Journalism 101: Sources of Misinformation

 
From Billy Wilder's Ace in the Hole to the final season of HBO's The Wire (with the chillingly prophetic Network in between), there has been a large number of narratives spelling out the numerous dangers that can occur when members of the free press lose sight of the discipline their vocation requires and start playing havoc with the rules. Think about this, the journalists' role as laymen who speak truth to power and the populace is so vaunted that they have become an archetype that could be used in cautionary tales.

Given that, how did we come to this?

For the click-averse, the link leads you to Richard Pérez-Peña's NYT article about the, admittedly brilliant, hoaxters Eitan Gorlin and Dan Mirvish, who have created a conservative mouthpiece (serving several roles in the movement, from simple Giuliani supporter, to McCain advisor) out of whole cloth. With this simple, yet elaborate, ruse, they managed to snooker a surprising number of political publications and legitimate news sources; this list includes MSNBC, The New Republic, the LA Times, and Mother Jones.

What's alarming about all of this is that the tenet being ignored here is one of the most basic in the world of journalism: Verify Your Sources. Here's a question: If this essential step is being played fast and loose with, what else is going by the way side?

Obviously, there are many factors at play here. The institutional desire not to miss out on a hot story, and the 24 hour news cycle's dependence on said hot story in order to remain relevant play a large part in the problem. So does the Atwater/Rove/Cheney/Schmidt school of manipulating the media; and it's doubtful that we would be this far gone without the existence of Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Ollie North and FOXNews.

However, the real problem here is that it's been around for so long that we have become somewhat inured to it. This problem first reared its head when Rush and Newt's army caused a stir with Vince Foster's suicide and other Whitewater insinuations; they took a situation that looked somewhat hinky and turned it into Something Very Shady. The media bought in not long thereafter by colluding with the right wing and creating the hugely overblown Lewinski scandal (no pun intended), where an intern's stain on a dress almost got a president impeached. The French still chortle about this one.

From there it was a mere hop, skip and a jump to having Rove and Cheney feed items like "flip-flopper," "invented the internet," "president you could have a beer with," "Hussein supports Al Quaida," "yellow cake," "mission accomplished," Valerie Plame, "Swiftboat Vets," et. al. directly onto the front page.

You'd think with this track record, in addition to the enormous embarrassments that were Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass and Jeff Gannon (along with the recent bit of Bush White House chicanery, the placing of Pentagon mouthpieces in positions to spout right wing propaganda directly to news organizations), that responsible journalists in the media would've learned their lesson. Alas, as Salon's Glenn Greenwald often points out, there are no repercussions for these failings.

What used to be grounds for dismissal is now dismissed with a shrug and a handy platitude for an excuse; either "we should've done our job better" or "we only report this because it's what people want to know," depending on the situation. Then it's only a matter of coasting along until the next kerfuffle pops up.

Seems like all of that fun had at Sarah Palin's expense for not verifying they were speaking to Sarkozy was a bit premature, eh, guys?

Then again, if offenders were forced to adhere to a month of Limbaugh's diet, we wouldn't have to worry about the problem for too long. (See what I did there?)
---

Update - For the record, Gorlin and Mirvish did not fabricate the "Sara Palin did not know Africa was a continent" story. Apparently, that is still all too real. - TBO

From The Grave: Lee Atwater

 
I watched Tuesday night, fueled by a couple of thimblefuls of Courvoisier, the delineation of Lee Atwater’s Machiavellian short life on PBS’ “Frontline.” The film was helmed by Emmy-nominated director Stephan Forbes, known for his documentary “One More Dead Fish,” about renegade anglers in Nova Scotia struggling to survive globalization.

I was quite familiar with Mr. Atwater’s controversial, sometimes racially-charged political tactics that helped elect H.W. Bush and inspired protégés like Karl Rove and Robert Edgeworth. Atwater’s fierce methods transformed politics into ultra blood sport, and his blueprint was perfectly, albeit unsuccessfully, carried on by the McCain/Palin campaign just recently. What I didn’t realize, after having been exposed to twenty-plus years of unfair and dirty Republican vitriol toward progressive adversaries, was the absolute, almost perfect Dickensian tragic flow to Mr. Atwater’s life. In fact, before last night I wasn’t even sure he had died. Shame on me, I know.

Disgusted by Atwater’s tactics, I truly believe I relegated him to the cellars of my political and social consciousness, refusing to follow any subject related to him or his life. But something odd happened to me. During the ninety minutes that outlined his meteoric rise and deplorable demise, I went from visibly flashing the middle finger to the screen, several times calling him a despicable parasite and a first-class dick, to a deliberate pause and reflection on the always personal tragedy that is one’s life. There is no doubt he was a complicated man---as most successful political operatives are---and I realized that banishing him to a one-dimensional monster would only confirm a personal blind allegiance and heavy bias.

In his last days, pumped and swollen to an unrecognizable cyclopean appearance by steroids and chemicals used to treat a malignant brain tumor, Lee Atwater renounced his aggressive, mud-slinging tactics, and sought repentance. Some (like me, initially) will say this request for providence may have come too late. In fact, mercy from above via men and women of cloth is almost always sought on deathbeds, but more reflection upon an individual life is needed in order to pass final judgment. Personally, the single most eye-opening realization came when Ed Rollins, former Reagan campaign director and long time Republican political advisor, described how a dying Mr. Atwater asked for a copy of the Bible---to the surprise of all who knew him. But how, in the hours following his death, gathering up his personal belongings and items, they found the holy book untouched, still wrapped in sealed plastic. In the end, Lee Atwater was true to his religious beliefs (or lack thereof).

I felt the same strange, forgiving sensibility watching the execution of Saddam Hussein, as well as the demise of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu before the firing squad in December of 1989. Without argument these three were despicable human beings who ruthlessly murdered hundreds of thousands---if not millions, yet I somehow felt melancholic and sullen watching their final moments of life taken by perhaps equally-flawed judge penitents. I suppose a fundamental sadness and sorrow for humanity’s fierceness either way will always be present within me. I suppose in a strange way I should rejoice at that---it proves I still have a heart. And hope for an advanced civilization.

"Lee Atwater made himself a figure of demonology to psych out his opponents and anesthetize people to his tactics. And the sad part -- some people would say the justified part -- was that the role that he made for himself literally ended up imprisoning him."
--Howard Fineman, Senior Editor, Newsweek.

ObamasList.com: For Sale

 
After years of muddy-window transparency from the Bush administration, I welcome with open arms the notion that Obama will use as many channels of communication as possible to reach out and dialogue with the nation. I don't suppose the younger and more wired of us, meaning anyone younger than Wolf Blitzer and more adept at explaining the internet than The Alaskan Felon, were really astonished by Obama's online tactics, but I have to admit I hadn't really considered how it might carry over into the communication policies of the new administration.

So, I dove into the Washington Post article, prepared to be hopeful and energized by a new dawn of real transparency, or at least a bold step towards it, or, hell, after the last eight years, a stumbling totter in the right direction. And I was brought up short, a full-on "eh, what now?", by this passage early on (emphasis mine):

"The nucleus of that effort is an e-mail database of more than 10 million supporters. The list is considered so valuable that the Obama camp briefly offered it as collateral during a cash-flow crunch late in the campaign, though it wound up never needing the loan, senior aides said. "

Now, were these lists to be considered really private, they'd have no value, as they could never be used. The very fact that they have value, enough to be used as collateral, implies that they are able to be used for other purposes. Is that what you thought when you signed up?

I understand well that the cause was a noble one, but this feels a little like scooping the pennies from the fountain. The people that joined his movement online had dreams, and I imagine none of them were to be collateral priced out for its marketing value.

Yet this was just an unaddressed aside in the article.

Maybe I'm making too big a deal of this, and it certainly doesn't make me believe less in this man or the potential of his administration. But, I also feel as though he should be called on it, not because it is so damning, but in order for it to become another point of dialogue.

Because the online access to the administration is exciting, but it had better be done well, and carefully, because the nigh-unregulated online mediaspace can be dangerous and privacy issues are of primary importance.

Washington Post: Under Obama, Web Would Be the Way -
Unprecedented Online Outreach Expected

----

UPDATE: Can I really call it an update if it is a link to an article older than the original one I cited?

Anyway, The New York Times had an article about Obama's use of social networking as a way to create a political brand, and what changes it might signal to the political landscape. This is worth thought and discussion. It is exciting, especially the prospect that this might undermine party-rule, but I have this nagging suspicion there are some devils lurking in the details.

New York Times: How Obama Tapped Into Social Networks’ Power

The Gift That Keeps On Giving

You know what I love about Sarah Palin? Well really, nothing. But I do love that she gets in front of the TV cameras and says stuff like this in response to the unnamed sources from the McCain campaign talking about how she didn't know what countries were in NAFTA and that Africa was a continent, not a country (emphases mine):

“Those were taken out of context and that’s cruel. It’s mean-spirited. It’s immature. It’s unprofessional and those guys are jerks if they came away with it, taking things out of context, and then tried to spread something on national news.”

Oh please, please, please sweet merciful Sarah Palin's Imaginary God, please make her the face of the Republican Party for the next generation.

Her and that crazy Mitt fellow.

Even Murdoch Gets The Blues

 
Interestingly absent from Obama's presser on Friday was the gravitas (averted gaze) of Fox News. They weren't physically AWOL, mind you, they just didn't get called upon. It's a detail that for the most part flew under the radar, but it's fairly piercing. It will be intriguing to see how the conservative network will adjust to a Democratic Party holding the White House and a majority of Congress. In the immediate days after the election, the likes of Major Garrett, Britt Hume, and Chris Wallace backpedaled and miraculously softened their stance on Obama, praising him with accolades and various marks of acknowledgment for everything from his campaign, to his community-organizing past (gasp, Rudy!), to his power of uniting and inspiring people at the national and international levels.

Michael Wolff, a Vanity Fair columnist who is writing an authorized biography on Rupert Murdoch's career and family, claims that even Murdoch is embarrassed by Fox News. In spite of objections from Mr. Murdoch (naturally, one must save face publicly), Wolff describes great strain in the relations between Mr. Murdoch and two of his top executives---CEO Roger Ailes and Peter Chernin, president of News Corporation. Wolff fired back at Murdoch's camp---which had obtained an early draft of the book, despite much hush-hush on the manuscript: "I’m obviously annoyed that they’re looking at an early version of the book, and a purloined one at that. In essence News Corp. is holding stolen goods.”

The story from the New York Times continues: "The objections raised on behalf of Mr. Murdoch came after an article on Mr. Murdoch and the book was published in Vanity Fair in the October issue in which Mr. Wolff wrote that Mr. Murdoch was making friends with liberals and that he had soured on Fox News and Mr. Ailes.

“For a long time, he was in love with the Fox chief, Roger Ailes, because he was even more Murdoch than Murdoch,” Mr. Wolff wrote in the October Vanity Fair piece. “And yet now the embarrassment can’t be missed — he mumbles even more than usual when called on to justify it; he barely pretends to hide the way he feels about Bill O’Reilly.”

The question that has many in the media scratching their heads is why Mr. Murdoch agreed to give such open access to himself and his family. “It’s a big question,” said David Drake, the book’s publicist at Doubleday. “It will always remain a mystery.”

But while we may rejoice at the metaphorical wheels coming off Fox News' wagon, let us not forget what Mr. Murdoch truly is: a risk-taking entrepreneur, media mogul, and---in effect---a corporation. He understands that on 5 November, 2008 the environment changed and the rules were re-written. If he wants to continue to rake in the profits, his coverage needs to change. If he keeps Fox on its current track, the network will become marginalized and its shareholders will lose money. It's quite simple and analogous to the T. Boone Pickens endorsement of green energy. Men like these know very well the power of "green." In the end, it is truly the only thing that interests them.

The Green Buildup

 
One of my great hopes for the upcoming Obama presidency, coupled with the Democratic majority in both house of Congress, is a final turn away from the concept of "trickle-down" economics. Even Alan Greenspan admitted that he had underestimated the greed inherent in our economic system, a greed that has for decades prevented funds pumped into the top from actually reaching the bottom.

My in-laws are convinced that such a change in economic policy philosophy will mean the bankruptcy of their business, which has been in the family for 60+ years. Yet they provided to my mind the quintessential example of why trickle-down doesn't work the day they were showing us the photos and plans of a second house they were building on the sunny, dry side of our state while, without hint of irony, explaining to us how they had just cut the hours of all of their employees so as to avoid paying for health care benefits.

Anyway, the plan that turns away from trickle-down economics and make the most sense to me is the Green Buildup, a generic term I'm applying to the calls by Thomas Friedman and Al Gore among others for the government to dump massive cash into developing new clean-energy technology and infrastructure, and retro-fitting exitsting systems to mitigate current energy usage.

This just makes sense to me. It puts people to work, which can only help the economy as those people spend their earnings back into the system, creates opportunities for businesses, and works to solve our energy problems in a way that both addresses environmental concerns and strengthens our security position by decreasing dependence on a finite resource largely concentrated in some of the most politically unstable regions in the world.

What's the downside? That isn't a rhetorical question - I actually want to know what potential downsides or stumbling blocks could undermine this plan. Because, in absence of serious concerns, I'd put this on the agenda for day one of the Obama administration.

apres le honeymoon, le deluge

 
I honestly want to keep hope alive, be the change I wish to see, and all those platitudes. Really I do. I cannot pretend, though, to feel confident knowing that the constitutional law professor I helped get elected might just be more of the same, perhaps cloaked in blue as opposed to red. (Interesting to find this on the AP on the same day my Sunday New York Times magazine features a cover story on whether or not Obama will roll back Dubya's executive power-plays.)

I guarantee someone will argue that without executive orders we wouldn't have the Emancipation Proclamation or the WPA. (We also wouldn't have had those pesky internment camps during World War II, but who's really counting?) My issue? There is no real constitutional basis for executive orders. Call me crazy (or call me Ron Paul), but I thought the Constitution was, like, the law of our land; a document which organizes our branches of government and specifically states the scope (and limitations) of all three branches. I also thought that if we the people (including the President) felt hemmed-in by the law of the land, we have a means to amend our Constitution. I don't like the idea of one person having sweeping, broad power over the government, even if I agree with him on most things. I was hoping for change, remember?


(For shits and giggles: the Wikipedia page on U.S. executive orders. Please note the length of Dubya's list in relation to the entire list.)