January 6, 2013

‘Occupy Homes’ Figure: Bank Of America Is One Of The Biggest Criminals

After being in the middle of the Occupy Our Homes day of action earlier in the week, Alfredo Carrasquillo spoke to Up with Chris Hayes Saturday morning.

Despite risking arrest for staying in a home owned by Bank of America, Corrasquillo was determined to keep his homeless family in the occupied house.

“Bank of America has basically been one of the biggest criminals in history,” he said. “They have been basically foreclosing on homes, forcing families that are working hard to try and provide for their children, forcing them to be homeless and out on the street. There’s more vacant homes than there are people out on the street.”

“Ultimately, these homes need to be filled with families that need them. There’s always technicalities involved in it, but the fact of the matter is, if there’s empty homes, they should be filled with families that need them.”

Despite many stories of possible foreclosure fraud, including attorney generals across the country investigating or lawsuits, Bank of America has yet to be federally convicted of any foreclosure crimes.

 

Source: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/11/occupy-homes-figure-bank-of-america-has-been-one-of-the-biggest-criminals/

Caught On Camera: Top Lobbyists Boasting How They Influence The PM

Special undercover investigation: Executives from Bell Pottinger reveal ‘dark arts’ they use to burnish reputations of countries accused of human rights violations.

One of Britain’s largest lobbying companies has been secretly recorded boasting about its access to the heart of the Government and how it uses the “dark arts” to bury bad coverage and influence public opinion. An undercover investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, published in The Independent today, has taped senior executives at Bell Pottinger:

* Claiming they have used their access to Downing Street to get David Cameron to speak to the Chinese premier on behalf of one of their business clients within 24 hours of asking him to do so;

* Boasting about Bell Pottinger’s access to the Foreign Secretary William Hague, to Mr Cameron’s chief of staff Ed Llewellyn and to Mr Cameron’s old friend and closest No 10 adviser Steve Hilton;

* Suggesting that the company could manipulate Google results to “drown” out negative coverage of human rights violations and child labour;

* Revealing that Bell Pottinger has a team which “sorts” negative Wikipedia coverage of clients;

* Saying it was possible to use MPs known to be critical of investigative programmes to attack their reporting for minor errors.

Reporters from the Bureau posed as agents for the government of Uzbekistan – a brutal dictatorship responsible for killings, human rights violations and child labour – and representatives of its cotton industry in a bid to discover what promises British lobbying and public relations firms were prepared to make when pitching to clients, what techniques they use, and how much of their work is open to public scrutiny.

In Uzbekistan, child labour is used in cotton fields to fulfil state quotas and the country also has a terrible human rights record: the think tank Freedom House put it on its 2011 list of the “Worst of the Worst” repressive regimes.

‘I’ve been working with Hilton, Cameron, Osborne, for 20 years’

The Bureau contacted ten London firms. Two refused to take the business, several others did not reply, while five including Bell Pottinger appeared to be keen to work with the fictitious Uzbek representatives. Bell Pottinger quoted “£1m-plus” as a fee for carrying out the work.

Their claims – which were secretly recorded – will add to mounting concerns that an absence of regulation has made London the global centre for “reputation laundering”, where lobbyists work behind the scenes on behalf of the world’s most controversial regimes.

David Cameron pledged to tackle lobbying five years ago and then again last year, saying it was “the next big scandal waiting to happen” and “has tainted our politics for too long, an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money”. He said he wanted to shine “the light of transparency” on lobbying so that politics “comes clean about who is buying power and influence”.

During two undercover meetings in June and July 2011 at its Chancery Lane offices, senior Bell Pottinger executives showed few signs of being deterred by Uzbekistan’s dire reputation. They made it clear that the Uzbek government would need to put genuine reforms in place if it were to improve its image and outlined how it could work with the Government, Parliament and the media to do so.

They talked openly about the work the firm had done with other regimes with questionable human rights records including Sri Lanka and Belarus and how they could navigate the corridors of power for clients.

Tim Collins, managing director of Bell Pottinger Public Affairs, told the reporters he used to be Mr Llewellyn’s boss in Conservative Central Office, and had worked with Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne in the Conservative Research Department.

“I’ve been working with people like Steve Hilton, David Cameron, George Osborne for 20 years-plus. There is not a problem getting the messages through,” he said.

His colleague David Wilson boasted the firm was the “most powerful public affairs business in the country”. Asked whether he could help organise a meeting between Mr Cameron and the Uzbek President – despite protocol dictating that such meetings are organised by ambassadors – he said: “We can facilitate that”.

Mr Collins later clarified that such a meeting might be an “end point” to aim for, once the country was seen to be genuinely improving its human rights record.

‘David Cameron raised it with the Chinese Prime Minister’

During the undercover meeting, Bell Pottinger – whose chairman is Margaret Thatcher’s former media adviser Lord (Tim) Bell – claimed to have used its influence on behalf of the engineering firm Dyson to ask Mr Cameron to complain about copyright infringement to the Chinese premier Wen Jiabao during a state visit in June 2011.

“We were rung up at 2.30 on a Friday afternoon, by one of our clients, Dyson,” Mr Collins explained. “He said ‘We’ve got a huge issue. A lot of our products are being ripped off in China.’ On the Saturday David Cameron raised it with the Chinese Prime Minister.”

He added that, “He [Cameron] was doing it because we asked him to do it,” and because the issue was in the wider national interest. In terms of very fast turnaround and getting things done right at the top of government, if you’ve got the right message, we can do it,” he said.

Mr Collins also recommended a meeting with Daniel Finkelstein, chief leader writer at The Times – who he said was very close to Mr Cameron. “He will sit down and have lunch with just about anybody,” he said. “That doesn’t mean he’s going to agree with them, but occasionally something out of that lunch will get dropped into a future column.”

Joint events could be held with influential think tanks close to government, such as Policy Exchange, the firm suggested. Another strategy would include passing information to key academics “so that they are then blogging the right messages out there – so it’s coming from an independent,” said Mr Wilson.

Mr Finkelstein said last night: “I am flattered if anyone thinks I am interesting enough to have lunch with. But anyone promoting either undemocratic or anti-social policies would find me a pretty closed door and hasn’t to my knowledge come knocking”.

‘We’ve got all sorts of dark arts’

Discussing techniques for managing reputations online, Mr Wilson mentioned a team that could “sort” Wikipedia.

“We’ve got all sorts of dark arts,” added Mr Collins. “I told him [David Wilson] he couldn’t put them in the written presentation because it’s embarrassing if it gets out.”

A presentation shown during the meeting said it could “create and maintain third-party blogs” – blogs that appeared to be independent. These would contain positive content and popular key words that would rank highly in Google searches.

The pair also explained how the firm enables government videos and articles to move to the top of internet searches, while less favourable stories can move down the rankings.

“The ambition obviously is to drown that negative content and make sure that you have positive content out there online,” Mr Wilson said.

The firm cited past examples of its work, included manipulating Google rankings for an East African money transfer company called Dahabshiil. Bell Pottinger executives said they had ensured that references to a former Dahabshill employee subsequently detained in Guantanamo Bay because of alleged links to al-Qai’da disappeared from the first 10 pages of a Google search for the company.

Another defensive method cited in the meeting was the use of politicians to attack a broadcaster.

“There are a lot of people in Parliament who can’t stand Channel 4 and can’t stand Dispatches,” Mr Collins said.

“So if there are any inaccuracies, even if they’re fairly minor, you can work with some people who have a track record of not liking Channel 4, wanting to score points against Channel 4 [who will say:] ‘Here is another instance of Channel 4 over-reaching themselves and putting out stuff they haven’t properly checked’.

‘Britain has this sort of moral ethic it thinks it can impose on the world’

Uzbekistan has recently expelled Human Rights Watch. The US think-tank Freedom House has said:

“Uzbekistan’s government continued to suppress all political opposition and restrict independent business activity in 2010. The few remaining civic activists and critical journalists in the country faced prosecution, fines, and lengthy prison terms.”

In addition, Uzbekistan’s cotton is the subject of an international boycott by several clothing manufacturers because the country still allegedly uses forced labour, including child labour, in its harvest.

Bureau journalists posed as members of the “Azimov Group” – a group of British and Eastern European investors concerned with exporting cotton textiles. They claimed they had been tasked by the Uzbek government with improving the country’s image in the UK, and that the government would be committed to reform.

“A number of [our client] governments have had serious reputational issues,” said Mr Collins.

But he also stressed a need for genuine commitment to reform. “Everything we are recommending is predicated on the agreement by the government to change,” he said. “[That] justifies why a PR company is representing a country which previously people shouldn’t have been talking to. Now it actually wants to change it is fully acceptable.”

Another executive stressed, whilst talking about one of the firm’s clients: “I wouldn’t actually represent a client whom I didn’t believe.

He added: “Just trying to sell the situation as it is or to say that things are changing when in reality they aren’t is not going to work. Once we’re clear that we’ve got the collateral, the proof that things are changing, then obviously we have the connections to get the message through to the right people.”

‘This is a £100,000-a-month campaign’

Bell Pottinger told the reporters that they had previously helped convince the EU that Belarus was committed to reform. But shortly after the EU lifted a travel ban on the Belarus President, the country went back to its old ways and the ban was eventually reinstated.

Bell Pottinger and the Belarus government stopped working together in 2009. Last week Belarus courts sentenced two men to death despite pleas for mercy and international outcry.

Changes did not need to be fast, Mr Collins said. “As long as you can see that each year is a little better than before, that’s fine.”

Bell Pottinger’s services do not come cheap. “A million pounds plus,” is what Mr Wilson quoted to do the job. “This is certainly a £100,000-a-month campaign, to make it very effective.”

This would buy a media-relations campaign, online reputation management and the public-affairs team “working with you on a governmental level”.

The country should stress its position as an emerging market, he suggested. “To the Western world it’s a developing market so you can always have the message that: ‘We are changing with the times – we are emerging, learning as a nation and growing’,” he said.

He added: “Britain has this sort of moral ethic it thinks it can impose upon the world still because of our colonial background and the Commonwealth. We forget that 100 years ago we had kids working in cotton mills here.”

Asked whether the firm would be prepared to work for the Azimov Group without knowing the identity of the campaign’s ultimate funders, Mr Wilson said: “If the media asks us who your [our] client is, there has to be an audit trail.” But a few seconds later also said: “In our work for Belarus, nobody knows who paid us.”

Lord Bell was provided with details last Friday morning of the above. He responded yesterday via his lawyers, Carter Ruck, attacking the Bureau. Lord Bell said: “The conduct of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism does not remotely constitute responsible journalism. It is an attempt by unethical, deception to manufacture a story where none exists.”

A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister said:

It is simply not true that Bell Pottinger or indeed any other lobbying company has any influence on government policy.”

Downing Street sources said that the Dyson company’s concerns had been raised with the Chinese premier, that it was a legitimate matter to raise and that they were unaware of Bell Pottinger’s involvement.

Mr Dyson did not comment last night.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/caught-on-camera-top-lobbyists-boasting-how-they-influence-the-pm-6272760.html

60 Minutes: George W. Bush Sought to Find A Way to Invade Iraq

This is the full CBS 60 Minutes 2004 interview of Former Secretary Of Treasury Paul O’Neil and reporter Ron Suskind that discusses Bush asking his National Security Council to “find a way” to invade Iraq during their first meeting in January 2001.

Almost 9 months before the September 11th attacks. This seems to have been forgotten by the mainstream media, and the Congress.

 

Dan Rather Says ‘Big Money Owns Everything … Including the News’

In a recent speech, Dan Rather, once one of the few voices trusted to moderate our in-home information supply, called the current state of the news business “upside down and backwards.”

Inspired by Occupy Wall Street, Rather issued a call to get back to proper journalism, and he suggested that the job would fall to independent journalists.

 

Source: http://illuminate.new.newsvine.com/_news/2011/12/02/9169588-dan-rather-says-big-money-owns-everything-including-the-news

Cablegate One Year Later: How WikiLeaks Has Influenced Foreign Policy, Journalism, and the First Amendment

One year ago today, WikiLeaks started publishing a trove of over 250,000 leaked U.S. State Department cables, which have since formed the basis of reporting for newspapers around the globe. The publication has given the public a window into the inner workings of government at an unprecedented scale, and in the process, has transformed journalism in the digital age.

In recognition, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was just awarded Australia’s version of the Pulitzer Prize, in addition to the Martha Gellhorn journalism prize he won in the United Kingdom earlier this year. As Salon’s Glenn Greenwald observed, “WikiLeaks easily produced more newsworthy scoops over the last year than every other media outlet combined.” Yet at the same time, the Justice Department has been investigating WikiLeaks for criminal violations for doing what other media organizations have been doing in the U.S. for centuries—publishing truthful information in the public interest.

Here is a look at Cablegate’s impact on journalism surrounding six countries central to U.S. foreign policy, and why it is vital for the media to stand up for WikiLeaks’ First Amendment right to publish classified information.

The WikiLeaks Cables and Their Contributions to Journalism

Libya

This past summer, Senator John McCain was the most vocal member of Congress cheering for more aggressive military action to remove Libya’s then-leader Muammar Gaddafi. But a WikiLeaks cable revealed just two years earlier, Sen. McCain had personally promised to arm Qaddafi with U.S. military equipment. Yet Gaddafi was one of the strongest critics of the WikiLeaks publications. The cables exposed the greed and corruption of his regime, and, according to some reports, seemed to drive him crazy. He even accused the CIA of leaking the documents to undermine him.

Pakistan

Long before U.S forces secretly entered Pakistan to kill Osama bin laden in August, the cables confirmed the U.S. military was already covertly operating inside the country—a fact that the U.S. government had previously denied for months. Despite public support for the Pakistani government, the cables also showed U.S. diplomats have long thought of thePakistani intelligence service, the I.S.I., as a “terrorist organization” that tacitly supports al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Yemen

One of the first cables released in 2010 confirmed reports of another undeclared military action that the U.S. had previously denied—drones strikes in Yemen. At the same time, the cables detailed the secret deal the Yemeni President made with the U.S. to allow the strikes, which he lied to his people about in the process. When the C.I.A. extra-judicially killed alleged al-Qaeda leader and U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awaki with a drone in October 2011, the U.S. publicly announced the death but refused to officially release any information about the strike. A cable published by WikiLeaks provided a blueprint for how the attack was carried out.

Egypt

During the Egyptian revolution, the cables gave the rest of the world a stark and unflinching look at the brutality of Mubarak and his regime, facts of which Egyptians were already well aware. The cables painted a “vivid picture” of the U.S.’s close ties with the regime, but alsoconfirmed to the international community that police brutality in Egypt was “routine and pervasive” and that “the use of torture [was] so widespread that the Egyptian government ha[d] stopped denying it exists.”

Tunisia

The cables have been credited with directly influencing what came to be known as the Jasmine Revolution. In the early stages of mass political protests in Tunisia, Nawaat—the influential Tunisian blogging group—set up a website called Tunileaks and widely distributedthe cables to Tunisian citizens. The cables confirmed that the U.S. viewed Tunisian President Ben Ali as a corrupt and brutal tyrant and fanned the flames of the already smoldering revolution. Amnesty International would credit WikiLeaks and its media partners as “catalysts” in the people’s successful ouster of Ali.

Iraq

In what may turn out to be WikiLeaks’ most lasting legacy, CNN reported a month ago that a WikiLeaks cable played a role in expediting the return of all U.S. troops from Iraq and ending the decade long war. Negotiations to keep U.S. troops in Iraq longer than the original 2011 deadline were strained when Wikileaks released a cable showing the U.S. tried to cover up an incident where soldiers knowingly killed innocent women and children in Iraq. Iraqi negotiators indicated the cable gave them excuse to refuse to extend the troop presence.

This, of course, only scratches the surface, as the cables have shed light on almost every major foreign policy story of 2011. In April, Atlantic Wire reported that nearly half of 2011’sNew York Times issues relied on WikiLeaks documents. And while all of the cables have now been released, the impact is still reverberating. Zimbabwe’s notorious dictator Robert Mugabe may be next to feel the effects. The BBC recently reported that WikiLeaks revelations may force him to step down from power, a notion that was previously “unthinkable.”

Long Term Impact: WikiLeaks and Threats to the First Amendment

As we look back at how the WikiLeaks cables have enriched and colored our understanding of recent history, it’s impossible to ignore that the Justice Department is currently investigating individuals allegedly associated with WikiLeaks, reportedly for possible violations of the Espionage Act of 1917—an outdated relic of World War I—which has recently been used to punish government leakers.

No media organization has ever been indicted, much less convicted, under the Espionage Act. Constitutional scholars almost uniformly agree that a prosecution of a media organization would be devastating for press freedom and violate the First Amendment. The Justice Department has reportedly tried to avoid this constitutional problem by trying to craft charges against Wikileaks leader Julian Assange for soliciting or inducing classified information from his source under “conspiracy to commit espionage” theory.

Of course, asking sources for information is part of the normal news gathering process for any reporter, which is why Yale law professor Jack Balkin said the Justice Department’s strategy “threatens traditional journalists as well.” Secrecy expert Steven Aftergood argued that a prosecution under this theory could criminalize “ordinary conventions of national security reporting.” And former New York Times general counsel James Goodale remarked the Justice Department might as well be investigating WikiLeaks for “conspiracy to commit journalism.”

Yet the mainstream press, most notably the New York Times, has done little to defend WikiLeaks’ right to publish, despite the fact that legal observers on both the left and right have said it’s impossible to distinguish WikiLeaks and the Times under the letter of the law.

Assange’s rocky relationship with the Times and other media partners may be the reason for the Times’ silence. But, no matter what one thinks of Assange, failing to defend WikiLeaks’ right to publish government secrets is dangerously short sighted. With all the attention WikiLeaks has received, it’s easy to forget that newspapers have been publishing secret information for decades. In fact, in the past year, stories based on non-WikiLeaks classified information about Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iran, China have graced the pages of the country’s most established publications. And much of the information on which those stories were based is of a higher classification level than anything WikiLeaks published.

The New York Times may feel safe in the Justice Department’s indication that they are not the target of any investigation, but the “trust us” argument will only last until the next big scoop. It was less than a decade ago that then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzalesrepeatedly claimed he would like to investigate the New York Times under the Espionage Act for its NSA warrantless wiretapping investigation. New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau won a Pulitzer Prize for exposing gross constitutional violations that also happened to be classified “Top Secret.” But with a successful WikiLeaks prosecution, a threat like Gonzales’ could force a paper to kill such a story, or worse: the next Pulitzer Prize winner may be forced to accept his or her prize from a jail cell.

The mainstream American press has the most to lose from a WikiLeaks prosecution. Whether or not Julian Assange is indicted can’t extinguish the idea WikiLeaks represents. We now know the technology and expertise exists to create anonymously driven whistleblower platforms that can advocate for government transparency by publishing all over the world. As the Economist said, “Jailing Thomas Edison in 1890 would not have darkened the night.” And despite the established press’s unwillingness to defend WikiLeaks, they are also trying to copy WikiLeaks’ model.

As the media look back on the WikiLeaks cables’ wide-ranging impact on journalism this week, it’s important they also defend the idea behind WikiLeaks. Because if they do not stand up for WikiLeaks’ right to publish, in the end, it will only be harder to preserve the publication rights of mainstream organizations like the New York Times. The real casualty in a Wikileaks prosecution will not be Julian Assange; it will be the death of a free press and the First Amendment itself.

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/28-2

US Govt Demands Wikileaks Destroy All Files About Them – Assange

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has told a media summit that the US government has ordered him to destroy all the material WikiLeaks holds on them – published and unpublished - and to stop using government insiders to gather fresh material.

“[When we released our documents] the Pentagon said we must destroy everything we published and were going to publish,” Assange said. ”And if we didn’t, we would be ‘compelled to do so,’” the summit’s website says.

Assange made the allegation as he addressed the News 2011 Summit in Hong Kong via Skype. News executives and media owners from over 80 countries have gathered there to discuss editorial principles and tools as well as business models for the news media. Reports say Assange has been under police pressure to stop talking – exactly the kind of oppressive official action he has been working to highlight.

He was met with a storm of applause from journalists as he appeared on the screen.

Speaking about modern journalism, Assange claimed it was facing crisis of a legitimacy today and accused the mainstream press of corruption and bias.

Answering a question from the moderator on whether he considers himself a journalist, Assange said, “Of course I’m a goddamned journalist,” and emphasized the role WikiLeaks played in some significant events, such as the revolution in Tunisia.

The WikiLeaks founder has dubbed the Internet the biggest surveillance machine ever built: “Any information stored in Gmail or Yahoo is accessible by any government agency.”

Julian Assange is facing extradition from the UK to Sweden on rape charges. His defense believes the move could lead to their client facing prosecution in America for his involvement in WikiLeaks.

Source:

http://rt.com/news/us-wikileaks-assange-summit-371

Internet Has Become ‘Surveillance Machine’: Assange

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange blasted the mainstream media,Washington, banks and the Internet itself as he addressed journalists in Hong Kong on Monday via videolink from house arrest in England.

Fresh from accepting a top award for journalism from the prestigious Walkley Foundation in his native Australia on Sunday, Assange spoke to the News World Summit in Hong Kong before keeping a regular appointment with the police.

He defended his right to call himself a journalist and saidWikiLeaks’ next “battle” would be to ensure that the Internet does not turn into a vast surveillance tool for governments and corporations.

“Of course I’m a goddamn journalist,” he responded with affected frustration when a moderator of the conference asked if he was a member of the profession.

He said his written record spoke for itself and argued that the only reason people kept asking him if he was a journalist was because the United States’ government wanted to silence him.

“The United States government does not want legal protection for us,” he said, referring to a US Justice Department investigation into his whistle-blower website for releasing secret diplomatic and military documents.

The former hacker criticised journalists and the mainstream media for becoming too cosy with the powerful and secretive organisations they were supposed to be holding to account.

In a 40-minute address, he also accused credit card companies such as Visa and Mastercard of illegally cutting WikiLeaks off from funding under a secret deal with the White House.

“Issues that should be decided in open court are being decided in back rooms in Washington,” he said.

The Internet itself had become “the most significant surveillance machine that we have ever seen,” Assange said in reference to the amount of information people give about themselves online.

“It’s not an age of transparency at all … the amount of secret information is more than ever before,” he said, adding that information flows in but is not flowing out of governments and other powerful organisations.

“I see that really is our big battle. The technology gives and the technology takes away,” he added.

The anti-secrecy activist then help up a handwritten sign from an aide telling him to “stop” talking or he would be late for a mandatory appointment with police.

Assange, 40, is under house arrest in England pending the outcome of a Swedish extradition request over claims of rape and sexual assault made by two women. He says he is the victim of a smear campaign.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/internet-become-surveillance-machine-assange-180125891.html

WikiLeaks, Julian Assange Win Major Australian Prize for “Outstanding Contribution to Journalism”

Over the weekend, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange accepted the award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism at the 2011 Walkley Award in Australia, an honor akin to the Pulitzer Prize in the United States.

Today also marks the one-year anniversary of “Cable Gate,” when WikiLeaks began publishing a trove of more than 250,000 leaked U.S. State Department cables.

In related news, the U.S. Army recently scheduled a Dec. 16 pretrial hearing for Army Private Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of providing the cables to WikiLeaks.

Manning “faces life in prison, possibly the death penalty, for what was an act of conscience,” says Greenwald.

Source: http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/28/wikileaks_julian_assange_win_major_australian

Let Journalists Work, City Police Are Ordered

Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly has issued an internal message ordering officers in New York City not to interfere unreasonably with journalists’ access during news media coverage and warning that those who do will be subject to disciplinary action.

The message was being read at police precinct station houses around New York on Wednesday. It came after journalists, including two from The Associated Press, were arrested covering Occupy Wall Street protests.

A coalition of news organizations had sent a letter complaining about the treatment. The news media argued that the police wrongly blocked journalists from observing last week when the authorities cleared out the protesters’ encampment in Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan.

The A.P. and representatives of The New York Times, The Daily News, The New York Post and the National Press Photographers Association met with Mr. Kelly on Wednesday.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/24/nyregion/new-york-police-are-ordered-to-let-journalists-work.html