to determine if the money was meant to reach Kasich: "If it is earmarked then it is unlawful. The question is whether he is violating Ohio law. That is what I would look at. There is a cap and if that is a way to get around the cap, that is wrong. That would trouble me."

Subodh Chandra, another Ohio attorney with campaign finance expertise, stated: "Mr. Murdoch's admission raises a question about whether the contribution was an improper 'nominee' contribution intended to circumvent Ohio's laws intended to give all of us an equal voice in whom our leaders will be.

"The problem with such actions are that the damage will be done long before the system can address it."

Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center in Washington, D.C., found a clear violation of the intent of campaign limits in the Murdoch situation.

"A reasonable person would see that as the millionaire helping that candidate in that race," she said of the Murdoch/Kasich connection. "What is distasteful about this report with Murdoch is that most states operate under the notice that you have contribution limits so races cannot be bought and sold.

"Then you have someone like Murdoch who comes in and drops $1 million and 99 percent of Americans cannot afford or bother to give $200. It gives you a sense of how the system is tilted in favor of the wealthy."

Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, agreed and said it should be considered a violation of the campaign law.

"It may violate the law and probably does," he told me. "Most campaign finance laws define a contribution to a candidate as being any earmarked contribution that is laundered through a third party group."

On Murdoch's comment about Kasich, Holman added, "To me, that is an admission that the contribution is earmarked and I would interpret it as an earmarked contribution. Clearly, without a doubt, it violates the spirit of the law and it strongly suggests it violates the letter of the law."

Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor for The Washington Post, defended the paper's publication today of an Op-Ed by Dinesh D'Souza, the author whose recent Forbes piece describing President Obama as an "anti-colonial," and subsequently released book about the same topic, have both been criticized as inaccurate and far-reaching.

In an e-mail to Media Matters, Hiatt claimed that since the paper had published several pieces criticizing D'Souza, the Op-Ed was appropriate:

I approved publication of this Op-Eed. D'Souza's theory has sparked a great deal of commentary, from potential presidential candidates as well as from commentators on our own pages.

Autumn Brewington, the Post's Op-Ed editor, was unavailable for comment because she is off today.

Hiatt's e-mail linked to Post pieces related to D'Souza from Eugene Robinson, Richard Cohen, and Jonathan Capehart that have recently run.

He said that made it proper to run D'Souza's piece:

Under those circumstances, I thought Post readers, many of whom may not read Forbes magazine, might welcome a chance to read and evaluate for themselves what D'Souza is saying.

Hiatt did not address the question of whether D'Souza's Op-Ed and its controversial claims about Obama should have been allowed given that many have been debunked and found to be inaccurate.

Steve Forbes, editor-in-chief of Forbes magazine, defended the controversial article by Dinesh D'Souza that wrongly reported numerous facts, has drawn criticism from even one Forbes columnist, and required two corrections after the fact.

Speaking to Media Matters for America late Thursday, Forbes said the article's essential analysis was correct and the post-publication corrections were not a big deal.

 "I think that the analysis was right on, which is why we ran the piece," Forbes told me via phone. "We took all of the stuff the White House complained about and found that most of it was baseless. There were only two minor things that were fact-based, the rest of it was interpretation. We fact-checked it and found most of their complaints were spin."

At issue was D'Souza's claim in the Sept. 9 cover story that President Obama's policies should be understood as a manifestation of his African father's "hatred of the colonial system." Forbes had said it "stands by the story" and that "no facts are in contention," but D'Souza's article contains numerous falsehoods and distortions that Media Matters has revealed.

Forbes issues two corrections after the article was published, stating:

Correction: Dinesh D'Souza writes that on June 15, 2010, Obama gave a speech in response to the BP oil spill that was "focused not on cleanup strategies but rather on the fact that Americans 'consume more than 20% of the world's oil but have less than 2% of the world's resources.'" D'Souza slightly misquoted the President who said, "2% of the world's oil reserves." In addition, Obama's speech did discuss concrete measures to investigate the oil spill and bring it under control.

Steve Forbes said the magazine stands by the assertion that President Obama had supported offshore drilling in Brazil, noted in this passage from the story:

The Administration supports offshore drilling--but drilling off the shores of Brazil. With Obama's backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance exploration in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro--not so the oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil.

Forbes told me: "They said the White House had nothing to do with it. The White House would not stop it while the president took a very skeptical view of it in the U.S. If they wanted to stop Brazil, they could have. If BP had done it, they would have stopped it."

Media Matters has reported that this is false, while a New York Times story on Sept. 24 also found discrepancies, reporting:

One of the most contentious points in Mr. D'Souza's article was his citation of a transaction by the Export-Import Bank of the United States to finance offshore drilling in Brazil, a deal Mr. D'Souza believes indicates Mr. Obama is more concerned with helping countries that formerly were the domains of colonial powers, rather than Americans.

A Forbes fact checker recently contacted the bank to check on the assertion that Mr. Obama supported the 2009 transaction with Petrobras, Brazil's state-owned oil company. Mr. D'Souza asserted that Mr. Obama supported the deal, "not so oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil."

A note written by Kevin Varney, the senior vice president and chief of staff of the bank, and posted in the comments section of Mr. D'Souza's blog -- and verified by a spokesman for the bank -- criticized Mr. D'Souza for not contacting the bank before publication.

"I received a call yesterday from Nathan Verdi, a fact checker at Forbes, who was calling to fact check your article after it was published. (Is this how journalism works now?)"  

Steve Forbes, meanwhile, said the story had been properly reviewed beforehand and any follow up corrections were not major.

"We had gone over it beforehand and then the White House made a big hoopla about it. We said we would take their points and see what was there and it turns out there was no 'there' there," he said of the White House complaints. "There were two corrections, when he went to Pakistan and the speech he made about offshore drilling and berating BP."

Forbes even indirectly blamed the White House for all of the controversy, saying the Obama Administration should have ignored it.

"Those were the only two things," he said of the corrections. "The thing to put in perspective is to look at The New York Times each day and how many corrections they run, hundreds a year. The White House could not answer the analysis, the thrust of the author. It is not surprising partisans are going to attack it. I was a little surprised the White House did not ignore it, they helped give life to the story. Thank you Robert Gibbs."

Asked if he would use D'Souza again in the future, Forbes stated: "Oh yeah, he is very good, a very good analyzer and we've had stories form him before in the past."

The New York Times today ran an Editor's Note that admitted the paper published a photo of an art exhibit with museum staff members appearing to be visitors to the museum.

The original article ran Oct. 1 and was about "Abstract Expressionist New York: The Big Picture" at the Museum of Modern Art

The note published today states:

A photograph with an art review on Oct. 1 about the show "Abstract Expressionist New York: The Big Picture" at theMuseum of Modern Art, and several other pictures in an online slide show, appeared to show museum visitors viewing the exhibit.

In fact, the people shown were museum staff members, who were asked by museum officials to be present in the galleries to provide scale and context for the photographs. The photographer acknowledged using the same procedure in other cases when an exhibition was not yet opened to the public.

Such staging of news pictures violates The Times's standardsand the photographs should not have been published. (While pictures may show previews or similar situations before an exhibition opens, readers should not be given a misleading impression about the circumstances.)