Seattle Times News Room Politics

I thought this was an interesting piece posted by David Postman on his Seattle Times "Postman on Politics" blog. Apparently, a number of people were pretty enthused about a certain resignation as of late (Postman quoting Seattle Times Executive Editor Dave Boardman):

When word came in of Karl Rove's resignation, several people in the meeting
started cheering. That sort of expression is simply not appropriate for a
newsroom.

At first, I kind of agreed with Boardman on this one. But the more I think about it, the less I consider it faux pas. I think this poses a couple of questions about journalistic integrity and bias in general.

I know journalists aren't supposed to be biased. Or at least they aren't supposed to make their biases apparent. This is considered to be a mainstay of an open democracy - the fourth estate which keeps the rest of the powers-that-be in check by informing citizens as to what's going on. Of course, everyone is biased. It's ridiculous to think that journalists are somehow above personal preference. Now, I don't think anyone seriously contends that journalists should be above political preferences (well, at least, normally functioning people don't), but what people do think is of critical importance is that the news media not actively engage in public opinion manipulation.

I'm not really sure what I think when it comes to this. Bias exists, and its impossible to get rid of, nor do I think we should try. The personal preferences of journalists, news readers, editors, producers, and corporate big-wigs are naturally going to skew the kind of coverage and content that their papers and news programs produce. Since Neil Cavuto is a heartless pervert, his show is full of pieces on why taking care of poor people hurts America, and gratuitous shots of Hooters girls' and female correspondents' cleavage (here, here, and here). I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing (although, when it comes to Cavuto...). On one level, it's important for the news media to collect information, and to contextualize it. If the President claims something that is patently false, a reporter has the responsibility to say that, hey, this is incorrect. If the Federal Reserve raises interest rates it is the job of the reporter to explain how that affects home owners, consumers, and workers, otherwise it means nothing to the reading/watching public at large. "Just the facts ma'am" doesn't cut it when it comes to informing people; sure, the President said something, but so what? What does it mean? Is it true? What are the possible consequences? Journalism, as I understand it, is not about repeating what is said, or what has happened, but is more about digesting information and showing its importance. Of course, when one relies only on a single news source, this becomes problematic, since those preferences held by the journalists, news readers, producers, and corporate big-wigs threaten to be adopted wholly by the information consumer. This is the inherent risk in media ownership consolidation.

But bias? I just don't think it's that big a deal.

Now, here's something with which I take issue; news organizations claiming that, somehow, they're above it all. Now, let me differentiate between bias and opinion. Bias usually affects news content; what is covered, how it's covered, and the priorities of story placement. Opinions are normative; this is good, that is bad, this thing does or does not matter. Opinions have no place in news reading, but are fine in editorial sections (i.e. Bill O'Reilly's opinions, however stupid, are fine. Brit Hume's, when reading the news, are not). What bugs me the most about Fox News is that they claim, daily, to be unbiased - fair and balanced. That is ridiculous. The idea that Fox doesn't succumb to the biases of the news media is insulting. But, you know, so what, right? I mean, they're only deluding themselves... right? RIGHT!?

Unfortunately, the way Fox goes about address bias misinforms their consumers as to what constitutes bias and opinion. Their rhetoric only works toward consolidating their viewership and increasing their market share. Of course, as a business, this is Fox's job. However, instead of competing in the realm of journalism by providing better analysis or more comprehensive coverage, they just deride their competition and try to undercut everyone else's credibility (have you ever heard O'Reilly talk about the print media? He basically lists everything that printed on paper as part of the "Secular-Progressive Crowd" whatever that is). Unsurprisingly, this is akin to the Republicans questioning the patriotism of Democrats every time they try to address legitimate concerns about runaway military spending or curtailed civil liberties; it's not about issues, it's about market share.

So, when the Seattle Times news room expresses its joy that Karl Rove has departed 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, so long as they aren't lying in their news pieces, so what?

Does anyone think I'm off base here? There are lots of fine publications that are obviously biased. The Economist, Mother Jones, Harper's, the Atlantic, Foreign Policy... I dunno, maybe even the Weekly Standard (although, I think the line must drawn somewhere, and I call that line "LYING", so the Standard is probably excluded). We still read them, and they offer lots of really good information and analysis, but they still have their biases.

There's more: "Seattle Times News Room Politics" >>

Hillary Plays Political Checkers With Roveless White House

As I reported yesterday Hillary Clinton has put up her first Iowa TV ad of the season.

At the time I suggested you notice the target of the ad. It wasn't Obama. It wasn't Edwards. It wasn't any of the Republican candidates. It was the only target I would have picked if I were in Hillary's shoes.

Today the target struck back through his spokeswoman Dana Perino.

Well, this is going to be tricky going into the campaign season, when people start running ads, because as tempted as I am to take that head on, I think I will refer to the R.N.C. for the specific — for answers on the politics of it. But as to the merits of it, I think it’s outrageous. This is a president who, first and foremost, has helped millions of seniors across the country have access to prescription drugs at a much lower cost. That system that the president put in — helped put in place, with the help of both sides of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, Medicare Part D, is helping millions of people, and working better than anyone would have expected. In addition to that, the president has tried to take on the issue at the root cause of it, and tried to change our health care system so that we actually are helping provide less expensive but still great quality care to people all over the country.

And as to whether or not our troops are invisible to this president, I think that that is absurd, and that is unconscionable that a member of Congress would say such a thing.

According to the DesMoines Register Hillary Clinton replied.

“The White House just attacked me a few minutes ago saying how dare I say that Americans weren’t visible to the president,” Clinton told a crowd of more than 800 in Dubuque today. “I’ve said it and I will keep saying it because I happen to believe it.”

Last evening Chris Bowers at OpenLeft watched the ad three times and said it was boring. Chris, I don't think Dana would agree.

The New York Times political blogger Patrick Healy seems to think

The Clinton campaign likes few things more than taunting a rival into attacking Mrs. Clinton — allowing her advisers, in turn, to say that Mrs. Clinton is under assault by this opponent or that one (in this case, the “right wing attack machine”). The Clinton camp cites these episodes in fund-raising letters and other literature to try to energize Democrats to support her fighting spirit.

Hillary wins this round. Thank you very much Dana. I doubt Tony Snow would have risen to the bait. I have a hunch that unlike Tony, who is merely an unprincipled hack, you are a true believer, a real loyal Bushie.

If you haven't watched the ad, here it is again. Chris, I would suggest you watch it again too. If this isn't a Jimmy Seigal ad I would be surprised. Althought I have to admit the David Strathairn as Edward R. Murrow ad is one of the best I have ever seen anywhere at any time, the top of the line pros at the helm of Team Clinton don't put up ads merely for the amusement of us bloggers. It is too early for all the attack ads. It is too early for David Strathairn. The time is just right for this Hillary ad.

There's more: "Hillary Plays Political Checkers With Roveless White House" >>

More FISA follies

Stop me before I Photoshop again.

There's more: "More FISA follies" >>

Repeat After Me: Bush Killed the Fourth Amendment

UPDATE Below

No surprise Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, is parroting the maladministration's lies on the Gut FISA And The Fourth Amendment For Good Measure Act, but for the record:

Speaking to the national Fraternal Order of Police conference (in Louisville Monday), the Kentucky Republican hailed the update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, saying "we're safer for it."

"Now to me, the idea that we were supposed to extend the Bill of Rights to a bunch of noncitizens overseas, let alone terrorists, wasn't only dangerous, it was the height of stupidity," McConnell said, drawing applause from the police group.

Remind me not to donate to the FOP this year.

To the Courier-Journal's minimal credit, they did indulge in some he-said-she-said stenography:

Civil liberties groups and some Democrats have said the measure went too far, and could enable the government to wiretap U.S. residents communicating with people overseas without adequate oversight from courts or Congress.

"This law has basically given the government the right to scoop up those communications without a warrant," Caroline Fredrickson, legislative director of the national American Civil Liberties Union, said in a phone interview Monday.

How much do we regret not strangling in the cradle the "Iraq (hearts) Al Qaeda" meme and the "Mushroom Cloud" meme and the "Liberals Want Us To Lose In Iraq" meme and all the other lies we let slide because we couldn't believe anybody with the brains FSM gave a walnut would believe them?

We have to put a stop to this "We're Only Spying on Terrorists" meme right now this instant.

It's not going to be easy. I spent my lunch hour today explaining to a highly intelligent, well-informed, very liberal co-worker that the "FISA revision" was actually the removal of privacy rights for American citizens. This co-worker hates Smirky, hates repugs, hates the war, would vote for Satan if he ran as a Democrat. But he couldn't believe that Congress would actually approve a bill that gave the president - any president - the right to spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.

He did make one good point - people don't believe their rights have been removed until that removal affects their lives directly.

So how do we bring this home to people? How do we make them believe their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor are once again on the line?

UPDATE 7:20 p.m.: Always read the blog first. Looks like Gadfly may have discovered exactly the issue we need to bring this home to people.

There's more: "Repeat After Me: Bush Killed the Fourth Amendment" >>

Straw Poll Eyewitness

Here is a link to a good post by a friend of mine who voted in the GOP straw poll last weekend. He found several aspects of the event disappointing. Chuck used to write a column for the Des Moines Register called "Iowa Boy". He also used to be a (Catholic) Democrat but changed largely because of his strong opposition to abortion. Otherwise, he is as moderate as a Republican can be. Here is a snippet of his observations:

Huckabee seems to me to have veered to the right – even for a conservative like he is – with his rigid positions on the war, the Middle East, immigration reform. I think he has pandered to the Fair Tax crowd and the National Rifle Association. Still, he has run a fun campaign here, using his strong sense of humor, his exceptional speaking ability, stories about how he lost 110 pounds in recent years, and his playing the bass guitar in his own rock ’n’ roll band.

Click on through for some more of his perspective on the campaign.

Update: Here is his report on the John Edwards appearance in Jefferson, Iowa today.

There's more: "Straw Poll Eyewitness" >>

THIS is why “free trade” with China is a bum steer

Oh, sure, all the Democratic presidential candidates will bleat like angry sheep right now about slaves in Chinese factories, but what will they do about this:

China is still freeing people including children forced to work as slaves in illegal brick factories, two months after the scandal involving the brick yards was exposed, officials said Monday.

The scandal erupted in early June after Chinese media reported that children as young as 8 were abducted or recruited from bus and train stations with false promises of well-paying jobs and sold to kilns for about $65.

after Jan. 20, 2009?

There's more: "THIS is why “free trade” with China is a bum steer" >>