The Next Hurrah

A flash of grey flannel, a whiff of BenGay...

by Kagro X

When is an Internet-based, third party organizing effort a Very Serious Idea?

When David "Wild Man" Broder f*cking well tells you it is. That's when. You lowly moron.

Until plans for this meeting were disclosed, the most concrete public move toward any kind of independent candidacy was by Unity08, a group planning an online nominating convention to pick either an independent candidate or a ticket combining a Republican and a Democrat. The sponsors, an eclectic mix of consultants who have worked for candidates including Jimmy Carter (D) and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), have not aligned with a specific prospect.

Now, some people with high-level political and governmental credentials are moving to put muscle behind the effort.

What meeting, you ask? Why, the Big Bipartisan Serious Person's Kumbaya Love-In for America, of course.

The George W. of the Wallace family speaks

by Kagro X

Just a quick hit here -- something I'd like to do a bit more of here at TNH, just to do my part to keep the conversation going.

Chris Wallace talked to The Politico, under the oh-so-convincing headline: Wallace: Dems are 'fools' to boycott Fox.

Here's what grabbed my eye (thanks to an assist from Oliver Griswold of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center):

Being the son of legendary newsman Mike Wallace, and in broadcast news for several decades, the Fox host has definitely been able to observe the mainstream media up close for quite some time.

But on his four-year anniversary this week, Wallace said there is something he’s discovered only since joining the Rupert Murdoch-owned network.

“I used to laugh and dismiss this talk about how we were — that there was a liberal bias in the mainstream media,” Wallace said. “But I have to say in the four years I’ve been at Fox, I’ve come to believe that there is a bias.”

Shorter Wallace: "I have to say in the five days I've been in this bank in Stockholm..."

Time Gives Up on the Truth

by emptywheel

The whole Joe Klein affair is another of the things I'm hoping to return to on Monday. But for now, take a look at their "correction."

In the original version of this story, Joe Klein wrote that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would allow a court review of individual foreign surveillance targets. Republicans believe the bill can be interpreted that way, but Democrats don't.

Never mind that the entire offending paragraph remains intact:

The Democratic strategy on the FISA legislation in the House is equally foolish. There is broad, bipartisan agreement on how to legalize the surveillance of phone calls and emails of foreign intelligence targets. The basic principle is this: if a suspicious pattern of calls from a terrorist suspect to a U.S. citizen is found, a FISA court warrant is necessary to monitor those communications. But to safeguard against civil-liberty abuses, all records of clearly nontargeted Americans who receive emails or phone calls from foreign suspects would be, in effect, erased. Unfortunately, Speaker Nancy Pelosi quashed the House Intelligence Committee's bipartisan effort and supported a Democratic bill that — Limbaugh is salivating — House Republicans believe would require the surveillance of every foreign-terrorist target's calls to be approved by the FISA court, an institution founded to protect the rights of U.S. citizens only. (Democrats dispute this interpretation.) In the lethal shorthand of political advertising, it would give terrorists the same legal protections as Americans. That is well beyond stupid.

Never mind that there are a number of errors, and this "correction" addresses just one.

What does it say that Time, one of the leading news outlets in this country, refuses to try to determine which side is correct in this debate? What does it say that, with the existing bill as the presumed unquestioned arbiter of the debate, they cannot discern truth? What does it say that they continue to refer to human sources--Republicans and Democrats--rather than the text?

I dunno, but I guarantee you, the next time I attend a conference on journalism and blogging, I will take no prisoners.

It Takes Astute Observation, Not Mea Culpas

by emptywheel

Mark Halperin has a hysterical op-ed in the NYT today, designed to be a mea culpa for the failures of presidential campaign journalism. Halperin reveals the reason behind the press corps' obsession with horse race politics--they all read Ben Cramer's What It Takes--and then admits that success in a political horse race does not necessarily equip someone to run the country.

For most of my time covering presidential elections, I shared the view that there was a direct correlation between the skills needed to be a great candidate and a great president. The chaotic and demanding requirements of running for president, I felt, were a perfect test for the toughest job in the world.

But now I think I was wrong. The “campaigner equals leader” formula that inspired me and so many others in the news media is flawed.

Wow, Mark, that's one doozy of an insight. You mean all this horse race campaign journalism is counter-productive to choosing a good president? Who could have imagined that?!?!?!

The reason I say it's hysterical, though, and not just pathetic, is in Halperin's description of how he determined that he had been wrong--his analysis of the two presidents he has covered in the last sixteen years. See, Halperin describes those two presidents as both being great politicians--"wildly talented."

Our two most recent presidents, both of whom I covered while they were governors seeking the White House. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are wildly talented politicians. Both claimed two presidential victories, in all four cases arguably as underdogs. Both could skillfully serve as the chief strategist for a presidential campaign.

And then he proceeds to describe how the characteristics that made these "wildly talented" politicians made them failed presidents. Of note: he sees them both as failed presidents, Clinton and Bush. Here's how he supports his claim that Clinton's was a failed presidency:

For instance, being all things to all people worked wonderfully well for Bill Clinton the candidate, but when his presidency ran into trouble, this trait was disastrous, particularly in the bumpy early years of his presidency and in the events leading up to his impeachment. The fun-loving campaigner with big appetites and an undisciplined manner squandered a good deal of the majesty and power of the presidency, and undermined his effectiveness as a leader. What much of the country found endearing in a candidate was troubling in a president.

See where I'm going with this? Halperin claims that a guy who presided over tremendous economic growth, some innovative policy solutions (many of which I dislike, but admire for their pragmatism), and real success in foreign policy, had a failed presidency. He claims that a guy whose approval ratings stayed high during a trumped up impeachment "ran into trouble." Halperin clings to the Village's caricature of the Clinton presidency all so he can claim both Clinton and Bush failed. And in the process, he ignores a great deal of hard work and policy wonkiness that, in fact, made Clinton a successful president. Precisely the kind of characteristics you'd want good presidential journalism to cover--a candidate's comfort with the complexity of policy issues that translates into competent governance.

You see, Halperin tries hard to explain away his failures of judgment and discernment as failures of process. But in the process, he only emphasizes those failures of judgment. If Halperin really believes that Clinton and Bush experienced the same level of failure in office; if he remains ignorant of Clinton's considerable discipline (in all matters not involving his penis) and hard work and policy acumen, then he has proved his own failures of basic observation, not a failure to cover the right topics.

With his op-ed, Halperin proves he couldn't identify good governance if it looked him in the face. Sure, he calls for a different kind of campaign journalism. But at the same time, he proves he's not the guy to provide it.

Rove Is Rejected By Time

by emptywheel

For the record, I heartily approve of both of Newsweek's recent pundit hires--Rove and Markos. After all, news outlets dump a lot of money to pay pundits whose predictions turn out to be wrong year after year. So why not hire two guys who at least have contributed historic innovations to elections--the guys who execute campaigns, rather than talk about doing so? Plus, there's a wonderful bit of symmetry here. Rove, direct mail, and the Republican party represent the past. Markos, online, and the Democratic party represent the future. I even love that it pits a fat white guy from Utah against a multicultural guy living in the Bay Area.

So I'm not necessarily gleeful with the news that Time Magazine rejected Rove's advances, at least not because it might validate the opinion that Rove was a poor choice for Newsweek. Rather, I'm curious by the terms by which Time rejected Rove.

For its part, Time magazine said nothing publicly about Rove's arrival at Newsweek, but a well-placed source told me that Bob Barnett (every Washington literati's favorite lawyer, including Bill Clinton) had traveled to the Time-Life building on Sixth Avenue to offer Rove's services before Newsweek snared them. Time's editors apparently felt the cost/benefit analysis wouldn't be in their favor if they embraced the man who has done more than anyone to keep the spirit of Joe McCarthy alive and well in American politics. (Read Joshua Green's definitive profile from the Atlantic in 2004.) "Time thought this wouldn't be like hiring George Stephanopoulos," my source explained. "They think Karl is essentially like an unindicted coconspirator in a whole string of felonies."

Well, yeah, I wonder whether Newsweek has done its due diligence on Rove. After all, it would suck for them if the Abramoff scandal USA Purge scandal email scandal wholesale politicization of government scandal  anything arose to hurt Rove's brand.

But I'm most amused that Time magazine--the company that spent very large chunks of cash to withhold  details about Rove's nefarious leaking of Valerie Wilson's name from Patrick Fitzgerald--would call him "an unindicted coconspirator in a whole string of felonies." Time, after all, probably could have swung the election in 2004 (and they thought they could, too), had Matt Cooper simply revealed that Karl Rove leaked Valerie Wilson's identity. ("I've said too much already," Rove said.) That would have saved the American public from at least one out of a string of felonies.

So nice that Time magazine takes this moment to object.

What Are Newspapers Best For?

by emptywheel

As you no doubt know, I appeared on a panel in Boston called "No News Is Bad News" over the weekend. It was a fascinating conference, with journalistic heroes like John Carroll and Anthony Shadid. Just as exciting, I got to meet phred, Selise, BlueStateRedHead, and others. And my own personal favorite--from my panel, at least--came when someone asked me what I would have done to prevent the Lewinsky scandal (and more importantly--picking up on a point I had made--having the press report on a topic that the majority of the country just didn't think was important). I responded something to the effect that, "I would have liked to see the press reporting on the rise of the Scaife funded partisan press with some attention to the way it inserted stories into the non-partisan press; I would have liked to see people report on Ken Starr's prosecutorial misconduct, and I would have liked someone to get up and say 'It was just a consensual blow job between consenting adults.'" I think I repeated "blow job" a few times as I tend to do when you get me riled. According to phred, who was in the audience, some of the seniors in the audience gasped. At which Joe Lockhart, who was on my panel, responded, "Yeah, I can't tell you how many times I wanted to say just that."

I then got into a fascinating conversation following John Carroll's panel. He had said that we need to find a way to fund investigative journalists, and that blogs just wouldn't do that. Afterwards, I agreed with him that blogs could not replace Dana Priest or Eric Lichtblau (at least not yet, though TPM's crowd is doing a lot of the same work as Lichtblau). I also pointed out that David Carr--who has had a long simmering debate with Jay Rosen over whether bloggers could do original work and who admitted that we, the FDL team, had during the Libby trial [Big crow correction: Rosen informs me it was not Carr; I apologize for the error]--had described advising his college aged daughter aspiring to be a journalist to make sure her own writing was getting noticed on the Internet, thereby admitting the value of a reputation-based vetting system.

We need big companies to pay (and more importantly, legally protect) journalists like Priest and Lichtblau (and, just as importantly, Shadid). But do we need big media to report on culture and sports?

Which is why the two latest incidents of the NYT's ham-handedness with blogs really resonates for me.

Boston: No News Is Bad News

by emptywheel

Just a reminder that I'm headed for Boston for what promises to be an interesting conference. Here's the description:

No News Is Bad News

A free and independent press is essential for democracy.  The press has a responsibility to inform citizens about both the policies and the actions of the government and about credible challenges to those policies and actions, to report on conditions that may require new or different government initiatives, and to raise timely questions itself about debatable policies and the rationales presented for them.

With the recent controversies over the failure of the press to fully live up to its responsibilities in the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the role of the media in the outing of a covert CIA agent, the rise of the blogosphere and so-called citizen journalism, and the impact of increasing financial pressures on newspapers and magazines, public confidence in the mainstream media is at an all-time low.  What are the implications of this for our democracy?  How might our faith in the press be restored?

There is (free) registration,

As before, put a link below if you're interested in get-together events associated with this.

Should Executives that Suborn Perjury Get Special Favors?

by emptywheel

In my opinion, the key lines from Judith Regan's suit against the News Corp are these:

The complaint charges that one unnamed senior News Corp. executive "counseled Regan to lie and withhold information from investigators" about her acknowledged affair with former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik. Another unnamed News Corp. executive "advised Regan not to produce clearly relevant documents in connection with a governmental investigation of Kerik,'' according to the complaint.

Regan basically accuses two of Rupert's executives of suborning perjury. But, she doesn't provide their names. Yet. At the same time, she asks for $100 million to go away quietly.

That sure looks like a suit that will get settled quietly--at least it will if the executives in question are people Rupert would like to keep around. (Update: bmaz watches teevee so I don't have to ... and reveals one of these alleged suborners is ... Roger Ailes. Yeah. I agree with bmaz--Rupert probably would like to keep Ailes around.)

That may be what happens--but it certainly begs further discussion, not least because Cathie Martin's husband just proposed doing Rupert a huge favor. You see, News Corp is one of two intended beneficiaries  (the other is the Tribune Company) of FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin's proposal to eliminate the rule prohibiting ownership of a TV station and a newspaper in the same market.

Chairman Martin proposes the Commission amend the 32-year-old absolute ban on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership by crafting an approach that would allow a newspaper to own one television station or one radio station but only in the very largest markets and subject to certain criteria and limitations.

News Corp and Tribune already break the rule; they're operating with waivers from the FCC. If Martin's proposal were to become law, it would free them to establish TV-newspaper pairs in further cities.

As freepress.net's post on this points out, the entire process by which Martin has been "considering" this plan has been utterly corrupt.

The entire process leading to Tuesday’s announcement has been a study in government corruption 101. Biased research, flawed data and unfair timelines from the FCC have consistently pushed the public out of the policymaking process and ignored citizens’ impassioned pleas against further media consolidation.

To give a big gift to News Corp--at a time when its executives are being accused of serious intrusions into a criminal investigation--would only pile up the corruption.

But perhaps the biggest reason that Regan's allegations should require Martin to pause before ramming through this deal comes from his own maudlin op-ed supporting the proposal. You see, Martin's editorial talks naively of "editorial independence."

In addition, each part of the combined entity would need to maintain its editorial independence.

If what Regan alleges is true (and she says she has recordings of the conversations), it mocks the very notion of editorial independence. Here's a company that--at a corporate level--is intruding on the editorial independence of one of its properties. Yet Kevin Martin thinks that, in spite of that clear evidence that no one within the News Corp empire has editorial independence, Rupert can be trusted to grant it as he further expands his empire?

Richard Mellon Scaife, "With Michael Isikoff"?

by emptywheel

I found this article on Richard Mellon Scaife's newfound admiration for the Clinton's via tristero. It's a remarkable article, in that it frames Scaife's purported admiration for the Clinton's against the background of Scaife's smear factory from the nineties, all told in a pseudo-objective omniscient third person voice.

Scaife was no run-of-the-mill Clinton hater. In the 1990s, the heir to the Mellon banking fortune contributed millions to efforts to dig up dirt on President Clinton. He backed the Clinton-bashing American Spectator magazine, whose muckrakers produced lurid stories about Clinton's alleged financial improprieties and trysts. Scaife also financed a probe called the Arkansas Project that tried, among other things, to show that Clinton, while Arkansas governor, protected drug runners.

The Arkansas Project largely came up empty, and most of the stories were ignored by all but the most avid Clinton antagonists. But one Scaife-backed conspiracy theory got widespread attention. In 1993, White House aide and Clinton friend Vince Foster was found dead of a gunshot wound in a park outside Washington, D.C. Three official investigations concluded the death was a suicide. Yet Scaife dollars helped promote assertions that Foster had been murdered—the not-so-subtle subtext being that the Clintons had something to do with it. Scaife hired Christopher Ruddy, a reporter who doggedly pursued the conspiracy theory in a Scaife newspaper, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Though discredited, the story resonated with people who believed Clinton was hiding dark secrets. Scaife and Ruddy later started Newsmax, a Web site and magazine that attacks their enemies and lauds their heroes.

All presented as if a reporting team that includes Michael Isikoff would need to do any actual reporting to tell the story of the smear campaigns directed at the Clintons. And note: Isikoff does not include himself in his little narrative of his former life, nor does anyone admit that much of the vocabulary used here--Ruddy as "a dogged reporter"?--makes a pretty bold value judgment coming from someone deeply involved in this swamp, particularly given that Ruddy is pretty clearly the source of the "scoop."

And then the actual scoop--that Scaife recently donated money to Clinton's AIDS in Africa program--is introduced with Newsweek's pseudo-impersonal "NEWSWEEK has learned." To be fair, that's a structure Hosenball and Isikoff use regularly. But in this case, it deserves attention for the way it obscures the most important information about the story: who got the scoop (Hosenball or Isikoff?), whether it was peddled (Scaife to Isikoff, who then had Hosenball do an "objective" report on it?) or whether any actual reporting was involved. "NEWSWEEK has learned" in a sort of immaculate conception style or reporting.

Now add to this pseudo-objective structure the designated authorship of the article. This is Isikoff and Hosenball's weekly article. Yet Hosenball gets the byline; Isikoff is relegated to a note at the end, "With Michael Isikoff." That's remarkable particularly since a lot of Hosenball and Isikoff's stories are clearly one or the other of the partner's. Yet normally, they give both full credit, even if one is working harder than the other in a given week.

All I'm saying, I guess, is the article is as remarkable for its narrative evasions as it is for the actual news it reports: that the Clintons are making nice with yet another institution of Right Wing smear.

No News Is Bad News

by emptywheel

I'm going to be a panelist on a conference in Boston a week from tomorrow (Saturday). The conference is:

No News Is Bad News

A free and independent press is essential for democracy.  The press has a responsibility to inform citizens about both the policies and the actions of the government and about credible challenges to those policies and actions, to report on conditions that may require new or different government initiatives, and to raise timely questions itself about debatable policies and the rationales presented for them.

With the recent controversies over the failure of the press to fully live up to its responsibilities in the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the role of the media in the outing of a covert CIA agent, the rise of the blogosphere and so-called citizen journalism, and the impact of increasing financial pressures on newspapers and magazines, public confidence in the mainstream media is at an all-time low.  What are the implications of this for our democracy?  How might our faith in the press be restored?

The rest of the panelists (aside from Andy Sullivan) are journalists--many of the good ones, people like John Carroll. My panel--Political Reporting--had a conference call today which got me really excited about the conference. It should be worth attending.

There is (free) registration, and I understand the room is filling up. So if you're interested, register now!

Afterwards, phred and Scarecrow and I and hopefully some other folks from these parts will be heading out for drinks, probably to An Tua Nua. I'll post another thread closer to the event, but if you might show, leave a comment.