NewsCommonsense

Post Writers Read Obama’s Mind?

One of the greatest responsibilities a president has is to decide to send American women and men into combat.  He should make that decision on his own, after carefully considering all the information and opinions of his advisors.

Anne Kornblut and Greg Jaffe make a call I’m not sure they have enough evidence to make.  They seem to be reading Obama’s mind.

The military chiefs have been largely supportive of a resource request by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, that would by one Pentagon estimate require the deployment of 44,000 additional troops. But opinion among members of Obama's national security team is divided, and he now appears to be seeking a compromise solution that would satisfy both his military and civilian advisers. [emphasis added]

“Appears to be seeking a compromise”?  That, if true, is a damning observation, and surely will seized by Republican critics.  A president shouldn’t be arbiter-in-chief.  He shouldn’t “satisfy” his advisors. He should make the call based on what he thinks is right, not try to find middle ground among his advisors.

But that might not be the case, as there is nothing in the story to suggest he is looking for a compromise.  I’d love to know why Kornblut and Jaffe make that call.

Calling It Like She Sees It

Kudos to Lori Montgomery and her editors at The Washington Post for being objective, rather than a faux balance.  She writes about the House Democrats estimate for the cost of their healthcare plan.

Republicans on Capitol Hill are challenging an assertion by House leaders that their new health-care package comes in under President Obama's spending limit of $900 billion over the next decade. The true cost of the measure, the GOP argues, is more than $1 trillion.

A House leadership aide dismissed the charge as "GOP spin." But, in this case, the spin is essentially true. [emphasis added]

According to a preliminary estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, expanding coverage to an additional 36 million Americans would cost $1.055 trillion over the next decade under the House plan, counting tax breaks for small businesses, subsidies for low- and moderate-income families, and the largest expansion of Medicaid since its inception more than 40 years ago.

House leaders prefer to emphasize a different number: the net cost of expanding coverage. That's $1.055 trillion minus money that would be raised from penalties on people who failed to buy insurance and employers that failed to offer it. Those adjustments would bring the cost down to $894 billion over 10 years, just under Obama's limit.

You can argue who is right. This might not be the best example, but at least she is willing to make a call, something I wish more reporters were willing to do.

Baring All for Science

Exposing a woman’s breasts on mainstream media programs is not supposed to happen, short of a “wardrobe malfunction.”

But in a four-part report on [breast cancer] beginning Thursday night, WJLA, Channel 7 in Washington, will break TV's unspoken taboo by showing two women fully exposed on its late-afternoon and evening newscasts.

The station claims there isn’t enough, ahem, detail shown about how women should examine their breasts to catch the cancer early.  Oh, OK.  Well, if there’s a good reason….  In fact, there is a really, really, very good reason.

The reports will air on the first two days of TV's traditional "sweeps" month, a period in which stations air their most eye-catching stories to boost ratings that are used to set advertising rates.

Eye-catching, indeed. Nonetheless, station manager Bill Lord said that’s just a coincidence.  And besides,

Lord said he did not expect many viewer complaints, in part because the reports will be preceded by "viewer discretion" disclaimers. Further, he said, WJLA's 5 p.m. newscast follows "The Oprah Winfrey Show" and its 11 p.m. newscast on Thursday follows the ABC medical drama "Private Practice," both of which have audiences largely made up of women. On Friday, the 11 p.m. news follows "20/20," a news program that has an older following.

“[A]udiences largely made up of women”?  Not those nights, baby.  And the guys won’t be complaining.

Reportedly, next ratings period, the station is going to demonstrate, in detail, how you can catch syphilis. (OK.  That’s not true, but I’ll let you know if the station calls me to thank me for the idea.)

‘Dismal Quality of Many Big Papers’

There is much gnashing of teeth over the erosion of newspaper readers.  Former Washington Post online journalist Mark Potts says sure the economy and the Internet are reasons for the slide, but

Probably hardest to measure, but certainly a factor in the decline, is the increasingly dismal quality of many big papers as the result of slashing staff cuts over the past couple of years (and don't expect those cuts to be over, especially with ongoing declines like these circulation figures). Many American dailies, not very good to begin with, are turning into virtual shoppers; even the best papers are noticeably reduced versions of their former selves, as coverage has been pruned and sections shrunken or dropped. Readers clearly are noticing.

Indeed, they are noticing.  But beyond being “reduced versions of their former selves,” newspapers are abandoning their role as seekers of truth.  They instead trying to be “balanced.”  “He said, she said” and using labels to mark people, ideas and organizations leaves most readers lost in their search for solid information.

Strike Out Political Labels

What does a label do for a story?  Liberal, moderate, conservative.  Describing a person, idea or organization with such labels is epidemic in many media.  To what end?  And in the journalistic interest of brevity, can they be deleted without harming the story?

This morning’s Washington Post story about Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) including a public option in the healthcare bill has the word liberal or moderate in the story.  (Notably, there was no use of the word conservative.)

It’s as if the reporters want to signal to readers what they should think about an idea by labeling it as liberal, conservative or moderate.  What other use can they have?

Look at the sentences below from the story and tell me what would be lost if they were either eliminated or replaced by a neutral term?  (I’ve struck out instances of those words and replaced some with bold type.)

Reid's decision was a reversal from two weeks ago, when the Nevada Democrat appeared inclined to set aside the idea -- among the most divisive in the reform debate -- in an attempt to avoid alienating some in the party moderates.

Engineered by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) as a compromise between moderates those who want a smaller government role and liberals those who prefer a single-payer system, the opt-out proposal is so new to the reform debate that it was never put to a vote during weeks of deliberations by two Senate committees.

Moderate Some Democrats in both the House and Senate are leery of a public insurance plan, calling it an overly aggressive expansion of government that could eventually place new pressures on the federal budget.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid announced Monday that he will include a government-backed insurance plan in the chamber's health-care reform legislation, a key concession to liberals senators who have threatened to oppose a bill without such a public option.

In a speech at the liberal Center for American Progress, Romer said a public option would serve as "a potentially important source of cost containment" by offering consumers "a competitive, alternative choice, constraining the ability of insurers to raise premiums, and thus containing the growth rate of costs."

Liberal Senators who had threatened to vote against a bill with no public option said they are pleased with Reid's compromise.

While Democrats praised its ability to control costs, the opt-out public plan represents a much less dramatic approach to federal coverage intervention than liberal advocates had sought -- or insurance companies had feared.

I would imagine if you want people to make clear decisions on issues, don’t prejudice the reader by describing the ideas as coming from one end of the spectrum or the other.  If an idea is preceded by “liberal,” conservatives will likely dismiss without considering it, and vice versa.  Besides, what purpose do the labels have in objective, tightly edited stories?

The labels are imprecise at best.  What is a conservative?  What makes a liberal?  What if someone is pro gun ownership, wants to reduce entitlements and supports continuing involvement in Afghanistan?  Does that make me a conservative?

Front Page?

The Washington Post has a front page story about a Foreign Service officer resigning in protest against the Afghan War.  I didn’t read but the first graph or so but thought it odd that a relatively junior officer would deserve that newsprint position. 

Well regarded former Post reporter Tom Ricks, asked this morning on The Diane Rehm Show on NPR if The Post  overplayed the story, said,

“Yes. Oh my god, who’s going to run the office copy machine?  I don’t think [the State Dept.] trusts this guy with the men’s room key yet.

‘Obnoxiously Articulate’?

This is pretty funny.

In short, {AP’s Liz] Sidoti criticized Obama in early September for failing to "articulate his vision" on health care. Obama then gave a nationally televised speech laying out his position on the issue and continued to speak out about health care and other issues in the following weeks. The result? Sidoti suggests that he is "obnoxiously articulate" because he hasn't "stop[ped] talking about his goals." In other words: heads I win, tails you lose.

A Call for Brauchli to Resign

As Washington Post editor Marcus Brauchli tries to minimize the damage from the salon affairs, calls are beginning for his departure.

As managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, he had allowed Rupert Murdoch, the paper's new owner, to push him around -- and ultimately out the door -- in contravention of the editorial-independence framework that the News Corp. (NWS) owner had agreed to. Rather than sound the alarm, Brauchli held his tongue, his amiable silence purchased by $3 million (or more) of Murdoch's money.

…This is serious. This isn't about journalistic judgment; it's about integrity. Brauchli was given a chance to take responsibility, and he responded by falling back on the exact sort of obfuscation and hair-splitting that newspapers like his exist to demolish. And he's still doing it: In a chat with Post readers today, Brauchli faulted himself for failing to see to it that the salons were marketed correctly, but said nothing about his own role in propagating the "misunderstanding." No doubt he's a fine journalist in many regards, but the top editor of an institution like The Washington Post -- one of a handful of great American newspapers, and the first line of defense against government perfidy -- has to be more than just a fine journalist. He has to be a paragon.

Brauchli will probably survive this episode, if only because his boss, at whose pleasure he serves, shares his culpability. But he should offer his resignation.

Why Is the Obama Administration Attacking Fox News?

Conventional wisdom is that attacking Fox News does little for the Obama administration.  It energizes about one-fifth of the population, let alone Fox CEO Roger Ailes and owner Rupert Murdoch.  It’s not just to play to Obama’s base. 

The Obama guys are smart.  What is the thinking behind their attacks?

Pat Buchanan highlighted a truth the mainstream media is loathed to promote:  They are culpable to pressure to emphasize conservative views. 

“I know when we hit the New York Times, for example, in the 60s, all of sudden they blossomed with an op-ed page that had some conservatives on it and had conservative voices on it, and all the other newspapers did as well,” [said Pat Buchanan on the Chris Matthews show yesterday about his efforts while in the Nixon administration].

Whether that kind of public admonishment would work against conservative media such as Fox News is debatable. I can’t imagine Rupert Murdoch caving to this kind of pressure from the Obama administration. 

During the segment below, Matthews made the claim that Fox has journalists who do not reflect an agenda in their reporting.  He cited specifically Major Garrett, Shepherd Smith and Britt Hume. I don’t know much about Garrett’s or Smith’s reporting.  It’s hard not to see Hume as biased, however, despite his past as a reporter.  In any case, if some of these more objective journalists feel frozen out, their only choice will likely be to find another job.

But despite the comments coming from the White House, David Axelrod said the administration would continue to appear on their shows.  He didn’t say which.

While Buchanan defended the administration’s right to attack Fox, he said in this case it would be counterproductive.  He also made this comment about his efforts against the New York Times, “We did it out of necessity, not out of some kind of planning.”  I’m not sure what that means.  It may be that Obama thinks it is necessary to reign in Fox News.

A more plausible reason is to send a warning shot to mainstream media:  If you start bloviating against me, I’ll freeze you out, or at least disparage you publicly.  Journalists live and die for access.

But I suspect that the real message is this:  Fox can say whatever it wants, but we’re tired of the MSM picking up every charge Fox makes and taking it seriously. 

For example, the death panels.  Because they can get hundreds of people to show up making an absurd charge doesn’t mean the MSM should give it credence by covering it all out of proportion.  The recent announcement by the editor of The Washington Post that it would more carefully monitor Fox and right-wing talk radio to make sure their views are reflected in The Post’s  coverage is disturbing.  What that means, of course, is that if an outlet has the backing of large enough caches of cash to make noise, their views are examined.

Much of the August town hall meeting shenanigans and a lot of the opposition to health care are fueled by very rich people.  (The same can be said of liberal views, but I would suspect there is less money behind them.)  But the lesson is clear.  Find enough money to make a lot of public noise and your viewpoints are elevated, while those voices without access to cash are muted or ignored.  I suspect that’s where the Obama administration may want a more level playing field.  It's not a beanball thrown at Fox so much as it's a brush backpitch at MSM.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

 

What Does Off-the Record Mean?

What we say it means, seems to be the answer from Marcus Brauchli, editor of The Washington Post, who was challenged today in his online chat about what he knew, when he knew it and how does he describe what he knew in connection with the flap that continues to haunt The Post.

When the political paper of record was caught selling access for anonymity, Brauchli tried to claim ignorance.  He said at the time that he didn’t know the salon sessions (pronounced sa-lahn se-shahn, I presume) were “off the record.”  According to a “correction” at the New York Times, he did.

On Sept. 12, an article in The Times reported that Charles Pelton, the marketing executive at the center of the plans, had resigned from The Post. That article, referring again to Mr. Brauchli’s comments at the time, reported that he said he had not understood that the dinners would be off the record.

However, in a subsequent letter to Mr. Pelton — which was sent to The Times by Mr. Pelton’s lawyer — Mr. Brauchli now says that he did indeed know that the dinners were being promoted as “off the record,” and that he and Mr. Pelton had discussed that issue.

During an online discussion, a reader took him to task, accusing Brauchli of lying.  Brauchli objected to that characterization.

When these events were planned, we intended that the information from them would inform and shape our coverage, without attribution. That is not, under our rules, off the record. They were later promoted as "off the record," and I knew that before July 2. As I have said repeatedly since then, I failed to reconcile the language and the intentions, which I should have done. The notion that I lied to the New York Times "hoping not to get caught" is absurd.

What does “information from them would inform and shape our coverage, without attribution” mean?  Off the record, I think most journalists would agree, is that which can inform the coverage but without informing us.  In other words, when information is given off the record you can’t give that information to readers, whether you identify the source or not. But certainly if a reporter believes the information to be true, she is not going to write something that contradicts it.  Rather, most reporters will use that information to get other sources to corroborate it on the record.

Brauchli seems to be splitting hairs.  I’ll look forward to hearing others’ views on this.