Paul Krugman has Cronkite Envy
I think Paul Krugman must be watching a different news channel than me. Maybe he is watching Al Jazeera. In his New York Times editorial today he says that the Bush policy on terrrorism "has made us much less safe than we should be." I had to rub my eyes and re-read the piece to be sure that I did not misunderstand him. I think his premise is that Bush is practicing a "photo-op" policy as opposed to a successful policy. We could end this right here by simply asking the obvious: if your policy stinks where are you going to get the photo-ops from?
Krugman says that the war on Iraq simply distracted the US from pursuing Al Qaeda. He sights the bombing in Saudi Arabia and a study from a British think tank to argue that Al Qaeda is just as strong today as they were on September 10th. Let's start with the think tank. I really can't dispute his claim that the IISS is reputable. A glance at their website seems to indicate a pretty fair-minded agenda. But I couldn't find the Krugman quote. I'm not saying it isn't there (though one could wonder with Times reporters these days), just that I couldn't find it. I did a search of statements about Al Qaeda and turned up a list of statements. In fact, the first article seemed to be close to what he was referring to. I recommend people read the entire thing. It seems pretty consistent with what Bush is saying. I think Krugman is twisting the truth by taking a quote out of context.
What is the real lesson of the bombing in Saudi Arabia? Maybe Krugman should not ignore the following details: US intelligence warned Saudi officials about a threat like this, the US warned American's about travel to the region, Saudi officials made a bust on the exact group of terrorists that commited the acts just a week before but the terrorists got away, no airplanes were involved, and finally the bombing did not take place in America but in the home country of many Al Qaeda terrorists. Using my scoring method this looks like progress. I think Krugman is crying fire in a theatre when someone has lit a cigarette.
I think Krugman suffers from a current media ailment I call "Cronkite envy". During the Vietnam War Walter Cronkite was the respected CBS news anchor that so many relied on for news about the war. The turning point in the war appears to be when Cronkite declared the war a lost cause. Granted many other things happened in 1968, but this is the image we are all shown, and to this day Walter Cronkite is interviewed as an authority on the honest assessment of war. What ambitious news reporter does not want to be the Cronkite of our times? In fact, I think this was why so many news anchors quickly focused on early challenges in the war with Iraq. Each wanted to be like Cronkite. Each wanted to be the clever reporter who first identified the turning point. Of course none of them realized the irony of declaring a turning point on week two of a war when the US had been involved in Vietnam for almost a decade when Cronkite finally made his declaration.
Krugman and his peers missed the chance with the war on Iraq. We won and there is no chance to be the next Cronkite of history on that war. So what is left? Why not make accusations that we are failing in the war on terror? Put together a few random pieces and throw it up on a wall and see if it sticks. I am sorry Paul Krugman, but you will have to do better than this if you have any hopes of being the next Walter Cronkite.
May 16, 2003
The New York Times and Blair
It is obvious that the Jayson Blair fiasco points to mismanagement at the New York Times--even the Times admits this. Conservatives celebrate this for two reasons: they view the Times as a Liberally biased newspaper that sets the tone for major news outlets, and they see this as proof that diversity for the sake of diversity is a failed agenda. Liberals jump to the defense of the Times because they see that Conservatives might succeed in making this case. What is not discussed is what this mismanagement should cause us to infer. For just a second, ignore the ideological battle lines of the culture wars and accept the premise that management of Jayson Blair represents a problem. There can only be two ways of looking at this. Either the New York Times allowed diversity to negatively influence management decisions or management of all reporters is really bad.
The racial diversity agenda, in and of itself, is not really at issue--we can have that debate another day. What is at issue is that management used Jayson Blair as an example of how diverse the Times is. This might imply a few things. Could it be that the Times feared that racial activists would target them? The leading strategy of racial activists like Jesse Jackson is to target big businesses and threaten lawsuits in order to get certain concessions on race and thereby set standards in industries. This strategy works exactly because bad publicity will hurt the industry leaders. So, many corporations find themselves forced to over emphasize policies that favor the hiring and retention of minorities. Thus we get Howell Raines speaking to a civil rights group and proclaiming that Jayson Blair is an example of efforts at the Times even though he knew of disciplinary action that had been taken against Blair. Was Raines that scared of the racial activists? Could he not find any other examples of successful minorities working for the Times? Is it possible that the Times really has few other examples? What does this imply about the Times' real commitment to a racial diversity agenda that they favor on their editorial pages?
Or does it imply that the Times did not have the guts to fire or demote a black reporter in spite of having a bad work history? Sure, they fired him now, but did they set him up, or were they just afraid to punish him without a mountain of evidence? Talk to any manager about firing and what well they say? Very dangerous. The liability is high regardless of race. So, usually the company finds some other way to "manage" the problem while carefully documenting bad performance. My understanding is that race makes companies even more nervous. Was the Times too nervous to properly punish Blair earlier? What does this say about the undo influence race has on the ability of editors at the Times to properly manage personnel?
On the issue of diversity at the Times I can only conclude that the Times is not sincere. Their commitment to racial diversity is phony. They want to avoid lawsuits and bad press. I think the Liberals should call them on this hypocrisy. Either it is hypocrisy about the Liberal race agenda, or the race agenda is weakened by the implication that a black reporter got special treatment. Thus the Conservative connection to the deabte on the issue of diversity.
On the other hand it is possible that this simply demonstrates a broader management problem. If you believe the claim from the Times that Blair was qualified, then what does this say about all reporters at the Times? Or all management at the Times? Does this mean that reporter candidates are not properly scrutinized for the proper skills? Or does it mean they are not scrutinized for an ethical conscience? For a paper with such high standards it can be presumed that the Times can pick from the best reporter candidates in the business. I am sure there are reporters reluctant to criticize the Times simply in hopes of not offending the management of the one paper most reporters dream of working for. If the Times has this type of power in the marketplace it is not beyond reason to expect that they could hire the best. It also stands to reason that management would want to protect this image by carefully scrutinizing candidates. Does this then imply that the Times is not very effective in screening job applicants? Maybe it is hard to screen properly, but then one might think that editors would be much more vigilant about monitoring reporters in order to preserve the image of the Times. Yes, the Times did catch Blair on previous occassions. But why have a policy that rehabilitates when you should have a lot of potential candidates for replacing Blair with? Instead the Times promoted him to a more prestigious assignment. What does this imply about all reporters at the Times? If Blair did not get special treatment for being black, then does this mean that this is the bad managment style of the Times? How many lies are there on the front page of today's Times?
What the Blair fiasco calls into question is the corporate honesty of the Times. Either the Times is not willing to admit that a racial diversity program had very negative consequences and was only in place for public relations purposes, or the Times is badly managed. Shame on Jayson Blair for what he did. And shame on the New York Times for what they failed to do.
It is obvious that the Jayson Blair fiasco points to mismanagement at the New York Times--even the Times admits this. Conservatives celebrate this for two reasons: they view the Times as a Liberally biased newspaper that sets the tone for major news outlets, and they see this as proof that diversity for the sake of diversity is a failed agenda. Liberals jump to the defense of the Times because they see that Conservatives might succeed in making this case. What is not discussed is what this mismanagement should cause us to infer. For just a second, ignore the ideological battle lines of the culture wars and accept the premise that management of Jayson Blair represents a problem. There can only be two ways of looking at this. Either the New York Times allowed diversity to negatively influence management decisions or management of all reporters is really bad.
The racial diversity agenda, in and of itself, is not really at issue--we can have that debate another day. What is at issue is that management used Jayson Blair as an example of how diverse the Times is. This might imply a few things. Could it be that the Times feared that racial activists would target them? The leading strategy of racial activists like Jesse Jackson is to target big businesses and threaten lawsuits in order to get certain concessions on race and thereby set standards in industries. This strategy works exactly because bad publicity will hurt the industry leaders. So, many corporations find themselves forced to over emphasize policies that favor the hiring and retention of minorities. Thus we get Howell Raines speaking to a civil rights group and proclaiming that Jayson Blair is an example of efforts at the Times even though he knew of disciplinary action that had been taken against Blair. Was Raines that scared of the racial activists? Could he not find any other examples of successful minorities working for the Times? Is it possible that the Times really has few other examples? What does this imply about the Times' real commitment to a racial diversity agenda that they favor on their editorial pages?
Or does it imply that the Times did not have the guts to fire or demote a black reporter in spite of having a bad work history? Sure, they fired him now, but did they set him up, or were they just afraid to punish him without a mountain of evidence? Talk to any manager about firing and what well they say? Very dangerous. The liability is high regardless of race. So, usually the company finds some other way to "manage" the problem while carefully documenting bad performance. My understanding is that race makes companies even more nervous. Was the Times too nervous to properly punish Blair earlier? What does this say about the undo influence race has on the ability of editors at the Times to properly manage personnel?
On the issue of diversity at the Times I can only conclude that the Times is not sincere. Their commitment to racial diversity is phony. They want to avoid lawsuits and bad press. I think the Liberals should call them on this hypocrisy. Either it is hypocrisy about the Liberal race agenda, or the race agenda is weakened by the implication that a black reporter got special treatment. Thus the Conservative connection to the deabte on the issue of diversity.
On the other hand it is possible that this simply demonstrates a broader management problem. If you believe the claim from the Times that Blair was qualified, then what does this say about all reporters at the Times? Or all management at the Times? Does this mean that reporter candidates are not properly scrutinized for the proper skills? Or does it mean they are not scrutinized for an ethical conscience? For a paper with such high standards it can be presumed that the Times can pick from the best reporter candidates in the business. I am sure there are reporters reluctant to criticize the Times simply in hopes of not offending the management of the one paper most reporters dream of working for. If the Times has this type of power in the marketplace it is not beyond reason to expect that they could hire the best. It also stands to reason that management would want to protect this image by carefully scrutinizing candidates. Does this then imply that the Times is not very effective in screening job applicants? Maybe it is hard to screen properly, but then one might think that editors would be much more vigilant about monitoring reporters in order to preserve the image of the Times. Yes, the Times did catch Blair on previous occassions. But why have a policy that rehabilitates when you should have a lot of potential candidates for replacing Blair with? Instead the Times promoted him to a more prestigious assignment. What does this imply about all reporters at the Times? If Blair did not get special treatment for being black, then does this mean that this is the bad managment style of the Times? How many lies are there on the front page of today's Times?
What the Blair fiasco calls into question is the corporate honesty of the Times. Either the Times is not willing to admit that a racial diversity program had very negative consequences and was only in place for public relations purposes, or the Times is badly managed. Shame on Jayson Blair for what he did. And shame on the New York Times for what they failed to do.
May 15, 2003
Senator Graham
In the finest tradition of Senators who think they should be President, Senator Graham has attacked Bush for a September 11th cover-up. It is hard to take Graham seriously because he is running for President. He knows full well the report cannot be released because it might compromise intelligence sources. Therefore, he is making an accusation no one can corroborate or deny and which simply has the effect of manipulating natural voter cynicism about politicians. The only logical response is an equal share of cynicism about his campaign for President not getting much attention--is he just trying to get some name recognition?
Senator Graham is in the position of John F Kennedy over 40 years ago. JFK made a big deal about a supposed "missile gap". According to his claims the US was far behind the USSR in the development of our Nuclear Missile forces. History of course verifies that JFK was incorrect. Why did he make the charge? He was a US Senator and reasonably could have had access to classified documents that would confirm or refute the suspicion. Furthermore, he could have used his influence to get some type of whispered information. But, this is exactly the point. If he had the information or not is besides the point. He wasn't so much lying, as he was running for office--no wonder people think politicians are all sleazy. JFK had to overcome a successful Republican administration. He had to stand out in the voters' minds. Eisenhower was strong on the issue of defense, and consequently his VP, Richard Nixon, could rely on voters assuming that policies would continue to safegaurd the United States from war with the USSR. The economy (here is a document) had clearly recovered from recession and the Korean war was over. What could JFK run on? JFK had to find ways to weaken the assumption of Nixon political strength on the issue of national defense. So he attacked the missile gap. See JFK's candidacy announcement and this transcript of a White House news conference right after he was elected to get some context for what went on.
To be fair, JFK and Graham are not the only politicians to use the national security scare tactic. It works exactly because we are scared and because it is impossible to refute without risking top-secret information. Which leads to the other side of the strategy--capitalize on the healthy cynicism of the American voter.
Bob Graham is obviously smart enough to know that voters perceive politicians as willing to lie about anything. So why not feed the flames of doubt about Bush on an issue that is hard for Bush to defend and hard for the media to independently verify? Graham never has to prove anything himself, he simply needs to "raise questions". Then any bombing, like the recent one in Saudi Arabia, just makes the voter say: "I'll be damned, they don't know what they are doing. I guess Sen Graham is right." It is a low risk gamble that pays off for Graham on the political level and can only hurt him when history gets written. He gets name recognition, he gets interviewed, and he gets support. Once again, he is not the first candidate for President to ever take such an approach.
The only defense for Bush on this is to simply state the obvious: Senator Graham is a politician who wants attention. Is it possible that he is right? Sure, it is possible that there are some things that could have been done better by Bush and his team. I hope there is no real cover-up of the proportions that Senator Graham purports. I am confident that the Bush team did not take the threat of terrorism seriously enough and that the report would prove this. But who would have? The ability to identify a past mistake does not qualify a man for the Presidency. The ability to do something proactive about a past mistake does.
In the finest tradition of Senators who think they should be President, Senator Graham has attacked Bush for a September 11th cover-up. It is hard to take Graham seriously because he is running for President. He knows full well the report cannot be released because it might compromise intelligence sources. Therefore, he is making an accusation no one can corroborate or deny and which simply has the effect of manipulating natural voter cynicism about politicians. The only logical response is an equal share of cynicism about his campaign for President not getting much attention--is he just trying to get some name recognition?
Senator Graham is in the position of John F Kennedy over 40 years ago. JFK made a big deal about a supposed "missile gap". According to his claims the US was far behind the USSR in the development of our Nuclear Missile forces. History of course verifies that JFK was incorrect. Why did he make the charge? He was a US Senator and reasonably could have had access to classified documents that would confirm or refute the suspicion. Furthermore, he could have used his influence to get some type of whispered information. But, this is exactly the point. If he had the information or not is besides the point. He wasn't so much lying, as he was running for office--no wonder people think politicians are all sleazy. JFK had to overcome a successful Republican administration. He had to stand out in the voters' minds. Eisenhower was strong on the issue of defense, and consequently his VP, Richard Nixon, could rely on voters assuming that policies would continue to safegaurd the United States from war with the USSR. The economy (here is a document) had clearly recovered from recession and the Korean war was over. What could JFK run on? JFK had to find ways to weaken the assumption of Nixon political strength on the issue of national defense. So he attacked the missile gap. See JFK's candidacy announcement and this transcript of a White House news conference right after he was elected to get some context for what went on.
To be fair, JFK and Graham are not the only politicians to use the national security scare tactic. It works exactly because we are scared and because it is impossible to refute without risking top-secret information. Which leads to the other side of the strategy--capitalize on the healthy cynicism of the American voter.
Bob Graham is obviously smart enough to know that voters perceive politicians as willing to lie about anything. So why not feed the flames of doubt about Bush on an issue that is hard for Bush to defend and hard for the media to independently verify? Graham never has to prove anything himself, he simply needs to "raise questions". Then any bombing, like the recent one in Saudi Arabia, just makes the voter say: "I'll be damned, they don't know what they are doing. I guess Sen Graham is right." It is a low risk gamble that pays off for Graham on the political level and can only hurt him when history gets written. He gets name recognition, he gets interviewed, and he gets support. Once again, he is not the first candidate for President to ever take such an approach.
The only defense for Bush on this is to simply state the obvious: Senator Graham is a politician who wants attention. Is it possible that he is right? Sure, it is possible that there are some things that could have been done better by Bush and his team. I hope there is no real cover-up of the proportions that Senator Graham purports. I am confident that the Bush team did not take the threat of terrorism seriously enough and that the report would prove this. But who would have? The ability to identify a past mistake does not qualify a man for the Presidency. The ability to do something proactive about a past mistake does.
May 14, 2003
Slam!
Paul Krugman had a piece in the New York Times yesterday that is noticably missing from the NYTimes on the web--try this from Krugman's unofficial site. In the piece Krugman makes a weak linkage between FCC regulation and some media support for the war. In fact, he calls it the China Syndrome and proceeds to make Fox News and Neil Cavuto the primary targets of his attack. I thought the piece was so shoddy that I had planned to tear it apart like I did with Krugman's last piece, but I will settle for pointing you to Neil Cavuto's great reponse (Kudos to Kathryn Lopez of National Review for pointing this out).
Paul Krugman had a piece in the New York Times yesterday that is noticably missing from the NYTimes on the web--try this from Krugman's unofficial site. In the piece Krugman makes a weak linkage between FCC regulation and some media support for the war. In fact, he calls it the China Syndrome and proceeds to make Fox News and Neil Cavuto the primary targets of his attack. I thought the piece was so shoddy that I had planned to tear it apart like I did with Krugman's last piece, but I will settle for pointing you to Neil Cavuto's great reponse (Kudos to Kathryn Lopez of National Review for pointing this out).
May 13, 2003
News Reporters
Nothing personal intended, but I think too many news reporters are dumb. I don't mean that they can't spell or speak well. The print variety have deep vocabularies and understand grammar far better than I ever will. It is also evident that many of them have an ability to sniff out stories. The TV variety are telegenic and I admit quite enjoyable to listen to. I doubt anyone would enjoy hearing my voice or watching me. Reporters are talented people. But, the competitive nature of the news business is that the business rewards people for talents that do not include deep thinking skills. Consequently I often find myself irritated by the simply dumb things many reporters do. In fact, I am not even sure that there is so much a liberal media bias as there is a dumb media bias. Reporter after reporter simply takes liberal spin at face value and never questions the validity of the argument. So I wonder what is worse: Jayson Blair filling his articles full of lies, or ignorant reporters who think they have discovered some mysterious new trend. Jayson Blair may be the smarter one.
Let me use a simple example from today's USAToday. At face value this is an interesting story. It appears to prove that Bush is perceived as arrogant by those in his own party. Not to mention the international stage. I know, the article does not explicitly make the comparison to international affairs, but who wouldn't assume the connection while reading? Did the reporters do that intentionally? I don't think so. In fact, I doubt the reporters even considered the comparison. My guess is that something like the following scenario unfolded. The reporters believe the assertion that Bush is disliked internationally for being "arrogant". Then one day one or more of the reporters stumble upon a Congressional Republican staffer at some event and they get talking. Maybe they are at a bar. Or maybe better yet, the staffer works for a disgruntled Republican and actually seeks out the reporter. The reporter is being used, but is dumb enough to think he or she has the best scoop in the history of newspaper reporting. Because the reporter essentially believes the spin that Bush is arrogant, the reporter never bothers to logically assess the situation and produces a story that has some logical inconsistencies. Let me demonstrate.
The only quotes from actual Republican Congressmen comes from Rep Chris Shays of Connecticutt, Senator Trent Lott, and Senator George Voinovich of Ohio. Now really, anyone following current events and actually thinking about the logic of these sources would have to already question the validity of the article.
Let's start with Chris Shays. Why does that name ring a bell? Can anybody say campaign-finance reform? As I remember it the original Bush strategy was to kill Campaign Finance Reform in the House. This was bad for Shays. Forget the fact he wasn't getting the same press time as McCain. I seem to recall stories about the White House and House leadership trying to strong arm the defeat of his bill. Do you think he has an axe to grind? So maybe he doesn't, but do you think a Congressman from liberal Connecticutt looks good when he makes it obvious that he isn't Bush's water boy. In fact, he supported Bush on the war with Iraq and took heat for it. Do you think he needs to make it clear to his voters that he is "independent"? I think this makes his credibility on the issue of Bush somewhat suspect.
How about Trent Lott? It is possible that he has an axe to grind. Maybe he is mad at the White House or Bill Frist for being eased out of power for his comments about Strom Thurmond. Possible, but I doubt it. I think the key is the quote:
"The president is having more trouble than he should" getting his priorities through Congress, says Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., the former majority leader.
Of course the President is having more trouble than he should. The Republican criticism of Trent Lott was always that he was not too effective at getting anything passed, not to mention the President's priorities. That should be enough to call his statement into doubt. However, I doubt Senator Lott was actually criticizing the President if we were to see the full context of the quote. I like Trent a lot more now that he is not the Republican Senate leader. Because Trent speaks through the details of the issues and often prefaces his actual views with disclaimers. Anyone who actually watches TV news shows should realize this. It makes him enjoyable to listen to because he is willing to discuss the complexity of politics. Unfortunately, this type of political speaking lends itself too easily to quotes out of context. Why did the reporter have to finish so much of Trent Lott's statement? Could it be that he said something more like: 'The president is having more trouble than he should, but there is no doubt that he is succeeding.'? That sounds like the Trent Lott that I know.
Finally, how about George Voinovich? Wait a second. At the top of the article we get this:
"Some of my colleagues are carping" about the administration's reluctance to consult with Congress, Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, says.
Seemingly this Senator is really opening up and telling it like it is. But where is the background story? In't Voinovich the same guy who has made it clear that he is against tax-cuts no matter what? He wants to balance the budget, right? If I am not mistaken he has had this position for a long time; before the proposal of tax-cuts by President Bush. Try this link. So when Bush came along with his proposal for more tax-cuts I can't imagine that Voinovich was all that excited about it. Would he have had a different view had the President invited him to the Oval office for coffee? I doubt it. If someone reads the USAToday story all the way through they then find the most important tidbit about the background towards the end.
Voinovich got a dose of that tactic when the president went to Ohio last month to urge the state's residents to support at least $550 billion in tax cuts over a decade. Voinovich, who wants no more than $350 billion in cuts, hasn't changed his position.
You don't say. Voinovich didn't like what the President did?! I am shocked. It is no wonder he is willing to provide a negative quote on the record.
You see, there is little logic used to question the validity of the stories premise. And it is not just demonstrated in the choice of people to quote. How about the contradiction in these two paragraphs:
Several Republican lawmakers and top aides use the same word to describe their sense of the administration's attitude toward Congress: arrogance.
There's lingering irritation among members of Congress over Bush's refusal to tell them until the last minute how much money he wanted for the Iraq war. There are broader complaints about his administration's penchant for secrecy, his reluctance to invest much time lobbying and socializing with them and his pattern of sending vague principles to Capitol Hill instead of detailed legislation.
I am not sure exactly how the sending of "vague principles... instead of detailed legislation" translates to "arrogance". Someone needs to explain that to me. So, the President essentially says to Congress: 'I don't care about the exact details, but I think we should stimulate the economy by cutting taxes by $700 billion, you guys can decide how best to do it.' I think arrogance would have been something more along the lines of: 'Do it this way or take the highway'. Something more along the lines of the Clinton Universal Health Care Proposal, or $50 billion stimulus package he sent when he was first elected. This is not the only logical inconsistency in the article.
Finally, the reporters prove to be dumb because they evidence a lack of historical perspective. The report says: "Democrats are more united as a minority in the Senate than they were when they ran it." Now wait a second here. This is often true of majority party vs. minority party in Congress. When was the last time the minority party in Congress was not united? All through the 1980's Reagan exploited the fact that Democrat's controlled the House--they couldn't seem to agree on anything except that one of them should be President instead. While in the Senate majority, Republican Senators went along in a strategy that made the House the problem with everything. Did Clinton have more trouble with Democrats when they were the majority in Congress or when they were in the minority? So, just think about it logically. If I am in the majority I want to get as much of what I promised my voters passed. In the majority I need to be noticed, so I make a name for myself by being a thorn in the side of the President on one issue. The President's team probably realizes this and so they look the other way and find votes elsewhere. And for that, they are accused of arrogance?! On the other hand, when Clinton was President with a Republican majority in both houses the only hope he had to pass anything was to get the moderates like Voinovich and Shays over for coffee and find out what they might be willing to vote for. I think there are just some moderates who like Jim Jeffords suddenly feel less important because Bush doesn't need to massage their egos as much as Bill Clinton did.
This is a simple example. But, there are others. It really makes me wonder how dumb can they be? Don't get me wrong, Bush may need to do a better job of getting along with the people of his party, but shouldn't the story be a little more skeptical?
Nothing personal intended, but I think too many news reporters are dumb. I don't mean that they can't spell or speak well. The print variety have deep vocabularies and understand grammar far better than I ever will. It is also evident that many of them have an ability to sniff out stories. The TV variety are telegenic and I admit quite enjoyable to listen to. I doubt anyone would enjoy hearing my voice or watching me. Reporters are talented people. But, the competitive nature of the news business is that the business rewards people for talents that do not include deep thinking skills. Consequently I often find myself irritated by the simply dumb things many reporters do. In fact, I am not even sure that there is so much a liberal media bias as there is a dumb media bias. Reporter after reporter simply takes liberal spin at face value and never questions the validity of the argument. So I wonder what is worse: Jayson Blair filling his articles full of lies, or ignorant reporters who think they have discovered some mysterious new trend. Jayson Blair may be the smarter one.
Let me use a simple example from today's USAToday. At face value this is an interesting story. It appears to prove that Bush is perceived as arrogant by those in his own party. Not to mention the international stage. I know, the article does not explicitly make the comparison to international affairs, but who wouldn't assume the connection while reading? Did the reporters do that intentionally? I don't think so. In fact, I doubt the reporters even considered the comparison. My guess is that something like the following scenario unfolded. The reporters believe the assertion that Bush is disliked internationally for being "arrogant". Then one day one or more of the reporters stumble upon a Congressional Republican staffer at some event and they get talking. Maybe they are at a bar. Or maybe better yet, the staffer works for a disgruntled Republican and actually seeks out the reporter. The reporter is being used, but is dumb enough to think he or she has the best scoop in the history of newspaper reporting. Because the reporter essentially believes the spin that Bush is arrogant, the reporter never bothers to logically assess the situation and produces a story that has some logical inconsistencies. Let me demonstrate.
The only quotes from actual Republican Congressmen comes from Rep Chris Shays of Connecticutt, Senator Trent Lott, and Senator George Voinovich of Ohio. Now really, anyone following current events and actually thinking about the logic of these sources would have to already question the validity of the article.
Let's start with Chris Shays. Why does that name ring a bell? Can anybody say campaign-finance reform? As I remember it the original Bush strategy was to kill Campaign Finance Reform in the House. This was bad for Shays. Forget the fact he wasn't getting the same press time as McCain. I seem to recall stories about the White House and House leadership trying to strong arm the defeat of his bill. Do you think he has an axe to grind? So maybe he doesn't, but do you think a Congressman from liberal Connecticutt looks good when he makes it obvious that he isn't Bush's water boy. In fact, he supported Bush on the war with Iraq and took heat for it. Do you think he needs to make it clear to his voters that he is "independent"? I think this makes his credibility on the issue of Bush somewhat suspect.
How about Trent Lott? It is possible that he has an axe to grind. Maybe he is mad at the White House or Bill Frist for being eased out of power for his comments about Strom Thurmond. Possible, but I doubt it. I think the key is the quote:
"The president is having more trouble than he should" getting his priorities through Congress, says Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., the former majority leader.
Of course the President is having more trouble than he should. The Republican criticism of Trent Lott was always that he was not too effective at getting anything passed, not to mention the President's priorities. That should be enough to call his statement into doubt. However, I doubt Senator Lott was actually criticizing the President if we were to see the full context of the quote. I like Trent a lot more now that he is not the Republican Senate leader. Because Trent speaks through the details of the issues and often prefaces his actual views with disclaimers. Anyone who actually watches TV news shows should realize this. It makes him enjoyable to listen to because he is willing to discuss the complexity of politics. Unfortunately, this type of political speaking lends itself too easily to quotes out of context. Why did the reporter have to finish so much of Trent Lott's statement? Could it be that he said something more like: 'The president is having more trouble than he should, but there is no doubt that he is succeeding.'? That sounds like the Trent Lott that I know.
Finally, how about George Voinovich? Wait a second. At the top of the article we get this:
"Some of my colleagues are carping" about the administration's reluctance to consult with Congress, Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, says.
Seemingly this Senator is really opening up and telling it like it is. But where is the background story? In't Voinovich the same guy who has made it clear that he is against tax-cuts no matter what? He wants to balance the budget, right? If I am not mistaken he has had this position for a long time; before the proposal of tax-cuts by President Bush. Try this link. So when Bush came along with his proposal for more tax-cuts I can't imagine that Voinovich was all that excited about it. Would he have had a different view had the President invited him to the Oval office for coffee? I doubt it. If someone reads the USAToday story all the way through they then find the most important tidbit about the background towards the end.
Voinovich got a dose of that tactic when the president went to Ohio last month to urge the state's residents to support at least $550 billion in tax cuts over a decade. Voinovich, who wants no more than $350 billion in cuts, hasn't changed his position.
You don't say. Voinovich didn't like what the President did?! I am shocked. It is no wonder he is willing to provide a negative quote on the record.
You see, there is little logic used to question the validity of the stories premise. And it is not just demonstrated in the choice of people to quote. How about the contradiction in these two paragraphs:
Several Republican lawmakers and top aides use the same word to describe their sense of the administration's attitude toward Congress: arrogance.
There's lingering irritation among members of Congress over Bush's refusal to tell them until the last minute how much money he wanted for the Iraq war. There are broader complaints about his administration's penchant for secrecy, his reluctance to invest much time lobbying and socializing with them and his pattern of sending vague principles to Capitol Hill instead of detailed legislation.
I am not sure exactly how the sending of "vague principles... instead of detailed legislation" translates to "arrogance". Someone needs to explain that to me. So, the President essentially says to Congress: 'I don't care about the exact details, but I think we should stimulate the economy by cutting taxes by $700 billion, you guys can decide how best to do it.' I think arrogance would have been something more along the lines of: 'Do it this way or take the highway'. Something more along the lines of the Clinton Universal Health Care Proposal, or $50 billion stimulus package he sent when he was first elected. This is not the only logical inconsistency in the article.
Finally, the reporters prove to be dumb because they evidence a lack of historical perspective. The report says: "Democrats are more united as a minority in the Senate than they were when they ran it." Now wait a second here. This is often true of majority party vs. minority party in Congress. When was the last time the minority party in Congress was not united? All through the 1980's Reagan exploited the fact that Democrat's controlled the House--they couldn't seem to agree on anything except that one of them should be President instead. While in the Senate majority, Republican Senators went along in a strategy that made the House the problem with everything. Did Clinton have more trouble with Democrats when they were the majority in Congress or when they were in the minority? So, just think about it logically. If I am in the majority I want to get as much of what I promised my voters passed. In the majority I need to be noticed, so I make a name for myself by being a thorn in the side of the President on one issue. The President's team probably realizes this and so they look the other way and find votes elsewhere. And for that, they are accused of arrogance?! On the other hand, when Clinton was President with a Republican majority in both houses the only hope he had to pass anything was to get the moderates like Voinovich and Shays over for coffee and find out what they might be willing to vote for. I think there are just some moderates who like Jim Jeffords suddenly feel less important because Bush doesn't need to massage their egos as much as Bill Clinton did.
This is a simple example. But, there are others. It really makes me wonder how dumb can they be? Don't get me wrong, Bush may need to do a better job of getting along with the people of his party, but shouldn't the story be a little more skeptical?
May 12, 2003
New York Times and Jayson Blair
Ouch! I may be wrong, but doesn't this look bad? I know that the New York Times is supposedly the paper of record, but it looks like the record is somewhat suspect. Furthermore, they make it clear that they knew this guys was a loser for a long time. Jay Nordlinger says that at least the Times: "has not only engaged in (necessary) damage control, it has conducted itself admirably."
I really enjoy reading the things that Jay has to say, and I agree that the Times has been impressive in it's damage control, but let's be fair. There is nothing admirable about it. Admirable would have been firing him long ago instead of trying to rehabilitate him. And if they wanted to rehabilitate him they should have been watching him more closely. Shame on the New York Times.
The Man on the Airplane
On an airplane flight last night I sat next to a man from Texas. Granted, I live in Texas, but I have only been there about a year and half and can hardly claim to be "from Texas". Without divulging too much of a personal conversation, I had the following observation. Texas is great! This man came from the East Coast to live in Texas 16 years ago. Okay, he has also lived elsewhere, but his origins are on the East Coast. His favorite Texas bumper sticker? Something to the effect of 'I wasn't born in Texas, but I got here as quick as I could' Let's just say he was NOT ashamed that the President came from Texas. Carrier landing at sea? He loved it. The best part? He is educated and told me about all the cool cosmopolitan things to do in Texas. What a great person to share a flight with. Sort of dispels the assumption that Texas loves Bush only because it is full of rednecks.
Tax Cut
My friend on the airplane was all for the tax cut. Bush go for broke!
Ouch! I may be wrong, but doesn't this look bad? I know that the New York Times is supposedly the paper of record, but it looks like the record is somewhat suspect. Furthermore, they make it clear that they knew this guys was a loser for a long time. Jay Nordlinger says that at least the Times: "has not only engaged in (necessary) damage control, it has conducted itself admirably."
I really enjoy reading the things that Jay has to say, and I agree that the Times has been impressive in it's damage control, but let's be fair. There is nothing admirable about it. Admirable would have been firing him long ago instead of trying to rehabilitate him. And if they wanted to rehabilitate him they should have been watching him more closely. Shame on the New York Times.
The Man on the Airplane
On an airplane flight last night I sat next to a man from Texas. Granted, I live in Texas, but I have only been there about a year and half and can hardly claim to be "from Texas". Without divulging too much of a personal conversation, I had the following observation. Texas is great! This man came from the East Coast to live in Texas 16 years ago. Okay, he has also lived elsewhere, but his origins are on the East Coast. His favorite Texas bumper sticker? Something to the effect of 'I wasn't born in Texas, but I got here as quick as I could' Let's just say he was NOT ashamed that the President came from Texas. Carrier landing at sea? He loved it. The best part? He is educated and told me about all the cool cosmopolitan things to do in Texas. What a great person to share a flight with. Sort of dispels the assumption that Texas loves Bush only because it is full of rednecks.
Tax Cut
My friend on the airplane was all for the tax cut. Bush go for broke!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)