Monday, April 26, 2004

Posted here Monday, April 26, 2004 at 10:35:36 PM     When running for president, doesn't it make sense to think like a president? The role is to set a tone for the country to be democratic and resolve issues, not to be the one who decides. Take the following On Tuesday, Sen. John Kerry spoke on several environmental issues in Tampa, Florida, and took questions -- one of which was about offshore oil drilling, a hot-button topic in Florida. This is how The St. Petersburg Times's Adam C. Smith reported Wednesday on what Kerry said about offshore drilling: "While Kerry has consistently opposed oil drilling off Florida, he said he supports drilling where it already has been approved." This sentence came 415 words into Smith's 1,000-word report, accompanied by no further detail or analysis. The Tampa Tribune's William March did not even include Kerry's drilling remarks in his initial story on Kerry's speech. Nor did Kerry's drilling comments make it into The Miami Herald's Wednesday account by reporter Lesley Clark. The next day, Smith of the St. Petersburg Times returned with some vigor -- and with fellow reporter Joni James -- to the subject he had all but kissed off earlier, describing Kerry's remarks on drilling as "imprecise," and among evidence that "Kerry has a knack for ambiguity." Also on Thursday, Clark of the Herald joined the chase, leading with this: "For most Floridians, drilling for oil off the coast is akin to paving the Everglades or mutilating manatees." Clark then describes Kerry as having "on Tuesday endorsed drilling 'in the right places' but left it unclear where he stood on drilling off Florida's coast." And today, March, of the Tribune, also playing catch-up, wrote that "in his speech ... Kerry did give a nuanced answer to a question about one of the most inflammatory issues in Florida." Given that offshore drilling is such a key issue to "most Floridians," shouldn't Clark -- and Smith and March -- have reported in full what Kerry said on the topic in their first stories on the speech -- particularly if Kerry's remarks about drilling were "unclear"? (And then, presumably, sought clarification for their readers?)   Why isn't it good for Kerry to say "this is a crucial issue. we need to let the people decide. I will support a process that lays out the issues so people can make an informed decision." ********

Posted here Monday, April 26, 2004 at 9:19:31 AM     On contract security in Iraq, company named Custer Battles. http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/ ********

Posted here Monday, April 26, 2004 at 9:08:19 AM     So, following up on the two previous posts, we the readers also have to work harder at the questions. Here is a background article by Barlow on Cheney. http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002606.html With the possible exception of Bill Gates, Dick Cheney is the smartest man I've ever met. If you get into a dispute with him, he will take you on a devastatingly brief tour of all the weak points in your argument. But he is a careful listener and not at all the ideologue he appears at this distance. I believe he is personally indifferent to greed. In the final analysis, this may simply be about oil, but I doubt that Dick sees it that way. I am relatively certain that he is acting in the service of principles to which he has devoted megawatts of a kind of thought that is unimpeded by sentiment or other emotional overhead. Here is the problem I think Dick Cheney is trying to address at the moment: How does one assure global stability in a world where there is only one strong power? This is a question that his opposition, myself included, has not asked out loud. It's not an easy question to answer, but neither is it a question to ignore. ********

Posted here Monday, April 26, 2004 at 8:50:05 AM     More on the press http://www.bopnews.com/archives/000614.html#614 The idea of the press as the "fourth estate," which is the big idea Bush rejects, is usually traced to English historian Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881.) What Carlyle wrote puts a different light on Jeff Jarvis saying at Buzzmachine: send some bloggers to the White House press conference! I took him to mean that independent voices, writers representing no one but themselves and their public reputation, without rank or representation, should be in the mix with the press. Jeff meet Tom Carlyle, writing at a time when the press was newly arrived on the political stage: Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important than they all. It is not a figure of speech, or a witty saying; it is a literal fact, .... Printing, which comes necessarily out of Writing, I say often, is equivalent to Democracy: invent Writing, Democracy is inevitable. ..... Whoever can speak, speaking now to the whole nation, becomes a power, a branch of government, with inalienable weight in law-making, in all acts of authority. It matters not what rank he has, what revenues or garnitures: the requisite thing is that he have a tongue which others will listen to; this and nothing more is requisite. ********

Posted here Monday, April 26, 2004 at 8:37:38 AM     Bush on the press. Quoted from http://www.bopnews.com/archives/000614.html#614 And the reporter then said: Well, how do you then know, Mr. President, what the public is thinking? And Bush, without missing a beat said: You're making a powerful assumption, young man. You're assuming that you represent the public. I don't accept that. Which is a powerful statement. And if Bush believes it (a possibility not to be dismissed) then we must credit the president with an original idea, or the germ of one. Bush's people have developed it into a thesis, which they explained to Auletta, who told it to co-host Brooke Gladstone: That's his attitude. And when you ask the Bush people to explain that attitude, what they say is: We don't accept that you have a check and balance function. We think that you are in the game of "Gotcha." Oh, you're interested in headlines, and you're interested in conflict. You're not interested in having a serious discussion and, and exploring things. Further data point: The Bush Thesis. If Auletta's reporting is on, then Bush and his advisors have their own press think, which they are trying out as policy. Reporters do not represent the interests of a broader public. They aren't a pipeline to the people, because people see through the game of Gotcha. The press has forfeited, if it ever had, its quasi-official role in the checks and balances of government. Here the Bush Thesis is bold. It says: there is no such role. The press certainly has moved from serious reporting. The good reporting is now to be found more in the comentators and bloggers who either have better access or some distance from the press corps. Especially time to think. Bush's comment suggests that a rel exploration of the issues would be welcomed. Big assumption, but it does suggest that the details and difficulties of say Iraq are not being explored. "gottcha" rules every sentence. A friend once said "Doug, remember, every story has only one hero: the reporter." ********