HOLLYWOOD, Calif. (KTLA) — A man killed Tuesday in a fiery car crash in Hollywood was journalist Michael Hastings, his employer said.
The wreck happened near the intersection of Highland and Melrose avenues around 4:15 a.m., according to LAPD Officer Lillian Carranza.
The car, presumably driven by Hastings, slammed into a tree and caught fire.
“I was just coming northbound on Highland and I seen a car, like, going really fast and all of a sudden I seen it jackknife,” said Luis Cortez, who witnessed the wreck.
“I just seen parts fly everywhere and I slammed on my brakes and stopped and tried to call 911,” Cortez added.
The driver was pronounced dead at the scene.
Coroner’s officials said the body was too badly burned to make an immediate identification.
But, Rolling Stone and BuzzFeed both reported Tuesday afternoon the victim was Hastings.
BuzzFeed Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith issued a statement, saying his team was “shocked and devastated by the news.”
“Michael was a great, fearless journalist with an incredible instinct for the story and a gift for finding ways to make his readers care about anything he covered, from wars to politicians,” Smith said. “He wrote stories that would otherwise have gone unwritten, and without him there are great stories that will go untold.”
Hastings was perhaps best known for a Rolling Stone article that led to the resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
A day after the cast of an Atlanta sports radio show was fired for mocking Steve Gleason’s battle with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, the former Saints player issued a response.
Team Gleason, an organization named after the former NFL player, posted a statement on its Facebook page Tuesday, accepting the apologies of the radio hosts, and thanking those who defended Gleason.
“… I would like to thank the public for their support,” the statement read. ” ‘Defend Team Gleason’ now has been officially redefined. Additionally, the DJs have provided genuine apology. Received and accepted. We have all made mistakes in this life. How we learn from our mistakes is the measure of who we are.”
Gleason, 36, suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. ALS patients lose the ability to speak and move, which has happened to Gleason.
The show, Mayhem in the AM, was broadcast on 790 The Zone Monday morning.
In a statement Monday, General Manager Rick Mack said the station regrets comments made about ex-New Orleans Saints safety Steve Gleason.
“790 The Zone, our owners, sponsors and partners in no way endorse or support this kind of content,” Mack said.
The station lists the hosts as Nick Cellini, Steak Shapiro and Chris Dimino.
Greenwald’s story has its problems, but leave it to prime wingnut King to take this way too far by outright lying on national TV.
Rep. Peter King, one of the most ridiculous blowhards ever to serve in Congress, is flat out lying about Glenn Greenwald. He says Greenwald should be prosecuted for his role in the recent NSA spying revelations and he is inventing out of thin air a seriously defamatory claim:
HOST MEGYN KELLY: To take it another step and to say the journalists who published the information, the guys who published what he leaked, that they should face prosecution that is news. Do you believe that? Do you stand by that, both Greenwald and the Washington Post reporter?
KING: I’m talking about Greenwald. Greenwald, not only did he disclose this information he has said that he has the names of CIA agents and assets around the world and they’re threatening to disclose that. […]
KELLY: What is the difference between Glenn Greenwald who broke this story in the Guardian who is an American citizen but he’s living abroad and James Rosen and the Associated Press?
KING: James Rosen never said he was going to release information that was going to kill Americans. He was never going to disclose the names of CIA agents and operatives around the world the way Greenwald is saying he is threatening to do.
A blatant lie. Greenwald has never claimed that he had such information, much less that he would reveal it.
Palin’s return to Fox shows that Roger Ailes knows the GOP can’t win back the White House in 2016, so he may as well focus on consolidating his audience, and keeping them comfortable as they watch the further decline of what Bill O’Reilly called “the white establishment” that was vanquished by Barack Obama. “I have great confidence in her and am pleased that she will once again add her commentary to our programming,” Ailes said. “I hope she continues to speak her mind.”
Why not cut the crap, Fox, and just come out and say “The n****r had it coming”?
Fox News host Gregg Jarrett suggested on Monday that George Zimmerman might have been justified in killing Trayvon Martin because the teen “may have been violent” from smoking marijuana.
During a break in jury selection for Zimmerman’s trial, Jarrett told viewers of Fox News’ live Internet broadcast that the judge had tried to restrict the evidence to facts related to the day of the shooting.
“She’s said we’re not going to have any of this stuff introduced as evidence about the history of Trayvon Martin, whether he had a history of getting involved in fights, making threats, marijuana use, gun use, being suspended from school and so on and so forth,” he observed.
Former federal prosecutor Doug Burns pointed out that the judge may allow evidence that Martin had marijuana in his system at the time of his death.
“If an M.E. — a medical examiner — takes the witness stand and says he was high on marijuana based on toxicology, how does that play?” Jarrett wondered.
“That’s a very good question,” Burns agreed.
“If he is high, he may have acted irrationally and may have been violent,” Jarrett opined.
“Edward Snowden’s decision to leak to Greenwald, and Glenn’s domination of newsland for several days, tells us that politics: none is not the only way of excelling in journalism. It now has to share the stage with politics: some.”
I offer one observation about the story that has consumed the worlds of journalism and politics for the last eight days: leaks describing how vast is the United States government’s electronic monitoring of communications. Near the center of that story is Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian columnist who was one of three journalists that the leaker, Edward Snowden, chose to trust.
For five days, June 5 to June 9, Greenwald sat atop the journalism world as the revelations he brought forward jolted the rest of the press. As Jack Shafer of Reuters wrote on June 8: “This will now fuel new cycles of reporting, leaks and scoops — and another, and another — as new sources are cultivated and reportorial scraps gathering mold in journalists’ notebooks gain new relevance and help break stories. Greenwald’s storm will continue to rage…”
It will. Which brings me to my one observation. This should have been obvious from many prior events trending in the same direction, but as things stand today the proposition is clear to all but the most resistant minds in legacy media: The professional stance that proscribes all political commitments and discourages journalists from having a clear view or taking a firm position on matters in dispute (you can call it objectivity, if you like, or viewlessness, which I like better) is one way of doing good work. A very different professional stance, where the conclusions that you come to by staring at the facts and thinking through the issues serve to identify your journalism… this is another way of doing good work.
They are both valid. They are both standard. (And “traditional.”) They are both major league. Greenwald operates in the second fashion, but the language we have for this style — calling him a blogger or an advocate, hoping that these shorthands convey what’s different about him — is not very illuminating. “Blurring the line between opinion pieces and straight reporting…” is not very illuminating.
I received a “please sign survey” request on fb from an organization called Watchdog.net regarding this issue and decided to googie-it. What do you think?
Carl Deal was thrilled to think his documentary on the role of corporate bigwigs in Wisconsin’s crackdown on public employee unions would air on public television.
“It was a really appropriate venue for how the money of a few can drown out the voices of the many,” says Deal, co-director of Citizen Koch, a film that critically examines the profusion of corporate cash in the political process, with an accompanying website that encourages an activist response.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum that public television provides. The Independent Television Service (ITVS), the arm of PBS that funds documentaries, withdrew its initial support.
That’s unleashed a whirlwind of controversy, including a recent article in The New Yorker and a skewering by the nation’s jester-in-chief, Stephen Colbert.
ITVS allegedly dropped Citizen Koch to avoid further aggravating billionaire industrialist David Koch, a major backer of both conservative causes and public TV. David and brother Charles Koch founded the advocacy group Americans for Prosperity, which along with the Kochs’ company is a major backer of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
David Koch has also given $23 million over the years to public television, The New Yorker reported. He served on the board of New York’s public television affiliate, WNET, to which he was planning to make, a source told the magazine, “a seven-figure donation — maybe more.”
Today, a revolution in software technology that allows for the highly automated and instantaneous analysis of enormous volumes of digital information has transformed the N.S.A., turning it into the virtual landlord of the digital assets of Americans and foreigners alike. The new technology has, for the first time, given America’s spies the ability to track the activities and movements of people almost anywhere in the world without actually watching them or listening to their conversations.
The partnership between the intelligence community and Palantir Technologies, a Palo Alto, Calif., company founded by a group of inventors from PayPal, is just one of many that the National Security Agency and other agencies have forged as they have rushed to unlock the secrets of “Big Data.”
While once the flow of data across the Internet appeared too overwhelming for N.S.A. to keep up with, the recent revelations suggest that the agency’s capabilities are now far greater than most outsiders believed. “Five years ago, I would have said they don’t have the capability to monitor a significant amount of Internet traffic,” said Herbert S. Lin, an expert in computer science and telecommunications at the National Research Council. Now, he said, it appears “that they are getting close to that goal.”
The agency’s ability to efficiently mine metadata, data about who is calling or e-mailing, has made wiretapping and eavesdropping on communications far less vital, according to data experts. That access to data from companies that Americans depend on daily raises troubling questions about privacy and civil liberties that officials in Washington, insistent on near-total secrecy, have yet to address.
“American laws and American policy view the content of communications as the most private and the most valuable, but that is backwards today,” said Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington group. “The information associated with communications today is often more significant than the communications itself, and the people who do the data mining know that.”
When separate streams of data are integrated into large databases — matching, for example, time and location data from cellphones with credit card purchases or E-ZPass use — intelligence analysts are given a mosaic of a person’s life that would never be available from simply listening to their conversations. Just four data points about the location and time of a mobile phone call, a study published in Nature found, make it possible to identify the caller 95 percent of the time.
“We can find all sorts of correlations and patterns,” said one government computer scientist who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly. “There have been tremendous advances.”
Mr. Rotenberg, referring to the constitutional limits on search and seizure, said, “It is a bit of a fantasy to think that the government can seize so much information without implicating the Fourth Amendment interests of American citizens.”
So a few summary points, so far, are:
1) The original scare stories from the media were a “big fail” as they were based on hyperbolic rhetoric based on imprecise, inaccurate or even fabricated claims. This had an even greater effect on a public that doesn’t generally understad the technical capabilities and related issues.
2) “Big Data” techniques have, in recent years, increasingly allowed investigators to infer things about an individual from “metadata” (phone call; #’s dates. durations etc or email; same) that it isn’t clear are protected under Constitutional guarantees, without requiring those agencies to access data (actual content of phone calls and emails) that are protected.
3) With the ever increasing amount of data available over the internet (doubles every 2 years) and the ever more effective analysis available from tools that use this data, has or is a turing point been reached where the use of this data by the government reached a point where it does infringe upon our Constitutional Rights? For example, with the growth of “the Internet of things” the use of these tools will enable the government to infer much more about us. Having access to the data from my internet connected home thermo stat and home security system will allow the government to infer when I and my family leave the house.