• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • Podcast
  • Full Measure
  • Blog
  • Donate
  • "Slanted" Preorder here

Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

  • US
  • World
  • Business
  • Health
    • Vaccine, Medical links
  • Special Investigations
    • Attkisson v. DOJ
    • Benghazi
    • "Collusion v. Trump" TL
    • Fake News
    • Fast and Furious
    • Media Mistakes on Trump
    • Obama Surveillance TL
    • Obamacare

Sharyl Attkisson

Government spying on journalists: the bigger picture

The forensically-proven government spying on me while I was an investigative correspondent at CBS News has much larger implications.

Unlike other cases that became public, whereby the Department of Justice secretly surveilled journalists, the government has indicated there was no warrant authorizing the surveillance on me.

The implications of this are huge. How many intel operations were conducted on U.S. citizens without warrants?

Read more on Attkisson v DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions here, including a summary of the facts and forensic evidence. I will soon be announcing next steps forward.

Here, you can read more about a recent court decision that protects the U.S. government from discovery and punishment for unlawful surveillance against U.S. citizens.

Below, watch my interview that explains why all of this has implications far beyond one journalist.

To support the Attkisson case and the larger principles at stake, visit the Fourth Amendment Litigation fund here. Thank you to the thousands who are supporting!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=AfRm_knR-es&fbclid=IwAR3AcwFfO4SQBC38r9VFvZ-RLtdPlNc5jJ-bpgxUWw02SmBroCPCv4fZi3U

Poll: What do you think is the real scandal?

In our latest unscientific poll at SharylAttkisson.com, we asked what you think is the "real" scandal.

Eighty-nine percent of you answered that the "real scandal" is the Trump-Russia probe hoax.

The full results are below.

Meantime, vote in our new poll! See the black box in the sidebar on the home page, or scroll down on the mobile site.

Question: The real scandal is...

<1% (Still) Trump and Russia

89% Trump-Russia probe hoax

3% Both

5% Neither

1% I don't know.

Fight government overreach and double-standard justice by supporting the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund for Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions. Click here.

Forced vaccination: A slippery slope?

Many believe vaccines have been incredibly successful in eradicating and preventing deadly diseases. Most doctors agree that if your body can tolerate vaccines, and you are not on the Centers for Disease Control's list of those who should not get a particular vaccine, then it's a good idea to get them.

CDC indicates that, when it comes to vaccination, the calculation is different depending on the individual and the vaccine involved since not all vaccines are equally safe, necessary or tolerated by a given child or adult.

So should the government force you or your child to vaccinate? If so, with which vaccines-- and when? After all, some vaccines have been pulled off the market for safety reasons. The government has paid damages in cases of children getting overloaded with too many vaccines at once. And some individuals have adverse reactions with no advance warning.

In the article, "Should we panic over measles outbreaks?" Dr. Jane Orient explores the idea of vaccine mandates and how, she says, implementing them will only hurt the public's trust in physicians and health organizations.

You can read more below:

In general, it is not a good idea to panic about anything. The panic itself often causes more harm than the original threat.

Crisis situations, real or contrived, lead to new intrusive laws the public would never accept otherwise. We supposedly cherish freedom, but if we believe that the world will end if we don’t act NOW, then we may clamor for the government to save us. Cynical politicians bent on increasing their power never let a crisis go to waste.

Something like the Green New Deal – the end of our comfortable, prosperous lifestyle – takes a truly apocalyptic threat. But to eliminate our freedom to decline a medical treatment, the threat that “millions will die” of measles is evidently enough. Or if not millions (most older people had measles and recovered fully), a few especially vulnerable children, who can’t be vaccinated themselves, might catch measles and die.

There are several hundred cases of measles nationwide, more than in 2014, and bills are being pushed through state legislatures to eliminate all but very narrow exemptions to the 60 shots now mandated for school attendance.

In New York City, people are receiving summonses based on Mayor Bill de Blasio’s emergency order. Everybody, adult or child, who lives in four ZIP code areas must get an MMR shot or prove immunity, or face the prospect of a $1,000 fine ($2,000 if you don’t appear as ordered). Your religious exemption is overridden. The threat of six months in prison and the prospect of forcible vaccination were removed before a hearing on a lawsuit brought by five mothers. The judge dismissed the case.

(Continued...)

You can read the rest of Dr. Orient's article here: https://www.wnd.com/2019/05/should-we-panic-over-measles-outbreaks/

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

How Media Narratives Became More Important Than Facts

The following is a reprint of an article first published in Epoch Times.

The day that I told CBS News I wished to leave my job as investigative correspondent ahead of my contract, I didn’t give a reason. I didn’t see the point because the problem wasn’t fixable.

Nor was it isolated to CBS News.

My own take is that—as our industry has changed in ways that have become undeniable to most—I was a bit of the canary in the coal mine. By that, I mean I believe I was among the first to really pay attention to the increasingly effective operations to shape and censor news—the movements to establish narratives rather than follow facts—and to see the growing influence of smear operations, political interests, and corporate interests on the news.

It’s not that I’m smarter than my peers, and I’m surely far less smart than many, but my particular brand of off-narrative reporting happened to draw the intense attention of the smear operators and propagandists, so I began to study it.

A case in point: the smear that was promulgated when I left CBS. It was often incorrectly reported that I told CBS management I was quitting due to liberal media bias. That false story turned out to be convenient for both political sides, and largely survives today. It simply wasn’t rooted in fact. And I don’t recall reporters even asking me whether it was true. Once a few articles reported that it was, others simply copied the claim and adopted it as if established fact, eventually without attribution. Now there would be no point in trying to clarify it. After all, Wikipedia says it’s true. No going back from that.

Powerful smear groups and certain interests—including some within CBS at the time—started the narrative that I was “conservative,” not because they necessarily believed it, but as a tool to “controversialize” the reporting I was doing that was contrary to powerful interests. The idea is that if I can be portrayed as a partisan, then my reporting can be more easily dismissed.

The Narrative Requires

In fact, prior to the operation to push the narrative that I was “conservative,” my reporting had been lauded by a diverse group of observers, including the likes of Rachel Maddow, who once delivered an entire monologue on an investigative expose I did on the “charity” of then-Rep. Stephen Buyer (R- Ind.). My most recent Emmy award was for an undercover investigation into Republican fundraising.

But the narrative requests—nay, requires—that we forget all that. We must focus on the supposed miraculous metamorphosis. Depending on who’s spinning, they may insist I was a rational journalist who went crazy one day and flew to the dark side of conservatism. Or they may say I used to be a devoted liberal, but decided the big money was in pandering to Republicans, so I sold out. The details aren’t important. You are simply to come away with the notion that my reporting is now politically conflicted.

Another example of this narrative: Many news reports comment that I work for the “conservative” Sinclair Broadcast Group. Fair enough—Sinclair is run by a family that’s made no secret of their conservative political leanings. But the reporters who note this political connection apparently fail to recognize the inherent conflict in the fact that they eagerly label the conservative group; yet I don’t think they reported that I worked for the “liberal” CNN, the “liberal” PBS, or the “liberal” CBS. Some reporters lack the self-awareness and objectivity to understand they are revealing themselves when they selectively apply labels in a one-sided fashion. They are servicing a narrative, even if unintentionally.

When I worked at CNN, it was owned by a billionaire Democrat donor (Ted Turner)—a good boss, by the way. When I worked for CBS, the management (Sumner Redstone, Les Moonves) were rich Democrat donors—also, a great company to work for during most of my 20 years there.

Sinclair has likewise been a terrific employer to date. They haven’t forced editorial biases in the reporting on my program. The program is mostly apolitical, addressing topics such as the underreported dangers of MRI dye or how American farmers are suffering under the current trade war with China. When we address politics, you are as likely to see an interview with Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat, as you are to see Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican.

Improvements

But there’s the narrative …

When a national print media reporter wrote about my program a couple of years ago, he incorrectly referred to it as “conservative.” Later, when asked if he’d ever actually seen the program, he admitted he hadn’t. It’s not that it would be difficult to—well—actually do a little bit of reporting rather than repeat a narrative: My weekly program is on at least a half-dozen times each week in the city where this reporter is based, and it’s posted online.

As easy as it was for him to do some first-hand reporting, he chose to repeat the narrative.

Lara Logan, who recently left CBS News, has also been speaking out about her observations regarding the decline of fair and objective journalism. She’s likewise been attacking the narratives. As such, she has been subjected to them. That’s how it works. Obviously (says the narrative), she is a disgruntled conservative who is not to be believed. Or (says the narrative), she’s perhaps a little unbalanced. (You know, all that war reporting and stress. Poor Lara.)

The truth is, Lara is extremely clear-eyed on these issues. And she and I are far from alone in our views on the state of the media. We agree there is terrific journalism being committed on a daily basis at organizations from The New York Times to local news stations. However, we agree that national media has also largely become co-opted by powerful interests who understand how to direct the news landscape in a way that services certain narratives and agendas.

I have heard support from hundreds of journalists, college professors, and media observers during the last several years. I have been reached out to by reporters in print and on TV, by national and local news, by students and a Pulitzer Prize winner.

The effort to expose flaws and conflicts in media reporting is growing stronger, not weaker, despite the narratives. The desire to affect improvements is building. Make no mistake: Not all of us are free to speak publicly, but there are a lot of us. And we aren’t going away.

Read the original article at the link below:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/what-my-leaving-cbs-news-revealed-about-the-news-industry_2901934.html

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Federal courts indemnify improper government spying on U.S. citizens

In a far-reaching decision Friday, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals indemnified improper government spying, protecting the offending federal agents from punishment and making it nearly impossible for harmed citizens to ever receive justice.

The decision comes in Attkisson v. the Department of Justice and the FBI for the long-term forensically-confirmed government computer intrusions of her personal and work devices while she was an investigative correspondent for CBS News.

CBS first announced the early forensic results in August 2013

The court ruled that the Attkisson lawsuit cannot move forward because she has been unable to identify by name the federal agents involved in the spying, as the Department of Justice has blocked discovery for four years.

Read the summary of the Attkisson case and forensic evidence

In a dissenting opinion, Fourth Circuit Court Judge James Wynn blasted the decision stating:

Not only should we disapprove of the tactics the government used to run out the clock on Attkisson’s claims, but we should also reject the troubling “game plan” it provided for the government and private parties to prevent disclosure of—and, therefore, responsibility for—their potentially unconstitutional or illegal electronic surveillance activities.

Judge James A. Wynn, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Attkisson filed suit four years ago for the forensically-confirmed government intrusions into her personal and work devices while she was an investigative reporter at CBS News. Multiple independent forensic exams revealed, among other violations, longterm monitoring of Attkisson's electronics with use of government International Protocol (IP) addresses, proprietary government intelligence software, keystroke monitoring and secret activation of Skype to listen in on microphone and exfiltrate files. The intruders planted classified documents in Attkisson's CBS computer, accessed her photos and passwords, and gained access to the broader CBS News computer system.

According to the government, there was no court warrant against Attkisson authorizing the surveillance.

In November 2017, the trial court judge dismissed some of Attkisson's claims saying that resolving them would require an “inquiry into the sensitive executive branch discussions and decisions.” Attkisson continued the lawsuit with only limited discovery permitted. Even then, the Department of Justice obstructed all of Attkisson's attempts at meaningful discovery and refused to turn over any evidence.

Attkisson never got a meaningful opportunity to pursue her claims because the government did everything in its power to run out the clock. And just as the Tar Heels had great success running the four corners, the government’s strategy worked.

Judge James A. Wynn, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

In a statement, Attkisson attorney Paul Berman, a law professor at The George Washington University, wrote:

The...decision...effectively makes it impossible for any US citizen to challenge the government in court even if there is compelling evidence of unlawful surveillance.

Paul Berman, Attkisson Attorney and Law Professor at The George Washington University

The controversial court decision comes amid the Justice Department announcing deeper investigations into the circumstances under which government agents surveilled or spied on the Trump campaign in 2016.

Attkisson issued a statement saying:

In my case, the Department of Justice has refused to investigate its own so I was forced to self-fund a fight for justice on behalf of myself and all other U.S. citizens in civil court. It's stunning to think that the court is opening the door to unlimited, unlawful spying on U.S. citizens with no threat of punishment as long as the government can keep the names of its agents secret from the victim. The court's actions means it is virtually impossible for ordinary U.S. citizens to receive justice when offended by a powerful government that has endless resources and tax money to obstruct.

Sharyl Attkisson, Journalist and Plaintiff

Read the full statement from Attkisson's lawyers, Berman and Tab Turner, below:

The 2-1 panel decision that the 4th Circuit allowed to remain in effect effectively makes it impossible for any US citizen to challenge the government in court even if there is compelling evidence of unlawful surveillance.

Significantly, the court did not rule on or challenge the accuracy of Sharyl Attkisson's factual assertions or the physical evidence demonstrating state-sponsored surveillance; instead it said that if the government refuses to turn over evidence for long enough, it can effectively run out the clock on the litigation.

Here, the government has stonewalled Ms. Attkisson literally for years, but instead of criticizing the government for its failure to provide requested discovery, the two judges in the majority turned the facts on their head and actually blamed Attkisson for being stonewalled and dismissed the case because of her supposed failure to get the information the government is unwilling to provide.

Judge Wynn's clear-eyed and passionate dissent in the case properly recognizes that "under the government's playbook…plaintiffs would be deprived all opportunity to challenge the legality of most, if not all, these electronic surveillance efforts, notwithstanding the significant intrusion on individual rights posed by such surveillance.”

The decision does leave open the possibility that Attkisson can refile in the District Court and start again, so hopefully justice can still be done.

Attkisson is considering next steps.

--Paul S. Berman and Tab Turner

Read more on the case in Courthouse News

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Is Facebook instituting unfair bans?

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg - By Anthony Quintano

Facebook recently ignited a firestorm when it announced that it is banning conservative, controversial and non-mainstream personalities such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones and Laura Loomer.

Facebook says this controversial move was done in part to address critics who claim Facebook was doing a poor job of policing its platform for hateful and inciteful views.

On the other side, free speech advocates ask whether Facebook is bending to political pressure to avoid government threat of regulation. They ask whether this invites the government to be involved in a calculation it should have no role in.

Other critics point to objectionable and hateful content on the left that is tolerated, unfettered, on Facebook and other social media platforms.

You can read more about this story in Jeremy Barr's "Facebook Permanently Bans Prominent Far-Right Figures" below:

"We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology," the social network said of the ban on Alex Jones, Lara Loomer and others.

After months of blowback about inadequately patrolling hate speech on the platforms it owns, Facebook announced plans on Thursday to permanently ban far-right personalities, including Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulos and Paul Joseph Watson, as well as Jones' Infowars publication.

Facebook and Instagram are also taking action against Louis Farrakhan and Paul Nehlen, who have been accused of anti-Semitism.

"We've always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology," the social network said in a statement. "The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today."

(Continued)

Read the rest of the article here: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/facebook-permanently-bans-prominent-alt-right-figures-1206926

Fight government overreach and double-standard justice by supporting the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund for Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions. Click here.

The border without the hype

Lara Logan reports from the southern border for Full Measure this week.

Sunday on Full Measure, Lara Logan will take us on an eye-opening trip to the southern border with no preconceived notions and no hype. See what she found on land and on the water.


We also have a fascinating story on a new way lobbyists for corporations and other special interests are trying to reach President Trump, whom they call "The Audience of One."

When Trump was elected, he came in outside the normal money pipeline for Democrats and Republicans. Those seeking influence have been searching for novel ways to reach the man they call "The Audience of One."

Sunday we'll look at one high-tech tactic they developed called "geo-fencing." Watchdogs say it allows special interests to try to reach the President with no disclosure as to who is behind the outreach.


And Scott Thuman reports from The Alamo in Texas. It's a landmark marking the battle during the Texas Resolution when a small group of Texans fought back a Mexican onslaught in 1836.

All these years later, The Alamo has turned into quite the tourist trap. Some descendants of those who fought want a more sacred landmark. That could require relocating it. Other descendants object to that plan.

We'll take you to the new battle of The Alamo.

Watch Full Measure Sunday on TV, online or on demand. See how --below!

Fight government overreach and double-standard justice by supporting the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund for Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions. Click here.


Apple facial recognition software blamed in allegedly incorrect arrest of teen

A New York teenager is suing Apple for a massive sum of $1 billion dollars over its faulty facial recognition software that allegedly incorrectly linked him to four separate thefts at four different Apple locations.

The lawsuit states that Apple uses "Orwellian" facial software in its stores to prevent theft. The lawsuit alleges that Apple's software incorrectly linked the teen to the actual thief because the thief used the teen's stolen learner's permit card as an ID.

Read more about the lawsuit below in the Daily Mail article by Anneta Konstantinides.

An 18-year-old is suing Apple for a whopping $1 billion, claiming he was falsely arrested and charged for a series of thefts due to Apple's facial-recognition software.

Ousmane Bah was arrested at his New York home in November at 4am and charged for stealing from Apple stores in Manhattan, Boston, New Jersey, and Delaware. 

But the photo included with the arrest warrant showed a man that 'looked nothing like' the college student.

And one of the thefts, in Boston, had occurred on the same day that Bah was in Manhattan for his senior prom. 

Bah had previously lost a learner's permit, which had his name, address, and other personal information but did not include a photo. The permit also stated that it was 'not meant for identification purposes'. 

He believes the thief found or stole the permit and then used it as his own identification in Apple stores.  

The thief was first caught stealing $1,200 worth of products from an Apple store in Boston on May 31, 2018.  

The thief then stole from Apple stores in Manhattan, New Jersey, and Delaware, all the while being tracked by the company's software. 

Bah said he only learned about the thefts when he received a Boston municipal court summons in June. He was then arrested by the New York Police Department on November 29. 

Read more here:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6950531/New-York-teen-sues-Apple-1-BILLION-facial-recognition-software.html

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Coming Soon

Subscribe

Get the Latest Stories Straight to Your Inbox

Follow Sharyl Attkisson

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Recent Comments

  • Mickey Pullen on Hydroxychloroquine: Politicizing Medicine (PODCAST)
  • Mike Marinak on Hydroxychloroquine: Politicizing Medicine (PODCAST)
  • Debunking “The Hotchkiss Republicans Report” - The Hotchkiss Record on "Collusion against Trump" timeline

Subscribe

Get the Latest Stories Straight to Your Inbox

Footer

Pages

  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Support
  • Contact

2ndary Pages

  • Full Measure Stations
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Subscribe to SharylAttkisson.com

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS

  • Attkisson v. DOJ/FBI
  • Benghazi
  • Fake News
  • Fast & Furious
  • Obamacare

Ad

Ad