Kurds Voice Suspicion of U.S. Troops

12:18:14 AM    

Why Can't Reporters Do a Better Job? - Brad DeLong

The Economist seems to be slipping lately in the quality of its economic reporting. One reads paragraphs like:

Taxing Times: ...Economists are divided about the wisdom of slashing taxes in this way, without trying to balance the books. Last month, around 450 economists, including ten Nobel laureates, openly criticised the tax-cut plan: in response, the White House quickly marshalled support from economists who took a different view. Mr Bush has been arguing that his tax cut will itself have a beneficial impact on economic growth, and that as a result the deficits projected under current methods will turn out to be overly pessimistic...

And one wants to scream. What "...economists who took a different view..."? Alan Greenspan--number one Republican economist--who says that now is definitely not the time to cut taxes? Douglas Holtz-Eakin--until two months ago Chief Economist at Bush's Council of Economic Advisers--who, now that he heads the Congressional Budget Office and is out from under Karl Rove's message discipline, politely says that it is "not obvious" why anyone would think the tax cut would have a beneficial effect on growth? Bush's own ex-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who says that shoring up Social Security would be much better than more tax cuts? The fact that the CBO--controlled by Republicans for a decade now--thinks that the dynamic scoring argument is a big fat zero?

The fact that the Bush Administration cannot hold a significant fraction of its own appointees "on message" after they leave the Administration is a powerful and important signal that its "analytical judgments" are simply lies. Yet the Economist prefers to turn it into a "he said, she said" story--leading the average reader without copious spare time to conclude that this is just another random political dispute that outsiders cannot untangle.

When I get annoyed enough to get in the face of reporters (not, I hasten to say, from the Economist) who I think fail to carry their weight, and ask them why they do this--why they turn everything into a Point-Counterpoint bald recital of positions, rather than helping guide their readers to understand what is the better argument, or the near-consensus position, I tend to get one or both of two responses:

• I can't do my job without White House cooperation: if I call them liars, they'll shut me out--then I won't be able to write any stories, and my editors will fire me. I have to keep my sources tamed.
• Besides, there are clues scattered in the article that a careful reader can use to understand what is really going on.

Just like everyone esle, 90% of the reporters are incompetant (Sturgeon's Law). I do like the reasons given, especially the clues one. Yeah that helps. And what if the editor removes the important clues? What a way to run a newspaper! But it is true that Ari will make them sit in the back if he doesn't like the way they ask their questions. As any press secretary is wont to do. Status is very important for the press at the White House.  12:10:38 AM    

Shock, But Not Awe - Brad Delong

So I've spent a bunch of time on the phone today, asking people who ought to know why it is that the 1st Cavalry's soldiers are at Ft. Hood and its heavy equipment somewhere, why the 4th Infantry's soldiers are at Ft. Hood and its heavy equipment somewhere in the Red Sea, and why the 1st Armored's soldiers and heavy equipment are in Germany--rather than being, say, in Kuwait as a reserve in case we need them in the Iraqi Theater of Operations. Why didn't the Pentagon move them over, as insurance for the worst case?

I'm getting two answers. The first is "money--the Bush Administration wants to fight this war on the cheap so it can get on with its real long-run business of tax cuts." The second (given by another non-overlapping group of people) is that the current force structure--3 Infantry, 101 Airborne, the Marines, and a British division-equivalent striking from Kuwait, with the 4 Infantry supposed to be striking south from Turkey but instead coming around Arabia--is the worst-case scenario force. Rumsfeld and company wanted to attack Iraq with airpower, with the 101 Airborne, with a brigade or so of the 3 Infantry, and some Marines and Britons. That was what they thought would be needed. And it was only with difficulty that they were argued up into the current force which Rumsfeld and company thought was vast overkill.

I mean, I knew that people like Richard Perle and Ken Adelman believed that Iraq could be conquered and Saddam Hussein overthrown by a blow with the equivalent of a feather. But I had no idea that the Secretary of Defense's office thought that airpower, three U.S. divisions, and one British division was the kind of "overwhelming force" you have ready in order to be prepared for the worst. I'm in shock. But I'm not awed.

More rumblings about poor decisions.   12:06:00 AM