|
|
May 18, 2006
That al Qaeda Doesn't Believe in Transparency is a Big Reason We DoOn Tony Snow's first briefing: "One of the ways to fight and win (in a global contest of ideas) is to stand at the podium, with those words The White House behind you, and meet your misinformed critics head on." Plus: Snow scoffs at "rollback" on the HH show.At his first televised press briefing Tony Snow was friendly, telegenic, and in command, except for one very real moment when, overcome at having survived cancer, he could not go on. “He showed more emotion in 60 seconds than Scott McClellan did in three years,” wrote Howard Kurtz. McClellan’s style—a few posts ago I called it “strategic non-communication”—was the big loser in press accounts of Snow’s debut.
According to Scherer an initiation test had been passed. “Members of the press corps were thankful for warm blood. As they packed up their notebooks, they were visibly giddy, offering approbations like, ‘That was A-1’ and ‘It’s going to be fun.’” Howard Kurtz was impressed. He said Snow was more “interesting to listen to” because he tried “engaging the press in a conversation” and stayed out of “the defensive crouch.” “Yes, he split plenty of hairs,” Kurtz wrote. “But he didn’t insult the press by saying, in effect, no matter what questions you ask, I’m going to repeat the same boilerplate phrases.” Dan Froomkin disagreed. He said Snow “found new ways to insult the press.” Among them: “He misreported poll numbers when it served his purposes — then refused to answer questions about poll numbers he didn’t like.” True. He did exactly that. (Correction: no misreporting; see the top of WHB.) Snow also said he couldn’t confirm or deny that the National Security Agency was collecting data on domestic telephone calls, but then he did talk about public reaction to those reports. “Something like 64 percent of the polling was not troubled by it,” he said. Under these rules Snow does not defend the NSA program on the merits (can’t confirm its existence) but suggests Americans are sold on the merits. The beast controls itself Brewer’s list shows why the briefing can be such an advantage to the White House. The president gives a big speech on immigration; next day, the press asks 22 questions about immigration. It’s called feeding the beast. Give the reporters something to report and you’ve set their agenda. It’s true that if Karl Rove were indicted that day there might have been 30 questions on Rove, and four on immigration, speech or no speech. You can’t always control the beast. But on a normal day the beast is docile; it controls itself. The White House is doing immigration week, the press is “on” it. That Porter Goss resigned last week without explanation, calling it “one of those mysteries,” is easily forgotten. At his first (untelevised) press gaggle, May 12, Snow said that “rumors of the televised briefings demise are greatly exaggerated.” Those weren’t rumors. On April 30, his boss, chief of staff Joshua Bolter, told Fox News that dropping the midday televised briefing should be on the table. “I haven’t made any decisions,” Snow said Friday. He repeated this Tuesday. The ritual will continue for now. If there are any changes “I will do that in full consultation with you,” he told the press. He also said he didn’t think the televised briefings were “something that you can undo.” I disagree with that. All it takes is a president with the will to undo and they’re done. In my view there should be both televised and untelevised briefings. But mainly there should be more briefings: a full schedule every day, and the staff to make it happen since Snow cannot do them all. A contest for world opinion Rather than cutting back on the interlocutors’ space, the Bush Administration should be expanding it outward to take in more interlocutors— more Q’s, more A’s, from more people and more interests. For if there really is a Global War on Terror and it’s being led from the White House, then the people there are engaged in a contest for world opinion. The National Security Strategy Bush proclaimed in 2002 says just that: “We will also wage a war of ideas to win the battle against international terrorism.” You don’t wage a war of ideas with Scott McClellan as one of your big guns. But with Tony Snow…? Maybe. Last year Donald Rumsfeld offered this assessment of the war in Iraq: The only way we can lose this is if we lack political will to see it through. The terrorists, the violent terrorists, the enemies of the Iraqi people and the legitimate Iraqi government and the new Iraqi constitution, they know that. They know precisely that their battle is not in Iraq. Their battle is here in the United States. They have media committees, they calculate how they can have the greatest impact on the media in the world, and they are very skillful at it and we’re not. Well, if our enemies are having greater effect on “the media in the world,” as Mr. Rumsfeld said, that argues for trying something different— really different. Like reverse course different. My suggestion: the White House should be answering lots of people’s questions— in fact, many more questions from all over the world. One of the ways to fight and win (in a contest of ideas) is to stand at the podium, with those words The White House behind you, and meet your misinformed critics head on, while talking sense to those—in the room, out in the country, around the world—who are fair and open-minded. Taking Bush’s case to the world No decision yet on whether to drop the briefings? If he’s a believer, Tony Snow should be taking Bush’s case to the world, and seeking opportunities to make that case. That means more briefings. Not cutting back but building on. Snow is the head of an operation. That operation includes able assistants. There are extremely competent people across the government, outside of Snow’s office, who in their areas of knowledge can also brief the press, answer critics, and bring policy to life. I’d go with two-person teams: one briefer pulled from the government itself (someone in the line of duty for the United States) and the other a deputy press secretary working for Snow. Here’s a schedule I drew up: 8:00 AM… Televised Briefing in Arabic (For journalists from the Muslim world and the Arabic speaking press. You make the evening news in Cairo and Baghdad that night, and the newspapers the next day.) During his debut Snow reminded Helen Thomas that there’s a war on terror. “But al Qaeda doesn’t believe in transparency,” he added. “What al Qaeda believes in is mayhem.” There’s two ways to read that. In one, the United States cannot afford its earlier levels of transparency because it has to defeat al Qaeda, which doesn’t have to worry about such things. I believe this logic helped justify the policy of rollback— back ‘em off, starve ‘em down, and drive up their negatives. The other read cuts an opposite way: al Qaeda doesn’t believe in transparency and that’s a big reason we do. We know al Qaeda can’t answer the questions people have. We know that we can. Never will Qadea’s leaders stand before the cameras and take the heat. But we do that every day, eight times a day, fielding questions from all over the world. After Matter: Notes, reactions & links… Here’s the transcript of my live Q and A at washingtonpost.com, May 18. Main topics were the Bush White House and the press, including Tony Snow’s debut. Two highlights: Scott McClellan was Agnew at the podium. Or you will if you read the thing. Also there’s… My very strong impression after watching Snow this week is that to have a potential star in the Administration preaching from the podium would be a new dynamic in the Bush White House, and probably not welcome to all power players in the West Wing. Snow has charisma, and convictions. He’s articulate, quick on his feet. He could become a factor. But what happens when he has to defend the indefensible? Then we’ll see what moxy he has. Tim Schmoyer (Sisyphus) comments on this post: OldThink at PressThink… He’s not impressed. Rosen’s suggestion sounds good in the abstract, and there’s something to be said from a public relations standpoint about answering critics and bringing a policy “to life.” From a practical point of view, however, message management has a way of breaking down when you add so much to the mix. Rarely is there room on the national news agenda for more than a couple large stories each day, and dispersing the administration’s focus each day seems to risk dispersing the message. If, the day after President Bush delivers a national address on immigration, you have eight different briefings with eight different briefers, that is a certain recipe for confusion. Let’s put it this way: Has the Bush Administration actually behaved like it’s in a war of ideas? That is the question my suggestion was intended to raise. My answer is: no way. Terry Mattingly at GetReligion, a blog about the press and religion, considers my suggestions. “The hard part would be deciding who would be left out. Obviously, Richard Ostling of the Associated Press gets in. Ditto for someone from Catholic News Service and Baptist Press. Ditto for the likes of World and Christianity Today. Is the key question whether someone carries a mainstream press card? That would narrow the field too much… I think that a ‘God room’ would ask some very different and, in some ways, very tough questions. Rollback news flash! “Leftist overthink,” and nothing to worry about, says Snow. On his radio program yesterday, Hugh Hewitt interviewed Tony Snow and asked him about a theory of mine. (Transcript.) HH:: One of the lead bloggers of the left, Jay Rosen, up at New York University, who writes at PressThink, has argued that this Adminsitration is intent on “rollback,” the delegitimzation of the White House press corps and main stream media generally, and part of that was to deny the spokespeople and including the number one spokesperson, in this case you, the ability to reply effectively, is that just sort of leftist overthink? Well, thanks. That a press secretary can’t tell reporters everything because there are secrets of state that are not to be divulged is true—and obvious—and, yes, it has always has been thus. But this has nothing to do with rollback, as I have discussed it. (Also see Austin Bay’s guest post at PressThink.) So I can’t glean anything from Snow’s reply. It’s a bromide. Here’s what Hewitt should have asked him: Vice President Cheney has said that after Watergate and Vietnam the executive branch saw its perogatives trimmed. He thinks it got hemmed in by other institutions and their oversight demands. Do you think the news media is one of those institutions from which the White House has to regain lost powers? Maybe next interview. Hewitt asked Snow about paying attention to blogs. Snow said: TS: Well, we’re in the process of designating people to be…to sort of do blog work, because that is one of the things that I’m doing here, at sort of the press office, is to get us up on the new media. And so I still haven’t finished that task, but I’m going to start designating people to keep an eye out on certain blogs, so we can figure out an effective strategy… blogs are useful not only for information, but also for various analysis. You get it into the bloodstream, and boom. People start linking all across the universe, and it’s like one of those pictures of a crack in the ice. It just spiderwebs everywhere.
Posted by Jay Rosen at May 18, 2006 1:20 AM
Comments
8:00 AM… Televised briefing in Arabic Are you urging Tony to dive into a turf fight with Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes? Posted by: nedu at May 18, 2006 4:00 AM | Permalink Jay. You are thinking of some al Q guy at a podium answering Dana Priest's question about why the US is so awful. That's "taking the heat". Snow was talking about operational security. Why conflate the two? Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 18, 2006 7:29 AM | Permalink Richard Aubrey is right. Snow was discussing transparency in discussing classified intelligence. He convincingly argued that we cannot be transparent about intelligence because we're in a war. You've removed the quote from its context in a substantial way, in my opinion. Even if he was talking about classified intelligence -- an extreme-case red herring in a discussion of everyday openness to the press -- Jay's point remains valid. If your belief in the power of your principles is as strong as this admin's is then more communication not less would seem to be an easy call. I think that's where the Snow appointment is coming from -- even though it's more of a co-opt-em play so far than an actual give-em-more-info play. Posted by: D. Longobardi at May 18, 2006 10:54 AM | Permalink Re: Response to question on domestic telephone call number issue: Snow didn't confirm or deny it, but he said about two-thirds of the country approve of it. How is this a puzzle? The MSM have convinced a good many people it exists. Would the MSM lie? It must be true. Being true, the next question is what people think about it. 65% like the idea. It could also be a warning. If it proves to be true, by virtue of administration acknowledgment, don't expect to use it to bang Bush. Two thirds of the population think it's a good idea. Ditto any similar program which may come to light. BTW. See "Gates of Vienna" blog for the article starting out with "MSM Scrapings...." It compares two reports of Chavez' ponderings about selling his F16 fleet. One of them is the way it ought to be done. And suggestions about how the MSM can do it. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 18, 2006 10:58 AM | Permalink Robin. Let's wait until, as I specified, she's talking to an al Q press spokesman. The last big deal she got was how awful the US is--the secret prisons. Now. Picture her asking this hypothetical al Q guy. "How awful are the secret prisons?" Let's presume somebody asked the al Q spokesperson, "What about the decapitations?" "A CIA and Mossad plot to smear Islam, the religion of peace." Report: "al Q says decapitations are Mossad/CIA plot." No followup. No independent investigation.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 18, 2006 11:29 AM | Permalink Who's Being Rolled?, or, "Old Media" vs "New Media" Tony Snow: Well, we’re in the process of designating people to be to sort of do blog work, because that is one of the things that I’m doing here, at sort of the press office, is to get us up on the new media....I’m going to start designating people to keep an eye out on certain blogs, so we can figure out an effective strategy....You get it into the bloodstream, and boom. People start linking all across the universe, and it’s like one of those pictures of a crack in the ice. It just spiderwebs everywhere. Jay: Rather than cutting back on the interlocutors’ space, the Bush Administration should be expanding it outward to take in more interlocutors— more Q’s, more A’s, from more people and more interests. It will be interesting to see if the White House implements this sort of outward-expanding strategy on-line, even if they don't go with your suggestion of more press briefings. Last week, Hugh Hewitt was urging Donald Rumsfeld to adopt a similar "new media" strategy at the Pentagon: Hugh Hewitt: Are the pressers like the sort you just concluded, ten minute interviews and an occasional Sunday show, sufficient for you and the military to get across not only the good news, but the bad news, the challenges, the strategy? Are you using last war techniques in the new war? Donald Rumsfeld: To a certain extent, we are still using the old 20th century techniques. And we're trying to figure them out and adjust them, and adapt them to the 21st Century. But it's painfully slow. People get set in their ways, and it's a difficult thing to do. We do provide, the Pentagon does, an enormous amount of information. There's someone briefing at the Pentagon, somewhere in the world, every day. And there are people providing information to people in a variety of different ways: through our website, through the Pentagon channel, through radio and television and print media. But it is still basically, I would guess, 80% 20th Century, and maybe 20% 21st Century. My guess is that Hewitt and Snow would claim that there is no "rollback", just a shifting of emphasis from "old media" to "new media" channels of communication. I suppose there's an element of truth (truthiness?) to that, but it's not the whole story.
Posted by: Mike at May 18, 2006 11:43 AM | Permalink Robin. Aren't real? Depends on who you talk to. The EU says they have no evidence of secret prisons. But can you show me where I said we shouldn't talk about anything? Go ahead. Start right in. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 18, 2006 11:47 AM | Permalink Mr. Rosen, I think that you are giving too much attention to superficial changes. I guess it's possible that Bolten and Snow will change how the WH interacts with the press, and by extension, the public. But I wouldn't put any wagers on it. This WH does not change, or does not substantively change anyway. PR changes, sure, but no policy changes. They count on the fact that the topics change by the day and by the week. As you have pointed out, not too many questions about Goss have been asked or answered. We could all make a list of questions that have never been answered, just ignored until the press stops asking. (Just what was Gannon/Guckert doing in there, anyway?) Putting someone at the podium who looks and speaks better than McClellan will not lead to an actual difference in information and interaction, is my prediction. Thanks. Completely OT but Barlett & Steele laid off Or is the media's puny economic health rollback from another direction? Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 18, 2006 12:34 PM | Permalink You already know the WH briefings are verbal press handouts. They discuss the stuff the WH wants to discuss. They answer questions the way the WH wants them answered. Why complain about the WH not being asked, and not commenting on, Goss' retirement? What else did you expect. Try some reporting. It's more worthy of adults. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 18, 2006 1:07 PM | Permalink Good ideas, Jay. Sounds like the kind of information strategies that helped win past conflicts. Imagine if this Administration had not chosen to run the country using only 50% of its CPU. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 18, 2006 1:47 PM | Permalink Unfortunately, I'm afraid the majority of the "working" press is a sucker for the sentimentality that so impressed Howard Kurtz, that the issue of cancer made Snow cry, than is informed and responsible enough to be offended like Froomkin understandably was when Snow dished out more disinformation. The press's test of White House process seems to have much more to do with soap opera authenticity than political and policy credibility. Why does "Do we like him or not?" seem to be a higher journalistic imperative than "Is he telling the truth or not and what is it?" I can understand why Snow's "humanity" would make him less irritating to work with. But why do I get the feeling that in the mind of many of these reporters being personable appears to make Snow a better, more credible, source? Is disinformation from Snow "truthier" because he cried during the press conference in which he passed it on? Is it that difficult to draw a distinction between charisma, salesmanship, and accuracy? I can't help but feel the surge of press narcissism kicking back into gear here as an obstacle to news that any sentient White House can typically play like a fiddle. It's like they've agreed Neil Diamond's "Play Me" is their theme song and they're determined to live down to it. I've read accounts of the US press from the 1870s where a British observer (Herbert Spencer in this case) complained about the cult of personal authenticity in US journalism and how it seems to systematically trump substance. Why is this so? Is there nothing we can do about it? Isn't this an absolutely core element of PressThink dogma that must be displaced before we might recover any hope of democratic debate? This element of PressThink was the key to Reagan popularity amidst one debacle in governance after another. Is there any hope of distracting the press from the People magazine model they have taken as their mission toward some passing concern with real news on occasion? Why does Howard Kurtz think who's in the clique is news? Posted by: Mark Anderson at May 18, 2006 2:10 PM | Permalink I think that another healthy improvement would be not using "tar baby". Aunt Jemima, coon and spade might play a little better to his audience. Posted by: Derrick at May 18, 2006 3:23 PM | Permalink My complaint about Jay's use of the "transparency" quote notwithstanding, I think his ideas on expanding the communications operation are good -- especially the idea for an Arabic-language briefing. One of the biggest mistakes this vile One Party Republican regime has made is to shut the folks who are best at crosscultural outreach and understanding out of policymaking and decisionmaking altogether, and leave the winning of the hearts and minds of foreigners to rednecks like Karen Hughes. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 18, 2006 3:38 PM | Permalink Well, let's see a Patterico post in reply! This post was mostly addressed to the right side of the blogosphere anyway, which might find it worth debating whether more communication is good in the GWOT. I don't think the liberal sites will be much interested. So far we have links from Romenesko, Fishbowl DC, White House Briefing, CBS Public Eye, Hugh Hewitt, Real Clear Politics, Instapundit. No one has noticed yet that my scheme for all-day briefings dilutes the role of the "famous MSM" from 100 percent of the briefing audiences to 25. Mr. Rosen: I finally got around to reading your Washington Post Q&A from earlier today. I have to take exception with your assertion Tony Snow’s tearful performance on Tuesday was spontaneous, not faked. Maybe you’re just too embedded in the culture to notice, but there were two clues that raised my suspicions. First it was the raised hand gesture (clearly done to elicit an emotion from the viewer), and when he managed to look up he did so directly into the camera. Why did he not seek out the person who asked him the question about his yellow bracelet? It was a startling moment--not because of his emotion, but because he seemed to consciously make an effort to search out the camera lens and gaze into it with piteous, moist eyes. I’m a reasonably empathic person, and am moved by genuine displays of emotion. But this just didn’t feel right. Remember, Tony Snow is a veteran television personality, well-practiced in his craft. Honestly, I was put off by his inability to contain his emotions. I would have to agree with Mr. Anderson's comment above. The fact Tony Snow's tears became the primary focus of reporting on this press conference says much about the sad state of journalism today. Posted by: Jean at May 18, 2006 4:07 PM | Permalink I think the irony here is that some people are trying to make a tar baby out of "tar baby." The argument, of course, is that the term "tar baby" is racist because by some people (unspecified -- but you know: "them") have used it in a racist way. As The Maven's Word of the Day acknowledges, this leads some to suggest that the term should not be used at all in the interests of sensitivity. But is that the way we want our language to be directed? The irony here is that The Tar Baby is an American folk tale with an African origin, and it's a clever analogy with a rich, relevant meaning. Consider The folktale achieved currency in the United States in written form in one of Joel Chandler Harris's Uncle Remus stories, a collection of stories based on African-American folklore, narrated by the fictional Uncle Remus, a former slave. In the story "Tar-Baby," the character Brer Fox makes a doll out of tar, which he places by the road to entrap his enemy Brer Rabbit. Brer Rabbit talks to the doll, and when it doesn't answer, he hits it, and gets stuck in the tar. The more he struggles with it, the more he is entangled in it. What this definition fails to explain is what makes this entire situation so ironic: It is the act of struggling with the tar baby that defeats us. We had a similar flap some years back over the word "niggardly," and it lead some writers to just drop it from their vocabularies because the fallout wasn't worth the trouble. It wasn't much of an issue for me, since niggardly wasn't a word I'd ever used much anyway, but "tar baby" is so expressive of a particular human situation that I don't want to just give it up because "somebody" says that "somebody" uses it as a racial slur. I don't want to eat "Saltine Wheat Thins" just because "cracker" has a racial connotation. And trying to hang a racially insensitive label on Snow because he used the term properly is exactly the kind of shallow, "gotcha" quest that so damaged press credibility in the first place. Posted by: Daniel Conover at May 18, 2006 4:17 PM | Permalink I like some of this, but I wouldn't go for the all day briefings. The press is often more intent on finding ways to embarrass the administration than on simply reporting the news, which is why there are so many "When did you stop beating your wife?" questions. If the briefers make a mistake or have incomplet information, the whole administration gets accused of dishonesty and cover up. If the press would quit reporting leaks all the time, it might be justified, but that's not going to happen. BTW, I think your "rollback" theory is paranoid. I've been impressed by Bush's lack of hostility toward the press, when it is richly deserved. Bush just doesn't think that way. Nor does he understand the need for public relations, which is why Scott McClellan has been there so long. If the President wanted rollback he wouldn't have appointed Tony Snow. Posted by: AST at May 18, 2006 4:35 PM | Permalink Jay, how many Qs did you get on Tar Baby (the outrage of the moment) today? Here's Michael Fletcher with Tar Bay: Henly, Tex.: I have no investment in defending a right-wing ideologue like Tony Snow, but his reference to the story of the Tar Baby is totally without racial overtones, as anyone who knows the Tar Baby fable is well aware. Lots of Q's on tar baby, jaw. "Nor does he understand the need for public relations, which is why Scott McClellan has been there so long." Lemme guess: Bush doesn't understand the need for public relations because he's just so genuine. It doesn't occur to him that he would need someone like that. Would that be your drift? It's hard to explain McClellan--up there for three years!--without rollback or something similar, and you failed AST. Bush is competent enough to pull off regime change in the Middle East, and win the hearts and minds of Iraqis, but not competent enough to see that McClellan was hurting him? Just seems implausible. "If the President wanted rollback he wouldn't have appointed Tony Snow." My view: He looked around and realized where Rollback got him, and then appointed Tony Snow hoping that would fix it without need for any agonizing re-appraisal. The staff was more than into that. Jay Rosen: "He looked around and realized where Rollback got him ..." Nah. Looked around, sure. Replaced Card with Bolton and moved Rove back into political advisor. He's a decider-delegator, right? I think Snow replacing McClellan was a second order effect. "Tar Baby" clearly wasn't intended as a racial slur, nor did it have any racial undertone in this case. It's a red herring. But look at the resonance. That's the stuff that press secretaries really need to watch out for -- accidentally saying something that will hum the wrong way -- like "heck of a job, Brownie." Perhaps that was part of McClellan's approach to the job: If you can't be sure you're not going to let slip something stupid, don't say anything at all. What would have been McClellan's cleanup for having let "tar baby" slip? "What you are asking about, I have already addressed what you are asking about. And I am not going to -- I am not going to comment on it any further. I understand what you are trying to do, and I'm not going to engage in any wordgaming with you." Treat the whole administration-press dynamic as a tar baby, and avoid it by not going anywhere near it. Speaking of which, Bush gave the much-vilified David Gregory an interview at the border today ... caught the end of it in a brief moment of news before Chris Matthews-NBC-Vivendi-Universal Pictures slipped into full-blown Da Vinci Code synergistic programming by interviewing film critics in Cannes from Opus Dei's NYC headquarters ... (!) Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 18, 2006 6:17 PM | Permalink Perhaps the President really doesn't care what the what the White House press corps thinks of him or how they portray him; as Steve Lovelady pointed out a year or so ago on this blog, the WH Press Corps are basically stenographers and havent broken a story in 30 years. The real action is in other sectors of government the President, or any administration for that matter, doesn't or can't control. My impression is that President Bush really doesnt care about PR or polls, and the appointment of Snow is more to shore up the republican base for the next couple of years. Posted by: RogerA at May 18, 2006 6:33 PM | Permalink Richard -- Da Vinci is produced by Columbia, owned by SONY, not Universal, owned by NBC -- Andrew Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at May 18, 2006 6:54 PM | Permalink Maybe next interview. Hewitt asked Snow about paying attention to blogs. even better would be if Snow allowed himself to be "interviewed" by Jay in one of his "email" exchanges that he publishes occassionally. Expecting anything of value to come from an interview conducted by Hewitt (regardless of the interviewee) is a waste of time. *************** Steve --- OT response, but as someone who lives in Philadelphia and read "America: What Went Wrong" as it was serialized, I'm simply shocked and appalled that Time Inc. got rid of Barlett and Steele. Their work has crystalized what people perceive, but can't quite put into words. I remember when AWWW was first published in the Inky, everyone at work (ok, it was UofP...so its not that much of a surprise) was talking about it. I don't believe, however, that they will be spending any time in the unemploymentt line. Any paper that wants an instant increase in its standing and credibility will be snatching them up --- I even see a bidding war! :) (maybe Jay could do a piece on this) ************** Re: Snow -- Froomkin was right, and the praise being given to Snow is a demonstration of the DC press corp's obsession with trivialities over substance. The fact that Tony Snow is a far more engaging bullshitter than McClellan shouldn't make a difference---but apparently it will. ******************* Here’s a schedule I drew up Dr. Rosen, there is a job waiting for you in the Feingold administration :) Paul, Bartlett and Steele, few newspapers or magazine can afford to hire reporters and let them go work on one story for 2 years. The Inquirer in the end couldn't afford Barlett and Steele, right Steve? These guys will not a hard time finding a job, but it will be not a bidding war, but how much a cut in salary they are willing to take. What makes Waas so good is his autonomy. He doesn't have daily, weekly or even monthly stories he has to churn out. OK students, settle down. Our professor, Dr Rosen, is a very clever man, but a little impatient. What is the motive behind his elaborate proposal for all-day briefings by the White House (besides using it to apply for a job in a Feingold Administration)? It is, as he says, “mostly addressed to the right side of the blogosphere.” Conservative critics tend to be exasperated by the commanding heights from which the MSM dominate the national discourse with their apparent anti-Bush bias. If the White House press office were to treat the MSM merely as one outlet among many -- side-by-side with the Arab media, the citizen’s media, the faith-based media, the War on Terrorism media and so on -- their distortions of our President’s policy and achievements would be mitigated. Yet there is a corollary to having the White House press office address such divergent media types simultaneously. The office would have to respond to the agendas of all those different journalists rather than having the potential to set a centralized agenda itself. At CBS’ Public Eye, Vaughn Ververs noticed this pitfall: “From a practical point of view, however, message management has a way of breaking down when you add so much to the mix.” Ververs still sees Tony Snow’s job as enforcing message management not responding to a dialogue initiated by a heterogeneous, non-MSM-dominated, gaggle of journalists. The professor, it seems, was attempting to invite conservatives into a realistic debate of the trade-off… …Keep the power of the White House to manage the message, a power that, like it or not, is dependent on dissemination through MainStreamMedia… …Or defang the MainStreamMedia once and for all by diluting the attention you give them, even at the cost of relinquishing any ambition at message management. But, as I said, the professor is man of little patience. That debate did not start up right away, so within two hours he spilled the beans: “No one has noticed yet that my scheme for all-day briefings dilutes the role of the ‘famous MSM’ from 100 percent of the briefing audiences to 25.” We notice now. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at May 18, 2006 7:32 PM | Permalink AT: Da Vinci is produced by Columbia, owned by SONY, not Universal, owned by NBC (Oops. Thanks for the correction. Feeling foolish now.) Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 18, 2006 7:42 PM | Permalink We have comments from Patterico, though his first words were Richard Aubrey is right. To round it out, we need mikekoshi. Andrew Tyndall: "... set a centralized agenda ..." Jay Rosen: "... stand at the podium, with those words The White House behind you ..." Industrial age thinking. Symmetric. A hub at the podium with conduits to receivers. Exactly why rollback couldn't, and can't, be maintained from the centralized podium. Why "assymetric" is the new "paradigm" - gawd I hate those words. The medium isn't the message, the message is a matrix. If I were the White House, I'm not sure I'd bite. As soon as you had four or five different spokespeople on camera, day after day, day after day, once in a while someone's going to misunderstand his guidance, his role, or come off message, or mistate something. Then the brachiators will howl and wail and say, "see! The Administration is incompetent!" and it won't matter what the facts are. And THAT will be the story, rather than the substance of the story. Metajournalism, like pop, will eat itself. It obviously doesn't matter what the facts are now, since the sainted Helen Thomas, who should have retired a decade ago, is too mind-addled now to comprehend the difference between wiretapping and collecting phone numbers. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 18, 2006 8:06 PM | Permalink Bartlett and Steele? Hmmm...The same guys who reported a HUGE increase in income during the 1980s among those with incomes of 1 million dollars or more, compared that with more modest increases in incomes among those with lower incomes, and used that as an indication of how the rich were getting over. Well, that's just not the case. The two fundamentally misunderstand tax law and its incentive effect on income. For people in high tax brackets (I know, it's hard for journos to wrap their heads around the idea, but there ARE tax brackets higher than yours) the name of the game is NOT to report income - especially in the 1970s and even into the 1980s, because the top marginal tax brackets were so high. So what you had in the 1980s was billions and billions of dollars from high net worth individuals sitting in limited partnerships, overseas trusts, leveraged passive activity loss generators (leveraged so you could actually lose MORE than you put into the investment, and use the paper losses to offset passive activity gains) and a variety of other tax shelters. The upshot was they WERE getting over, since they didn't have to report this stuff as income - what income they had could be written off against losses, and they really could avoid a lot of tax. The W-2 working stiff, until Reagan, really had almost nothing. Maybe an IRA at 500 bucks a year. Two things happened: 1.) The birth of the 401(k) as we know it. This enabled working stiffs to defer taxes on a portion of their earnings until retirement. This was a Godsend to workers in many ways - though some on the left say the birth of the 401(k) sounded the death knell for traditional pension plans. Their argument has some merit (though a global economy ensures much the same result), but in either case, the upshot was that reported incomes for the middle class was depressed, in the short run. (This was essentially a long-term loan, natch. The taxes were deferred, not canceled. The government makes up its shortfall when workers take their distributions and pay income tax, plus or minus any changes in their effective tax rate). 2. Most significantly for the purposes of this discussion, Congress passed a HUGE tax reform bill in 1986. One of the deliberate effects of this tax bill was the closing of a variety of loopholes and tax shelters that enabled the very rich to avoid paying income taxes. As a result, billions and billions of dollars were then either rendered taxable - boosting reported incomes significantly - or pulled out of these investments, and therefore either declared as income or a short-or-long-term capital gain, depending on the structure, whether it's a pass-through entity, whether it was double taxed as a C-corporation, etc. Either way, the reported incomes of the upper crust would have shot up by a HUGE amount after 1986 - which is exactly what we see in Bartlett and Steele's numbers. Now, this isn't something I'd expect most news guys would grasp just falling off the turnip truck. But an economics/business editor should have had a clue: "Hey, guys, are we talking reported incomes, or wealth increases here?" But Bartlett and Steele screwed the pooch on that one. It's not the amount of income that serves as a measure of whether the rich are really getting richer. It's the amount that's NOT income. The rich are fighting tooth and nail NOT to have income. In other words, the Zen-like superior reporter should be digging listening for the dog that doesn't bark. Because this one threw those guys way off the scent. Could have used a sharper editor, eh, Steve? Editors should at least hire reporters who grasp tax policy a little better. In fairness to them, I might have missed it as a cub Time Inc. reporter. But not now. (Disclosure: Happen to be finishing a course on tax planning at the moment. Maybe I'll hit up Time. I hear there's a vacancy.) Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 18, 2006 9:24 PM | Permalink Yeah. I recall, back in the Eighties, a field near mine went south pretty quick. It was sell tax breaks--not really, just the vehicles which qualified--of which there were huge numbers. Posted by: RIchard Aubrey at May 18, 2006 9:50 PM | Permalink John Jay. I think Jason is telling us about the level of competence Time's people show. Anyway, Iraqpundit has an interesting analysis of the WaPo using and being used by the Iraqi interior minister. If the reporter were a better reporter--she'd probably be working elsewhere. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 18, 2006 10:57 PM | Permalink I think this is a bit of a teaser: My suggestion: the White House should be answering lots of people’s questions— in fact, many more questions from all over the world. One of the ways to fight and win (in a contest of ideas) is to stand at the podium, with those words The White House behind you, and meet your misinformed critics head on, while talking sense to those—in the room, out in the country, around the world—who are fair and open-minded. What good would that do? The White House will just open itself up for this question and this question to be asked ten different ways by reporters that may be somewhat less sympathetic to US foreign policy than John Harris or Brit Hume, for example. What can one possibly say that is fair and open-minded in these situations? It will puncture the 'contest of ideas' balloon quicker than one can say 'Tony Snow'. Posted by: village idiot at May 18, 2006 11:04 PM | Permalink Wow, Jay -- you're really funny. Of course, if you can't talk on the merits, you have to be funny. What's even funnier is I DID report on tax and investing issues for Time, Inc as a staff reporter for three years, though I did so within the Fortune Group, not for Time itself. And when the magazine I worked for closed its doors, some of us DID transfer to Time. I transferred to Ramadi. Long story. But your ad hominem fizzles nevertheless. Besides, I'm a financial reporter taking coursework on my own time and at my own expense. You're going to belittle me because of that? Shows how ignorant you are. You should be worried about the reporters who AREN'T doing that in their beats, not the ones who are. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 18, 2006 11:08 PM | Permalink Actually, I was talking about the level of competence the Philadelphia Inquirer show. Wow. That's a lot of sloppy thinking. Granted, the statute of limitations has expired on this one. Nevertheless, Steve just got through publicly lionizing these two. Steve, was this on your watch? P.S. - He's a lefty, and writes occasionally for the Nation last I looked. But the best piece of financial reporting I've ever seen still comes from William Greider: Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 18, 2006 11:13 PM | Permalink Are you telling us that you do not worship at the feet of Amity Shlaes, Jason?;-) Posted by: village idiot at May 18, 2006 11:24 PM | Permalink "Yet there is a corollary to having the White House press office address such divergent media types simultaneously. The office would have to respond to the agendas of all those different journalists rather than having the potential to set a centralized agenda itself." - Tyndall, above. Perceptive. Particularly regarding the fact that journalists have agendas, which I believe are, at least occasionally, ideological or political ones. I think that while more communication from this White House is necessary (especially when information warfare is one weapon employed by our enemies), more Q and A with its ideological adversaries doesn't seem productive at this point. Posted by: Trained Auditor at May 19, 2006 12:02 AM | Permalink Nah. I know who she is, but have never read her stuff, that I can recall. Looking for her on the Web, I'm not seeing much that's recent. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 19, 2006 1:15 AM | Permalink Dan Froomkin disagreed. He said Snow “found new ways to insult the press.” Among them: “He misreported poll numbers when it served his purposes — then refused to answer questions about poll numbers he didn’t like.” True. He did exactly that. Not true. Froomkin was wrong, not Snow. Froomkin admitted that today. He also was one of the bozos complaining about the use of "tar baby". So Snow did not do exactly that, and now Uncle Remus is not politically correct. No wonder Disney never re-released "Song of the South". Posted by: walt at May 19, 2006 1:24 AM | Permalink "I've read accounts of the US press from the 1870s where a British observer (Herbert Spencer in this case) complained about the cult of personal authenticity in US journalism and how it seems to systematically trump substance." The real problem is "substance" -- facts are boring. What's interesting is the future, speculative analysis. Most "news" is not about what did happen, but about what the reporter or the person being quoted thinks will happen. News reporting is a business; it's audience is people who read the news infotainment; customers are more interested in (easy) people and personalities, and their ideas, rather than too many facts. The suggestions to open up to more Q & A seem excellent; less control of the message, more facts to support the Admin's messages. Including more analysis of news coverage, and whether or not the news is helping Al Qaeda, as the Vietnam news helped the N. Vietnamese. Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at May 19, 2006 6:00 AM | Permalink Evasiveness, despite emotiveness, is still the main point of concern. Granted every administration has secreted information, but to a certain extent isn't it's the press's job to ferret out the unnecessary secrets that might actually benefit a public airing (corruption, civil right degregation, etc.)? The thing that concerned me about Snow was the insistent, "can't confirm or deny", repeated over and over and over. Sure, he may have a friendlier demeanor, but if the end-message is the same, what face does it matter that it wears? I heard no substance, information-wise, gathered from the interaction with the new face on the podium. So what if he makes eye-contact. So do the shysters at the carnival. Posted by: anorpheus at May 19, 2006 8:52 AM | Permalink What good would that do? The White House will just open itself up for this question and this question to be asked ten different ways by reporters that may be somewhat less sympathetic to US foreign policy than John Harris or Brit Hume, for example. Good point, VI. Jay's suggestions about multiple briefings, all day, for different venues, is a new model of press management, predicated on the failure of Rollback to win the war of ideas -- either at home or abroad. The new model seems to be based on the premise that the message that the President of the United States wants to convey is substantive, and that the information that the President of the United States means to impart is actually information. Rather than a purposeful and ill-advised lack thereof. In other words, it assumes that if you are trying to win the war of ideas, you are actually fighting it with ideas, not hollow slogans and rhetorical stonewalls. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 19, 2006 10:52 AM | Permalink Simon says: "In other words, it assumes that if you are trying to win the war of ideas, you are actually fighting it with ideas, not hollow slogans and rhetorical stonewalls." And in a republican democracy, we have every right to expect our leaders to have those ideas and to want to express them.
Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at May 19, 2006 10:59 AM | Permalink Richard B. Simon: In other words, it assumes that if you are trying to win the war of ideas, you are actually fighting it with ideas, not hollow slogans and rhetorical stonewalls. You mean a noetic field that chastises the press for public conversation based on soundbites and bumpersticker reasons? A noetic field that abhors excessive reductivism, objectivism, and twisting information to fit the constraints of an inverted pyramid container of specified inches/minutes between ads? Is that what you mean? You mean [A] a noetic field that chastises the press for public conversation based on soundbites and bumpersticker reasons? [B] A noetic field that abhors excessive reductivism, objectivism, and twisting information to fit the constraints of an inverted pyramid container of specified inches/minutes between ads? (emph. added) Yes, that too. The idea that the inverted pyramid itself is a distortion is pretty deconstructionist, but it makes sense. I'm not sure I understand your charge against "objectivism" -- unless it's that the press/media feigns objectivism when "true" objectivity is not possible. I think the Internet model is going a long way toward correcting the flaws of top-down journalism -- of which TV is the worst. Provide the transcript and access to an unlimited amount of commentary and additional matter. But you have to know how to do it -- and have the time. And in a republican democracy, we have every right to expect our leaders to have those ideas and to want to express them. In fact, our republican democracy dies without them, and without the ability to convey them to a people that understands them.
Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 19, 2006 11:24 AM | Permalink Well, gee Jason, maybe Barlett and Steele should give back the two Pulitizers ... the two national magazine awards ... and all the copies the book sold when it was # 1 on the paperback bestsellers list for six months. But I don't think they will. Me, if I were Barlett, I'd take a deep breath and a long break. Hell, the guy is 69 years old, and Steele is 63, and the word "vacation" has never been in either of their vocabularies. But I'm told the job offers and the writing contracts are already piling up, so I'm guessing it won't be quite so easy to lead the big hoss to pasture. And, yes, all that did happen on my watch. And, as I wrote at CJR Daily, it was pure pleasure every step of the way. If that's my 15 minutes of fame and/or infamy, I'll take it. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 19, 2006 11:30 AM | Permalink They were important. Maybe they will be again. I think it's worth pointing out that in the scheme I suggested, one of the purposes is bringing new "press" populations into the White House. How do we know what the dialogue would be like with a laser-like focus on the global war on terror (GWOT in Administration dialect), with the religious press worldwide, with the bloggers. Arab speakers? The point is to make a dead ritual come alive, and get a win-win, a better informed press and population, a White House that is more fully and fairly represented. It's silly to claim you know what would happen. Also: what if the White House had to choose between being more effective and being fully in control? Think about that one.... I have to go because I am giving a luncheon talk to students with the World Journalism Institute, people who want more devout Christians in newsrooms. Topic: what are journalists for, and why do we need them? Please ask them: Devout by whose Christian standards? Roman Catholic? Methodist? Southern Baptist? The Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church or the ELCA? The Four-Square Gospel Church? Not to mention that we've written off the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. I guess we don't need more of them. I'm leery of groups that say they want more Christians or more conservatives or more soldiers in the newsroom. (Yes, Jason, there are vets out there who wouldn't known an M-249 from a potato peeler. Or whose idea of tactics is getting through Sports to get more coffee.) Usually the advocates mean more (fill in the blank) that think exactly as I do, but not like the other (blanks.) I'm all for diversity in the newsroom - the more the merrier. But it should be soldiers/conservatives/liberals/people religious et al who are curious, can write well and do so on deadline. And whose BS meters are well-tuned. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 19, 2006 12:49 PM | Permalink ... one of the purposes is bringing new "press" populations into the White House. Run away, run away! Decentralize and disintermediate information. Fly, be free! Aggregate at the edge. The point is to make a dead ritual come alive ... Dead rituals die for a reason. Let dead rituals lie. Dave, regardless of what I've said, you don't need those people in the newsroom. It would be nice, but they have to think of their social standards. The fallback position would be for a reporter to keep a rolodex of people with the appropriate backgrounds whom he could call for a vetting from an expert, or at least an interested amateur. Doesn't need to take their word for something, only to make sure there isn't some gaping hole he's missed. As it happens, I've called reporters to discuss what I think of as errors or omissions. I think about half a dozen times the reporter says they appreciate my input and want my number in case they have something come up in which I may have some knowledge. Never called. From which I deduce it's a put-off. Too bad. Actually calling might prevent some of the sillier howlers. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 19, 2006 12:58 PM | Permalink It's hard to tell when Dana Milbank is serious, Deborah Howell and rollback. Pittsford, N.Y.: Thanks for doing these chats. And outrage? Minneapolis, Minn.: I love your sly, irreverent take on the news. You're like a Shakespearean Fool who is allowed in the presence of the king even as the kingdom crumbles. I mean that as a compliment. A Rolodex with phone numbers of sources and/or experts to call for clarification about a story? That's only be SOP in newsrooms in the 30-plus years I've been doing this. As for why no reporters called you back, I'm leaving that one alone. It's just too easy. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 19, 2006 1:14 PM | Permalink Steve, Well, I might have known you wouldn't be able to address factual issues raised on the merits, and hide behind the (irrelevant) Pulitzers. Great. But a Pulitzer-winning piece ought to be able to stand up to factual scrutiny. Obviously, the Pulitzer committee isn't too reliable - after all, Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer, too. And after all that has happened, and after Duranty has been as discredited and disgraced as any U.S.-based outlet journalist in the history of the profession, the Pulitzer committee still has not found the backbone to revoke the prize, to my knowledge. Then there's the matter of Janet Cooke. Dana Priest's Pulitzer-winning story on "secret prisons" is falling apart at the seams. None of her major allegations has been independently confirmed. Pulitzers do not make holy writ out of a work. If anything, they invite - demand - further scrutiny. You also hide behind the bestselling status of their book. All well and good, until you consider that Rush Limbaugh had a bestseller, too. The sales figures are wholly irrelevant to the quality of the research and journalism therein. The fact that you think that they would be is symptomatic of the sloppy critical thinking skills I've pointed out in other threads. You'd be quick to slam the same muddleheadedness on the part of Tony Snow or Scottie Mac, I'm sure. Can you address the criticism of the series on the merits? Or are Pulitzer-prize winning pieces, despite words of the CJR itself calling Duranty's into question, now beyond scrutiny?
Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 19, 2006 1:40 PM | Permalink Well, Dave, if they didn't think they'd call me back, they wouldn't have bothered to say they would. If the rolodex contains people who know stuff, as opposed to simply being your clones, then we wouldn't see the simple boners we see all the time. Big themes are probably not going to rise or fall based on calling a couple of folks on the outside. But you could get things like the beryllium theft story right. Somebody stole a ton of the stuff in Sweden and the journo tells us it's radioactive. It's not. Is that the sort of thing you'd like to avoid? Then haul out that rolodex. Presuming it has somebody on it besides your j-school graduating class. I bet your rolodex is pretty dusty. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 19, 2006 1:43 PM | Permalink Good news, bad news: The good-news is a New York Times reporter called me up the other day looking for help and background with a story. I hope I helped set her up for success, and I look forward to seeing the piece. Well, ok. It was a food reporter for the Dining section. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 19, 2006 1:44 PM | Permalink Small steps, Jason. Small steps. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 19, 2006 1:47 PM | Permalink Jason, you're confusing two series. Barlett and Steele's second Pulitzer came for a series exposing the 1986 tax reform legislation for the fraud that it was. (They did what no other reporters did: Read the 900 pages of loopholes appended to the legislation, and then decoded them, one by one by one.) Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 19, 2006 3:13 PM | Permalink The NYTimes calling Jason (Mr. Joe Gallagher and the Cliff Clavin of all things tedious about the military) for background. What was the story, dining tips for MREs? Dale. If you're okay with the MSM screwing up on a regular basis--and I'm speaking only about accidents and ignorance, not deliberate lies--then you are making a good case for doing nothing and laughing at the people who have the temerity to complain. I don't have any media stock. I'm okay. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 19, 2006 3:39 PM | Permalink Ha, jaw! Show you how much you know! Real GIs don't actually eat MREs -- they trade them for FOOD! Posted by: Daniel Conover at May 19, 2006 4:04 PM | Permalink Jay Rosen: I think it's worth pointing out that in the scheme I suggested, one of the purposes is bringing new "press" populations into the White House. Karen Hughes (transcript, video, mp3), May 10: Eventually I recommended, and the President created, the White House Office of Global Communications. And that was my effort at the time to try to set up an office to do what I am currently doing at the State Department as the Under Secretary. [...] During the Cold War we were trying to get information into societies that were largely closed, where people were hungry for that information. Well, today in places like the Middle East there's an information explosion and no one is hungry for information. What we are competing for there is for attention and for credibility in a time when rumors can spark riots, and information, whether it's true or false, quickly spreads across the world, across the internet, in literally instants. Press Gaggle by Tony Snow, May 19: Q Within the context of what you've just said, and the President's support of English as a language, why is it that the President's address to the nation on Monday is featured in Spanish on the White House website? And why is it that no other languages -- Arabic, Polish, Italian -- are used as languages to put things on the President's website? MR. SNOW: John, that goes on the bupkis list. I don't know. Oh, by the way, b-u-p-k-I-s. We have to correct that, too. (Laughter.) Posted by: nedu at May 19, 2006 4:11 PM | Permalink So much for a new paradigm of actually answering reasonable questions. Tony sure avoided that tar baby ... Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 19, 2006 5:20 PM | Permalink Snow is the head of an operation. Snow is the talking head of an operation. Doctrine courtesy of USINFO... A Responsible Press: The Press Office At Work Thinking Long Term and Short Term There is a reactive approach to news, and there is a proactive approach. One entails thinking short term and dealing with daily crises and breaking news. The other requires thinking long term and strategizing about the future. A good government press office performs both functions. Often, the reactive and proactive jobs occur in the same office, and if large enough are performed by two different people. “You can't do the day-to-day spokesman work and provide the more strategic advice and counsel.” "You can't do the day-to-day spokesman work and provide the more strategic advice and counsel, think through the policy, think through the message, recommend ways to deliver the message," Karen P. Hughes, counselor to President George W. Bush for communications and speechwriting told the Washington Post. [...] Sometimes the communications director runs the office, and the press secretary reports to him or her. [...] Sometimes the press secretary runs the office, and the communications director reports to him or her. (Bold inset added.) Snow is the talking head of an operation. Posted by: nedu at May 19, 2006 6:15 PM | Permalink I think you just proved that Snow has bosses. Well, who said he didn't? The White House press secretary is also the head of a staff. Snow is a boss, Snow has a boss. The NYTimes calling Jason (Mr. Joe Gallagher and the Cliff Clavin of all things tedious about the military) for background. You know, it's a little-known fact that the actor who played Cliff Clavin, John Ratzenberger, also appeared in the classic 1977 World War II movie "A Bridge Too Far." He appears in the "Hail Mary" river crossing sequence. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 19, 2006 7:24 PM | Permalink Oh, if a reporter calls me for help of any kind, I never discuss the story with anyone outside that publication before it sees print. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 19, 2006 7:27 PM | Permalink You can try all you want to shoot holes in either; but no one has convincingly done so to date, and they've had nearly 20 years to try. Well, I just pointed you to a number of holes in their work. Pretending nobody's pointed them out doesn't mean they don't exist. You just haven't dealt with them. At any rate, it's 15 year old news, and I don't care that much. In fact, last time I checked, both were part of the curriculum at many a graduate school of journalism. Means nothing to me. Journalism professors aren't really equipped to assess their worth as economic texts. Your confusing the subject with the message. Journalism is a methodology for conveying information. It is not the information itself. Well, except maybe if you're Howie Kurtz. As for me "lionizing" Don and Jim; if I am, I'm standing at the tail-end of a very long line. That's been going on for decades. You're hiding behind another fallacy - again. This time it's the appeal to the masses. But the intrinsic worth of their work is the issue - not its popularity, even among journalists. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 19, 2006 7:36 PM | Permalink But you could get things like the beryllium theft story right. Somebody stole a ton of the stuff in Sweden and the journo tells us it's radioactive. It's not. Beryllium is not radio-active but is a key requisite for miniature nuclear weapons; are you sure you are not mischaracterizing the story? can you provide a link? Posted by: village idiot at May 19, 2006 9:03 PM | Permalink Who knows? Richard doesn't back things up. The only Google reference I could find concerned a 1995 theft of beryllium in Sweden. Ball's in your court, Richard. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 19, 2006 9:16 PM | Permalink Has Aubrey ever provided a link? Jason, what in the world makes you think that Steve (or anyone else) is required to rebut your every theory on economic or military affairs, however crackpot they may be ? If there has one lesson that Jay has preached to all of us again and again, it is: Do not feed the trolls; do not rebut; ignore. (Although, I will be the first to confess, it is a hard one to abide by.) And Walter Duranty ? Please -- you comparing Don Barlett and Jim Steele to Walter Duranty is like me comparing General Hayden to Lt. Calley. We're trying to have a serious conversation here. Come back to it when you grow up. Posted by: Ann Kolson at May 19, 2006 10:51 PM | Permalink I was disappointed--not surprised, but disappointed--to read this: (Press Gaggle by Tony Snow, May 19) Helen Thomas: He made the case, in your opinion? It's sad, in a way, that to be part of the President's team you have to sign on to things like that, even if you had nothing to do with them. Part of politics, to be sure, but from a human point of view still sad.
Posted by: Ann Kolson at May 19, 2006 11:43 PM | Permalink Watch out: an intellectually honest conservative's list of reasons for being fed up with the crew in power. Yes. But does he know the cyclic rate of fire of the M-249? Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 20, 2006 12:21 AM | Permalink Serious cognitive dissonance at Bainbridge et al. Our guys are blowing it.
Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 20, 2006 3:33 AM | Permalink Q The new Italian Prime Minister says that the President's invasion of Iraq was a grave error. As the new kid on the block, can you give me the latest rationale the U.S. has for invading Iraq? I am Not Optimistic But I Do Have Hope Thomas believes she is promoting candor with her “tough” question, but the more enduring message is that political discourse is a meaningless sparring match, in which hostile parties try to score points off each other.Public Journalism and the Problem of Objectivity The proper goal of public journalism is to create a learning community, one that discusses issues, not just on the basis of emotion but on facts about how things work. Abandoning the traditional stance of journalistic objectivity to practice public journalism need not be a bad thing if we can substitute objectivity of journalistic method. It's a better standard anyway, and it can keep us honest.The case for war (Aug 2002) Bush's Predicament: Case For Iraq War Is Lacking (Jan 2003) [Powell] Interview on Fox News Sunday With Tony Snow (Feb 2003) Telephonic Interview of the Vice President by Tony Snow, Fox News (May 2004) Q You mentioned ongoing hostilities. The latest Gallup Poll indicating 56 percent of the American public now thinks the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. What do you tell them, those doubting Americans, to assure them that this is the right thing to do?Judging the case for war (Dec 2005) Entrenched anti-intellectualism To me, that simple phrase captures it all. Posted by: village idiot at May 20, 2006 10:42 AM | Permalink Thank you, Sisyphus, for your thoughts presented so precisely in that trail of links. I read each from start to finish and leave my daily walk through the "news maze" feeling a little more enlightened. And that's always my goal. Posted by: Kristen at May 20, 2006 11:20 AM | Permalink Enlightened or burdened by the same heavy load of bias that Sisyphus carries? Nice to see these 2 points from a conservative: # Failure to finish the 9/11 job by bringing Osama to justice The WSJ Batiste profile was written by Greg Jaffe, a Pulitzer winner who has done excellent work from the days he was at the Anniston Star. Six days after he called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to leave his post, retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste faced a crushing moment of doubt. I just don't get this Bush communication team. If the President's closest political advisor believes that negative perceptions of Iraq are hurting the Administration, as he clearly does: "The 2006 elections. Rove insists, with his usual cheeriness, that he is "sanguine" about the elections. He admits that this is a "sour time," primarily because of the war in Iraq that "looms over" everything..." - Karl Rove, May 2006 ...Where is the concerted effort to combat, with overwhelming publicity (think paid campaign-style media), the unrepresentative picture of Iraq that's being portrayed by our friends in the dominant media? A few well-placed images and messages could be very effective, at least with the non- BDS-afflicted. Posted by: Trained Auditor at May 20, 2006 12:21 PM | Permalink Mr. Wanniski is another intellectually honest conservative that has been prescient on the Iraq issue from the very beginning; he saw the wheels within the Washington wheels that were working behind the scenes to reshape the middle-eastern political landscape using 9/11 as an excuse: September 18, 2001 Memo To: Henry Kissinger February 20, 2002
March 20, 2002 Memo To: Dana Milbank, The Washington Post July 31, 2002 Memo To: Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott Posted by: village idiot at May 20, 2006 12:36 PM | Permalink 1. "....meaningless sparring match, in which hostile parties try to score points off each other"....kinda like every thread here at PressThink. 2. "Entrenched anti-intellectualism". To me, that simple phrase captures it all about journalists and journalism. Thanks, vi! 3. Definition of an "intellectually honest conservative": a conservative who agrees with a liberal. Therefore, I suppose an "intellectually honest liberal" would be a liberal who agrees with conservative----maybe like Joe Liebermann. 4. Never heard of Wanniski, but from the juvenile tone of his writing and the dark, paranoid conspiracy theories, I'd guess he's either a closet liberal or a paleo-conservative like Pat Buchanan. 5. PressThink--- sometimes enlightening, but always entertaining! Posted by: former hill staffer at May 20, 2006 1:33 PM | Permalink Another perspective on WWII (and politics) from Bobby Kennedy's press secretary. Jaw… rrrrrighttt... I’m “burdened by biased,” but you and others are.... What? Smarter? More enlightened? "Freer" to the Truth? Chuckle, chuckle. I could tell you, for example, that I, too, am suffering from Bush Fatigue as described quite admirably by “an intellectually honest conservative.” But is that relevant to discussing PressThink? Who cares? I certainly don’t care whether you, Jaw, think we should not have gone into Iraq. If I want that stuff, I’ll ask my siblings or neighbors or friends or family. I only care to the extent that I have to try and decipher news that’s being “reported on” by people who feel as you do… and have trouble separating out that how they “feel” about the issues, does not (or more realistically should not) actually “make” the news. PressThink is not PoliticsThink. If I wanted to spend all my time debating the issues themselves, I could. But, sorry, I don’t. Posted by: Kristen at May 20, 2006 3:24 PM | Permalink … and have trouble separating out that how they “feel” about the issues, .... .... and so it is with Mr. Cockburn here. In fact, I don't know how any journalist in the middle of this carnage can report on it without feeling it, especially when one knows that this one can not be chalked up to 'historical inevitability' .... May 20 / 21, 2006 Posted by: village idiot at May 20, 2006 6:06 PM | Permalink Now, for some posturing and false bravado .... Friday, May 19, 2006 BellSouth Spokesman says company may sue USA Today; Won't Rule Out Possibility that Subcontractors were Contacted by NSA Posted by: village idiot at May 20, 2006 6:35 PM | Permalink Are Investigative Jouranalists traitors? Turley disagrees: Down to the Fourth Estate Posted by: village idiot at May 20, 2006 6:53 PM | Permalink PressThink is not PoliticsThink. Kristen is right about that. you comparing Don Barlett and Jim Steele to Walter Duranty is like me comparing General Hayden to Lt. Calley. Ann, That would be true if no comparison were a contrast. The comparison wasnt't Bartlett and Steele to Duranty. The logic of the statement was altogether different, and does not rely on Bartlett and Steele being like Duranty. Steve was avoiding substantive discussion by committing the fallacy of appeal to authority - namely, this silly notion that a Pullet Surprise exempts an article from all further scrutiny. Well, that fallacy is easily shot down by referring to the fact that Duranty won a Pullet Surprise, too. That refutation does not, in any way, rely on Steele and Bartlett being comparable to Duranty. Steele and Bartlett's work stands or falls on its own merits. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 20, 2006 10:29 PM | Permalink Jason, you are exactly right when you say that the work of Barlett and Steele stands or falls on its own merits. But once you try to defend "the logic" of your own cowardly statement, you reveal yourself. It is you who introduced "Walter Duranty" into the equation of discussing "Barlett and Steele." Not I, nor not Steve. You. You are the one who did it, and you are the one who has to live with it. I understand that you are a youngster. But try as you might to weasel out of this box that you have put yourself in, you cannot. The great thing about the Internet is that no one can escape from his own words. And yours reveal everything. So live with it. And learn from it. Please -- for once, learn. Posted by: Ann Kolson at May 20, 2006 11:56 PM | Permalink Ann -- Please, for once, learn why the "argument from authority" is a logical fallacy. Both you and Steve (as well as others on this board) frequently fall back on this form of argument. Perhaps it is taught this way in J-School: Rather than get down and dirty with facts, evidence, and logic, it is easier to merely rely on a quote from someone handy (even if you would disavow them in other circumstances). I have been talking about this problem here for a while now as a major problem with press credibility. Just to spell it out for you: Many of us non-pressies do not think that the award of a Pulitzer grants blanket authority to the assertions of the awardee. If the facts or logic of the award-winning piece are dubious, then it is fair to say so. And merely citing the prize or the sales totals (Argumentum ad crumenam) is an inadequate defense. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at May 21, 2006 12:59 AM | Permalink Heard of a van that is loaded with weapons — Talking Heads Posted by: Talking Heads at May 21, 2006 3:13 AM | Permalink Better than Pullet Surprise is "Pull-It Surprise" - - as in pulling our legs, and the surprise is that anyone would reward such foolishness with commendation. Seems like the Pull-It Surprise is following the "No; Bull" Prize into increasing politicization. Posted by: Trained Auditor at May 21, 2006 11:08 AM | Permalink Dan Froomkin Friday: With a rare primetime speech from the Oval Office and ensuing PR campaign, Bush pulled the press and the public away from their growing obsession with his sinking approval ratings, the carnage in Iraq, his domestic snooping, and other stories over which he had little control. Same point I made with, "Brewer’s list shows why the briefing can be such an advantage to the White House. The president gives a big speech on immigration; next day, the press asks 22 questions about immigration. It’s called feeding the beast. Give the reporters something to report and you’ve set their agenda." Meanwhile--and this is really strange--another conservative who's fed up with Bush, Richard Viguerie, said that one of the big disappointments was Katrina. How odd: Viguerie is a plugged-in guy. He didn't get the word that the impression the White House had failed big time after the hurricane was all a result of distorted media coverage. Truly bizarre. Here's an activist who helped build the modern conservative movement, and he's so out of touch that he thinks White House performance had something to do with it! Now who can explain that? For all of conservatives' patience, we've been rewarded with the botched Hurricane Katrina response, headed by an unqualified director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which proved that the government isn't ready for the next disaster. An intellectually-honest conservative isn't one who agrees with liberals, which some anonymous party-liner said above in a burst of non-thought. Viguerie doesn't agree with the liberal position on anything. The only point of agreement is that he's fed up with the incompetence and intellectual dishonesty of the Bush White House, along with the corruption of the Republican Congress. And he's discovered that Bush is no conservative-- but a big government, pro-business radical. Comments responding to a banned poster's comments are sometimes removed when the banned poster's comments are removed. This particular banned poster shows up under many different names. He believes he should decide who's invited to my house, and that his judgment is better than mine in that regard. I disagree. It's been going on for years. "For all of conservatives' patience, ..." Link for this quote, please. Ann -- Neuro, I don't know why you are so against "argument from authority." The rationale for the entire Bush administration has consistently been an argument from authority, in the face of a growing pile of facts to the contrary. Without argument from authority, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would have nothing to say at all. True, the tactic now rings hollow, as things fall apart all around them. But it worked for them for a long, long time. (With you, under your many nom de plumes, cheering from the bleacher seats every step of the way.) Are you sure you want to cast aside the one weapon in your arsenal ? Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 21, 2006 1:22 PM | Permalink PressThink is not PoliticsThink. Kristen is right about that. And this is coming from one of the lead bloggers of the left ;-) aw, Kristen, no offense intended. Just playing on Sisyphus' name. And myth. Here ya go Sisyphus, in his own words. Ran this AM in the Washington Post. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 21, 2006 2:39 PM | Permalink
That's impressive. "If conservatives accept the idea that we must support Republicans no matter what they do, we give up our bargaining position and any chance at getting things done." -- Richard Viguerie. That pretty much nails it down. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 21, 2006 3:46 PM | Permalink Thanks, Dave. Fascinating political Spring rhetoric before a midterm election. Place your bets ladies and gentlemen, the "insiders" are already handicapping the horse race. Hillary Clinton: Too Much of a Clinton Democrat? Jay, I resent you calling me a "party-liner" (I'll cop to anonymous), unless you mean this party. I think Viguerie has more credibility than Wanniski(Froomkin has none, since he joined in the tar-baby idiocy) but I don't buy your observation that he is just now getting a clue that Bush is not a conservative----that's been evident for some time to even the most casual observer. Since George Bush seems to be your personal Moby Dick, I can understand why you chose to highlight the part of Viguerie's article that dealt with GWB. But I don't blame Bush for triangulating and pandering anymore than I blamed Clinton when he triangulated and pandered by endorsing welfare reform and NAFTA (plus other stuff). They both did what they had to do to win a second term. And isn't is amazing that even though Bush has many big government policies, the Democrats still don't like him? Just as Republicans despised Clinton for co-opting their policies. But the second part of Viguerie's article was where the meat was. In my view, the most blame belongs to the Congressional Republicans for acting like Democrats, rather than Bush acting like Clinton. After all, POTUS' have term limits, Congressmen/Senators don't. But were Democrats any more principled then than Republicans are now? I don't remember Democrats howling with rage after NAFTA, etc. but maybe I just forgot (no internet then helps forgetfulness, too). Currently, you seem enamored with the phrase "intellectual honesty/dishonesty". If it is intellectually honest to denounce Bush for his actions (or lack thereof) after Katrina, is it intellectually honest, or dishonest for Democrats for denounce Ray Nagin who just won another term as NO mayor? Or do Democrats just expect their politicians to be corrupt and feckless? Posted by: anonymous party-liner at May 21, 2006 4:35 PM | Permalink "You" have no standing to resent anything. "You" may be six different people for all know. I don't know that "you" are the same anonymous party-liner who wrote the original tripe, or an opportunist coming after with more tripe. Your statements are meaningless because you don't have the balls to maintain any identity, fake or not. You want the rights that come with being part of a conversation but none of the responsibilities. You are a non-entity. So stop with the clowning. Bush is not a triangulator, which isn't to say he never does it. He's a radical. Radicals don't triangulate. The Iraq War is not a triangulation-- it was visionary and opportunistic. Vast expansions in executive power are not a middle course. Creating the stealth vice presidency is not a middle course. Deficits as far as the eye can see are not a middle course; they do not triangulate. Immigration week is interesting because he has tried something like that-- Clintonian in its way. When David Gregory asked him to think of another case like it--choosing a middle course--he said tax cuts. Bush has been a disaster for shell shocked Democrats. He has been a disaster for disappointed independents. Lately conservatives have realized he's been a disaster for conservatives. Eventually, Republicans will realize he's been a disaster for Republicans too. After that the historians will try to decide if he's the worst president of their lifetimes, worst since the modern era began (1896), or worst ever. I'm not sure he'll be able to move Buchanan from the very bottom, but I don't see anyone else challenging him. One thing I have learned by writing so much about Bush and the press is that the press is not organized to handle an Administration that is so far outside the standard deviations. The whirlwind of Bush 43 overwhelms journalism. But then almost every mediating institution has had the same difficulty. Look at Congressional oversight: poof. Plus Ça Change, Plus C'est La Même Chose Q. Mr. President, the other night Harold Stassen who is, I think, the president of the University of Pennsylvania, and who I believe once aspired to the office you now hold, said that you were the cleverest politician and the worst President. [Laughter]Truman: No Longer the Worst President in American History Quoting Jude Wanniski: But I am afraid President Bush still does not understand that he has become a marionette in Richard Perle's continuing puppet show in the Middle East. Heheheheh. It's that cabal of Jewish banking interests pulling strings. Where's the Der Sturmer artist when you need him? I was surprised to see you on television last night making arguments I associate with the world’s No. 1 hawk, Richard Perle, who has been the chief architect of our policy toward the Arab/Islamic world. There is no single American more responsible for inciting outrage among Muslims globally than Richard, whose maniacal prescriptions led inexorably to last week’s cataclysm. Hahahahahahahaha!!! I get it. Richard Perle, the Jew, caused 9/11. Nice. This is the kind of nutball you guys think is "intellectually honest." How could Karl Rove, the President's closest political advisor, permit Kristol's gang to take over the ranch, sub rosa? Well, to tell you the truth, Mr. Milbank, I never, ever believed Kristol and The Weekly Standard supported John McCain, except to pull the wool over his eyes. From the very start, as long as Governor Bush was willing to make Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz his closest foreign-policy advisors, with Condaleezza Rice allowed to sit in the corner and watch, Kristol was doing everything he could to get Dubya elected. There is of course a "Kristol Network," and you have listed a flock of them in your excellent report, but you have to realize Kristol is part of a larger network that is run by Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, Ho ho ho! There it is! A "Kristol Network!" Of course, we just call it "The Elders of Zion." I swear, reading their protocols must have changed Wannisky's life! Do you have any doubt that he is now in constant communication with Ariel Sharon and Binjamin Netanyahu, the leaders of the coo-coo wing of the Likud Party in Israel? Of course. After all, they all drink the blood of gentile children. After all, it's so much more than just a breakfast drink! Now I see you practically in lockstep with Perle, who we have always known as the Prince of Darkness, a master of disinformation who helped us win the Cold War, and who now wants to bring the Muslim world to its knees. HAHAHAHAHA!!! The f***ing "Prince of Darkness!!!!" This guy parodies himself! You must remember that Wolfowitz, junior grade Lucifer, is not telling the truth. Oooooh! Of course! Junior Grade Lucifer. That's like an Navy O-2 among the demonic. He's like, the lance corporal of demons. Why not cut to the chase? Just call him "Anti-christ." The Jews! They control everything!!! Say - has anybody seen where I put my tin-foil hat? As for Colin Powell, he has been so humiliated by Perle's ability to control the agenda through his hold on Rumsfeld and Condi Rice that I would not doubt he has considered resigning. Wow. Perl must be a very busy man. Of course, it helps to have been granted supernatural powers by the devil himself. Did you know that Jews bear the mark of Satan? It's right between the eyes that grow in the back of their heads. That reminds me. I have to call my friend Bobby Fischer. It's amazing how close we've become over the years. In their hearts, Richard Perle and his bombers do not work for the American taxpayers, Trent. They work for the Likud Party, which has always pretended to want peace, but has been even more interested in having all of the Promised Land for Israeli Jews The Jooooos! It's all about the JOOOOOOOOS!!!! Geez, village idiot - don't you see what kind of a numbskull you're quoting approvingly? Wanniski shares your disapproval of the Administration, so you'll excuse his demented-antisemitic code-speak, or even worse, you're so steeped that nonsense you don't even realize it for what it is. Wanniski is two-days medication shy of pushing his worldly belongings from bus stop to bus stop in a shopping cart. And you think that's "intellectual honesty." No. It's rank bigotry, thinly veiled. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 21, 2006 5:32 PM | Permalink I think Wanninski is a political harlequin. One can agree that Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's last theorem based on the agreement thereto of other mathematicians, or try to verify that assertion by following the proof in all its gory detail, which might take some of us a couple of years of study. Everytime somebody cites a scholarly reference in a scientific paper, the person is making an 'argument from authority'. If the bar for a valid argument is that one has to start with the most fundamental set of facts and observations possible and build up from there, all I can say is 'good luck'! Posted by: village idiot at May 21, 2006 5:48 PM | Permalink vi - you don't understand the fallacy. One can argue from authority if both parties are willing to stipulate to that authority. The argument is only a fallacy absent that precondition. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 21, 2006 6:06 PM | Permalink Shorter Jason: Mr. Wanniski is anti-semitic and delusional, and hence not to be taken seriously. I have had my share of disagreements with Jude, but this is the first I have heard anyone use that line of rebuttal. Do some homework, Jason, if you are serious about getting that job at 'Time'. Posted by: village idiot at May 21, 2006 6:09 PM | Permalink One can argue from authority if both parties are willing to stipulate to that authority. Most journalists will stipulate to the Pulitzer committee's decision when it comes to the quality of a journalistic piece. We can tell that you do not fall in that category, but that does not mean that those that do 'have' to make 'their' arguments by your rules. Since you claim expertise on logical fallacies, I am sure you see your own fallacy in that. Posted by: village idiot at May 21, 2006 6:20 PM | Permalink Can we agree on Brad Delong? It is up to Steve to agree or disagree, but I have a feeling that it will take about 700 years and seven rebirths for Jason to accept Brad Delong as an authority in any 'argument by authority' situation. Posted by: village idiot at May 21, 2006 6:47 PM | Permalink Here's the question I submitted to political reporter Dan Balz for his next Washington Post Politics Hour chat, which is Monday: Dan: Simple question, difficult to answer. Granted that the picture is complicated and no one generalization captures it all, do you think the presidency of George W. Bush is more like other presidencies or more unlike the others you have known? Within the range of the typical or an outlier? My estimate: 80 percent chance he will say "within the range of the typical." Of course there's only a 5-10 percent chance of my question being picked. Of course there's only a 5-10 percent chance of my question being picked. Jay, who "picks" the questions? WPNI or the chat guest? If the chat guest, then, thanks! Both, Tim. The online producer for WPNI selects questions from those submitted, which she puts in a queue. If there are a lot on one subject--like the bogus "tar baby" issue--then she will send some representatives ones through. Then from the queue I select the ones I want to answer or can answer in the hour alloted. Which one was yours? It is up to Steve to agree or disagree, but I have a feeling that it will take about 700 years and seven rebirths for Jason to accept Brad Delong as an authority in any 'argument by authority' situation. Now, Village, you know very well that Jason, Sisyphus, Neuro, et. al., only argue from authority when it's an authority they are in agreement with. Haven't you learned anything from this conversation? In any other case, "arguing from authority" is a "logical fallacy." Ka-peesh ? ;-) Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 21, 2006 9:01 PM | Permalink The beryllium story was referenced in a piece about a recent attempted theft of anthrax from a research facility in Sweden. It is the 1995 story. Beryllium is not radioactive, but, as an earlier poster noted, can be used to dirty up a nuclear bomb. By itself, it is not radioactive. The anthrax story was carried by "Gates of Vienna". Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 21, 2006 9:03 PM | Permalink I think Wanninski [sic] is a political harlequin. Jay, for a seemingly balanced individual like yourself, that was a pretty harsh way to characterize the "Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal from 1972 to 1978"; do you have this opinion because he was being a gadfly to our Iraq policy in the late 90s, or do you have other anecdotes that led you to believe that he was a 'clown', presumably not to be taken seriously? I have followed Jude on and off for a long time and have not come across any such information myself. Do you care to explain? Posted by: village idiot at May 21, 2006 9:03 PM | Permalink My question elicited, "Scott McClellan was Agnew at the podium." Now, Village, you know very well that Jason, Sisyphus, Neuro, et. al., only argue from authority when it's an authority they are in agreement with. - Steve Lovelady Too funny. Grow up, Steve. Beryllium is not radioactive, but, as an earlier poster noted, can be used to dirty up a nuclear bomb. No, that is not what I noted, Richard. How can a military/weapons expert like yourself, one that continually expects only the superlative from every sundry reporter out there, make such careless mistakes? If all one wanted to build was a dirty bomb (which is an improvised device that uses the explosive force of conventional explosives to scatter radioactive material), I am not sure how beryllium would be helpful. Beryllium comes into play if one wanted to miniaturize a regular nuclear weapon because the use of neutron-repelling Beryllium in the nuclear core reduces the crtical mass necessary to attain fission. So, naturally if one were to be working in nuclear weapons non-proliferation, Beryllium theft would be high on the radar. In the absence of a link or a definitive reference to the original Beryllium theft story, I will assume that the reporter, given the heightened concern about suitcase (miniature?) nukes (in contrast to suitcase dirty bombs), was making a helpful connection when it was discovered that beryllium was stolen from the Swedish lab. Instead of congratulating such intrepid reporting, you are deriding him/her for a misleading story? Posted by: village idiot at May 21, 2006 9:31 PM | Permalink Oh, for heaven's sake. An appeal to authority is not necessarily fallacious - particularly if the authority knows what she/he's talking about on a particular subject. Here. Look it up yourself. Apparently, Neuro believes that a journalistic organization that is a standard of high-quality journalism can't be cited as an example of high-quality journalism he doesn't approve of. I think. Honestly, I'm not sure what the hell Neuro was saying - except that he got to take some cheap shots at journalism and journalists, which sounds like a fallacious argument in its own right. And, Jason, the Pulitzer is a mark of journalistic excellence. And as an authority for that purpose, it's not a false argument. I don't believe the Pulitzer to Barlett and Steele conveyed 100 percent acceptance of their was economic analysis but rather the quality of the journalism and it's impact. You - as a reader - can certainly make your own judgments about the validity of the report's findings. But are you really suggesting that every Pulitzer Prize-winning journalism must meet full acceptance by everyone who might read it? That not a fallacious argument. That's just goofy. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 21, 2006 9:41 PM | Permalink Jude Wanniski was an influential publicist for supply-side economics. That makes him a clown in my book. As far as I know, he has not refuted those views, or expressed any regrets. That too makes him a clown. Believers in supply-side economics were the dupes of those who had another, far more plausible idea: cut taxes, and if social spending is cut in proportion, great, as it only benefits the Dems, and if social spending is not cut (which they knew was more likely) still great because the high deficits would make new programs impossible and you could constrain social spending that way. As far as I know--maybe I missed it--Wanniski never owned up to his role in that particular policy deception, er, fraud. Thus: clown. Believers in supply-side economics were the dupes of those who had another, far more plausible idea: cut taxes, and if social spending is cut in proportion, great, as it only benefits the Dems, and if social spending is not cut (which they knew was more likely) still great because the high deficits would make new programs impossible and you could constrain social spending that way. Okay; I understand that, and it has long been one of my areas of disagreement with Mr. Wanniski. That said, is that your only complaint, and would you characterize anybody (and there are plenty of overt and closet supply-siders in the current political milieu) who advocates such 'starve-the-beast' fiscal policies as a 'clown'. Posted by: village idiot at May 21, 2006 10:04 PM | Permalink As far as I know, Wanniski doesn't advocate starve the beast policies. His cry is: cut taxes and revenues will grow! He refuses to recognize the connection I described. He's had 25 years, but he won't admit that he was a dupe of the starve-the-beasters and of course those with the incomes who would save a bundle from the tax cuts. If you want to be taken seriously for your ideas because you think your ideas are correct, these are the moves of a clown. If you're a practical politician and just looking to serve the interests you represent (wealthy Republicans, conservatives hostile to social spending) while deceiving voters about your real agenda, then you are not a clown but a practical politician. And if you don't know which one you are then you are most definitely a clown. FYI -- Wanniski died last year. He was survived by three men he vigorously defended, Louis Farrakhan, Saddam Hussein, and Slobodan Milosevic (who died several months later). While I disagree completely with Jay's characterization of supply-side economics, I think that calling him a clown is the kindest thing I would say about him, under the principle of nil nisi bonum. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at May 21, 2006 10:37 PM | Permalink Too funny. Grow up, Steve. Now there's a non-answer, if ever I saw one. Back to the classroom, Timmy. Who knows ? If you pick the right one, you might encounter one of Steve's children, who makes a living teaching fuzzy-cheeked neophytes such as yourself. Posted by: Ann Kolson at May 21, 2006 10:45 PM | Permalink Ann, You don't know what you're talking about. In fact, you're making a fool of yourself out of ignorance. But since you require more of an answer, I'll offer that I did not engage in the authority/fallacy debate except to link to Delong. I have not seen either you or Steve make a substantive comment at PressThink. Idiotic snark and name calling, you both excel, but something resembling studied thought you both seem to lack in abundance. I find Dave's comment the nub of the problem. Junk economics can be award winning journalism. While I disagree completely with Jay's characterization of supply-side economics, I think that calling him a clown is the kindest thing I would say about him, under the principle of nil nisi bonum. Neuro, you seem to have high regard for the supply-side crowd; Since Mr. Wanniski coined the term, conventionally speaking, he must be a revered figure for you. To deserve such derision from a desciple of his thought, he must have done something greviously wrong. So pray tell us what your reasons are for the scorn. Posted by: village idiot at May 21, 2006 10:54 PM | Permalink Steve L. -- Please cite examples where I have employed the argument from authority, to back up your "burst of non-thought" (I like that phrase, Jay). Also, please feel free to inform me about my various "nom de plumes" -- who are these dopplegangers? As for your contention that the "rationale for the entire Bush administration has consistently been an argument from authority, in the face of a growing pile of facts to the contrary." -- Which pile of facts are you referring to? Is it the ongoing economic depression? With all of those tragic unemployment lines? Perhaps you think that those Iraqis are incapable of self-governance? Or are you referring to all of the successful Al-Qaeda attacks on the US (no link available)? Posted by: Neuro-conservative at May 21, 2006 11:10 PM | Permalink Under whose authority are you (snarkily) suggesting that the economy is expanding, or that unemployment is low, Neuro? Posted by: village idiot at May 21, 2006 11:16 PM | Permalink But since you require more of an answer, I'll offer that I did not engage in the authority/fallacy debate except to link to Delong. Then it must be one of your disingenuous links; when you asked if we could agree on Brad Delong and linked to an article of Delong's that was critical of Messrs Barlett and Steele, I understood that to mean that you were advancing Brad Delong as an alternate authority figure (in the palce of the Pulitzer committee) with the clear implication that you were agreeing with Delong. How can you now claim to have been an non-participant? Posted by: village idiot at May 21, 2006 11:32 PM | Permalink vi -- Please go back and re-read my posts. Either you are making a very subtle joke, or you have been completely missing my points. I think my Wanniski post says enough for you to infer why I might dislike him (hint: it has something to do with Farrakhan, Saddam, and Milosevic). My post to Steve was demonstrating that one might be able to use links to factual reports in order to buttress an argument, rather than merely making bald assertions or appeals to authority. I will grant that that post was written in snarkese, since that appears to be the only language that Steve understands. I am still trying to figure out what language, if any, Ann Kolson understands. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at May 21, 2006 11:54 PM | Permalink Neuro, I was only citing examples of instances where you are employing the 'argument from authority' tactic, as you asked. The authorities you are citing to buttress your argument were the BEA and BLS, both of which may be government departments, but 'authorities' nevertheless. My post to Steve was demonstrating that one might be able to use links to factual reports in order to buttress an argument, rather than merely making bald assertions or appeals to authority. So, measuring the GDP of the country, or the unemployment rate, is 'factual', in your opinion, whereas the way the Pulitzer committee measures the quality of the various submissions is not? Do you know, for example, after the preliminary GDP numbers are put out, how many times they are revised subsequently by the Department of Commerce, as more accurate estimates are obtained over time? check it out. Now, if you argument is that Argument from Authority is okay as long as they authorities are 'government', we might get to a different place, but you seem to be a 'starve-the-beast' type to me, so .... Posted by: village idiot at May 22, 2006 12:12 AM | Permalink Dave - You, too, have utterly missed the point. First, you fail to realize that people outside of your profession do not much care about Pulitzers. Moreover, many thinking people recognize that the prize is not merely about some objective standard of "journalistic excellence," whatever that is; politics of various sorts are clearly involved, thereby vitiating its status as an neutral authority. Even putting those points aside, an award does not obviate the need for discussion of substantive disagreements. No one said 100% acceptance is required (where did you get that notion?). But Jason made a number of serious criticisms, as did Brad DeLong and several of his commenters. Rather than attempt any substantive response, Steve made the fallacious response suggesting that their award of the Pulitzer, and their best-seller status, quash any such critique. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at May 22, 2006 12:12 AM | Permalink vi -- Your sophistry is just lame. Of course I am aware of the methodologies involved in the compilation of economic statistics. And I would be happy to discuss them on some other blog, as I think it would be too OT (I have deliberately avoided a discussion of supply-side economics here for that same reason). But you are not really interested in that, since you don't actually believe the epistemological nihilism that is inherent in your comment. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at May 22, 2006 12:17 AM | Permalink But you are not really interested in that, since you don't actually believe the epistemological nihilism that is inherent in your comment. Ah, measurement error that is committed by the 'authorities' in your 'arguments from authority' is okay, but measurement error that is committed by Steve's 'authority' is 'bias'. And the comment about epistemological nihilism, coming from someone who has but one agenda, shill for this administration, is a tad cheeky. Posted by: village idiot at May 22, 2006 12:27 AM | Permalink Absolutely True and Amusing Conversation from Dinner Tonight ... My 17-yr. old high school junior, our youngest, is finishing up a semester of Intermediate Comp and we've had many an interesting discussion about papers he’s been assigned to write. The course objectives state that students will learn to identify strong data sources and to formulate strong, arguable theses based on good research techniques. I bring this up here b/c my son made a remark tonight that quite took me aback. This month’s project is entitled “Reporter-At-Large” as a “hook” to get them thinking about the real world and how “things get reported” (his words). When I pushed him about the weakness of a couple of his sources and how they weren’t really strong enough to support his thesis as stated, his response to me was, “Mom, we're learning that writing something like this is all about MANIPULATION.” “Everything that is written today,” he says, “has already been manipulated to make you think that a certain thesis is true.” So I asked him, then, how does one find out the real truth of things? He said “I really don’t know and right now I just want to get this paper done.” Rats. I was hoping he’d help me figure it out. Posted by: Kristen at May 22, 2006 12:29 AM | Permalink Do you really believe that the concept of "measurement error" as applied to economic statistics is at all comparable to "measurement error" as applied to a Pulitzer Prize award? Is the concept of "measurement error" even applied to a Pulitzer, outside of your nonsensical post? No, of course not, since a Pulitzer award is not a measurement, idiot. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at May 22, 2006 12:31 AM | Permalink Jason, the Pulitzer is a mark of journalistic excellence. Well, we'd like it to be. But it doesn't make an article good any more than the Council of Nicae makes the Book of Revelation the infallible Word of God. And as an authority for that purpose, it's not a false argument. Yes it is. I'll stipulate the Pulitzer Prize committee probably knows a compelling narrative when it sees it. The Pulitzer committee, however, is wholly unqualified to assess the economic soundness of this particular work. Therefore, it cannot be used to defend the series against attacks rooted in economic data, research, and theory. That is wholly outside the Pulitzer purview. I don't believe the Pulitzer to Barlett and Steele conveyed 100 percent acceptance of their was economic analysis but rather the quality of the journalism and it's impact. Well, if you think that crap economic analysis and lousy research (Round these parts, we just call it 'bad reporting), then to the extent your logic is shared by the journalistic profession, the journo profession might as well hang up its cleats. It's useless. Another commenter was right...your comment encapsulates many of the problems of journalism. 2+2=5 is bad journalism - no matter how compelling the narrative. And the greater the impact of bad journalism, the worse it is. There is no way you can separate the quality of the economic analysis from the quality of the journalism. If you can't get the reporting right, none of the rest of it matters.
Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 22, 2006 12:34 AM | Permalink Er, that was supposed to read: Well, if you think that crap economic analysis and lousy research (Round these parts, we just call it 'bad reporting) can qualify as "quality journalism" Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 22, 2006 12:43 AM | Permalink Is the concept of "measurement error" even applied to a Pulitzer, outside of your nonsensical post? So, when you are asserting that a Pulitzer is not an indicator of quality in journalism, are you not saying that the Pulitzer committee's measurement of journalistic quality is erroneous, and hence your refusal to accept Pulitzer's as a basis for 'argument from authority'? or do you guys believe that the Pulitzer committee actually hands over those awards by annual rotation? What can anyone say if you guys get all hot and bothered and come here and mouth off and then forget the argument that you have come here to make? Posted by: village idiot at May 22, 2006 12:48 AM | Permalink Good God, man! You have really earned your moniker tonight! By what quantitative metrics can we establish the "measurement error" of the Pulitzer Prize?! Especially when evaluating an economics piece?!?! What kind of Bizarro-world logic are you applying?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Posted by: Neuro-conservative at May 22, 2006 12:55 AM | Permalink While we're getting all a-flutter over Barlett & Steele's Pulitzer, let's review what the Pulitzer judges said about their 1989 National Reporting prize (it's on the Pulitzer website. You can look it up.) For their 15-month investigation of "rifle shot" provisions in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, a series that aroused such widespread public indignation that Congress subsequently rejected proposals giving special tax breaks to many politically connected individuals and businesses. What Neuro, Sisyphus and others don't know or ignore is that there is no set criteria forthe judging. The definitions of each reporting category are the only guidelines. The nominating juries and Pulitzer prize board - and only them - decide exactly what makes a work "distinguished." The prize was given for a certain and specific set of cause and effect. Which doesn't mean, Sisyphus, that style trumps substance. What it means is that the reporting doesn't have to pass review by approved scientists. Or economists. It means that Barlett & Steele's reporting was, in the eyes of the judges, powerful and effective enough to change minds and policy. Were the economic facts B&S reported wrong? You, along with Neutro and Brad Delong (talk about strange bedfellows) think so. Others with an economic bent think not. But the reporting was apparently good enough - and the facts correct enough - to force Congress to change the tax breaks for the politically connected. And, Neutro, I frankly don't give a rat's ass if you approve of the Pulitzer's methods or results. Horseshit. The prize exempts no one from debate or scrutiny. You don't have to agree with the judge's findings. I don't always myself. But if you believe that a Pulitzer is denied to stop discussion and debate, then you're the one missing points. By a mile. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 22, 2006 12:58 AM | Permalink Tell you what, Jason. Spend 18 months or so to report on B&S's 'crap journalism', and write a series that demonstrates tax breaks for the politically connected is really a good idea and then get Congress to change the policy back - and then maybe the Pulitzer Board will award you a prize. Or maybe not. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 22, 2006 1:04 AM | Permalink So, in your opinion, there can be no 'argument from authority' unless there are no quantitative metrics? We are not necessarily discussing a single instance, we are talking about whether somebody is entitled, rationally speaking, to consider the Pulitzer as a basis for 'argument from authority'. I am not saying that 'you' (as in Neuro or Jason) should, but I am asking why it is fallacious to generally assume extraordinary competence, without prejudice to other forms of inquiry, when a person is awarded the Pulitzer. If you do not want to make that assumption, it does not bother me, but when you are suggesting that it is fallacious for anyone to do so, it seems like you guys are being boors. Posted by: village idiot at May 22, 2006 1:11 AM | Permalink .... read "unless there are no quantitative metrics?" as "unless there are quantitative metrics?" Posted by: village idiot at May 22, 2006 1:16 AM | Permalink vi -- As Dave noted, the Pulitzer prize committee is not bound by any defined methodology to arrive at their definition of "distinguished." It is a subjective decision, in no way comparable to the methodology employed, e.g., by the BLS to compute employment statistics. Moreover, in the case of B&S, the award statement specifically cited the impact on public opinion. As a logical proposition, it is entirely possible that their reporting was completely erroneous from an economic perspective, but distinguished by a significant impact on public opinion. Having said that, I should emphasize that at no point in this discussion have I taken a strong position on the accuracy of B&S, and I am definitely not saying that they are completely erroneous. My point here is strictly about the mode of reasoning employed by the defenders of B&S on this board. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at May 22, 2006 1:38 AM | Permalink Jay -- Your thesis that Bush is a radical is worth discussing, although the hour is late. For now, I would just like to make two points: If I were not so tired, I would like to spend more time on your suggestion that Bush is the worst President of the modern era, and possibly ever. As an academic, surely you regret this silly hyperbole? Posted by: Neuro-conservative at May 22, 2006 1:48 AM | Permalink vi -- As Dave noted, the Pulitzer prize committee is not bound by any defined methodology to arrive at their definition of "distinguished." It is a subjective decision, in no way comparable to the methodology employed, e.g., by the BLS to compute employment statistics. You seem to be conveniently forgetting that I was comparing the logical construct of your own 'arguments from authority' in relation to the ones you denounced, not methodologies employed. It does not matter to the construct if the measurement methodologies are different (and if some are not quantitative) or if they are subjective (as all measurements are). Like the Pulitzers in journalism, the Nobel prizes are not awarded by quantitative measures or statistical sampling, but the winners are routinely accepted as authorities. Some of them are controversial, and some are even proven incorrect in retrospect. None of this takes away from the fact the Nobel prize is uncontestedly a reasonable basis for 'argument from authority'. Posted by: village idiot at May 22, 2006 2:20 AM | Permalink I would like to spend more time on your suggestion that Bush is the worst President of the modern era, and possibly ever. As an academic, surely you regret this silly hyperbole? Nope. I do acknowledge that views of a presidency change over time, so I could be wrong-o. Worst in my lifetime: I consider that a safe bet. Carter would be his only competition but he didn't start any wars of choice. In the modern era the main contenders would seem to be Harding and Hoover. Bush can compete strongly against them. Worst ever is going to be tough going, but I think he may have what it takes. We'll just have to see. Sure, Bush was radicalized by 09/11 but there was factor before that. I believe that he felt deeply illegitimate on taking office in 2000, because of the manner of his victory--losing the popular vote and all--and the way his career turned out to be the opposite of the self-made man. Deep feelings of illegitimacy work themselves to the surface in strange ways. There is no way to verify that view, of course, so you may consider it speculation. Having said that, I should emphasize that at no point in this discussion have I taken a strong position on the accuracy of B&S, and I am definitely not saying that they are completely erroneous. My point here is strictly about the mode of reasoning employed by the defenders of B&S on this board. So Neuro spends 10 posts arguing that Pulitzers can't be used as an argument from authority. Yet Neuro has not taken a strong position on Bartlett and Steele's reporting. Wasn't the entire point of the argument of authority an attack on Bartlett's and Steele's reporting? Or just a red herring for the sake of a red herring. Neuro then says he's too tired to discuss with Jay whether Dubya is the worst president of the modern era. Seems that the attack duck wore himself out with Jason's OT and with his own red herring. Was Jay's position on Bush a logical fallacy? I'd nominate Jay for a Pulitzer. The irony of this conversation, is that of all the people in America, George W. Bush is the only one for whom 9/11 changed absolutely nothing. (Remember his assertion that with 9/11, he had hit the "trifecta?" The Bush Administration's agenda on 9/12/01 was exactly what it was on 9/10/01: deny global warming; serve multinational energy interests; invade Iraq; implement PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses plan. Bush was not radicalized by 9/11. Bush used 9/11 to radicalize American politics and governance. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 22, 2006 11:17 AM | Permalink Bush may be the most radical President of our lifetime -- but for sheer panache, I still prefer the scheme to outsource foreign policy via a basement in the White House using the sale of off-the-shelf missiles and cocaine trafficking to finance an illegal guerrilla war while trying to pay ransom for hostages to swing a midterm election with an October Surprise. Ah! the good ol' days. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at May 22, 2006 11:35 AM | Permalink Ah! the good ol' days. Everything old is new again, Andrew. The terrorists delivered 1980 for Reagan and 2004 for Bush. And the very people who negotiated the arms-for-hostages October surprise are at the helm in Tehran ... and in Washington. Why is this not being covered in the press? Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 22, 2006 1:30 PM | Permalink I fogot to mention this earlier: Snow told Hewitt he reads Hewitt's blog and Instapundit. Both blogs linked to this post. (Instapundit: "JAY ROSEN offers advice for Tony Snow and the White House. I think it's pretty good.") So I would say the chances are pretty good that he read it. From Walter Pincus at the WaPo -- Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales raised the possibility yesterday that New York Times journalists could be prosecuted for publishing classified information based on the outcome of the criminal investigation underway into leaks to the Times of data about the National Security Agency's surveillance of terrorist-related calls between the United States and abroad. There are three questions to be answered: 1. Did the journos who published break the law? 2. Is the law constitutional? (The constitutionality was tested under the Daniel Ellsberg case. The law holds up. The test for demonstrating harm to National Security is rather stringent, though). Then it's a matter of prosecutorial discretion. But if the answer is yes to both, I believe we should prosecute. If it's a crime for me to divulge classified information, then it is also a crime for Bill Keller.
Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 22, 2006 2:29 PM | Permalink If it's a crime for me to divulge classified information, then it is also a crime for Bill Keller. I believe that if you ask Patrick Fitzgerald, he'll tell you the key is intent.
I hope he takes away some of the more objectively critical stuff and takes it to heart. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 22, 2006 2:42 PM | Permalink After that the historians will try to decide if he's the worst president of their lifetimes, worst since the modern era began (1896), or worst ever. A few more thoughts from Robert Kennedy's press secretary, and McGovern's political director, not to mention a former NPR chairman. Mr. Mankiewicz starts at the 21:21 mark. He talks about why Torie Clark (22:45) shouldn't be Bush's press secretary. His take on the NSA spying as a political issue (27:40) is worth noting. Bush vs. Nixon: All they (the Nixon WH) did really was do terrible things to win an election. I'm not sure their goals went much further than that. This is an administration that got us in a war. Thousands of people have been killed, not only Americans but Iraqis. The notion that they can tap anybody's phone without a warrant. In addition, the president doesn't speak very good English. ... The Bush administration makes you long for Richard Nixon. If you are scoring at home, the previous link was an appearance on April 24, 2006. The current link was on April 21, the previous Friday. The illegal secret bombing of Cambodia seems to have slipped Mankiewicz' mind. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at May 22, 2006 5:49 PM | Permalink Maybe Mankiewicz thinks bombing Cambodia is similar to the NSA issue, hard to debate. We were already at war with Vietnam and if we bomb a neighboring country because the VC crosses over. Have a few bombs been dropped on Iran? The mistake wasn't in bombing Cambodia. The mistake was in not invading Cambodia outright, severing the Ho Chi Minh Trail, in 1966. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 22, 2006 6:16 PM | Permalink So true Jason, but let's take a stroll down memory lane and visit all the Democrat foreign policy triumphs. A weakened FDR appeased Joe Stalin, exacerbating the Cold War, which we fought until the Republican Reagan defeated it. Thanks to Truman's fecklessness, we're still fighting Korea. Thanks Harry! JFK's brilliant Bay of Pigs sortie will live on as the benchmark for future dealings with Cuba---or anywhere. and lest those ill-informed proles who think that only Republicans wiretap the locals, let it be known that JFK and RFK bugged black civil rights leaders (MLK jr., for those who don't know). So the lesson here is the Democrats only bug black civil rights leaders, but not terrorists. I feel so secure. And LBJ! such a warrior! What with the Agent Orange and high altitude bombings and massive VietNam civilian deaths---what's not to love? At least he didn't bomb Cambodia! Of course, civilian deaths are only cause for hysteria if a Republican is waging war. And trust me, I could go on with what LBJ did that would not meet current "liberal" guidelines for a "humane" war. But it gets better. And thank Gaia for Jimmy Carter! Thanks to his feckless leadership during the Iranian hostage crises and the balls-out stupid Desert One mission, we are still dealing with Iran, but they're more dangerous than ever. And don't forget how Bill Clinton conveniently ignored Al Qaeda by treating it as a "law enforcement problem". Sure, horndog Bill had a chance to nuke OBL, but he was, uh, sort of distracted by blow jobs in the Oval Office. Don't forget Maddy Albright, who sucked up to "Dear Leader" even as he was developing nukes, and remember the charming episode, where Maddy chased after the terrorist Arafat, begging him to come back to the bargaining table. So sophisticated. Yeah, we need Maddy back as Secretary of State. So yeah, if you're looking for punters in foreign policy, you'll want a Democrat in charge. When there is a foreign policy crises-----Democrats would rather talk about the economy. Posted by: kilgore trout at May 22, 2006 7:47 PM | Permalink Funny -- you don't sound at all like Kilgore Trout. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 22, 2006 8:06 PM | Permalink I would be remiss if I did not mention the latest Democrat powerful foreign policy plan to stop the Iraq insurgency. Check out this headline from AP: "Kerry Calls For International Summit To Quell Iraqi Insurgency." Hey, if a "summit" doesn't bring the head-chopping-off terrorists to heal, what the hell will? Thank Gaia for John Kerry and the muscular foreign policies of the Democrats! Talk 'em to death---- it's worked so well in the past. Posted by: kilgore trout at May 22, 2006 8:36 PM | Permalink None of this takes away from the fact the Nobel prize is uncontestedly a reasonable basis for 'argument from authority'. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!! Man, you guys kill me. This is the same Nobel committee that awarded a Peace Prize to Yassir Arafat? And the literature prize to I, Rigoberta Menchu? Credulousness. It's not a good quality in a journalist. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 22, 2006 8:39 PM | Permalink If you are going to snark, at least get the prize correct, Peace not lit. In response to Stoll's findings, Menchú initially accused him of defending the Guatemalan military and seeking to discredit all victims of the violence. Later she acknowledged making certain changes in her story. The Nobel Committee has dismissed calls to revoke her Nobel prize because of these inaccuracies; Professor Geir Lundestad, the secretary of the Committee, said her prize "was not based exclusively or primarily on the autobiography." "The mistake wasn't in bombing Cambodia." --Jason Too true. The mistake was in bombing Cambodia illegally -- and secretly. The mistake always lies in the secret part. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 22, 2006 9:49 PM | Permalink It seems that there is a new meaning to "secret". If everybody knows about it, is it secret? If everybody knows about it, but the government denies it, is it secret? While it is difficult to separate what I knew in, say, 1970, from what I knew in, say, 1975, I think I'm safe in saying that everybody knew about the secret bombing in Cambodia as it was happening. Now, of course, it could be that talking to guys running the RVN-Cambodia border isn't exactly "everybody", but when I was on leave, people were complaining about it, and the usual suspects were howling about "genocide", which they would hardly be doing if they didn't know about it. I've encountered the same thing regarding other geo-political-military issues. We would be told by hyperventilating activists of something "secret" which we already knew about, "we" in this case being other activists, and which, while generally (but not solely) not important enough to be front-page news, was widely known. I came to the conclusion that the left added "secret" to stuff everybody knew about in order to punch up the ominousity quotient. Thirty years later, people think the stuff really was secret. However, there was another corpus of info which followed the identical course: Rumor in the military, later disguised in a novel, then documentary on television. That was the real secret stuff. More interesting, too. There is one posssibility which may be causing me to think I knew something long before it came out. All of which is to say that the term "secret" as referring to government operations is probably a useless term unless defined quite closely. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 22, 2006 11:16 PM | Permalink Ok, so US Arms corner and kill a company-sized element of Taliban. Everybody knows we killed scores of Taliban fighters. The governor of the province says we killed scores of Taliban. The witnesses on the ground say the Taliban were there, and we killed them by the dozens. Without loss to our own troops. This was a significant battlefield score for US and allied troops. We also captured five, including a senior leader of the Taliban who is known to be responsible for Allied deaths. And what do the reliable idiots at the New York Times run as a headline? U.S. Airstrike at Taliban Kills Civilians, Afghans Say The Times omits the number of Taliban killed. The Times omits the fact that we captured five of them. The Times omits the fact that any Taliban were present at all until the end of the piece. "piece" is the right word. Jesus. We get a better write up in the Peoples' Daily Online. Then again, it makes sense. There's probably more intellectual diversity there. Idiots. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 22, 2006 11:24 PM | Permalink Jason: U.S. Airstrike at Taliban Kills Civilians, Afghans Say Except, of course, for the headline, Jason. Seems to me news is events out of the ordinary. We've been blowing up Taliban for five years now. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 23, 2006 1:51 AM | Permalink Strictly speaking, Richard Simon, the headline didn't say that there were any Taliban there. Just that we hoped there were and bombed a bunch of civilians on the hope. If news is events out of the ordinary, then I presume the reason for the dearth of reports on progress in Iraq is that the journos in question think there's so much of it that it's no longer news. On the other hand, here on this side of the pond, the dearth leads some people to think there isn't much progress at all, so for them any report of progress would be out of the ordinary. You know. We don't report an airliner landed safely. But, if we'd been reporting the runway was full of potholes, the pilots routinely drunk, the maintenance guys were dolts, and the weather a Cat 5 hurricane, then a safe landing would be news, wouldn't it? Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 23, 2006 8:04 AM | Permalink I can't believe you guys fell for that "argument from authority" thing. It was always a troll maneuver. Neo tried it and tried it, with no one paying much attention for months as he wailed about this outrageous tactic, and how y'all never heard of the fallacy you were committing. He got no nibbles. And then... click. No, Jay. Argument from authority, where underlying facts can be determined more directly, is one of the hallmarks of muddled and lazy thinkers. Now, lazy and muddled thinkers resent it when more disciplined thinkers point it out to them. But in Lovelady's case here, it was particularly egregious because he relied on an argument from authority, i.e., the pulitzer committee, specifically to avoid a substantive discussion. That kind of tactic would be laughed out of a first year law school course - and wouldn't pass muster with a high school debate team. As a university professor yourself, I'm rather surprised that you tolerate it. You do your students no disservice. Really, no journalist ought to let a source or commenter get away with that kind of laziness either. But if a reporter is too foggy in his or her thinking to notice, or if they are simply untutored in critical thinking skills, they're not going to be able to do that. Geez, Jay...if critical thinking skills are not important in your own curriculum, just what the heck is? Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 23, 2006 9:42 AM | Permalink Did Sisyphus shut down? Either that, or he has different plans for his blog. Your After Matter link is broken. Richard, Ok, just how many airstrikes, in the past two years, have taken out two platoons of Taliban at a strok? Hey, here's a thought -- How about the reporter simply tell us what happened? I.e., "A coalition airstrike in southern Afghanistan killed as many as 53 Taliban fighters who had occupied a civilian residential neighborhood, yesterday. Afghan authorities are also reporting 17 civilians among the dead." Wow. Pretty radical, huh? Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 23, 2006 9:47 AM | Permalink Sisyphus appears to be telling us (in code) that he's quitting blogging. Not sure why. And, last few threads, he appears to have been trying to tell me what I hypocrite I am by linking to past things I've written. But I couldn't quite grasp his point-- i.e. why I am a hypocrite. I ought to add that anyone who tries to persuade me that the Bush White House is fundamentally like other White Houses and plays with the same deck might well get frustrated. For better or worse I have a different view. Jason: Generalizing from whether I do or do not object in comments to what we do or do not teach in our curriculum is pretty silly. And your little lectures about what ought to be done in J-school have the same effect as I would have if I stroked my imaginary beard and said, "You know, they really ought to teach military history in the service academies." Dan Balz did not answer my question, by the way. In taking a crack at the question you put to Dan Balz, I don't see how the Bush II administration could NOT be an outlier, since it's the only post 9/11 Administration in history. Of COURSE it's different from the others, in very important ways. Bush is a wartime president - the first since Nixon. Well, Clinton was a wartime president. He just didn't act like one. And so never responded seriously after the 1993 bombings, the 1998 African Embassy bombings, the chance to take down Osama when he was offered up by the Sudanese, the refusal of Saddam to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions, and the USS Cole bombing. He never acted like we were at war with Al Qaeda, even though Al Qaeda had already said repeatedly it was at war with us - and acted on it a number of times. Had the Clinton Administration behaved more like the Bush Administration, things would have been much better. The political capital probably wasn't there to invade Iraq (though I think it would have been justified.) But we should have gone after Al Qaeda hammer and tongs after 1993, when they demonstrated both the intent and capability to bring down a skyscraper in Manhattan. At least Bush recognizes the conflict for what it is. Clinton had his head in the sand. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 23, 2006 11:02 AM | Permalink I thought pretty much everything Sisyphus wrote was in code. Hell, I'm still trying to figure out what a 'noetic field' is. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 23, 2006 11:20 AM | Permalink Don't feel bad. I always have to look that stuff up too. Here are three terms that often apply to the ideas Tim tries to advance: Posted by: Daniel Conover at May 23, 2006 11:48 AM | Permalink You overstate things as usual, Jason. I have no interest in debating Clinton & Bush, quien es mas macho, with you. You're clearly not interested in nuance and context. You overlook that Clinton gave the CIA clearance to kill Osama and they didn't. You omit reliable reports that Bush opted not to attempt to take out Osama at a al Qaeda training camp. There are plausible reasons why, but they play no role in your oversimplified analysis. A report on hearings on the 9-11 attacks found "that both the Clinton and Bush administrations engaged in lengthy, ultimately fruitless diplomatic efforts instead of military action to try to get bin Laden before the Sept. 11 attacks. The Clinton administration did strike targets in Sudan and Afghanistan following attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa. Bin Laden was not hit, and may have been tipped off by a former head of Pakistani intelligence, Hamid Gul. The report said officials in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, feared a failed attempt on bin Laden could kill innocents, boost bin Laden's prestige and lacked public support." Your cry, "Oh yeah! Well, Bush was better" doesn't add much to the discussion. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 23, 2006 11:50 AM | Permalink Richard A., U.S. Airstrike at Taliban to me implies that there were Taliban being struck at by air. Jason, they may have edited the story, but the 2nd graf in the version I read last night off your link says: The American-led coalition said it had conducted a "successful operation" in the area, and had killed from 20 to 80 Taliban fighters in the bombing, which struck the village of Tolokan. It is a question worth asking -- why is the lede the civilians? It may be the bias of the writer, RUHULLAH KHAPALWAK. Who appears to be a human being. Or it may be that the Times thinks its readership is more inclined to mourn collateral damage than to celebrate enemy kills. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 23, 2006 11:52 AM | Permalink Even Kilgore came back. But Kilgore was better with his Sybil identities. I've looked at that noetic field link every time Sisyphus linked to it. Over my head. That's really breaking it down. Too granular. Is it much simpler? Here's how it works. The president makes decisions, he’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. The typing is at issue with the left, right and press critics. Is anti-intellectualism common in newsrooms and J-schools, or only here at PressThink? Posted by: Neuro-conservative at May 23, 2006 12:06 PM | Permalink Yes, ps, Jason, if you still believe Clinton didn't do anything about bin Ladin, you should actually read the 9/11 Commission Report. I am coming to think that the Clinton response was a better one than the Bush response. Bush gave bin Ladin exactly what he wanted -- the withdrawal of US forces from Saudia Arabia, and a globar war. He let bin Ladin provoke us into a conflict, essentially, by calling us "chicken": "Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia." Just like in "Back to the Future." Clinton worked for years to try to take him out without provoking a broader conflict. What I was thinking about yesterday, though, is this: Clinton has said that after the Cole bombing, he felt it was better to leave dealing with it to the next Administration, which would be in office within a few short months and would have to deal with the aftermath. Whether or not that was a wise choice is still open to debate (Bush came into office and by all accounts given under sworn testimony disregarded Clinton's warnings on al Qaeda). But it is pretty clear that Bush, in the same position, would have milked the Cole bombing for all the political capital it was worth to get his chosen successor elected. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 23, 2006 12:06 PM | Permalink "Or it may be that the Times thinks its readership is more inclined to mourn collateral damage than to celebrate enemy kills." That is a valid question and a editorial decision. The answer will depend on the media outlet and its view of its readership. But the answer carries 2 caveats. One is, "What happens to complete reporting if the question is answered the same way every time?" The second question is "What happens if the media outlet does not have the correct view of its readership?" The Daily Howler answered my question: A CARTOON PRESS CORPS: Only Elisabeth Bumiller could overlook the mordant humor in her presentation. At the start of this morning’s “White House Letter,” she describes the press corps’ conduct during a recent plane ride: BUMILLER (5/22/06): Reporters en route to Arizona on Air Force One last week opted to watch the movie ''King Kong'' in the press cabin. Not so Tony Snow, the new White House press secretary and former Fox News commentator, who told reporters that he spent the flight in the staff cabin watching Gen. Michael V. Hayden's confirmation hearings to be the new C.I.A. director—on CNN.Got milk—and cookies? While Snow watches Hayden’s confirmation hearings, the “press corps” chooses King Kong! Readers, let’s review: It’s the middle of a work day. An important hearing is under way. The press corps is stuck on a long plane ride. And they choose to watch an inane, year-old movie! Only Bumiller could offer this fact and fail to see the dark humor involved—the portrait it paints of her hapless cohort, the people who steward our discourse. Posted by: Neuro-conservative at May 23, 2006 1:14 PM | Permalink Shortly after his farewell, and for at least the following 24 hours, Sisyphean Musings was 404, and Sisyphus's Blogger profile was along the lines of 'No such user'. The current content looks like it was put up by an opportunistic splogger, picking up the abandoned space. Posted by: nedu at May 23, 2006 1:53 PM | Permalink Or it may be that the Times thinks its readership is more inclined to mourn collateral damage than to celebrate enemy kills. my guess is that the Times sees the long term significance in the deaths of large numbers of civilians at the hands of the US military. Sure, we may have killed a bunch of Taliban, but in inflicting so much "collateral damage" on the village, we probably created more Taliban fighters and sympathizers in Afghanistan. This is, after all, how we lost Vietnam. We won just about every military "battle"....but lost the battle for hearts and minds, and thus the war itself. Historians will probably be citing this Times article when writing about how we lost Afghanistan for years to come -- newspapers are the "first draft of history", and the Times was (IMHO) correct to highlight the civilian deaths over a military "victory" in a country where there are relatively few coalition troops, and vast numbers of actual Afghanis who could turn on those troops thanks to the way the war is perceived by the Afghan people. jaw, I couldn't agree more that kilgore trout is less "better" than Sybil, but what else could I do but return to the familiar KT after our charming host bitched me out about using multiple screen names further up this thread? I'm already bored with kt, so maybe next time I use a "Sybil" ID, I'll have a naming ceremony, or just go wink-wink, nudge-nudge, so no one here is blindsided by diversity. Or maybe use the little smiley-face thing next to my screen name, i.e. Sybil ;-) Posted by: kilgore trout at May 23, 2006 2:46 PM | Permalink "my guess is that the Times sees the long term significance in the deaths of large numbers of civilians at the hands of the US military. Sure, we may have killed a bunch of Taliban, but in inflicting so much "collateral damage" on the village, we probably created more Taliban fighters and sympathizers in Afghanistan." Is this analysis or news reporting?
This is, after all, how we lost Vietnam. We won just about every military "battle"....but lost the battle for hearts and minds, and thus the war itself. Ah, yes. And that's why the Tet offensive brilliantly failed to provoke a popular uprising, as the Vietnamese peasantry calmly sat on their hands and watched the Viet Cong get slaughtered by the thousands. Viet Nam did not fall to a guerrilla force. The guerrilla force was essentially destroyed by 1970. The Viet Cong was no longer a significant factor on the battlefield. Viet Nam fell to a North Vietnamese Regular Army invasion, five years later. The hearts and minds we failed to win weren't in Viet Nam so much as here. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 23, 2006 4:00 PM | Permalink The Times did edit the story. Here's the link to the story: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/23/world/asia/23afghan.html?_r=1&oref=slogin But note the date: Published May 23rd. I'm in the Eastern Time Zone, same as the NY Times. I linked to the article and described it on May 22nd. Maybe they edited it at the same time they put up the Christ-figure Wounded Baby picture (TM). Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 23, 2006 4:06 PM | Permalink Clinton worked for years to try to take him out without provoking a broader conflict. Wow, that worked out great, didn't it? Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 23, 2006 4:09 PM | Permalink Jason, I agree with you here, but let's not confuse the issue with the facts. My concern is whether in this case the Times is really doing news reporting or analysis. I am not a veteran of any war, but I am interested in the how there journalism industry sees this question. In my mind it has a lot to do with our problem with result of the Vietnam War. That is, Did the war itself cause the downturn of support? or Did the news reporting cause the downturn? or (my contention) that news analysis disguised as reporting caused the downturn? Kilgore, I always knew former hill staffer et all were you, which is mostly obvious. But some people respond to your comments like they didn't know who you were, so I guess it's not so obvious. But like Paul mentioned, ami is available and so is Sisyphus. Though nedu, I liked the idea better that Sisyphus gave up his blog to carry Hoodia up a hill, rather than a splogger. (Just kidding Sisyphus.) I'm sure your diversity is welcomed. Tim, if news reporting can cause the downturn in Vietnam, then news reporting can cause an upturn Iraq. So news reporting is more powerful than facts on the ground. In that case, we will never lose another war or have a recession. Any president can use the bully pulpit and force the press to report only good news, and everything will be jake. Wow, that worked out great, didn't it? Come to think of it, there was not another attack on American soil under Clinton's watch. For its first eight months, the Bush Administration was apparently too busy courting the Taliban to get a pipeline built across Afghanistan to deal with the Osama problem. Perhaps that's why they sidelined Richard Clarke ... ---- As for press bias -- for what it's worth, journalists and editors are humans, who have to make decisions as to what the lede is in a story. Bias is unavoidable. The human brain is a filter, and decisions are made based on previous experience. In a media-dense environment, the reader must be able to tell the difference between bias and agenda. And if an agenda is detected, whether it is one that is served in the best interest of the writer, or of the reader, or of the corporate entity, or what. Is it possible that the NYTimes editors are making decisions based on a desire to make Bush's leadership look bad in the runup to a crucial election? Sure. But if you think that is so, then the question would be why? Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 23, 2006 4:31 PM | Permalink Jaw, News reporting may not be more important than the facts on the ground, but it can affect people's and political reation to those facts. In this case, the situation could be seen as both a success or a concern, depending on your point of view. Is the news report supposed to show this point of view? If it is, then Is this news analysis or reporting? Tim, In this case, are you talking about Jason's example with the bombing? Or Vietnam or Iraq? I find very little analysis in the NYTimes, the People's Daily or the WashPost on that same incident. The NYTimes story mentioned 20 to 80 Taliban killed in the second graph, the original version that Jason linked to. Now do you have a problem with an estimate of 20 to 80? Richard, I understand about the bias, the wanting to tell a story, make a difference, change the world, catch the bad guys, etc. I am wondering, from the journalism professors and other media types that frequent this board, whether the NYTimes did a good job on this story within the context of all of its other reporting. Also, we are not talking about 1 edition of the the NYTimes here. It seems that the readers in Asia and all those who did not catch the first edition online are not getting the same reporting on the situation. I'm not really clear on what the problem is with the Times' story. (I know what Jason wants. He's looking for a fight.) Should the Times have ignored the civilians killed? Or dropped it below the fold? Both are important elements of the story and both appear to be reported fairly. The concern about the dead civilian comes from the Iraqi official quoted, not from the Times reporter. And military operations are supposed to engage and kill enemy. Not civilians. As for editions, the first edition is almost always the rougher. More details and more reporting goes into subsequent editions. I'm assuming - since I don't know how the Times' web operation works, that the the earliest information goes to the web and is updated regularly. Where this puts Asia on the news train, I have no idea. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 23, 2006 5:42 PM | Permalink
SPECIAL REPORT W/ BRIT HUME, FOXNews, May 23:
(h/t News Hounds) Posted by: nedu at May 23, 2006 5:43 PM | Permalink Is this analysis or news reporting? its reporting. The editors of any news outlet decides what information that is made available on any given day to them gets presented, and how it is presented. The Times apparently saw the deaths of the civilians as more significant than the killing of a bunch of Taliban fighters. That's called news judgement. And like I said, I think they were right. The odds are that the deaths of the civilians by American forcesware likely to have a greater long term impact on the Afghan war than the killing of some Taliban fighters. ”The First Amendment is easy to understand. It says that the government can’t tell you how to worship. It says that if you have something to say you can say it. If you want to, you can write it down and publish it. If you want to talk about it with others, you can assemble. And if you have a grievance, you can let your government know about it, and nobody can stop you.” -- Jim Carey, RIP. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 23, 2006 7:46 PM | Permalink It will be interesting to watch the Philly papers' coverage of local businesses such as Toll Brothers. Robert Toll has had choice words about news coverage. At least Bush recognizes the conflict for what it is. Clinton had his head in the sand. Vast majorities of Americans apparently have their heads in the sand as well. Apparently, Jason is one of the dwindling few who has his head craned out from atop his prairie dog mound. After all, in a post-9/11 world .... Posted by: village idiot at May 23, 2006 8:12 PM | Permalink Hmmm... I would suggest I was tuned in to a gathering threat somehow, obliquely, but I'd have to dig out a clip from November 1994 in the Honolulu Advertiser to prove it. I doubt it's online anywhere, but maybe one of you guys with a Lexis/Nexis account can track it down. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 23, 2006 8:36 PM | Permalink Should the Times have ignored the civilians killed? Or dropped it below the fold? Both are important elements of the story and both appear to be reported fairly. Neither. Both should have been mentioned in the opening graf. I posted the graf I would have used above. In the first version, the Times ignored the number of Taliban killed entirely. Didn't mention them at all. The article has since been edited to include that information in the 2nd graf. I still think it belongs in the first, but it's an improvement. The headline is still misleading. Actually, the headline still ignores have the story. The odds are that the deaths of the civilians by American forcesware likely to have a greater long term impact on the Afghan war than the killing of some Taliban fighters. Assumes facts not in evidence. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 23, 2006 8:41 PM | Permalink Priceless. Thanks, Conover. And so, in honor of the ad hoc conservative junta that hijacked the That al Qaeda Doesn't Believe in Transparency is a Big Reason We Do thread, here's Shorter PressThink No. 1.... For analysis of war reporting, see Cori Dauber's "RantingProfs". She's a polic sci prof with a background in rhetoric and debate. Her analyses are quite detailed. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 23, 2006 8:44 PM | Permalink Actually, she's a communication studies professor. Headlines aren't notorious for getting all the nuance of a story, Jason. And when I clicked on your link, it had the information on the Taliban casualties in the second graf. That's the beauty of the web - you can update quickly. You're straining at gnats to make this into a propaganda piece. It isn't. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 23, 2006 9:19 PM | Permalink Indeed, Dan. It's positively it's own noetic field. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 23, 2006 9:26 PM | Permalink Jay. Right. That explains her patience with communicatiions. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at May 23, 2006 9:34 PM | Permalink The White House Responds to Me By: Richard Viguerie · Section: Diaries — Peter Wehner, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Strategic Initiatives, sent the following e-mail message to an unknown number of persons: Posted by: nedu at May 23, 2006 10:13 PM | Permalink Headlines aren't notorious for getting all the nuance of a story, Geez...you guys will make an excuse for any journalistic sin under the sun! 80 dead Taliban at a stroke isn't a nuance. It's the central fact to the story. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 24, 2006 12:09 AM | Permalink in your case, jason, the sin is in the eye of the beholder. Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 24, 2006 7:28 AM | Permalink Then I guess my problem is not with news reporting, but with news judgement. In reading between the lines, my understanding is that news judgement determines whether the facts get reported and where they appear. There are many factors that go into this including an analysis of what it might mean for the future. But what is the result if the news judgement is not in alignment of what is really going on. "The odds are that the deaths of the civilians by American forcesware likely to have a greater long term impact on the Afghan war than the killing of some Taliban fighters." With the evidence I have seen, I have no idea whether this is the case or not. I would have preferred that assumption is stated as such so that the reader is not misled. I am admitting on being early in the learning curve. I am just using this example to figure out Why not admit that the facts could be reported accurately in either way; and therefore judgment is involved? And while you can argue with the judgment made (because it's arguable) you cannot say the story is "wrong" and you can't say it's biased (because there isn't an unbiased way of choosing whether dead Taliban or dead civilians are more newsworthy.) This is actually the most useful way of looking at most disputes, but strangely it has no constituency. Well, in a sense it does have constituency, only that constituency feels that news judgment is bad because the press is morally weak, anti-American and acting as a wing (stealthy or otherwise) of the opposition party. Call it bias, call it judgment -- the terms are academic. The dispute is more basic, and at some level, it's only nominally about the press. Posted by: Daniel Conover at May 24, 2006 8:35 AM | Permalink Thanks guys. You can go back to the discussion of whether the placement or omission of information is important to your point of view. And while you can argue with the judgment made (because it's arguable) you cannot say the story is "wrong" and you can't say it's biased (because there isn't an unbiased way of choosing whether dead Taliban or dead civilians are more newsworthy.) Horse hockey. As far as I can tell, there were as many as 80 Taliban killed, and 17 civilians killed in the strike. A story that highlights the 80 Taliban but ignores the civilians is, simply, wrong. A story that highlights the 17 civilians but ignores the 80 Taliban is equally wrong. Christ, even the Times, thick as they are, could figure that out, and edited the story to reflect the 80 Taliban (though not the headline). This idea that one can write a "correct" story by ignoring half of it - pretending it doesn't even exist - is simply absurd. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 24, 2006 9:35 AM | Permalink I'll take it further: A story that says "Jay Rosen shot and killed 2 woman in a parking lot" that ignores the fact that the women were trying to stab his wife and children to death is an outright lie. And so was the NY Times story as originally published. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 24, 2006 9:38 AM | Permalink Strategy Page has more background on the strike: Coalition forces found that about a hundred Taliban gunmen were staying at a religious school near Kandahar in southern Afghanistan. Smart bombs hit the school in the middle of the night, but several dozen of the Taliban fled to nearby homes. As Afghan and Coalition forces closed in, the surviving Taliban fired back from nearby homes. So smart bombs were used on the homes as well, which killed about 16 civilians and wounded another twenty. Over 80 Taliban were killed, with no Afghan army or Coalition dead. The Taliban promptly spun their use of civilian homes, as human shields, as a Coalition atrocity. Strategy page usually has good sources within the military. So we know that the strikes were directly observed from close to within small-arms range. We know that the Taliban were actually shooting from those positions (despite the New York Times' implication that they weren't trying to fight). We know that the Taliban commandeered civilian homes after first having been spotted occupying a school. The Times reported none of this. I guess if you want to know what actually happens in Afghanistan, don't bother with the Times. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 24, 2006 10:08 AM | Permalink Don't worry Jason. It is just a difference in news judgement. Both stories are "correct". They did not get any of the facts wrong. In fact when one of media outlets found it did not paint a complete picture, it changed the story to enhance it. One media outlet has one set of sources, another has a different set. Both are cases of "excellent journalism". We as consumers get to figure out "the difference between bias and agenda." and the nuances of news judgements. In this case, strategypage has come up with one set of news judgement, the NYT has come up with a different set. There is room in the media for both sets. If there isn't then we have a different problem. There is room in the media for both sets. There is room for infinite sets! This other problem of a media-dense world is not really a problem. Don't rely on only one source of news. Every human, every reporter, every editor has only one set of eyes and one set of experience that translates what those eyes perceive. Unfortunately -- or perhaps fortunately -- newspapers are not omnisicent. But the Internet is damn near close.
Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 24, 2006 10:43 AM | Permalink "That al Qaeda Doesn't Believe in Transparency is a Big Reason We Do" Posted by: qatwoman at May 24, 2006 10:46 AM | Permalink Which of these versions would the standard of journalism excellence, the Pulitzers, be more interested in? I am admitting on being early in the learning curve. I am just using this example to figure out first off, you have to take "Coalition forces" word for it that the people at the school were actually Taliban fighters, rather than students studying under Taliban tutelage. You can hate the Taliban all you want, but the fact that the bomb was aimed at a religious school raises serious questions in and of itself (like whether "coalition forces" are classifying anyone associated with the Taliban as "Taliban fighters"). Anytime you closely examine any news story, you can come up with a multitude of questions about what was reported, how it was reported, and what was left out. Jason relies exclusively on radical far-right sources of "news" for his information --- for instance, his site says that "over 80 Taliban were killed" -- a number not substantiated by any "mainstream" news outlet. Jason's site also describes the civilian victims as being intentionally used as "human shields" --- of course, he provides no evidence that the students at the school -- including injured students, would naturally flee to any available alternative shelter. (Jason believes what he wants to believe -- and people (including myself) have "fact checked" his assertions and sources and found that they don't "check out".) Believe what you want to believe, Tim..... but don't be like Jason, who ignores all evidence that is inconsistent with his biases. NPR reports this mornign that Karzai has called for an investigation into the civilian deaths. Which would seem to indicate some degree of actual significance. Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 24, 2006 12:37 PM | Permalink first off, you have to take "Coalition forces" word for it that the people at the school were actually Taliban fighters, rather than students studying under Taliban tutelage. No, you don't. The Times itself quotes an eyewitness who describes dozens of dead as Taliban fighters who had taken shelter there while trying to flee. You can hate the Taliban all you want, but the fact that the bomb was aimed at a religious school raises serious questions in and of itself No, it doesn't. Taliban fighters are as likely to occupy a religious school building as anywhere else. for instance, his site says that "over 80 Taliban were killed" -- a number not substantiated by any "mainstream" news outlet Headline from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: See also the following news outlets, each of which reporting "up to 80." http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5840709,00.html http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/05/23/afghanistan.karzai/ http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/3883181.html http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/05/23/100wir_a3afghans001.cfm http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C05%5C23%5Cstory_23-5-2006_pg1_1 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2192240,00.html Ah, yes. The Guardian is an extreme right wing rag. So is The Peoples' Daily, which also reports up to 80 Taliban dead. Kind of an embarrassing flub for someone who claims to have checked my facts, eh? You need to retract. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 24, 2006 1:51 PM | Permalink Wow. Headline from CNN: '80 Taliban Dead' in US Attack. http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/05/22/afghanistan.taliban/ And here'sABC News! plukasiak, feel free to check out my facts any time, if for no other reason than to provide some comic relief. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 24, 2006 1:59 PM | Permalink Yes, and Karzai admits they were used as 'human shields.' Presumeably, someone was using them as such. Could it be...hmmm..I don't know...the dozens of dead Taliban that were found strewn at the scene? Under the Law of Land Warfare, there is no privilege to combatants who hide among civilians or civilian areas. They may still be targeted and killed. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 24, 2006 2:01 PM | Permalink WALTER: Am I wrong? Posted by: Daniel Conover at May 24, 2006 2:03 PM | Permalink Quoting an unconfirmed Military estimate is not substantiating. The Guardian: "and the U.S.-led coalition said at least 20 - and perhaps as many as 80 - militants were killed" Timesonline: "AMERICAN-LED forces in southern Afghanistan claimed to have killed up to 80 fighters yesterday" CNN: "A statement from the Coalition Press Information Center said coalition forces conducted the operation near the village of Azizi, the third in a week, which "resulted in the unconfirmed deaths of possibly up to 80 Taliban members." "Initial assessments have confirmed 20 Taliban killed with an unconfirmed 60 additional Taliban casualties." Posted by: Ron Brynaert at May 24, 2006 2:08 PM | Permalink Shoot, not even the New York Times can justify omitting the Taliban dead from the story. They went back and edited it to include it in graf number 2. What's you guys' excuse? Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 24, 2006 3:09 PM | Permalink What is the color of the sky in your world Jason? The NYTimes had the 20-80 number in the second paragraph on that original story you linked to. The first edition on May 22. Go away. Bill Keller reads Gawker. Maybe you can post comments there that he might read. No one at PressThink represents the NYTimes. I know I just responded, but PressThink regulars must avoid this troll. It's really becoming the Jason Freak Show. "Quoting an unconfirmed Military estimate is not substantiating." How is that any different than quoting an unconfirmed estimate of crowd size at a protest, or quoting an unconfirmed estimate of a cost of a tax cut or new program cost? I know I just responded, but PressThink regulars must avoid this troll. It's really becoming the Jason Freak Show. jaw, Apologies if you've read this before (& I know that most serious students of computer-mediated communications (CMC) have), but just in case you haven't, take a gander at Clay Shirky's 2004 essay, “Group as User: Flaming and the Design of Social Software”:
My own modest contribution to this discourse (set out in more length elsewhere) has been the observation that trolling is, as Shirky phrases it, "an un-designed-for but reliable product of" most CMC environments. Posted by: nedu at May 24, 2006 3:57 PM | Permalink nedu, Thanks. I haven't read Shirky, but I'm slowly understanding the issues electronic communications and blog comments, even as a late arrival to blogs. Some people have no shame, take advantage of the freedom to comment and know how to push the right buttons to illicit responses. Without going back and counting, I'd bet that 90% of the comments are generated the military junta here. We, who respond to those wacky assertions, greatly contribute to it. (That's been said many times here and elsewhere.) If we were sitting in a room face to face, Jason wouldn't say half the crap he is saying. Software is constantly improving. Maybe soon Jay would be able to segregate the OT comments. I'm not sure if that is the answer. You'd want anyone to comment and to have an open dialogue. Jason -- your list of a wide variety of publications all concurring with the same account of the event is a little misleading. I checked the American outlets you cited (CNN, Houston Chronicle, ABC News). The reason they agreed was that they were all AP copy (so only one source -- the CNN said that AP contributed to the story but was not the sole author). In such surveys it is important to count journalistic sources not outlets. Regards -- Andrew Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at May 24, 2006 4:53 PM | Permalink The Duder is the abider ... Posted by: Richard B. Simon at May 24, 2006 5:01 PM | Permalink In such surveys it is important to count journalistic sources not outlets. Andrew - It was plukasiak who set the parameters of the argument, not me. And plukasiak specified "outlets." At any rate, his assertion was falsified by the very first outlet. The rest were just icing on the cake. Quoting an unconfirmed Military estimate is not substantiating. Only if you think substantiating is the same as confirming. More precisely, the other outlets corroborate the military estimate, in that they accept the military authority on the estimate. If the military confirmed it, the media would report it as 'confirmed.' In the real world, getting a body count isn't all that easy when you deal with high explosives, because it's not always easy to tell where one body ends and the other begins. Do you count right arms? Left legs? Heads? You also don't have much time. Muslim law dictates that the bodies be buried within 24 hours. Whoever is on the scene first is going to have the best estimate. If a news outlet wasn't there at the very beginning to provide an independent count, it isn't going to get there in time at all. I suspect 80-100 people, minus 16 villagers whom you can account for just by polling the village, is going to be as close as anyone can come. When the dead are buried by bulldozer, the numbers get a little fuzzy. Nevertheless, the Times did not have that paragraph in the first online version I linked to on the 22nd. If someone has a hard copy, though, I'm satisfied with that version. Stuff happens. Sorry if you think I'm a troll. I can't help it if the topics I'm interested in and write about are more interesting to the community than whether Tony Snow forgot to floss that morning. My usual writing areas are finance and the military. I've covered both as a journo. But you guys can't substantiate your arguments either way. I can change the beat we're talking about, but it won't change the weakness in your argument or the slovenliness and undisciplined nature of much of the thinking and commentary here. Nevertheless, I think if the journalistic profession hired smarter, tightened up its critical thinking skills, and diversified its workforce (to include more veterans, of course, but that's not the only thing that needs to happen) we'd all be better served. lukasiak should still retract. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at May 24, 2006 7:26 PM | Permalink If the military confirmed the number and the media reported it...that still wouldn't be substantiating it. Granted...there may be no way to perfectly substantiate it...but again...you keep making hay out of an unconfirmed estimate which tells us nothing. Posted by: Ron Brynaert at May 24, 2006 7:34 PM | Permalink "over 80 Taliban were killed" Jason's sorce used the word "over". Review Jason's citations. Case closed. Nevertheless, the Times did not have that paragraph in the first online version I linked to on the 22nd. 36 Jason Van Steenwyk
Posted by: nedu at May 24, 2006 8:24 PM | Permalink Good lord nedu, get a hobby, or a pet, or something----you obviously have too much time on your hands! BTW, 5 comments are mine under various monikers----which puts me on par with Conover and Toots. Posted by: kilgore trout at May 24, 2006 9:07 PM | Permalink "RIchard Aubrey" was accumulated into "Richard Aubrey". Otherwise the counts are by unique nym. That's fairly standard practice, except when posters are tagged by authenticated logons. Posted by: nedu at May 24, 2006 9:21 PM | Permalink Good lord nedu, get a hobby actually, I'd like to see a word count per commenter :) Ok Nedu, our quant commenter ;-) I too have too much time, but I was curious about the number of comments related to the military junta. PressThink or JasonThink? I was wrong about 90% of the 260 comments were related to the Gen. Van Steenwyk. It's 50% or 129 +-2. (Or should we use military estimates of between 33 to 130 comments.) These are comments strictly related to Bartlett and Steele, argument from authority, and Taliban airstrike. Didn't include Viguerie or Wanniski. Jason 31, Village I 15, McLemore 12, Neuro 10, Tim 10, Jaw 9, Aubrey 8 (taking a break after the last thread?), Simon 6, Lovelady 4, Conover 4, Sisyphus 4, Jay 4 , Pluke 4, Kolson 3, Ron 2, Tyndall 1, Trained Auditor 1. Counting words, who would be the winner? I'd like to see a word count per commenter Quoted material presents a problem here, compared to usenet or e-mail where quoting conventions are well-established. Posted by: nedu at May 24, 2006 9:33 PM | Permalink Here's what escapes Jason: If you believe the numbers -- which obviously are fungible depending upon whom is offering them forth -- the real question that remains is this: Does somewhere between 20 to 80 enemy deaths (and what a wide range that is) justify 16 or 17 civilian deaths ? In either Afghanistan or Iraq ? If so, we're in deep shit. Imagine if the Manhattan police department or the Atlanta police department or the Denver police department or the Seattle police depatment or the Philadelphia police department or the Dallas police department proudly announced, "Hey, we got 20 -- or, what the hell, maybe 80 --of the bad guys, but, alas, in the process we managed to kill 17 of the good guys." How would that play ? Posted by: Steve Lovelady at May 24, 2006 10:05 PM | Permalink And Jay, I hate to nitpick, but... Result: Failed validation, 859 errors Some toolchains work better with valid X(HT)ML. Posted by: nedu at May 24, 2006 10:29 PM | Permalink Tomorrow's discussion: Why doesn't the liberal media give us an honest view of American high school instead of 'Funky Winkerbean?' Posted by: Dave McLemore at May 25, 2006 12:05 AM | Permalink Thanks to all participants. Thread closed. And a final shot: Tony Snow on Lou Dobbs May 24: TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Good to be here. Thanks, Lou. |
|
Print
