The New York Times reports that Gov. Andrew Cuomo is "self-editing" files in a state archive to remove (read: "sanitize") material that could tarnish his record/image as New York State attorney general and possible candidate for higher office.
In Washington, the Justice Department insists that documents remain classified, even as these same documents are publicly available on Wikileaks. Thus, lawyers for Pvt. Bradley Manning, the man accused of leaking the documents, cannot see the "evidence" that the government is using against him.
In Houston, a federal judge complains that law enforcement agencies are monitoring cellphone and email records so they can know the location and contacts of users they are investigating, and the agencies continue to keep secret the contact data (but not the content) gathered in these surveillances.
All three stories appeared on the same day, Tuesday, July 24, 2012.
Or should we say 1984?
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Friday, July 6, 2012
Bloops
BEWARE OF ABSOLUTES -- "No President since FDR has won re-election with an unemployment rate above 7 percent." Or so said a report by NBC News July 6. This is true as far as it goes, but it doesn't really go very far. It neglects to mention the number of presidential re-election years since FDR when the jobless rate was indeed above 7 percent, and it does not indicate how many incumbents were defeated under that cloud. It's also wrong, since Ronald Reagan was re-elected in 1984, when the jobless rate was 7.5 percent.
There have been 20 presidential elections since 1936, when FDR faced a Great Depression-era unemployment rate of an estimated 25 percent. (No one knows for sure, since there was no system for gathering the data.) Since then, there have been seven re-election campaigns, and only two (1980, 1984) when the unemployment rate was above 7 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In 1980, incumbent Jimmy Carter (jobless rate that year 7.1 percent) lost to Ronald Reagan. However, there were many other factors that contributed to his defeat.
ABSOLUTES, PART TWO -- A few months ago, pundits were fond of saying that Jimmy Carter was "the only Democratic incumbent President to lose a re-election bid since 1888." True, but in stressing that fact, the pundits neglected to mention the five Republican incumbents who lost. They Benjamin Harrison, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush.
Nitpicker's note: Gerald Ford was never elected, but he did lose his bid to continue the term he picked up when Richard Nixon resigned.
Using the years since FDR as a guideline, that leaves only two presidents -- Carter and Bush Sr. -- who have lost re-election bids.
RAIN, RAIN -- NBC reported that firefighters in the American West were hoping for a "monsoon" to help douse the many wildfires wreaking havoc in the region. Heavy rains would help, of course, but monsoons only occur in Southeast Asia. Unless the government of India has found a way to export their weather.
BEARING UP -- On July 3, the Philadelphia ABC affiliate carried footage of "three bear cubs hibernating in a car." Not to put too fine a point on it, but "hibernate" comes from the Latin word for winter, when bears sleep through the cold season. Bears do not "hibernate" in midsummer.
K-MAN QUESTION -- Our West Coast island correspondent asks when to use the pronouns "who" and "that." Older style manuals said to use "who" for people and "that" for everything else. However, animal lovers do not think of their dogs and cats as things. So, let's modify the rule to specify "who" for living creatures and "that" for inanimate objects.
HAPPY THOUGHT -- From Nora Ephron: "When your children are teenagers, it's important to have a dog so that someone in the house is happy to see you."
There have been 20 presidential elections since 1936, when FDR faced a Great Depression-era unemployment rate of an estimated 25 percent. (No one knows for sure, since there was no system for gathering the data.) Since then, there have been seven re-election campaigns, and only two (1980, 1984) when the unemployment rate was above 7 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In 1980, incumbent Jimmy Carter (jobless rate that year 7.1 percent) lost to Ronald Reagan. However, there were many other factors that contributed to his defeat.
ABSOLUTES, PART TWO -- A few months ago, pundits were fond of saying that Jimmy Carter was "the only Democratic incumbent President to lose a re-election bid since 1888." True, but in stressing that fact, the pundits neglected to mention the five Republican incumbents who lost. They Benjamin Harrison, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush.
Nitpicker's note: Gerald Ford was never elected, but he did lose his bid to continue the term he picked up when Richard Nixon resigned.
Using the years since FDR as a guideline, that leaves only two presidents -- Carter and Bush Sr. -- who have lost re-election bids.
RAIN, RAIN -- NBC reported that firefighters in the American West were hoping for a "monsoon" to help douse the many wildfires wreaking havoc in the region. Heavy rains would help, of course, but monsoons only occur in Southeast Asia. Unless the government of India has found a way to export their weather.
BEARING UP -- On July 3, the Philadelphia ABC affiliate carried footage of "three bear cubs hibernating in a car." Not to put too fine a point on it, but "hibernate" comes from the Latin word for winter, when bears sleep through the cold season. Bears do not "hibernate" in midsummer.
K-MAN QUESTION -- Our West Coast island correspondent asks when to use the pronouns "who" and "that." Older style manuals said to use "who" for people and "that" for everything else. However, animal lovers do not think of their dogs and cats as things. So, let's modify the rule to specify "who" for living creatures and "that" for inanimate objects.
HAPPY THOUGHT -- From Nora Ephron: "When your children are teenagers, it's important to have a dog so that someone in the house is happy to see you."
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Retaliation
RUDENESS, PART TWO -- A radio talk show host in Ireland decided she would take up the cause for individuals who had issues with government officials, and call the officials, live and on the air, every week until the problem was resolved. However, in due time the officials stopped taking her calls, and eventually she lost her job, even as she insisted that as a journalist she had a right to ask whatever she wanted. Other government officials backed their colleague, resulting in a boycott of the station by government spokesmen.
Management claimed that programming changes happen regularly, and the shifting of the talk show host had nothing to do with the controversy.
Yeah, right, said our correspondence Dinty Ramble.
A consequence of rude behavior, such as the talk show host who became a pest, is that people stopped taking her calls. She was correct that she had the right to ask anything at any time. But the subject has the right not to answer. Both have consequences. For the politician, the consequence is to be thought evasive. For the talk show host, the consequence is to lose her job.
Management claimed that programming changes happen regularly, and the shifting of the talk show host had nothing to do with the controversy.
Yeah, right, said our correspondence Dinty Ramble.
A consequence of rude behavior, such as the talk show host who became a pest, is that people stopped taking her calls. She was correct that she had the right to ask anything at any time. But the subject has the right not to answer. Both have consequences. For the politician, the consequence is to be thought evasive. For the talk show host, the consequence is to lose her job.
Other point: A talk show host is just that, an opinionator. To wrap herself in the cloak of "journalism" is not appropriate. At the same time, expose journalism (it was called muckraking in the 19th Century) can bring about change. The book "The Jungle," about unsanitary conditions and abuses in the meatpacking industry, brought about the Pure Food and Drug Act. The New York Times last month had a series about half-way houses in New Jersey where convicts regularly escaped and committed further crimes while out, and even documented cases where the inmate gangs were running the show. The owners of the numerous institutions had close ties to Gov. Christie. The series prompted a state investigation.
I once wrote a series about abusive practices in the mortgage lending industry, which resulted in stiffer regulations by the NJ State Banking Commission.
Bottom line: The talk show host had a good idea, trying to embarrass the government into fixing a problem, but she went too far. Or it could be that the government leaned on radion station managment. That's been done, also. Example: The Nixon Administration threatened to lift the TV broadcast license of the Washington Post, and also put the FBI on Woodward and Bernstein's activities to dig up stuff to be used against them.
Worldwide, governments often lean on the media to get favorable coverage and/or to prevent disclosure of information the pols deem harmful.
But as Thomas Jefferson said, given the choice of newspapers without government or government without newspapers, he would take the former. He was not, however, in office at the time. Later, when he was in office, there was the Sedition Act, which made it a criminal offense to criticize the government.
Embarrassment is a powerful weapon, and to a large extent is the only weapon journalism has.
The more things change ....
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Christie Minstrelsy
ADVICE to NJ Gov. Chris Christie -- Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. To call a news reporter "stupid" in public only adds evidence to the already prevalent notion that you are a bully. And the louder you call someone "stupid," the more ink and broadcast time that screed will generate.
In America, anyone -- including journalists -- can ask any question of anybody -- especially politicians -- at any time. You have the right not to answer, and you have the right -- short of slander and libel -- to verbally retaliate with labels such as "stupid." However, the right of free speech also carries with it the responsibility for the consequences of what you say.
Ordinary courtesy calls for restraint, and political astuteness stipulates that to insult a reporter is most unwise. Equally rude, moreover, is when a reporter interrupts a government official during formal remarks, as happened recently to President Obama.
Courtesy on both sides is in order. But for those in public office, "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
ADVOCATE VS ADVERSARY -- Too often, business and political leaders believe that if someone is not an advocate for their position, that person is automatically an adversary. Good journalists are neither. Reporters as tough questions because they need to be asked, in a continuing effort to supply the public with information they need to know. Not what they want to know, but what they need to know.
Recently, TV interviewers have been putting more pointed questions to politicians, and have been pressing for answers when the pol tries to evade, avoid or dance around the question. It's a gratifying change, especially when the reporter is courteous while pressing for an answer.
America was built in a spirit of compromise. Operating from an "us versus them" base creates a "no surrender" environment that can poison for many decades -- even centuries -- any hope for a peaceful society. Northern Ireland and Palestine are two examples of such a poisonous atmosphere. There may be hope in Ulster, however, after a handshake show of friendship between the queen and a former rebel commander. It only took 400 years.
In America, anyone -- including journalists -- can ask any question of anybody -- especially politicians -- at any time. You have the right not to answer, and you have the right -- short of slander and libel -- to verbally retaliate with labels such as "stupid." However, the right of free speech also carries with it the responsibility for the consequences of what you say.
Ordinary courtesy calls for restraint, and political astuteness stipulates that to insult a reporter is most unwise. Equally rude, moreover, is when a reporter interrupts a government official during formal remarks, as happened recently to President Obama.
Courtesy on both sides is in order. But for those in public office, "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
ADVOCATE VS ADVERSARY -- Too often, business and political leaders believe that if someone is not an advocate for their position, that person is automatically an adversary. Good journalists are neither. Reporters as tough questions because they need to be asked, in a continuing effort to supply the public with information they need to know. Not what they want to know, but what they need to know.
Recently, TV interviewers have been putting more pointed questions to politicians, and have been pressing for answers when the pol tries to evade, avoid or dance around the question. It's a gratifying change, especially when the reporter is courteous while pressing for an answer.
America was built in a spirit of compromise. Operating from an "us versus them" base creates a "no surrender" environment that can poison for many decades -- even centuries -- any hope for a peaceful society. Northern Ireland and Palestine are two examples of such a poisonous atmosphere. There may be hope in Ulster, however, after a handshake show of friendship between the queen and a former rebel commander. It only took 400 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)