Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts

Monday, January 7, 2008

Did Senator McCain Betray?

Did Senator McCain Betray America?
http://www.mikeghouse.net/


I am sorely disappointed in our Journalists; each one of them either failed to ask or chose not to ask the tough question to Senator McCain.

In the Presidential debates on Saturday, January 5, 2008 with Charlie Gibson and Chris Wallace, and interviews with Tim Russert and George Stephanopoulos on Sunday January 6, 2008, John McCain was excited to share that “I’ll get Osama bin Laden. I’ll get him even if I have to follow him to the gates of hell”

Here is the piece of interview with Tim Russert:

MR. RUSSERT: “I’ll get him.”
SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: George Bush has tried...
SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
MR. RUSSERT: ...for seven years.
SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: What will you do differently than George Bush?
SEN. McCAIN: Well, first of all, I will dramatically—I wouldn’t have passed up some of the opportunities we passed up, such at, as at Tora Bora, and President Clinton passed up. But most importantly, I’ll improve our human intelligence.

MR. RUSSERT: How?
SEN. McCAIN: Well, you’re going to recruit, you’re going to train, and you’re going to send people in who can blend into the culture, into the, to the, the tribal communities and in—very tough. Not easy. I didn’t say it was going to be easy. I said it was going to be tough. But I will get him. And why is it so important? One, he killed 3,000 Americans. But two, in the last two weeks he’s gotten out two messages. He is recruiting, motivating and instructing radical Islamic extremists who want to kill and destroy everything we stand for and believe in. This guy is a continuing threat because of his very adroit—as well as other extremists—use of cyberspace.

MR. RUSSERT: If, if your...
SEN. McCAIN: So he’s a continuing threat to America. He isn’t just a guy who’s holed up someplace.

MR. RUSSERT: If your advisers said to you, “Mr. President, this is where Osama bin Laden is.”
SEN. McCAIN: Yeah. Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: “We can get him tonight.”
SEN. McCAIN: Yeah.
MR. RUSSERT: “But understand, if we go in, we could very well destabilize Pakistan, perhaps bring about the overthrow of President Musharraf.”
SEN. McCAIN: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you trade Osama bin Laden for Musharraf as president?
SEN. McCAIN: I would, I would never have that situation arise, because Musharraf and I have an, a relationship that goes back a number of years. I would be in constant communication with him, and I’m sure that maybe publicly or privately he would be working very closely. That’s the benefit...

MR. RUSSERT: Could he, could he be trusted?
SEN. McCAIN: Sure he could be trusted.
MR. RUSSERT: You don’t think he’s surrounded by Taliban sympathizers?
The full transcript is at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22487036/

What Mr. Russert, Stephanapoulus, Chris Wallace and Charlie Gibson forgot or chose not to ask was this major question.

Senator, the why did you not get Osama?
Why did you have to wait to be elected to do that?
Isn’t that a betrayal to your party and to your President?
Isn’t that a betrayal to our nation?

I am disappointed that none of the Journalist asked that question, a total of four times, and none could ask that?

It is not too late now.

http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2008/01/did-senator-mccain-betray.html

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and is a frequent guest on talk radio and local television network discussing Pluralism, politics, Islam, Religion and civic issues. His opinions, comments, news analysis and columns can be found on the Websites and Blogs listed at his personal website
http://www.mikeghouse.net/. Mike is a Dallasite for nearly three decades and Carrollton is his home town. He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com or (214) 325-1916



Friday, July 13, 2007

Betty Williams and the Truth

Betty Williams, the Nobel Peace Laureate and the emergence of a greater truth.

The following letter was sent to the Managing Editor and the staff of Dallas Morning News, the articles in reference to this are appended below;

Obviously the leading paragraph in Dallas news “she came all the way from Ireland to kill George Bush” was very misleading. The tone of that paragraph was to sensationalize the report and not present the essence of her speech. I am disappointed in the manner in which it was reported.

There is a greater truth that has emerged from this incident – The most patriotic among us are the one’s who keep the governments on their toes, if not the pied piper would have lead us all into a disaster zone. Had it not been for those Americans, who opposed the war and criticized the administration, we would have been in deep trouble and would have lost all the respect we have earned over the years as a kind, generous and caring nation. After all our democracy is the beacon of hope for mankind, and it is these criticizers who have kept the democracy alive.

All those who have pursued the path of challenging the government ought to be honored as the most patriotic Americans for the year, for their relentless battle to keep our democracy alive. What is democracy without opposition? The freedom that you and I have is owed to the people who speak up.

Reference: http://www.womenspeaceconference.org/ in Dallas :: July 11 thru 15, 2007

Mike Ghouse
http://www.mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/
http://www.foundationforpluralism.com/
http://www.worldmuslimcongress.com/
http://www.mikeghouse.net/

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/dmn/stories/DN-peace_12nat.ART.State.Edition1.43b8067.html
Nobel winner apologizes for Bush comment
Irish peace activist's speech at Dallas event gets standing ovation

08:22 AM CDT on Friday, July 13, 2007
By JAMES HOHMANN / The Dallas Morning News
Betty Williams

Nobel Peace Prize winner Betty Williams apologized Thursday for saying she could kill President Bush, remarks that drew scorn from Bush loyalists and shook up the International Women's Peace Conference in Dallas.

"My feelings now and again get way ahead of me," Ms. Williams said. "I couldn't kill anybody, but I must confess that I'm extremely angry with the Bush administration and what they have done. To say that was wrong."

Conference organizers immediately sought to distance themselves from her speech Wednesday night, but it brought a swift rejoinder from the White House, dominated some radio talk shows and drew a flurry of hateful e-mails to attendees.

Questioned about her speech Thursday morning, Ms. Williams initially denied making the comment but reversed course after organizers confirmed the quote.

In a speech before 1,000 people Wednesday, Ms. Williams said that violence is a choice and the push for peace takes hard work and commitment.

"Right now, I could kill George Bush," she said. "No, I don't mean that. How could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that." As she made her point, she chuckled and some members of the audience laughed.

Also Online
Audio: 'Right now, I could kill George Bush' (Note: The International Women's Peace Conference states that Ms. Williams' opinions are her own.)
Ms. Williams, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1976 for creating a group that helped start peace talks in Northern Ireland, also said that Mr. Bush should be impeached. About half the audience responded to that with a standing ovation.

The speech, given in the city that will host Mr. Bush's presidential library, caused a stir on talk radio and Internet sites, and among those attending the conference.

"Threatening the president of the United States is a crime," conservative talk show host Mike Gallagher said on his nationally syndicated program, which airs in Dallas. "Many of us are resentful at a so-called Nobel Peace Prize laureate having the audacity to threaten the life of our commander in chief."

Several women at the conference said they admired Ms. Williams for having the courage to say what she thought – even if unpopular.

"It was an incredible act of bravery to make that statement in Texas," said Lucinda Marshall of Louisville, Ky., who added that the anti-Bush rhetoric appealed to her. "When you have a president that's consistently breaking the law, you do not have a democracy. You have a dictatorship."

'Surprisingly hostile'

White House spokesman Blair Jones called Ms. Williams' comments "surprisingly hostile rhetoric coming from someone who has been recognized for promoting peace."
It wasn't the first time Ms. Williams has spoken critically of Mr. Bush. Last July, she made an almost identical comment about wanting to "kill George Bush" to a group of schoolchildren in Brisbane, Australia. She said her point was that it is hard to be nonviolent when there are so many atrocities in the world.

Ms. Williams said Thursday that the focus on her comments about Mr. Bush was a distraction from her more important message about peace.

"I'm just really passionate about my work. Sometimes it's 'open mouth, insert foot,' " she said. "I'll spend the rest of the day saying I'm sorry to everybody."

Conference chairwoman Carol Donovan stressed Thursday that the conference is nonpartisan and that Ms. Williams' views are her own.

"The remarks were spoken from her heart and were based on her own concern and opinions," she said. "With over 1,000 delegates, you can imagine the range of opinions is very wide."
Peace conference delegates talked about the speech Thursday between workshops on issues like genital mutilation and globalization.

Nancy Sonntag, a Dallas psychotherapist who has worked with Iraq war veterans, said she is not a Bush supporter but called Ms. Williams' comments "totally inappropriate."

"I was a little disappointed in her response," Ms. Sonntag said, referring to the conference's overarching question of how to achieve peace. "I don't think that's the solution I was looking for. There are so many other problems."

Unda Sigera of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, said people in her country are generally supportive of Mr. Bush – if they talk about him at all – because he increased the amount of U.S. aid to Africa. "I do not know much about America," she said. "Back home, they don't say anything about Bush because this is beyond their say."

Beth Weems Pirtle of Farmers Branch, a past state president of the United Nations Association and a volunteer at the conference, described herself as a friend and longtime supporter of Mr. Bush's, but she said that she has become increasingly opposed to the administration.
"Betty Williams was right on target in a lot of what she said," Ms. Pirtle said. "On Sept. 11, he had the world at his feet. He dropped the ball. He let the neocons around him take advantage of him."

Hateful responses

Conference organizers reported that a Dallas police detective was working with hotel security to review about 40 hateful e-mails received in response to Ms. Williams' speech.
They wouldn't say whether anyone was threatened.

Assistant Police Chief Ron Waldrop said police presence at the Adam's Mark Hotel and Conference Center was not increased as a result of the speech. "We have people that work with protesters and monitor controversial events," he said. "We do that on a routine basis."
Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren in Washington declined to comment, but a Dallas agent said Ms. Williams had not been questioned and there were no plans to do so.
And Ms. Williams said she did not fear for her safety.

"If I would have been concerned about my safety," she said, "I wouldn't have started the peace movement in Northern Ireland."

Staff writers Todd J. Gillman, Jason Trahan and Tanya Eiserer contributed to this report.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Cumbered American Media

Cumbered American Media
Mike Ghouse, June 11, 2007



Explore the truth for yourselves, sit down with a clip board and watch CNN and FOX in particular and all other networks in general, and make notes, for every word they utter, see if there should have been another point of view. The Same goes with the other Television/Cable networks, Radio and Print Media.

Even when they present another point of view, see how they present it through a weak and sometimes useless spokesperson. If you recall the intifada times, they would always pitch well spoken Netanyahu against Shaggy Yasser Arafat it was a deliberate attempt to portray, that which their bossess do not like in a negative way. When Hannan Asharawi was pitched with Netanyahu, the Night line in Dallas was blocked.

I hope one of these days, our media trusts us to draw our own conclusions and form our own opinions. In the short run media may win with such biasing, but in the long run, it will cost us. "just" news, may not be sensational, but it brings facts to people and people can decide what they want to do with it.

The Media expects you to believe what they pass out as the gospel truth, if not, you are labeled.
Call any one of these talk show hosts, you will not be entertained if you have another point of view. That is the order of their bossess, as it is their business and they decide what goes on the air and that is alright, if they call Propaganda media.

Wall Street Journal is fighting back to retain their freedom, that which is encumbered as well.

Related articles:

http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2007/06/myth-of-free-press.html
http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2007/06/is-freedom-of-press-myth.html

Mike Ghouse
http://mikeghouse.net/aboutus.asp

Bancrofts Set Revised Safeguard Proposals
By MATTHEW KARNITSCHNIG
June 12, 2007; Page A2



Bancroft family advisers were expected to send News Corp. as early as today a revised set of proposals for a special board to safeguard The Wall Street Journal's editorial independence, but it was unclear if the suggested measures would bridge key differences over how the rules would be enforced, people familiar with the matter said.

"This is not a done deal," said one family member who asked not to be identified.
If News Corp., which last month offered $5 billion to acquire Dow Jones & Co., owner of the Journal, accepts the proposals, discussions between the two sides could then turn to other issues, including price. Upon agreement on those issues, the family, which controls Dow Jones, would then ask the company's board to begin formal negotiations with News Corp.

The Bancrofts have said they will continue talks with News Corp. only if an agreement is reached first on formal safeguards for the Journal. The family wants to include enforcement clauses in the agreement and ensure that the Journal newsroom has a strong voice on the board, according to people familiar with the matter. Family members were briefed on the status of the negotiations during a conference call with their advisers yesterday.

The new proposals come one week after family members met with News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch for the first time to discuss ways to preserve the Journal's integrity should it be sold.

In a letter to the Bancroft family last month, Mr. Murdoch proposed a board "exactly along the lines of" the one he established at the Times of London and the Sunday Times, which he acquired in the early 1980s.

In that case, Mr. Murdoch agreed to give extra powers to independent directors on the papers' board. The six independent members are charged with protecting the two papers' editors in chief from interference by the owners "in expressing opinion or in reporting news that might directly or indirectly conflict with the opinions or interests of any of the newspaper proprietors," according to the newspapers' articles of association. The six are supposed to have approval over the hiring and firing of the top editors, who in turn are supposed to have control over staffing decisions.

Mr. Murdoch isn't supposed to give directions to any journalist except each paper's top editor.

But the Bancrofts are concerned that the London system hasn't kept Mr. Murdoch from meddling in the papers' editorial affairs and want a structure with more "teeth," according to people familiar with the matter. The family also wants to ensure that the Journal itself has strong representation on the board, these people say.
One issue the family has discussed is that the board would have a public mechanism to air disagreements with News Corp. in the event the board and News Corp.
management are at odds, according to a person familiar with the family's discussion.

The board would also have the power to hire and fire the managing editor of the Journal, this person said. The family was trying to come up with a structure in which the editorial side of the company would report to the board (which would have some control over budgets) and the business side of Dow Jones would report to News Corp., but family representatives were told by their advisers that such a structure was an unrealistic expectation, this person said.

Separately, Fidelity Management & Research, which had owned more than 7% of Dow Jones stock, disclosed in a filing yesterday that it had sold nearly all of its shares.
--Susan Pulliam and Sarah Ellison contributed to this article.
Write to Matthew Karnitschnig at matthew.karnitschnig@wsj.com

American Media is not Free

American Media is not Free

Explore the truth for yourselves, sit down with a clip board and watch CNN and FOX in particular and all other networks in general, and make notes, for every word they utter, see if there should have been another point of view.

Even when they present another point of view, see how they present the the other point of view through a weak and sometimes useless spokesperson. Do they ask hard questions, or passon smirk remarks as the gospel truth.

The Same goes with the other Television/Cable networks, Radio and Print Media.

Call any one of these talk show hosts, you will not be entertained if you have another point of view. That is the order of their bossess, as it is their business and they decide what goes on the air and that is alright, if they call Propaganda media.

The following article is about such struggle.

Bancrofts Set Revised
Safeguard Proposals
By MATTHEW KARNITSCHNIG
June 12, 2007; Page A2

Bancroft family advisers were expected to send News Corp. as early as today a revised set of proposals for a special board to safeguard The Wall Street Journal's editorial independence, but it was unclear if the suggested measures would bridge key differences over how the rules would be enforced, people familiar with the matter said.

"This is not a done deal," said one family member who asked not to be identified.
If News Corp., which last month offered $5 billion to acquire Dow Jones & Co., owner of the Journal, accepts the proposals, discussions between the two sides could then turn to other issues, including price. Upon agreement on those issues, the family, which controls Dow Jones, would then ask the company's board to begin formal negotiations with News Corp.

The Bancrofts have said they will continue talks with News Corp. only if an agreement is reached first on formal safeguards for the Journal. The family wants to include enforcement clauses in the agreement and ensure that the Journal newsroom has a strong voice on the board, according to people familiar with the matter. Family members were briefed on the status of the negotiations during a conference call with their advisers yesterday.

The new proposals come one week after family members met with News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch for the first time to discuss ways to preserve the Journal's integrity should it be sold.

In a letter to the Bancroft family last month, Mr. Murdoch proposed a board "exactly along the lines of" the one he established at the Times of London and the Sunday Times, which he acquired in the early 1980s.

In that case, Mr. Murdoch agreed to give extra powers to independent directors on the papers' board. The six independent members are charged with protecting the two papers' editors in chief from interference by the owners "in expressing opinion or in reporting news that might directly or indirectly conflict with the opinions or interests of any of the newspaper proprietors," according to the newspapers' articles of association. The six are supposed to have approval over the hiring and firing of the top editors, who in turn are supposed to have control over staffing decisions.

Mr. Murdoch isn't supposed to give directions to any journalist except each paper's top editor.

But the Bancrofts are concerned that the London system hasn't kept Mr. Murdoch from meddling in the papers' editorial affairs and want a structure with more "teeth," according to people familiar with the matter. The family also wants to ensure that the Journal itself has strong representation on the board, these people say.
One issue the family has discussed is that the board would have a public mechanism to air disagreements with News Corp. in the event the board and News Corp.
management are at odds, according to a person familiar with the family's discussion.

The board would also have the power to hire and fire the managing editor of the Journal, this person said. The family was trying to come up with a structure in which the editorial side of the company would report to the board (which would have some control over budgets) and the business side of Dow Jones would report to News Corp., but family representatives were told by their advisers that such a structure was an unrealistic expectation, this person said.

Separately, Fidelity Management & Research, which had owned more than 7% of Dow Jones stock, disclosed in a filing yesterday that it had sold nearly all of its shares.
--Susan Pulliam and Sarah Ellison contributed to this article.
Write to Matthew Karnitschnig at matthew.karnitschnig@wsj.com

Thursday, June 7, 2007

The Myth of the Free Press

The Myth of the Free Press
Mike Ghouse, June 7, 2007
________________________________

Years ago, it was a common knowledge that the media in former Soviet Union, be it TV, Print or Radio were mouth pieces of the Kremlin. Last year in America, we had stooped to that level as well, our media had become the fixer for the Bush gang. The reports show the key media guys tooting the horn for our government.

Media is the most important public institution responsible for keeping the democracy alive, and keeping the public aware of what is going on, so the people can take action and keep Government of the people by the people for the people.

My dream job is to influence the policy makers of our country, to put our nation on the path of fairness, justice, equity and liberty in dealing with our domestic and foreign affairs. "Just" dealings have the power to take us and the World through century with relative peace and prosperity. The whole world is a bus. ( http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/search/label/A%20Community)

http://media.fastclick.net/w/click.here?cid=78308&mid=153658&sid=36000&m=2&c=0

Here are some quotes before the report;

"The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the Americans freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight." -- JFK

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." Henry Kissinger, quoted by Bob Woodward in The Final Days, 1976

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
"[The New World Order] cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change it's perceptions." -- Henry Kissinger, World Affairs Council Press Conference, Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel , April 19th 1994

The individual is handicapped coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous, he cannot believe it exists. -- J. Edgar Hoover

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." --- George W. Bush ..."Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bush's have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." George Bush Sr. 1992

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - GW Bush, March 13, 2002

It is in every body's interest to seek those [actions] that lead to happiness and avoid those which lead to suffering. And because our interests are inextricably linked, we are compelled to accept ethics as the indispensable interface between my desire to be happy and yours.- Dalai Lama

I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do ~~ Edward Everett Hale

My dream is to strengthen the pluralistic values of America, and the desire to encourage the community of nations to review our values of Liberty, Justice and co-existence as catalysts for prosperity. No community or a nation can have undue advantages over others. Such benefits are temporary and deleterious to lasting peace. We have to maintain a healthy balance within our communities and with all nations, what is good for America, has got to be good for the world and vice-versa.

We have a lot of fixing to do, thanks God, on November 7, 2006 Americans woke up and threw the gutless, spineless and useless congress persons and senators out. Thanks God, we had the awakening to restore the checks and balances that our founders had put in place for ensuring the government of the people. I hope on Tuesday, November 4th, 2008 the fascist regime ends in our own country for good.

No single party should dominate both the houses. It would make sense to have the House and Senate run by different parties; republican and democratic. It would be in the interest of our nation, that we Americans seek to achieve this. I would also like to see the Judiciary to have lesser influence by either party. This will be my tune for the whole of next year. Let's put our party loyalty aside, and devote our loyalty to one nation, democracy and party in that order.

I am still waiting for the links to the report by Bill Moyers in the month of May 2007, meanwhile here is everything to watch and or read.

Mike Ghouse is a Speaker, Thinker, Writer and a Moderator. He is president of the Foundation for Pluralism and is a frequent guest on talk radio, discussing interfaith, political and civic issues. He founded the World Muslim Congress with a simple theme: "good for Muslims and good for the world." His personal Website is www.MikeGhouse.net and his articles can be found on the Websites mentioned above and in his blogs: http://MikeGhouseforAmerica.Blogspot.com and http://MikeGhouse.Sulekha.com . He can be reached at MikeGhouse@gmail.com. Mike is a Dallasite for nearly three decades and Carrollton is his home town.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051407A.shtml



The Cost of War
By Bill Moyers

Friday 11 May 2007

TRANSCRIPT:

Finally, at the beginning of its fifth year, let's take a look at the cost of this war.

Bob Woodruff (ABC): "It was an impressive sight from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, this war time president soaring overhead."

Cynthia Bowers (CBS): "The White House has sent a clear signal. It is pulling out all the stops, choreographing this finale to the War."

Bill Moyers: Yes, the war was over, the winner was George W. Bush, hailed by the press as a conquering hero.

Chris Matthews (Hardball): "He won the war, he was an effective commander, everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics."

Lou Dobbs (CNN): "He looked like alternately Commander in Chief, rock star, movie star and one of the guys."

Tom Brokaw (NBC): "Here, now, is the President of the United States as he walks across the deck with 2000 sailors and officers on board for his address to the nation on the recently completed war in Iraq."

President George W. Bush: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

Bill Moyers: By this point - 140 U.S. troops had died during the mission.

But back in Iraq, reality was writing the script.

Every day since that choreographed victory lap, violent act has followed violent act.

This April was the cruelest month of the year. The deadliest so far.

Even the supposedly protected heart of American power in Baghdad, The Green Zone, was shattered by an al Qaeda attack. Al Qaeda was not a presence in Iraq before the mission but it has a firm foothold there now.

Entering its fifth year, the war's costs are soaring so fast the Web site costofwar.com uses a non-stop digital counter to keep up with the spending. In today's dollars, it's projected to become the most expensive war in recent history - reaching nearly one-trillion dollars.

According to the National Priorities Project, the money spent on the war so far could have provided America:

1.8 million new teachers.
Over 20 million college scholarships.
Health insurance for over 60 million children.
Or nearly 4 million new housing units.
But no price tag can be put on the lost human lives.

Our government hasn't wanted us to see the human cost of the war.

It took grieving families and friends and veterans to create their own memorials like this one - crosses all in a row - on a California beach.

The grieving continues online:

Mother (Sitting Near Headstone): He was my only child. This is something he gave me when he was 12 years old for Valentine's Day.

Sister: He wasn't just my brother. He was our father's best friend, he was our mother's baby boy.

Sister: My brother was a loving guy. A great brother, a great son, a great dad.

Mother: My angel was given to me on October 7, 1980. And he remains my angel to this day.

Bill Moyers: The number of soldiers killed has reached 3,372 this week.

Medic: We'll just got some oxygen on you, okay?

Bill Moyers: The number wounded - over 25,000 - And the number of limbs blown off and amputated - 1500 so far. And over five thousand head and brain injuries.

And we can never reckon the unseen scars that last a lifetime.

Sgt. Ty Ziegel suffered the loss of an eye, a fractured skull and burns over much of his body from the attack of a suicide bomber. Over 30 operations later he returned to civilian life and married his high school sweetheart, Renee.

As he gets on with his life, his unit is going back for a third tour of duty - including his 21-year-old brother Zach.

As for Iraqis, it's been difficult to get an accurate count of the dead and wounded.

Estimates range up to three-quarters of a million killed.

Caught in the cross-fire between Sunnis and Shiites, hunted down by death squads or cut down on their way to school work or the market, many just disappear into the debris.

Some two million have fled the country running for their lives.

Try to imagine what it's like to live with this.

Try to imagine what it's like to live in this.

Even when we catch a glimpse of their blackened bodies.

Even when their stricken eyes stare back.

They remain nameless to us - collateral damage - gone in a flash.

Forty years ago, we escalated the war in Vietnam again and again despite the absence of a winning strategy.

We're doing it again.

President George W. Bush: America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence - and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.

Bill Moyers: The President is also calling up an additional 13,000 National Guardsmen next year despite the hardships on their families, communities and jobs. Nor will they be available during that time for emergency duty here at home. And the army has extended the tour of troops in Iraq to 15 months.

As Democrats and Republicans in Washington wrangle over a strategy, there is speculation that no matter what agreement they reach ... American troops will be in Iraq at least a decade to come.

We are not finished with the costs of this war.

We'll be back next week. I'm Bill Moyers.

This is the full length 90 min. version of Bill Moyer's 1987 scathing critique of the criminal subterfuge carried out by the Executive Branch of the United States Government to carry out operations which are clearly contrary to the wishes and values of the American people. The ability to exercise this power with impunity is facilitated by the National Security Act of 1947. The thrust of the exposé is the Iran-Contra arms and drug-running operations which flooded the streets of our nation with crack cocaine. The significance of the documentary is probably greater today in 2007 than it was when it was made. We now have a situation in which these same forces have committed the most egregious terrorist attack on US soil and have declared a fraudulent so-called "War on Terror". The ruling regime in the US who have conducted the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, are now banging the war drum against Iran. We have the PATRIOT act which has stripped us of many of our basic civil rights justified by the terror of 9/11 which is their own doing.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3505348655137118430

The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis
This 1987 documentary by Bill Moyers tells the story of America's fraudulent "war on terror" and reveals how subversion of the rule of law created and armed our own created enemies. The staggering costs, as you will see, have been immeasurable*. The federal insurrection continues to this day. *This much we can measure: Back when American kids were being drafted to kill Vietnamese.…

YouTube link click here- Broadcast Yourself.

... Bill Moyers looks at the CIA overthrow of the Prime Minister of Iran in 1953. ... lead to radicalized and hostile states in a perpetual state of war. ...
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_videos&search_query=Iran -

------------------------------------------------------------

Number Of Iraqi Civilians Slaughtered In America's Rape Of Iraq - At Least 655,000 + +
http://tinyurl.com/usq4x

Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged) In America's Rape Of Iraq 3,017
http://icasualties.org/oif/

The Rape of Iraq Costs and America lost its soul too besides going bankrupt, financially and morally! ! $357,490,957,418

See the cost in your community
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

End the Occupation of Palestine & AMERICA by Israel & America's occupation of Iraq NOW!

Is Freedom of Press a myth?

Is Freedom of Press a myth?
Media or Propoganda?


Bill Moyers' "America at Cross roads" perhaps opened up the minds of many a Americans who naively believed what they see in the paper (media) is the gospel truth. A majority of us were trained to believe that the news media puts out facts and truth, thanks to Bill Moyers for busting that myth unintentionally.

The following piece in Wall Street J0urnal re-asserts the truth, that much of our media is not genuine, they are businessess run for profits and do as they are told to do. Nothing wrong with that, but please do not pretend that it is news.

The essence of our freedom is our ability to question, question everything including our own beliefs, question what you see on the screen, what our President tells us, what is on the paper and what we are reading here on this blog.

Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and several of them are plain propogandists, nothing wrong with that either, but lead the gullible among us to believe this as the truth, give it as your version, be honest about it. All we have to do is question the intent of these men and women on every word they utter. More at: http://mikeghouseforamerica.blogspot.com/2007/06/journalistic-conduct.html

Mike Ghouse
www.MikeGhouse.net

An Independent Newspaper
June 6, 2007; Page A18
"Don't believe the man who tells you there are two sides to every question. There is only one side to the truth."

So wrote William Peter Hamilton, one of the first men to hold the job of editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, in the early decades of the last century. For editorial writers worth their pay, those are words to live by, and we hope to be living by them for a long time to come.

That's a point worth stressing amid the news that the Bancroft family may soon sell the Journal's parent company to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. or some other bidder. The Bancrofts have been exceptional stewards of this newspaper for more than a century. But capitalism is dynamic, and those of us who extol the virtues of Joseph Schumpeter's "creative destruction" for others can't complain when it sweeps through our own industry. That's what is happening as the Internet breaks up long-time media business models, and Dow Jones is hardly immune. The Bancrofts have every right as owners to sell or not based on their own dictates, and what we say won't matter in any event.

* * *
Where we do have a say, however, is on the question of journalistic "independence." There's been a lot of debate lately about what that means. We thought our readers might like to know what it has meant at the Journal, and specifically for these columns, over the decades.

For starters, the Bancrofts are unique in their hands-off ownership. They are often compared as family newspaper proprietors to the Grahams at the Washington Post or the Sulzbergers at the New York Times. But members of those families run those newspapers, exerting influence over the news and opinion operations. In that sense, those newspapers are hardly "independent" of those families.

Everyone knows that the influence of Times Publisher and CEO Arthur Sulzberger Jr. extends to selecting not merely the editorial page editor but columnists, political endorsements and, as far as we can tell, even news coverage priorities. We don't see how this differs from most of what Mr. Murdoch is accused of doing with his newspapers. The same lack of independence also applies to most non-family media companies such as Gannett, a newspaper owner whose make-no-waves corporate ethic turns nearly all of its editorial pages into mush.

By contrast, the Bancrofts have allowed journalists to run the news and editorial shops. That family ethic became a guiding principle under Jessie Bancroft Cox, step-granddaughter of Clarence Barron, and the business leadership of the great Barney Kilgore.

At the editorial page, this has meant that for a century we have been able to adhere to a worldview we now distill to the phrase "free people and free markets." This began, more or less, with the classical liberalism of William Hamilton, who as a Scotsman before emigrating had dabbled in British Liberal Party politics. It has continued through a series of editors who have adhered to those principles despite shifting political fashions and partisan winds.

Over the years this independence has also meant the freedom to challenge prevailing media conventions and political power. Following Hamilton as editor in the 1930s, Thomas Woodlock battled Keynesian economics and the New Deal. The Journal was skeptical of FDR's dalliances with prewar Britain -- until the day war began and our short editorial was headlined, "We Have a Duty." The editorial hangs in our office today.

As he campaigned for re-election in 1948, Harry Truman denounced the Journal as the "Republicans' Bible," a line that earned him a rebuke from Editor (of the editorial page) William Grimes because "our loyalties are to the economic and governmental principles in which we believe and not to any political party." In one of his visits to the White House, Editor Vermont Royster was thanked by John F. Kennedy for supporting his free-trade agenda. "Young man," said Royster, "the Wall Street Journal was supporting free trade before you were born." The Journal hasn't endorsed a Presidential candidate since Herbert Hoover, preferring instead to praise or assail the candidates' ideas.

On occasion this has meant the Journal has come under outside pressure, both commercial and political, but the Bancrofts and our publishers have always stood firm. In the 1950s, these columns defended Journal reporters against General Motors for disclosing the car company's tactics against independent auto dealers only weeks after we had defended GM against the government's trustbusters. GM pulled its advertising for a time, only to back down later, and the episode helped the Journal build credibility as independent of advertising interests.

Our former Editor Robert Bartley once told us of being called on the carpet by Henry Kissinger, then the Secretary of State, for opposing detente and arms control with the Soviet Union. Journal Publisher and CEO Warren Phillips accompanied Bartley to the meeting, and started things off by asking Mr. Kissinger what all of his Spengler-pessimism talk vis-a-vis the Russians was about. The anti-detente editorials kept coming, and Bartley and Mr. Kissinger later became friends.

The 1990s were especially controversial with the Journal's reporting about Whitewater and Bill Clinton's ethics, and more than one liberal thought he could mute Bartley's campaign in the wake of the Vincent Foster suicide. But the Bancrofts and Publisher Peter Kann stood up to the pressure.

Perhaps the sternest commercial test has come as we have expanded abroad, especially in Asia. The Journal has been banned or had its circulation restricted in many countries, and a reporter for another Dow Jones publication went to jail in Malaysia. In Singapore, a big market for the Journal, the government made the editorial page the first target of its campaign to curtail Western coverage of its domestic politics in the mid-1980s. While other companies -- notably Bloomberg -- have surrendered pre-emptively, the Journal has been nearly alone in fighting back. Freedom of the press has improved in Asia as democracy has expanded, and we're proud to continue fighting for freedom and human rights today in China.

We could tell other stories, but the essential point is that our owners have allowed us to speak our mind on behalf of a consistent set of principles. Readers may like, or loathe, those beliefs and our way of defending them. But we like to think this brand of independence is one reason the Journal has attracted such an influential readership. To borrow a phrase from modern business lingo, we hope it is part of our value proposition.

At a dinner honoring their century of Journal ownership in 2002, Bob Bartley expressed his gratitude to the Bancrofts for their support, noting that some of his editorials over 30 years must not have sat well with everyone in the ideologically diverse clan. But Bartley added that his proudest boast was that he ran the only editorial page "that sells newspapers." We can't say what any future owner would do, but we doubt one would be foolish enough to undermine this market appeal.

* * *
On January 2, 1951, William Grimes wrote a memorable editorial, "A Newspaper's Philosophy," that summed up our worldview this way:

"On our editorial page we make no pretense of walking down the middle of the road. Our comments and interpretations are made from a definite point of view. We believe in the individual, in his wisdom and his decency. We oppose all infringements on individual rights, whether they stem from attempts at private monopoly, labor union monopoly or from an overgrowing government. People will say we are conservative or even reactionary. We are not much interested in labels but if we were to choose one, we would say we are radical."

Even 56 years later, that still sounds good to us. Whether the Bancroft family sells or not, and no matter who is the buyer, we plan to stand for those beliefs for as long into the future as we are able.

And



From today's WSJ.
My Sweet Press Lord
June 6, 2007; Page A18


Here's my dream, and it's a not good one. The day comes when a controversialist like Rupert Murdoch bids to buy the Journal -- and no one cares. That's one of the considerations swirling in a mess that, from any party's perspectives except Mr. Murdoch's, makes the decision faced by the Bancroft family (which controls Dow Jones, our parent company) so vexing. The future of the paper is at risk if we do the deal; it's also at risk if we don't.

Our owners, in the way of other businesses, have not made themselves richer by growing their capital in the Journal. Nonetheless, in their stewardship of the paper, they've let us do what we do without interference, which is something we all cherish. Even those of us who don't find Mr. Murdoch an ogre naturally would treat as dubious any change of circumstance that might portend a change in this, our own very satisfying situation.

Mr. Murdoch's dealings in China have been a concern. This column, tongue in cheek, once assailed him for his "offenses against freedom and democracy," such as dropping the BBC from his Star TV lineup to appease Beijing. But we also let the reader in on a secret: "Mr. Murdoch's judgment about when to trim may not be perfect, but most sensible people want Star TV in China."

In any case, his trimmings in China have been far less egregious than those of Yahoo. With any owner, you take a chance -- and the risks include not just errors of commission (inappropriate interference) but errors of omission (letting the business run itself when it really needs a strong hand to alter course and correct its follies).

Much is heard about editorial independence, some of it fusty, some of it exactly to the point. What makes the New York Post such a delight is partly the entertaining suspicion (most of the time probably unwarranted) that hidden agendas and childish rivalries are behind the decision to bash this muckety-muck and spare that. Not for nothing is the Post the favorite read of New York's catty media, social and business elite, and nobody mistakes it for a paper of record. Mr. Murdoch clearly knows what he's doing, fitting a newspaper to its market opportunity. One has a reasonable suspicion that he also understands the very different market position and opportunity of the Journal. (Indeed, we'd like to think he'd end up more hostage to the Journal -- its visibility, credibility and power to embarrass -- than the paper would ever be to his business and personal interests.)

The flipside is that great newspapers aren't great because nobody is running them. In his wonderful memoir, the journalist and eminent business adviser Peter Drucker wrote: "Every first-rate editor I have ever heard of reads, edits and rewrites every word that goes into his publication. . . . Good editors are not 'permissive'; they do not let their colleagues do 'their thing'; they make sure that everybody does the 'paper's thing.' A good, let alone a great editor is an obsessive autocrat with a whim of iron, who rewrites and rewrites, cuts and slashes, until every piece is exactly the way he thinks it should have been done."

His qualities as a newshound and shrewd businessman mean, in all likelihood, that Mr. Murdoch would prove a responsible proprietor for the Journal, despite hyperventilation at the prospect by some readers and employees. He's certainly equipped by experience to make the necessary judgments to protect the paper's stature while expanding its reach (and has the resources to do so). Though strictly from the perspective of someone who works here, I'd still prefer to be owned by a company exclusively in the news business, one that lives and dies by the reputation of its newsgathering.

Here I confess to a personal bias, related to nothing more than reading the Washington Post over the years, which is that it's an exceptionally brainy newspaper.

Intelligence as a quality is hit or miss in most newspaper writing and editing. At the Post, they seem to have institutionalized it. You rarely find the collapses of critical judgment that seem to be routine at other papers when, say, a trial lawyer appears claiming evidence of racism in the auto dealership industry or at an oil company.

Absent too are the excesses of billboard journalism -- the habit of editors casually intruding a noisy paragraph that oversells and distorts the story below, leaving an unsatisfying jumble of facts that don't live up to the assertions at the top.

We don't love everything in the Post or all its reporters, and it has certainly benefited from conservative competition from the Washington Times. It also lacks the leverageable assets that Mr. Murdoch would presumably use to build the Journal's brand and distribution opportunities. But the Post's editorial page has become remarkably more sensible in recent years (although its Web site remains awful and the Style section has gone down the tubes). The company itself is principally in the news business; Warren Buffett sits on the board, guarding against investment misadventure.

A few readers have harrumphed that Mr. Murdoch reputedly would try to shorten the Journal's articles. He's not the only one. Washington Post Executive Editor Len Downie has instructed his crew to write shorter too -- and the Post already strikes me as a very well-edited paper: News stories are rounded, complete but not overwritten. They also have a semblance of being written by somebody with a living mind, not just re-executing the media's general template on a given news event (for an everyday example, see the Post's recent contributions on the Chinese pet food scare).

More than that, if you read a lot of newspapers, what sneaks up on you are the outward manifestations of a quiet, non-braggy excellence that should be attractive to anyone looking to ensure the Journal's long-term future. Mr. Murdoch is the only one who has put money on the table. He's not the only one some of us wish would.

Monday, June 4, 2007

Journalistic Conduct

Mint Code of Journalistic Conduct
http://www.livemint.com/mint-Code.aspx


The document follows My comments: It does not take a genuis to figure out the lack of integrity on the part of many a media guys. Ted Coppell once said on C-Span, that he wished his boss had given him the freedom to present equal caliber and equal time to both sides, when he was reporting from Jerusalem on the intifada, for instance when he had Hanan Ashrawai head on with Netanyahu, Night line was censored in Dallas and many other cities. Because Hanan was a good spokesperson and people would question the Netanyahu, they censored the news. However, they would give equal time to Yasser Arafat, who did not know how to speak and lose it even before he said anything. The media has played this game very well.

I am glad Glen Beck claimed that he is a not a journalist, now the beltway boys on CNN, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and a few others need to confirm that they are not journalists. What amazes me is the dismal principles they stand on. They are completely blinded with their opinions. Take a pad and watch their propoganda in the guise of news, especially about Islam or Muslims, ask yoursleves, if there is another point of view... would they present equal caliber individuals on both sides of the issue, or put weaker candidates on the other side, just so they can claim fairness.

When President Bush said, they hate our freedom and our life style, not one single journalist asked him the source of that bull. Had they questioned him right from the beginning, in the interest of peace and in the interest of our nation, he probably would not have produced so much of it.

Tim Russett, Tom Brokaw and many others admitted they were had by Bush-Cheney-Rice on the Bill Moyer show about the years of Bush in the white house.

Well here is the code of conduct for journalists.. how many would measure it up? We owe it to our own future to keep democracy and its checks and balances intact. The Journalists betrayed the Public.

However, take a read about the items they take pledge...

Mike Ghouse
____________________________________________________

This code is designed to provide all employees of Mint with guidelines for appropriate professional conduct. It is intended not as a statement of new beliefs or a codification of new rules of conduct, but as a reaffirmation of enduring values and practices.

The central premise of this code is that Mint reputation for quality products and services, for business integrity, and for the independence and integrity of our publications, services and products is the heart and soul of our enterprise. Put another way, it is an essential prerequisite for success in the news and information business that our customers believe us to be telling them the truth. If we are not telling them the truth -- or even if they, for any valid reason, believe that we are not -- then Mint cannot prosper. The company will suffer, for example, if our customers cannot assume that:

• Our facts are accurate and fairly presented;
• Our analyses represent our best independent judgments rather than our preferences, or those of our sources, advertisers or information providers;
• Our opinions represent only our own editorial philosophies; or
• There are no hidden agendas in any of our journalistic undertakings.

All companies profess business integrity. But the impact of our work on the work of others, and on their lives and fortunes, places special responsibilities upon all Mint employees.

The clear implication of these beliefs is that the responsibility for safeguarding and growing a company that lives up to this code lies with each and every one of us. Every Mint employee holds a position of trust. Acceptance of a position at any level or in any part of Mint includes acceptance of individual responsibility to uphold Mint policies governing legal and ethical business practices. It also includes acceptance of individual responsibility for following all legal requirements and ethical business practices, as well as the responsibility to stress proper ethical behavior among colleagues and subordinates.

Moreover, it must be clear to each of us that business integrity is necessary in every business decision- and that it is not the special province of news employees, or members of the legal department, or anyone else. Business integrity requires that we make all of our business decisions, and approach all business questions, objectively and realistically, and in the long-term best interests of all of our shareholders.

Editors, by virtue of their positions of authority, must be ethical role models for all employees. An important part of an editor's leadership responsibility is to exhibit the highest standards of integrity in all dealings with employees, customers and the world at large. Editors must avoid even implicit or unspoken approval of any actions that may be damaging to the reputation of HT Media, and must always exercise sound business judgment in the performance of their duties.

An equally important leadership responsibility is to develop employees' commitment to our principles and ability to make sound ethical judgments. Editors must communicate the seriousness of the company's expectations of ethical conduct, as well as their own personal support for these guidelines. Ethical leadership includes fostering a working environment that encourages employees to voice concerns or otherwise seek assistance or counsel if faced with potentially compromising situations, and also supporting those who raise such concerns.

Finally, what follows is not intended to be an exclusive or inclusive list of all laws, regulations and other norms applicable to Mint and with which compliance is expected. In our rapidly evolving businesses, a complex environment that often requires quick response under pressure challenges each of us. No written policy can definitively set forth the appropriate action for all business situations. Accordingly, this code emphasizes and clarifies a standard of ethical conduct that must govern all of our business dealings and relationships.


Introduction: What We Stand For

In our society, the press enjoys a remarkable degree of freedom. With that freedom comes the responsibility to practice our craft in accordance with the highest standards, to be accountable for what we publish, and to avoid conflicts of interest.

We will strive to fulfill these responsibilities. And with good reason. Otherwise, we could lose our most important asset: the trust of our readers, online visitors, viewers, and listeners in the credibility of the information and insights we provide.
In the 21st century, that news is transmitted in more ways than ever before – in print, on the air and on the Web, with words, images, graphics, sounds and video. But always and in all media, we insist on the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior when we gather and deliver the news.
That means we abhor inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions. It means we will not knowingly introduce false information into material intended for publication or broadcast; nor will we alter photo or image content. Quotations must be accurate, and precise.
It means we always strive to identify all the sources of our information, shielding them with anonymity only when they insist upon it and when they provide vital information – not opinion or speculation; when there is no other way to obtain that information; and when we know the source is knowledgeable and reliable.

It means we don't plagiarize.

It means we avoid behavior or activities that create a conflict of interest and compromise our ability to report the news fairly and accurately, uninfluenced by any person or action.

It means we don't misidentify or misrepresent ourselves to get a story. When we seek an interview, we identify ourselves as Mint journalists.

It means we don’t pay newsmakers for interviews, to take their photographs or to film or record them.

It means we must be fair. Whenever we portray someone in a negative light, we must make a real effort to obtain a response from that person. When mistakes are made, they must be corrected – fully, quickly and ungrudgingly.

And ultimately, it means it is the responsibility of every one of us to ensure that these standards are upheld. Any time a question is raised about any aspect of our work, it should be taken seriously.

We believe that our future depends upon preserving and enhancing this trust. Therefore, we must ensure that:

1. Our integrity is of the highest caliber.

2. We base our unique brand of journalism on accurate information, gathered honestly and presented fairly.

3. Our professional conduct is unassailable.

4. Our personal conduct, as it reflects on Mint, is beyond reproach.

All members of the Mint editorial staffs must uphold these principles. This means everyone who works on the magazine, the Web site, or in future TV or radio operations (including members of the art, production, and systems departments, all Web developers and programmers, and all assistants and clerical workers), be they full-time, part-time, interns, or freelancers. Moreover, you are expected to report to the Managing Editor violations that you or others commit. If you encounter a potential ethical dilemma that isn't covered by this Code, you must ask the Managing Editor for a ruling. When the Managing Editor is unavailable, check with the Deputy Managing Editor or, at a minimum, with the person to whom you report. To put it simply, when in doubt, ask.

Here are the rules by which we must live:

A) INTEGRITY

Church and State
Unquestionable integrity is at the heart of our effort to serve our audiences with the best business journalism in the world. One way we achieve this is to strictly observe an invisible wall that separates our editorial operations from our advertising and other business departments, so as to avoid any chance that one will inappropriately influence the other.

In every medium, our reporters, editors, and producers prepare and place stories, graphics, and interactive features based solely on their editorial merits. Thus, we treat companies that advertise with us exactly the same as those that don't. We don't favor any company or subject of a story, or discriminate against any -- for any reason.

Moreover, editors and editorial imperatives dictate the design of our products. Obviously, we make allowance for the presentation of revenue-generating elements. However, the design must always make clear the distinction between editorial and commercial material. In the spirit of that rule, for example, we do not link, for any reason other than editorial purposes, from within the text of electronic versions of our stories to an advertiser's Web site.

To ensure that we honor these principles, there generally should be no contact (beyond social conversations) between the vast majority of Mint editorial and business staffers. (The Managing Editor or a designated surrogate may grant exceptions as necessary for the running of the business.)

If you ever feel any pressure from outside, or from our own business departments, to compromise editorial material -- including pressure to violate this Code, you must tell the Managing Editor and/or Deputy Managing Editor immediately.

B) OUR JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS

Mint specializes in valued-added, interpretive journalism. This gives us license to go beyond a traditional, just-the-facts approach. At the same time, it puts an extra onus on us in the following areas:

1. Accuracy.
For the reader to believe our interpretations, we must start with accurate information, honestly and professionally gathered. Moreover, our interpretation must flow from the facts and be reasonable.

Inaccurate or sloppy reporting of material that appears anywhere under the Mint name violates the spirit of this Code. The responsibility for accuracy lies with everyone who touches the editorial product. If you have any reasonable doubts about the accuracy of our information, you have a duty to tell your immediate editor, and if necessary the Managing Editor.

2. Honesty.
All of your dealings with sources -- and with other editorial staff -- must be truthful.

As an institution, moreover, Mint will always be an independent voice, with no axe to grind. We do not support political candidates or political parties. We are not Keynesians, monetarists, or supply-siders. On all matters of politics, economics, and social policy, we try to bring our own judgment to bear, based on thorough reporting and reasonable analysis. We do not do stories that are designed to hew to any ideological agenda other than our belief in free markets, free people and free societies.

3. Fairness.
We give the subjects of a story -- people, companies, and institutions -- an opportunity to have their views presented. We include relevant portions of those views -- or report that the subject declines to comment. We also present differing or dissenting opinions, though they may be subordinate to the main thrust of the story.

If someone complains about a story, we will investigate promptly and even-handedly. If we are right, we will stand by the story regardless of who is complaining. If we are wrong, we will say so forthrightly and make whatever amends seem appropriate.

Because we do analytic journalism and commentaries, we do not strive for perfect objectivity. But we must always strive to be fair.

4. Attribution.
Mint’s style book is the final authority on this issue so when in doubt, please refer to the Style Book especially on how we make attributions in the paper and online. And if you are unsure of how to interpret the Style Book or if you have any doubt whatsoever, ask your immediate editor or the Managing Editor. In general, we use the following ground rules when seeking information from sources:

On the record:
You are free to use all material from the interview, including information and quotations, and to identify the source. We prefer this approach.

Not for attribution:
You are free to use information and quotations, but you agree not to identify the source. "Not for attribution" is an acceptable method of gathering information, though not the one we prefer.

You generally should have more than one source for information that you can't attribute, both to double-check its veracity and to guard against being used or misled by a single source. In situations where you wish to report, without attribution, extremely sensitive information, you should seek approval beforehand from your immediate editor, the Managing Editor or in his absence the Deputy Managing Editor.

Off the record:
You agree not to use information from the source. Or you may agree not to use the information unless you check with the source before publication. You should avoid this method unless it's the only way to interview a one-of-a-kind source.

Background:
The information can be published but only under conditions negotiated with the source. Generally, the sources do not want their names published but will agree to a description of their position. Mint reporters should object vigorously when a source wants to brief an entire group of reporters on background and try to persuade the source to put the briefing on the record. These background briefings have become routine in many venues, especially with government officials.

Deep background:
The information can be used but without attribution. The source does not want to be identified in any way, even on condition of anonymity.

In general, information obtained under any of these circumstances can be pursued with other sources to be placed on the record.

Make such decisions carefully because Mint generally will have to honor whatever arrangement you make. The Managing Editor or a designated surrogate has the right to know the identity of anonymous sources -- be they not-for-attribution or off-the-record sources -- and will keep such information confidential.

Routine attribution:
"He said" means you got the quote from the source -- in person, at a press conference, or on the phone. "He said in a statement" or "in a report" means the quote came from a written statement or press release, or from a document such as an analyst's report. "He said in an e-mail interview" means exactly that. If the quote comes from another news outlet, you must credit it: "President Kalam told the Associated Press." Information taken from the Internet must be vetted according to our standards of accuracy and attributed to the original source. File, library or archive photos, audio or videos must be identified as such.

For projects, attribution can be contained in an extended editor's note, usually at the end, detailing interviews, research and methodology. The goal is to provide a reader with enough information to have full confidence in the story's veracity. The use of such notes must be cleared in advance by the Managing Editor.

5. Quotations:
The same care that is used to ensure that quotes are accurate should also be used to ensure that quotes are not taken out of context.

We do not alter quotations. If a quotation is flawed because of grammar or lack of clarity, the writer must be able to paraphrase in a way that is completely true to the original quote. If a quote's meaning is too murky to be paraphrased accurately, it should not be used.

Ellipses and parentheses should be used rarely. When in doubt please paraphrase or seek a fuller quote.

When relevant, stories should provide information about the setting in which a quotation was obtained – for example, a press conference, phone interview or hallway conversation with the reporter. The source's affect and body language – perhaps a smile or deprecatory gesture – is sometimes as important as the quotation itself.

Use of regional dialects with nonstandard spellings should generally be limited to a writer's effort to convey a special tone or sense of place. In this case, as in any interview with a person not speaking his or her native language, it is especially important that their ideas be accurately conveyed. Always, we must be careful not to mock the people we quote.

Quotes from one language to another must be translated faithfully. If appropriate, we should note the language spoken.

6. Anonymous sources in material from other news sources:

Reports from other news organizations based on anonymous sources require the most careful scrutiny when we consider them for our report.

Mint’s basic rules for anonymous-source material typically apply to pickups as they do in our own reporting: The material must be factual and obtainable no other way. The story must be truly significant and newsworthy for us to use. Please flag use of such un-sourced material to your immediate editor. If the source material is ultimately used, it must be attributed to the originating provider and note their description of their sources.

Further, before picking up material from other news agencies for a story of our own, and even if we are crediting that source in the story, we must make a bona fide effort to get it on the record, or, at a minimum, confirm it through our own sources.

7. Audio:
Mint’s audio actualities must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate the content of a newsmaker actuality in any way. Voice reports by Mint reporters for online may be edited to remove pauses or stumbles.

Mint does permit the use of the subtle, standard audio processing methods of normalization of levels, general volume adjustments, equalization to make the sound clearer, noise reduction to reduce extraneous sounds such as telephone line noise, and fading in and out of the start and end of sound bites _ provided the use of these methods does not conceal, obscure, remove or otherwise alter the content, or any portion of the content, of the audio. When an employee has questions about the use of such methods or Mint’s requirements and limitations on audio editing, he or she should contact the Managing Editor prior to the transmission of any audio.

8. Fabrications:
Nothing in our news report – words, photos, graphics, sound or video – may be fabricated. We don't use pseudonyms, composite characters or fictional names, ages, places or dates. We don’t use “industry expert” simply to hide a person’s affiliation. We don’t create fictional characters to embellish articles, however dry they might seem.

We don't stage or re-enact events for the camera or microphone, and we don't use sound effects or substitute video or audio from one event to another. We do not “cheat” sound by adding audio to embellish or fabricate an event. A senior editor must be consulted prior to the introduction of any neutral sound (ambient sound that does not affect the editorial meaning but corrects a technical fault).

We do not ask people to pose for photos unless we are making a portrait of that person. This means we don’t make them recreate activities for our photograph.

9. Graphics:
We use only authoritative sources. We create work only from what we know.

We post or move a locator map only when we can confirm the location ourselves. We create charts at visually proper perspectives to give an accurate representation of data. The information must be clear and concise. We do not skew or alter data to fit a visual need.

We credit sources on every graphic, including graphics for which Mint journalists have created the data set or database. If the graphic is created entirely based on original research then we would credit HT Business Paper Research

10. Images:
Mint pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate the content of a photograph in any way.

The content of a photograph must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable.

Minor adjustments in PhotoShop are acceptable. These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into grayscale, and normal toning and color adjustments that should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction (analogous to the burning and dodging often used in darkroom processing of images) and that restore the authentic nature of the photograph. Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning.

When an employee has questions about the use of such methods or Mint requirements and limitations on photo editing, he or she should contact the photo editor/art director prior to the use of any image.

On those occasions when we use images that have been provided and altered by a source – the faces obscured, for example – the caption must clearly explain it. Use of such images must be approved by the Managing Editor or in his absence the Deputy Managing Editor.

For online video, Mint permits the use of subtle, standard methods of improving technical quality, such as adjusting video and audio levels, color correcting due to white balance or other technical faults, and equalization of audio to make the sound clearer _ provided the use of these methods does not conceal, obscure, remove or otherwise alter the content, or any portion of the content, of the image.

Graphics, including those for online, often involve combining various photographic elements, which necessarily means altering portions of each photograph. The background of a photograph, for example, may be removed to leave the headshot of the newsmaker. This may then be combined with a logo representing the person's company or industry, and the two elements may be layered over a neutral background. Such compositions must not misrepresent the facts and must not result in an image that looks like a photograph – it must clearly be a graphic.

Similarly, when we alter photos to use as graphics online, we retain the integrity of the image, limiting the changes to cropping, masking and adding elements like logos. Videos for use online can be altered to add graphical information such as titles and logos, to tone the image and to improve audio quality. It is permissible to display photos online using techniques such as 360-degree panoramas or dissolves as long as they do not alter the original images.
11. Obscenities, profanities, vulgarities:
The Mint Style Book is the final word on how we use such terms.
We do not use obscenities, racial epithets or other offensive slurs in stories unless they are part of direct quotations and there is a compelling reason for them.

If a story cannot be told without reference to them, we must first try to find a way to give the reader a sense of what was said without using the specific word or phrase. If a profanity, obscenity or vulgarity is used, the story must be flagged at the top by the reporter, advising editors to note the contents.

A photo containing something that could be deemed offensive must be approved by the Managing Editor.

We take great care not to refer readers to Web sites that are obscene, racist or otherwise offensive, and we must not directly link our stories to such sites.

In our online service, we link the least offensive image necessary to tell the story. For photo galleries and interactive presentations we alert readers to the nature of the material in the link and on the opening page of the gallery or interactive. If an obscene image is necessary to tell the story, we blur the portion of the image considered offensive after approval of the department manager, and flag the video.

12. Responses:
We must make significant efforts to reach anyone who may be portrayed, and especially if that portrayal is a negative one, in our stories, and we must give them a reasonable amount of time to get back to us before we move the story. What is “reasonable” may depend on the urgency and competitiveness of the story. Please make sure you consult your immediate editor when in doubt. If we don’t reach the parties involved, we must explain in the story what specific efforts were made to do so.

13. Corrections & Amplifications Policy:
We will adhere to a zero-tolerance policy in terms of correcting our errors. We will clearly communicate to all our readers the best way to reach us so we can promptly correct our mistakes. If we are aware of a mistake, we will correct our stories irrespective of whether a correction is being sought so that databases don’t contain uncorrected stories. Not informing your editor of an error in your story, especially if it has been pointed out by anyone, is a serious violation of this code of conduct and could result in the relevant employee being subject to discipline up to and including termination.


C) PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

Every judgment we make as journalists must be free of conflicts of interest -- free even of the appearance of conflicts. Therefore, we must observe the following rules:

1. Share ownership and trading.
In making personal investments, all employees must avoid speculation or the appearance of speculation. No employee of Mint may engage in short selling of shares, including futures and options, such as a put option.

a. Shares you own.
You may not report, write, or edit a story about a company in which you or members of your immediate family own shares--nor about other companies in the same industry, unless it has been cleared in advance by the Managing Editor. For instance, if you own shares in Reliance, you may not report, write, or edit a story about the company or its key rivals. Nor may you mention such a company on a broadcast or cable show or Web video except in passing (as in reading a list of closing market prices). Immediate family means spouse or significant other and children 18 or younger.
You may, however, invest in diversified mutual funds, diversified exchange traded funds.

In any instance where a conflict seems likely, you might have to recuse yourself from participating in the story. Again, when in doubt, ask.

b. Shares you plan to buy.
If your job is such that you write about or edit stories on a wide variety of companies intermittently, do not invest in those companies.

You may, however, trade the shares of companies you don't cover, in industries you don't cover, provided you don’t act on any information prior to being published in Mint.

You may not engage in day trading or so-called active trading, or short selling. Nor may you accept "friends and family" shares from companies that are about to go public. Nor may you knowingly participate in unethical market-timing schemes that any mutual fund may engage in. The three-month rule does not apply to publicly available mutual funds.

Additionally, you may not trade in any share or financial instrument based on information gathered by anyone at Mint before a story is published. If an article on the information is not published by Mint but the information becomes public information the above restriction does not apply. Be aware that we may report suspected insider trading to the appropriate authorities and will cooperate fully in any subsequent legal actions. Remember, as well, that people who are caught engaging in insider trading often spend time in jail.

Employees are encouraged to be long-term investors in Mint stock.

c. Special situations:

There may be instances in which an editorial employee inherits stock from a non-spousal relative, or in which a newly hired employee or a person who is under contract to Mint arrives with stock holdings. In such cases, you have these options:
--You can divest your holdings.
--You can ask the Managing Editor to let you keep your holdings with the understanding that you must recuse yourself from covering companies (and their industries) in which you own securities.

Be aware, though, that even if you get such permission, recusing yourself extensively could limit your assignments and your ability to perform your job.

2. Reporting share ownership.
You must disclose in a confidential memo to the Managing Editor your ownership of shares individual corporations and also such holdings of your spouse, significant other, and other members of your immediate family. Your shareholdings memo does not have to disclose the number of shares you own, just the company names.

You must submit this memo on your holdings to the Managing Editor every six months using a form that will be provided to you. New editorial employees must sign this Code when they are hired--and immediately thereafter submit the required share-disclosure statement.

3. Reporting other conflicts.
You must include with your financial disclosure memo a description of any other potential conflict of interest, including your other financial holdings plus any personal conflict that might arise from family connections or employment. If your spouse works at, for example, Reliance or The Economic Times, please disclose this information.

If you own no securities and have no potential personal conflicts, say so in your memo. Either way, you must file it by Jan. 15.

4. Other conflicts.
During the discussion of a potential assignment, you must also disclose other business activities that may conflict with your Mint work, or that may appear to. Such activities include but aren't limited to: Holding a part-time job, working as a consultant, engaging in any form of public relations in any capacity, accepting speaking fees, ghost writing material for anyone other than an independent author, accepting compensation in any form for anything other than journalistic work, writing for publications that Mint considers to be competitors, and doing commercial photography or design work for the subject of a story or a broadcast segment you'll be helping Mint prepare.

5. Plagiarism and fabrication.
We don't copy the work of others. And we don't make things up. We do not plagiarize, meaning that we do not take the work of others and pass it off as our own.

We must gather and verify every piece of information we present. On the rare occasion when we can't confirm a critical fact another publication has reported, we must credit that publication. If you ever have a question about the use of such material, you should consult the Managing Editor, the deputy managing editor, or your immediate editor. You should also notify all three if you feel that another publication has plagiarized your work.

A Mint staffer who reports and writes a story must use original content, language and phrasing. It is okay for a Mint staffer to include in his or her work passages from a previous Mint story by another writer – generally background, or boilerplate. This is acceptable if the passages are short. Regardless, the reporter writing the story is responsible for the factual and contextual accuracy of the material.

We do not transmit news releases in their original form; we try and rewrite them, so that the approach, content, structure and length meet our requirements and reflect the broader audience we serve. We can use information and quotes from releases provided we clearly cite the source, but we must try check/augment it with information from other sources, and then write our own stories. A story that appears in our paper and has plagiarized work from a press release is a serious violation of our Code of Conduct.

We don’t publish forward-looking statements that are not attributed. For example, a statement in your story that says “Bajaj is set to overtake Hero Honda in the motorcycles market” needs to be attributed. Companies cannot make sure statements to market regulators and we must not become a vehicle for them to make such statements anonymously through us.

6. Relations with sources and other outsiders.

a. Unorthodox reporting techniques.
We do not practice surreptitious entry. You must not misrepresent yourself to gain access to information for a story. This doesn't preclude us from using extraordinary reporting efforts, but we always do so above board and as clearly identified Mint employees. Any other approach could compromise the use of the material so gathered, and could give rise to a legal claim. Unusual reporting techniques should have the approval of the Managing Editor. Please get formal approval for all Right To Information requests that you might seek to make on behalf of the newspaper prior to seeking such information.

b. Disclosure, early and otherwise.
You may need to tell a source what a story is about, so that the person can provide the information you seek or respond to points in the story. But it is a violation of the Mint Code to show a pre-publication version of a story, Q&A, video or audio segment, or any other piece of journalism to anyone outside the editorial staffs. However, top editors may make exceptions on occasion -- for example, to accommodate the needs of our publicity department or of our editorial partners.

Writers and editors may also read or e-mail to sources selected phrases or direct quotes before publication when there is no other practical way to ensure the accuracy of a story or a Q&A, or to secure a necessary response. You may not, however, read or send to sources entire stories or scripts, or extended sections of either, except with the permission of the Managing Editor.

As a rule, in short, you may not tell sources or anyone else outside the staff details of what is in a story, when a story will appear, or what stories will appear, before the paper's official release time, which is 6 a.m. of each publishing day. Except as otherwise authorized by the Managing Editor, no one may give sources, advertisers, or anyone else copies of the magazine or electronic versions of magazine stories before the official release time. Additionally, you may not tell anyone about the contents of Web-only stories or of broadcast segments before they go public. It is permissible to convey deadlines in order to get the information you are seeking from a source but this does not extend to telling sources when the story will run since stories can be held by your editor(s).

In addition to leading to potential securities law consequences, the unplanned distribution of information before its official release can jeopardize important legal protections we enjoy under the Indian Constitution and under state constitutions and laws.

Except with the approval of the Managing Editor, you should not do stories that involve your family, work colleagues, relatives, or friends. For purposes of this Code, a friend is someone you socialize with outside of normal business settings and is more than a social contact. When in doubt, let your editor know the nature of your non-work relationship.

Finally, we must hold our own trade secrets and proprietary information inviolate. This includes not only cover and story schedules but all internal memos and discussions or decisions leading to the creation of specific stories. In addition, you should not disclose to outsiders our discussions of personnel, strategy, and tactics.

c. Financial dealings with sources and subjects of stories.
We do not pay for information. Period. Moreover, you may not enter into a financial relationship of any kind with a source, except with the consent of the Managing Editor.

You may do business with companies you cover for the purpose of securing normal bank loans, mortgage loans, and credit cards. In all such cases, however, you may not receive favorable terms that are unavailable to the general public using your Mint affiliation. This does not apply to any group discounts obtained by Mint for its employees.

d. Gifts, meals, and entertainment.
You may not accept gifts from companies, from their public relations firms or agents, or from any other supplier of information -- not a bottle of wine during the holidays, not a reduced-rate membership for your personal use. During company visits, you may accept mementos or a sample product of nominal value (less than Rs100). It is okay to accept reasonable amounts of perishable food products for a specific festival occasion when refusal or returning to sender could seem inappropriate. But you must refuse, return, or donate to charity any unsolicited gifts of more than nominal value -- the choice in the latter three instances being up to the sender, whom you must contact immediately. Obviously, you may not solicit gifts. When in doubt please inform the Managing Editor’s office of any issues in this area.

In addition, you generally may accept lunch or dinner only from a source with whom you are likely to meet often enough to return the favor (the one exception being an interview over a meal with a source at the person's offices). In all other instances, you or Mint must pay your tab. It is generally acceptable to have lunch or dinner if that is part of a group press event and if it does not interfere with your work.

You must use review copies of books, video games, and the like only for editorial purposes -- or else, as practicable, forward them to a person designated by the Managing Editor for product reviews. You may not sell such materials for any reason.

You may accept the use of a review or test model of a new product -- computers, software, and any other products, including subscription services -- for only as long as your reporting needs require. In most cases, this means only a few days -- and not for an extended period. Please inform your immediate editor ahead of requesting such a product.

In situations where a company with whom Mint has an editorial partnership offers you favors, you must comply with the Mint Code of Business Ethics, which states in part: "No gift having more than nominal value and no loan (other than a normal bank loan) may be accepted from any person or firm having current or prospective dealings with the corporation."

e. Travel.
You may not accept junkets--that is, trips paid for by a source or prospective source, without specific prior approval of your immediate editor. If a trip is worth taking, Mint will typically pay for it. If it is necessary to fly on a corporate plane, we will seek to reimburse the host company for the cost. Such travel must be approved in advance by the Managing Editor or the deputy managing editor. In all cases, you will not make any commitment that promises any specific coverage—quantity/tone--in Mint.

f. Freelancing.
If you wish to undertake a freelance assignment, have your request approved in writing by the Managing Editor. We will not grant permission to write for any competing publication or for any work that first should appear in Mint or that would interfere with your work here. In general, you can't accept an assignment if it would inhibit Mint from doing a story.

In addition, all editorial and business employees must get the Managing Editor's permission before starting a personal blog--outside of HT Media’s own web sites--that focuses on issues or topics that Mint regularly covers. You must also ensure that your personal blog--whatever the topic--doesn't mention your affiliation with Mint or HT Media, and that it never damages the reputation of Mint. News staffers should also not comment on other blogs nor respond directly to any blogs that mention their work for Mint or any Mint issues. Please bring to the attention of your editor any such references to Mint if you feel that the reference needs a response. You are also encouraged not to respond in other blogs to matters related to your coverage areas or HT Media. If you have a personal web site that is not aimed at soliciting business or advertising, it would be permissible to mention your Mint affiliation subject to approval from the Managing Editor.

Moreover, no one may undertake an assignment of any kind for a company, industry group, political party, labor union, or any third party with whom your personal affiliation might undermine the reputation of Mint for impartial and independent journalism.

Mint encourages its news staff to participate in journalism-related activities, including taking guest lectures at journalism schools, provided such activities don’t interfere with your work and provided it is made very clear that such activities are being undertaken in your personal capacity. We will not approve the use of Mint affiliation in any advertising that the third-party might want to use to attract students/business to their institute.

g. Personal appearances.
You must get prior approval from the Managing Editor or the deputy managing editor for all TV and radio interviews, speeches, panel discussions and any other public appearance as a representative of Mint, except when such appearances are arranged by Mint's publicity staff. You may generally identify yourself as a Mint employee during discussions or presentations at educational institutions.

No one may accept honoraria or expenses for such appearances without the written consent of the Managing Editor.

D) POLITICAL AND CIVIC ACTIVITIES:

Many companies, for a variety of reasons, participate in the partisan political process, at various levels of government. As a publisher, Mint will have a different tradition. Mint does not contribute, directly or indirectly, to political campaigns or to political parties or groups seeking to raise money for political campaigns or parties. All news employees and members of senior management with any responsibility for news should refrain from partisan political activity judged newsworthy by their senior editor or in the case of senior management, the Managing Editor. Other political activities (including "issue oriented" activity) are permitted, but should not be inconsistent with this code.

On the other hand, it is not the intention of Mint, or of this code, to dissuade employees from participating actively in civic, charitable, religious, public, social or residential organizations. Such activities are permitted, and even encouraged, to the extent that they:

• Do not detract from performance or effectiveness at work;
• Do not, by their extensiveness, cause the company to subsidize or appear to subsidize the activity; and
• Do not otherwise violate this code. In the event that a conflict arises or may arise between an outside organization with which an employee is affiliated and the interests of Mint, the employee should refrain from participating in the conflicting or potentially conflicting activity.

No Mint employee should permit his or her Mint affiliation to be noted in any outside organization's materials or activities without the express written approval of a member of senior management or unless of course the employee serves as a representative of Mint or unless the affiliation is noted as part of a broader description of the employee’s identity.


E) PERSONAL CONDUCT:

1. You may not use your Mint affiliation -- including your business card or business stationery -- for personal advantage in any way. Period.

Among other things, this means that you will never invoke the Mint name or your title when seeking to resolve a personal dispute with a merchant, financial institution, government agency, or anyone else. You may not court favoritism based on your Mint affiliation. You will, for instance, not try and get tickets or restaurant reservations, for personal use invoking your role at Mint. Nor will you seek entry to events that you are attending in your personal capacity using your Press identity or car stickers.

2. You must avoid high-profile roles in the public spotlight, including in political campaigns (avoid marches and demonstrations, for example) or in fundraising that could associate the Mint name with your personal causes or beliefs.

3. You should never endorse a product, with the exception of the one for which you work.

4. We respect and protect manufacturers' copyrights on all computer software used by Mint employees. You may not copy, sell, share, or trade any company-owned or leased software without the express, written permission of the copyright owner or approval by the Mint legal department. Nor may you copy software from one machine to another without the express, written permission of the copyright owner or approval of the Mint legal department.

5. Computer equipment -- including hardware, software, and any related material -- that Mint loans to you for use outside the office remains the property of Mint. You are to return any loaned equipment at the end of the assignment and/or at the end of your employment with Mint. Software on loaned equipment is owned by Mint, and you can't copy, sell, share, or trade it without Mint's written permission.

6. As long as you are an employee of Mint you must keep in mind that you are always representing the company and could be under public scrutiny. Your behavior at all events should be exemplary and you will also present yourself, in terms of what you wear and how you behave, in a manner consistent with the event, setting and people you are meeting. Working for a business information newspaper/website also places an extra burden on you to convey a professional image because you will often be in business and professional settings and your grooming and attire must be appropriate. All these norms also apply to your appearance and behavior in the office. As a representative of the paper, you will be requested to exercise sound judgment in matters such as consuming alcohol at press or public events that you are attending as a representative of HT Media. Please remember that as a member of the news media, you will achieve certain name and face recognition as part of your job and that your behaviour outside work could sometimes inadvertently reflect on your organization. There will be no alcohol consumed or stored in the office except when it is a newsroom-wide official event that has prior approval of the Managing Editor’s office.

7. As part of protecting HT Media’s intellectual property, you will not allow access into the newsroom for any outsider. There will be no individual or group tours of the newsroom unless they have been cleared in advance with the Managing Editor’s office. You will not have meetings with outsiders at your desk or any other place in the newsroom except for pre-booked conference room areas. This applies in particular to meetings with other media professionals, including all Public Relations professionals and corporate executives.

8. This Code of Conduct specifically bars employees from discussing compensation or salaries of any other employee in the newsroom. Please note that employees are discouraged from sharing their personal compensation details with outsiders and the fact that someone voluntarily disclosed his/her compensation is not a reason to violate the prohibition about discussing someone else’s compensation. We compensate each employee based on their experience, performance, role and expectations we have of them. Any compensation discussions that you engage in with your immediate supervisor or HR need to be about your own issues.

9. Mint takes all sexual harassment issues very seriously. Please make sure you are aware of HT Media’s sexual harassment policies that are available with the human resources department.

F) ACCOUNTING AND FINANCES:

It is essential to the successful operation of Mint as a business, and to the preservation of investor confidence in the company, that the integrity of our books and records be resolutely maintained. The responsibility for this does not rest exclusively with accounting or other financial personnel--we all share it.

Accordingly,

• No Mint fund, asset or liability which is not fully and properly recorded on the company's books and records shall be created or permitted to exist;
• No transaction shall be effected and no payment shall be made on behalf of Mint with the intention or understanding that the transaction or payment is other than as described in the documentation evidencing the transaction or supporting the payment;
• All employees shall comply with HT Media' accounting principles, procedures and controls, and no false, artificial or misleading entries in any books or records of the company shall be made for any reason whatsoever including expense records related to travel, telephones and other reimbursements sought from Mint.
• No employee will issue or authorize anyone else to issue any company document that is false or misleading;
• No employee will knowingly accept and treat as accurate any false or misleading document prepared by a person not employed by HT Media; and
• No employee will knowingly make any false or misleading statements to our external or internal auditors. Indeed, when questioned by any auditor, all employees should be fully forthcoming.

G) EMPLOYMENT:

Mint strives to ensure that all employees are treated with dignity and respect. Among our goals are to make benefits and services available to employees to promote their well-being, to communicate effectively with employees, to ensure equal employment treatment, to maintain a safe work environment, to assist employees in realizing their potential and maximizing their productivity, and to fairly evaluate and recognize performance.

For its part, the company expects employees to perform excellent work in a cost-effective manner, to strive for quality and productivity, to follow directions and instructions, to properly care for facilities and equipment, to anticipate problems and suggest improvements, to treat other employees and clients and customers with honesty and courtesy, and to be energetic in the performance of tasks and fulfillment of goals.

Mint values the talents and contributions of its employees. The company also seeks and values diversity among employees, recognizing that a mix of people enriches the company and encourages creativity and business growth. HT Media' policy is to provide equal employment opportunities and advancement consideration to all individuals based on job-related qualifications and ability to perform the job, without regard to race, color, ancestry, national origin, religious creed, sex, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, age or marital status. It is also HT Media' policy to provide a working environment that is free of intimidation or harassment based on any of these factors, especially sexual harassment. This also extends to what you view on your work computer and what you display in your work area within the office or what you communicate orally or through emails with other colleagues.

Complete statements of policies setting forth the company's standards regarding personnel matters, and other matters relating to employment with Mint, are available from Mint human resources department. These policies meet legal and regulatory requirements of various jurisdictions in which Mint does business, and employees of Mint are required to comply with these policies.

H) ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS:

Mint is committed to maintaining a safe work environment by eliminating all significant recognized hazards in the workplace, and to conducting business in an environmentally sound manner based on scientific understanding, customer needs and local requirements. Employees are required to comply with all applicable health, safety and environmental laws and regulations, and all related company policies.

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CODE

Mint takes this code of conduct very seriously.

All employees of Mint are responsible for compliance with all aspects of this code. All new employees shall be required to read this code at the outset of their employment, and to attest in writing that they have done so; all Mint employees shall be required, at the time this code is first promulgated, to read it and so attest. Such written attestations shall be required every six months.

Any employee having a question about a possible violation of this code by that person or any other person, or in connection with any practice, should discuss it with his or her supervisor, or the Managing Editor. Every effort will be made to maintain the confidentiality of such discussions.

Mint is committed to this Code. At the same time, we realize that no document can anticipate all possible circumstances that may arise in the future. To reiterate: When in doubt, please ask.

It may be necessary, from time to time, to clarify this set of rules or to modify them. The Managing Editor, as necessary, will decide on any clarifications, exceptions, or modifications to this Code. We expect, however, that clarifications will be rare, and that exceptions will be narrow.

Please remember: Mint's reputation is its most important asset, and anything that damages that reputation damages both Mint and all of us. The matters addressed by this code are sufficiently important that any lapse in judgment within the areas covered here may be considered serious enough to warrant discipline up to and including dismissal.

I acknowledge that I have read and understood Mint Code of Conduct.


Signature……………..

Date………………….

Name…………………

Place………………….