Second-Day Lede
Friday, April 30, 2004
Not just a number
As every high-school journalism teacher knows, numbers induce numbness. Even big, important numbers, such as the more than 700 people in the U.S. military who have died in combat in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. We see them, we hear them, and we know those numbers represent people -- it's just hard to picture any of them, let alone so many. Sometimes the best way is to tell just one person's story, as Marine Lt. Col M.R. Strobl does in an eloquent first-person account, "Taking Chance Home." If you follow that link, you may notice that it's to a blog far to the right of this one. As Sen. John McCain pointed out today, paying tribute to the fallen is not partisan, despite what some small-minded broadcasting executives might think.
As every high-school journalism teacher knows, numbers induce numbness. Even big, important numbers, such as the more than 700 people in the U.S. military who have died in combat in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. We see them, we hear them, and we know those numbers represent people -- it's just hard to picture any of them, let alone so many. Sometimes the best way is to tell just one person's story, as Marine Lt. Col M.R. Strobl does in an eloquent first-person account, "Taking Chance Home." If you follow that link, you may notice that it's to a blog far to the right of this one. As Sen. John McCain pointed out today, paying tribute to the fallen is not partisan, despite what some small-minded broadcasting executives might think.
Thursday, April 29, 2004
She's the mom
Busy Mom is hosting this week's Rocky Top Brigade Volunteer Tailgate Party, and she's got it all laid out real nice in a tasty buffet of screenshots, including a sampling from Second-Day Lede.
Busy Mom is hosting this week's Rocky Top Brigade Volunteer Tailgate Party, and she's got it all laid out real nice in a tasty buffet of screenshots, including a sampling from Second-Day Lede.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Thank you...
...Sen. Frank Lautenberg, for representing us so well. You can read the news reports about Lautenberg's challenges to the Republican smear campaign against Sen. John Kerry, or you can watch the video yourself here.
And thanks in advance to Ted Koppel of ABC News Nightline, who will spend the entire program this Friday reading the names of Americans who have died in combat (so far) in Iraq. The broadcast will also be on ABC's Times Square Jumbotron, and a crowd is expected to gather there to honor the fallen. The show is only 30 minutes, so Koppel won't be able to include the names of those who have died in Afghanistan, or those who died in Iraq of other causes, such as accidents or suicides.
...Sen. Frank Lautenberg, for representing us so well. You can read the news reports about Lautenberg's challenges to the Republican smear campaign against Sen. John Kerry, or you can watch the video yourself here.
And thanks in advance to Ted Koppel of ABC News Nightline, who will spend the entire program this Friday reading the names of Americans who have died in combat (so far) in Iraq. The broadcast will also be on ABC's Times Square Jumbotron, and a crowd is expected to gather there to honor the fallen. The show is only 30 minutes, so Koppel won't be able to include the names of those who have died in Afghanistan, or those who died in Iraq of other causes, such as accidents or suicides.
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Listening to the Supremes
Just finished listening to the audio of today's Supreme Court arguments over whether, for some reason, the president and vice president should be magically immune from having to reveal much of anything, and, if I understood what some Justices were saying, whether members of a committee are members if they don't vote, and if they're not members, then should they be immune too? I don't know which justice was so fixated on the latter issue, but his questions revealed the lens through which he views the world. Do they vote, or do they just sit there? I guess if you're on the Supreme Court, and you've got the job for life no matter what so you're not paying attention to how other people work, you might get the idea that it's that way for everybody: you sit, you vote, what else is there? In my experience, Mr. Justice, members of a committee usually are responsible for specific tasks that are part of the committee's overall work. In the business world, those are called "deliverables." You go to a committee meeting, you're either assigned a task or you volunteer for it, you go away knowing that the next time the committee meets, you'll report on your progress.
If you listen to it yourself, try imagining that the Supreme Court Justices are your parents, and you've just wrecked the car.
Just finished listening to the audio of today's Supreme Court arguments over whether, for some reason, the president and vice president should be magically immune from having to reveal much of anything, and, if I understood what some Justices were saying, whether members of a committee are members if they don't vote, and if they're not members, then should they be immune too? I don't know which justice was so fixated on the latter issue, but his questions revealed the lens through which he views the world. Do they vote, or do they just sit there? I guess if you're on the Supreme Court, and you've got the job for life no matter what so you're not paying attention to how other people work, you might get the idea that it's that way for everybody: you sit, you vote, what else is there? In my experience, Mr. Justice, members of a committee usually are responsible for specific tasks that are part of the committee's overall work. In the business world, those are called "deliverables." You go to a committee meeting, you're either assigned a task or you volunteer for it, you go away knowing that the next time the committee meets, you'll report on your progress.
If you listen to it yourself, try imagining that the Supreme Court Justices are your parents, and you've just wrecked the car.
Monday, April 26, 2004
Meet the prince
'The Press' gets Bandar-ed about
Since there are no new Washington books out this week, for a change, I found myself wondering what the Sunday morning talk shows would feed on this time around. So I turned on the TV, and there was the Saudi ambassor to the United States, Prince Bandar, on NBC News's Meet the Press. I turned the channel, and there he was again, on Fox News. Since his name had been mentioned so frequently in Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack, and even more frequently in the wake of that revelatory tome, and since he was obviously this week's designated interviewee, I stayed tuned to hear him out for a bit. I came away with some strong conclusions, some of them almost contradictory:
1) I would join the growing cry for this ambassador to be recalled, except that it seems unlikely his replacement would be very different.
2) De Nile, as they say, isn't just a river in Egypt -- but it sure doesn't flow through Saudi Arabia. (In fact, there are no rivers there; just dry riverbeds called wadis.) Bandar didn't really deny any of the stories that have been going around about the mysterious flights evacuating of Saudi citizens from the U.S. at a time when all civilian planes were supposedly grounded, about his country's influence on oil prices, especially at election time here, or about anything. Occasionally he would proclaim, out of the blue, "Absolute hogwash!" And then he would go on to not-deny whatever Russert had asked about, in a roundabout way, of course. When he got so roundabout that even he realized he'd have to wind it up, Bandar simply interrupted his ownself and concluded, "This is becoming exotic now," or "When a story like this, that has a prince, a princess, money, terrorism, it is exotic."
3) If this guy is as good a friend of the Bush family as they say he is, he's a wasted resource. No matter what influence he may or may not have on oil prices at election time, no matter what other favors he might be able to provide, they should be using him as their media coach. As you may recall, there is one rule and only one rule governing interviews with politicians, a hard and fast rule that almost every politician knows and only a few reporters have caught onto. And that rule is:
When a reporter asks a politician a question -- any reporter, any politician, any question, anywhere, anytime -- it means only one thing:
It's the politician's turn to talk.
There were times yesterday when Russert might as well have been a fly buzzing around the room, or a siren off in the distance, for all the notice Bandar took of the words coming out of his mouth. Bandar might have noticed that Russert was making sound, or maybe he just watched his lips move. Either way, he knew when it was his turn to talk, and that's what mattered. A few weeks of intense training with him, and the Bushes would never fear live press conferences again. I wish he hadn't been so deft at it, but I found myself in awe at Bandar's press-parrying skill. And he never once resorted to the Republicans' default comeback: "You got that from Michael Moore!"
4) I also concluded that this post should conclude with a reading assignment. If you are in one or more of the following categories, you owe it to yourself to read the transcript of Meet the Prince:
a) American
b) citizen of any other country
Especially if you were in the U.S. or traveling to the U.S. on or immediately after Sept. 11, 2001, when civilian air traffic was grounded.
And please let me know if you find it "exotic."
Meanwhile, when I turned on the TV this morning, I wondered for a moment if I had happened onto an alternate timeline. Iraqis were in the streets cheering, but not quite the way the White House hawks had predicted.
'The Press' gets Bandar-ed about
Since there are no new Washington books out this week, for a change, I found myself wondering what the Sunday morning talk shows would feed on this time around. So I turned on the TV, and there was the Saudi ambassor to the United States, Prince Bandar, on NBC News's Meet the Press. I turned the channel, and there he was again, on Fox News. Since his name had been mentioned so frequently in Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack, and even more frequently in the wake of that revelatory tome, and since he was obviously this week's designated interviewee, I stayed tuned to hear him out for a bit. I came away with some strong conclusions, some of them almost contradictory:
1) I would join the growing cry for this ambassador to be recalled, except that it seems unlikely his replacement would be very different.
2) De Nile, as they say, isn't just a river in Egypt -- but it sure doesn't flow through Saudi Arabia. (In fact, there are no rivers there; just dry riverbeds called wadis.) Bandar didn't really deny any of the stories that have been going around about the mysterious flights evacuating of Saudi citizens from the U.S. at a time when all civilian planes were supposedly grounded, about his country's influence on oil prices, especially at election time here, or about anything. Occasionally he would proclaim, out of the blue, "Absolute hogwash!" And then he would go on to not-deny whatever Russert had asked about, in a roundabout way, of course. When he got so roundabout that even he realized he'd have to wind it up, Bandar simply interrupted his ownself and concluded, "This is becoming exotic now," or "When a story like this, that has a prince, a princess, money, terrorism, it is exotic."
3) If this guy is as good a friend of the Bush family as they say he is, he's a wasted resource. No matter what influence he may or may not have on oil prices at election time, no matter what other favors he might be able to provide, they should be using him as their media coach. As you may recall, there is one rule and only one rule governing interviews with politicians, a hard and fast rule that almost every politician knows and only a few reporters have caught onto. And that rule is:
When a reporter asks a politician a question -- any reporter, any politician, any question, anywhere, anytime -- it means only one thing:
It's the politician's turn to talk.
There were times yesterday when Russert might as well have been a fly buzzing around the room, or a siren off in the distance, for all the notice Bandar took of the words coming out of his mouth. Bandar might have noticed that Russert was making sound, or maybe he just watched his lips move. Either way, he knew when it was his turn to talk, and that's what mattered. A few weeks of intense training with him, and the Bushes would never fear live press conferences again. I wish he hadn't been so deft at it, but I found myself in awe at Bandar's press-parrying skill. And he never once resorted to the Republicans' default comeback: "You got that from Michael Moore!"
4) I also concluded that this post should conclude with a reading assignment. If you are in one or more of the following categories, you owe it to yourself to read the transcript of Meet the Prince:
a) American
b) citizen of any other country
Especially if you were in the U.S. or traveling to the U.S. on or immediately after Sept. 11, 2001, when civilian air traffic was grounded.
And please let me know if you find it "exotic."
Meanwhile, when I turned on the TV this morning, I wondered for a moment if I had happened onto an alternate timeline. Iraqis were in the streets cheering, but not quite the way the White House hawks had predicted.
Friday, April 23, 2004
We see dead people
In a solemn ceremony, dignitaries gathered in Hoboken, New Jersey, to honor America's returning war dead in 1918.
By its very definition, Second-Day Lede is supposed to be following a discreet distance behind the news, not out ahead of it. But we've been covering the flag-draped coffin story all week, and today, suddenly, it's breaking news all over again, and everybody's reporting live about the dead.
Not only has the media machinery awakened and taken notice of the firing of a civilian worker in Kuwait (and her coworker husband) whose photo of 20 flag-draped coffins was published in Sunday's Seattle Times, but as you've surely seen and heard by now, under the Freedom of Information Act, Thememoryhole.org successfully received copies of photos taken by the military of remains being repatriated at Dover Air Force Base in Maryland, and then made them available online.
For those just joining us, there was no ban against photos when the doughboys came home from the first World War. Nor was there a ban against photos of the living or dead in the Civil War (caution -- this one isn't flag-draped). Can anybody tell the class why there was no ban on photos of our Revolutionary War dead, either? The military tried, with some success, to censor coverage of World War II, but Ernie Pyle's honest words painted the picture vividly. By the Korean War, combat photographer David Douglas Duncan (<--check out the name of the celebrity photographer who snapped a shot of Duncan during World War II) was on the scene, with gritty black-and-white images of death -- again, not flag-draped -- in Life magazine. Duncan went on to cover Vietnam, as did an army of reporters, including for the first time a television contingent. We saw so many Americans coming home from Vietnam in flag-draped coffins that the image was immortalized in song by Country Joe McDonald: "Be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box." Commentators at the time and later historians wrote that the images of those remains led to the nation's disillusionment with the war. Duncan himself became so outraged that he publicly denounced the war, and the actions of the man who had taken his picture, in a book he published on his own dime, I Protest! I can't find it for sale anywhere online, but here's how it begins:
"I am no kook, hippie, hawk, or dove. I am just a veteran combat photographer and foreign correspondent who cares intensely about my country and the role we are playing - and assigning to ourselves - in the world of today. And I want to shout a loud protest at what has happened at Khesanh and in all of Vietnam."
We've all heard by now that the ban against images of returning military coffins came from Bush the first, who, legend has it, didn't like the split-screen television news coverage, his live speech on one side, the returning dead on the other. By contrast, his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, pinned medals on the flag-draped coffins returning during his administration, Bill Clinton not only allowed such images but went to Dover himself, and so far Bush the second has yet to attend a single funeral.
And into the midst of all that dropped the news about yet another war loss: the death in Afghanistan of young hero-turned-hero Pat Tillman, the NFL football player who gave up his dream-come-true life to join the Army and defend his country. Whether or not the nation sees his remains receive the honors they deserve, it mourns his loss.
But wait, there's more: We also have the controversy over photos of poor Princess Diana as she breathed her last, broadcast this week by CBS News's 48 Hours. That story reminded me of the fire chief I once knew who made a point of standing between the cameras and the victims at any fire or accident scene. It's too bad he wasn't in Paris that night.
And in a related matter, CNN accidentally posted a batch of pre-written and produced obituaries for a bunch of well-known people who aren't quite dead yet, obits that all list the year of death as 2001.
In a solemn ceremony, dignitaries gathered in Hoboken, New Jersey, to honor America's returning war dead in 1918.
By its very definition, Second-Day Lede is supposed to be following a discreet distance behind the news, not out ahead of it. But we've been covering the flag-draped coffin story all week, and today, suddenly, it's breaking news all over again, and everybody's reporting live about the dead.
Not only has the media machinery awakened and taken notice of the firing of a civilian worker in Kuwait (and her coworker husband) whose photo of 20 flag-draped coffins was published in Sunday's Seattle Times, but as you've surely seen and heard by now, under the Freedom of Information Act, Thememoryhole.org successfully received copies of photos taken by the military of remains being repatriated at Dover Air Force Base in Maryland, and then made them available online.
For those just joining us, there was no ban against photos when the doughboys came home from the first World War. Nor was there a ban against photos of the living or dead in the Civil War (caution -- this one isn't flag-draped). Can anybody tell the class why there was no ban on photos of our Revolutionary War dead, either? The military tried, with some success, to censor coverage of World War II, but Ernie Pyle's honest words painted the picture vividly. By the Korean War, combat photographer David Douglas Duncan (<--check out the name of the celebrity photographer who snapped a shot of Duncan during World War II) was on the scene, with gritty black-and-white images of death -- again, not flag-draped -- in Life magazine. Duncan went on to cover Vietnam, as did an army of reporters, including for the first time a television contingent. We saw so many Americans coming home from Vietnam in flag-draped coffins that the image was immortalized in song by Country Joe McDonald: "Be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box." Commentators at the time and later historians wrote that the images of those remains led to the nation's disillusionment with the war. Duncan himself became so outraged that he publicly denounced the war, and the actions of the man who had taken his picture, in a book he published on his own dime, I Protest! I can't find it for sale anywhere online, but here's how it begins:
"I am no kook, hippie, hawk, or dove. I am just a veteran combat photographer and foreign correspondent who cares intensely about my country and the role we are playing - and assigning to ourselves - in the world of today. And I want to shout a loud protest at what has happened at Khesanh and in all of Vietnam."
We've all heard by now that the ban against images of returning military coffins came from Bush the first, who, legend has it, didn't like the split-screen television news coverage, his live speech on one side, the returning dead on the other. By contrast, his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, pinned medals on the flag-draped coffins returning during his administration, Bill Clinton not only allowed such images but went to Dover himself, and so far Bush the second has yet to attend a single funeral.
And into the midst of all that dropped the news about yet another war loss: the death in Afghanistan of young hero-turned-hero Pat Tillman, the NFL football player who gave up his dream-come-true life to join the Army and defend his country. Whether or not the nation sees his remains receive the honors they deserve, it mourns his loss.
But wait, there's more: We also have the controversy over photos of poor Princess Diana as she breathed her last, broadcast this week by CBS News's 48 Hours. That story reminded me of the fire chief I once knew who made a point of standing between the cameras and the victims at any fire or accident scene. It's too bad he wasn't in Paris that night.
And in a related matter, CNN accidentally posted a batch of pre-written and produced obituaries for a bunch of well-known people who aren't quite dead yet, obits that all list the year of death as 2001.
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Folos
Today we expand our vocabulary of journalistic jargon with the word "folo," as in "a follow-up story." It can be a noun, or a verb, as in "Don't worry, our best reporter is foloing that story."
And here's an example:
The civilian worker whose photo of the flag-draped coffins of America's war dead was published Sunday by The Seattle Times has been fired.
So has her husband, who was also her co-worker. The two were employed by Maytag Aircraft, and were fired for "violating U.S. government and company regulations," the company president told The Seattle Times in its folo on the story.
The amateur photographer, Tami Silicio, received no payment for the snapshot that cost the couple their jobs.
Here's hoping the Seattle Times hires her.
Coincidentally, here's another example, this time a folo on an 18-year-old story.
In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu confirmed what most of the world already suspected: Israel had a nuclear weapons program. He had been a small part of it as a technician. But even as he was singing like a canary about those nuclear secrets to The Sunday Times in London, the Israeli secret service was laying a trap, using an agent known as Cindy to lure him away from the protection being provided by the Times. He went with her to Rome, where he was kidnapped and taken back to Israel, tried in secret and then kept in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT FOR NEARLY 12 YEARS in a cell with the light on 24 hours a day. Finally his keepers became concerned about his mental health and let him out of isolation -- the reports on this story don't say if they ever turned the light out for him in those 18 years. Now he has been allowed to leave prison, but he's still not allowed to leave Israel.
In tomorrow's edition of the Australian newspaper The Age, American whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg hails Vanunu as "the preeminent hero of the nuclear era."
Today we expand our vocabulary of journalistic jargon with the word "folo," as in "a follow-up story." It can be a noun, or a verb, as in "Don't worry, our best reporter is foloing that story."
And here's an example:
The civilian worker whose photo of the flag-draped coffins of America's war dead was published Sunday by The Seattle Times has been fired.
So has her husband, who was also her co-worker. The two were employed by Maytag Aircraft, and were fired for "violating U.S. government and company regulations," the company president told The Seattle Times in its folo on the story.
The amateur photographer, Tami Silicio, received no payment for the snapshot that cost the couple their jobs.
Here's hoping the Seattle Times hires her.
Coincidentally, here's another example, this time a folo on an 18-year-old story.
In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu confirmed what most of the world already suspected: Israel had a nuclear weapons program. He had been a small part of it as a technician. But even as he was singing like a canary about those nuclear secrets to The Sunday Times in London, the Israeli secret service was laying a trap, using an agent known as Cindy to lure him away from the protection being provided by the Times. He went with her to Rome, where he was kidnapped and taken back to Israel, tried in secret and then kept in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT FOR NEARLY 12 YEARS in a cell with the light on 24 hours a day. Finally his keepers became concerned about his mental health and let him out of isolation -- the reports on this story don't say if they ever turned the light out for him in those 18 years. Now he has been allowed to leave prison, but he's still not allowed to leave Israel.
In tomorrow's edition of the Australian newspaper The Age, American whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg hails Vanunu as "the preeminent hero of the nuclear era."
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Dueling military records
When I read, watch, or listen to the news these days, I find myself asking the same questions over and over:
1) Who do these people think they are?
2) Do they think we're THAT stupid?
A man who didn't even show up for much of his own military "service" keeps telling us that the deaths of 3,000 innocent people on his watch are evidence that he's a good leader. But that's not enough: now he and his minions are trying to make us believe that his opponent, who actually served -- in combat, with distinction -- wouldn't be a good leader BECAUSE OF HIS SERVICE DURING VIETNAM? These are the same people who successfully slimed former Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia, who lost 3 limbs while serving his country in Vietnam, by attacking him for having been injured in that war. Do they think we're THAT stupid? Hey, it worked against Cleland, so now they're trying it against another decorated veteran. So that answers the second question, at least: yes, they do.
Speaking of questions, it's not like we're hearing any incisive or even intelligent ones from the press corps on this. When the Republicans proclaim, "You never know: there might be something questionable in John Kerry's military records," and then Kerry releases even more of his records than he already had, the reporters repeat, "There might be something questionable in Kerry's military records." A few hours of that, and the chant morphs into, "Controversy has emerged over John Kerry's military records."
Similarly, when Mr. Bush held his third prime-time press conference the other night, the press duly told us that reviews of his performance were "mixed."
Here's something else that's mixed: Ivory Soap, which its manufacturers claim is 99 and 44 one-hundredths percent pure. What about that other 66 one-hundredths, huh? You trying to hide something? And what about all those bubbles that cause Ivory to float? They never mention that it's full of holes!
See how it works? More importantly, see how well it works?
The mudslingers have forgotten one important detail: these days we can go straight to the source and find out for ourselves.
When I read, watch, or listen to the news these days, I find myself asking the same questions over and over:
1) Who do these people think they are?
2) Do they think we're THAT stupid?
A man who didn't even show up for much of his own military "service" keeps telling us that the deaths of 3,000 innocent people on his watch are evidence that he's a good leader. But that's not enough: now he and his minions are trying to make us believe that his opponent, who actually served -- in combat, with distinction -- wouldn't be a good leader BECAUSE OF HIS SERVICE DURING VIETNAM? These are the same people who successfully slimed former Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia, who lost 3 limbs while serving his country in Vietnam, by attacking him for having been injured in that war. Do they think we're THAT stupid? Hey, it worked against Cleland, so now they're trying it against another decorated veteran. So that answers the second question, at least: yes, they do.
Speaking of questions, it's not like we're hearing any incisive or even intelligent ones from the press corps on this. When the Republicans proclaim, "You never know: there might be something questionable in John Kerry's military records," and then Kerry releases even more of his records than he already had, the reporters repeat, "There might be something questionable in Kerry's military records." A few hours of that, and the chant morphs into, "Controversy has emerged over John Kerry's military records."
Similarly, when Mr. Bush held his third prime-time press conference the other night, the press duly told us that reviews of his performance were "mixed."
Here's something else that's mixed: Ivory Soap, which its manufacturers claim is 99 and 44 one-hundredths percent pure. What about that other 66 one-hundredths, huh? You trying to hide something? And what about all those bubbles that cause Ivory to float? They never mention that it's full of holes!
See how it works? More importantly, see how well it works?
The mudslingers have forgotten one important detail: these days we can go straight to the source and find out for ourselves.
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Forbidden image
America's dead from the invasion of Iraq have been denied the honor accorded those who made the ultimate sacrifice in previous conflicts: the government won't allow photographs of the flag-draped coffins as they are "repatriated." Now the Seattle Times has published a photo of our returning war dead, taken by a civilian contractor in Kuwait. Times Executive Editor Mike Fancher explained to readers why the paper chose to publish the photo, and Managing Editor David Boardman reinforced that explanation in an interview with Editor & Publisher magazine. Reporter Hal Bernton put the photo in context by interviewing the photographer.
America's dead from the invasion of Iraq have been denied the honor accorded those who made the ultimate sacrifice in previous conflicts: the government won't allow photographs of the flag-draped coffins as they are "repatriated." Now the Seattle Times has published a photo of our returning war dead, taken by a civilian contractor in Kuwait. Times Executive Editor Mike Fancher explained to readers why the paper chose to publish the photo, and Managing Editor David Boardman reinforced that explanation in an interview with Editor & Publisher magazine. Reporter Hal Bernton put the photo in context by interviewing the photographer.
Monday, April 19, 2004
Isn't it ironic?
Blogger's note: Coincidentally, just as I was about to address the subject of words and phrases we'd rather not see in newspapers, copy editor extraordinaire (emeritus) Frank Hofmann dispatched this typical example of the in-depth reporting he was once assigned to repair before publication. We urge readers to experience it in its entirety.
IRON JOURNALISM
By Horn Tooker
Riverside PeeEee
Buena Park police reported yesterday that a man with a pistol rifled a home in the aftermath of gaining entry, according to a spokesman who spoke only on condition of being allowed to remain anonymous and ignorant.
Ironically, it was not the first break-in experienced by the resident, Rip Shorn, who reported the deja vu experience to police. Shorn said his school locker had been burgled when he had been in the first grade some years ago by a phys ed coach.
Police responded to the scene of the alleged burglary at approximately 7:13:24 in the alleged 8,000 block of Eighteenth Street.
Police found no one on the scene when they arrived except resident Shorn, who experienced a large automatic revolver in one hand and a silver teapot in the other. Upon being questioned, Shorn described the suspect as a large male or female wearing a mask and a beard, dark in color, carrying a portmanteau full of household items, as well as a gun. He said the suspect left in a car, red in color, as well as pop-up headlights, with what seemed to be a dead body in the passenger seat, he added.
Shorn had lead (as spelled) police to the living room of his home, where he had showed them the heirlooms he had told police had been left to him by his grandmother when he had been, or when he would have been, had he been so, a small boy of five, he added.
Police, who expressed concern, estimated the value of the stolen items, if they had been stolen, as $3,650.34, even though there was no fire and no firefighters were present.
Some confusion was added to the incident by neighbors, who reported hearing gunshots that sounded like a car backfiring. Other neighbors heard a car backfiring noise that sounded like shots. A few said the noise sounded like firecrackers being played with by small boys in the street.
Police eventually determined that a car had traversed the street during the burglary and it had backfired just as its occupants were experiencing firing guns and throwing firecrackers out the windows. Shorn yesterday said he heard nothing, or nada, because he, 42 Friday, is trying to learn Spanish by attending Thursday night classes at RCC on Wednesdays, located just eight blocks from his home. Police declined to comment on that. RCC also declined to comment.
Ironically, police said it had been a coincidence that had allowed them to experience capturing the suspect. Chief Sandford "Daddy" Linsey-Woolsey had been at a news conference this morning and had been asked how the suspect had been captured.
"Well," Chief Daddy said, "It was night at the time, of course, but nobody had told me about the darkness, so I hadn't known what to expect. There had been a Santa Ana blowing and the wind had been hitting 90 mph. My officers and the subject had been traveling at 90 mph in the opposite direction. That means that both cruiser and the suspect's car had been at a standstill, relative to each other, so my officers had just walked over and had arrested the suspect, as well as the suspect's car, as well as the dead person."
"It certainly was ironic, Chief Daddy Linzy-Woolzy."
"That's just what one of my lieutenants had been saying."
"Chief Daddy Lindsey-Woozy, did you say the suspect was six feet tall?"
"No. I said he IS six feet tall."
"Was."
"Is."
"Ok then, is it safe to say he had been six feet tall?"
"It has been all right with me," he added.
Yesterday the Board of Supervisors sent both Chief Daddy Linsey-Woolsey and Shorn to Ironics Anonymous, a support group for those who feel compelled to use the word "ironic" when the circumstances call for use of the word "coincidentally."
Officer Rick Doo Dah of the Mesa Police Dept. had said the day before yesterday that police had experienced recovering the gun, but Chief Daddy Lydsey-Woodsy has said that since it had never been lost, it could never have been recovered. Nor was the gun retrieved, Chief Daddy, said, because it hadn't been sent anywhere.
Doo Dah, inadvertently, had been sent to Experiences Anonymous, a support group for those who say something was "experienced" when simply "had" or "have" will do. The entire police department and the entire reporting staff of the PeeEee were ordered to Had Been Anonymous, a series of seminars for those who insist on writing "had been" when simply "was" will do.
CORRECTION
A story in yesterday's editions of the PeeEee, because of misinformation, incorrect editing, inappropriate writing and just plain bad luck, contained one or two errors. The burglary suspect's name had been Bradford "Daddy" Linsy-Woolsy. The chief of police had been Rip Shorn. There was no Santa Ana wind yesterday; it had been a tornado, which destroyed Temecula. The dead person in suspect Linsy-Woolsey's car had been in fact a stuffed caricature of Burl Ives, circa 1956, as he was seen in the movie "West of Thermopolai." The house burglarized was on A Teeth Street, not Eighteenth Street. The gun that had been seen in Rip Shorn's left hand was a 105mm naval rifle and the silver teapot in his other hand had been a potty for children under two and a half. Finally, there had been no burglary. The incident instead had involved a domestic violence dispute in which 38 people in one family had been killed, with 76 receiving injuries. Chief Shorn said this morning that it had been ironic.
AMPLIFICATION
Two days after the alleged high-profile burglary/massacre/speeding incident reported in Tuesday's editions, Chief Tip Gorme, the chief's real name, reported that burglary victim Lizzey-Woolsley's siblings, proved to be such by DNA tests, were in fact involved in the burglary of Lindsey-Woozey's house. When police arrived at the sprawling house three people had gained entry and were in occupancy.
Blogger's note: Coincidentally, just as I was about to address the subject of words and phrases we'd rather not see in newspapers, copy editor extraordinaire (emeritus) Frank Hofmann dispatched this typical example of the in-depth reporting he was once assigned to repair before publication. We urge readers to experience it in its entirety.
IRON JOURNALISM
By Horn Tooker
Riverside PeeEee
Buena Park police reported yesterday that a man with a pistol rifled a home in the aftermath of gaining entry, according to a spokesman who spoke only on condition of being allowed to remain anonymous and ignorant.
Ironically, it was not the first break-in experienced by the resident, Rip Shorn, who reported the deja vu experience to police. Shorn said his school locker had been burgled when he had been in the first grade some years ago by a phys ed coach.
Police responded to the scene of the alleged burglary at approximately 7:13:24 in the alleged 8,000 block of Eighteenth Street.
Police found no one on the scene when they arrived except resident Shorn, who experienced a large automatic revolver in one hand and a silver teapot in the other. Upon being questioned, Shorn described the suspect as a large male or female wearing a mask and a beard, dark in color, carrying a portmanteau full of household items, as well as a gun. He said the suspect left in a car, red in color, as well as pop-up headlights, with what seemed to be a dead body in the passenger seat, he added.
Shorn had lead (as spelled) police to the living room of his home, where he had showed them the heirlooms he had told police had been left to him by his grandmother when he had been, or when he would have been, had he been so, a small boy of five, he added.
Police, who expressed concern, estimated the value of the stolen items, if they had been stolen, as $3,650.34, even though there was no fire and no firefighters were present.
Some confusion was added to the incident by neighbors, who reported hearing gunshots that sounded like a car backfiring. Other neighbors heard a car backfiring noise that sounded like shots. A few said the noise sounded like firecrackers being played with by small boys in the street.
Police eventually determined that a car had traversed the street during the burglary and it had backfired just as its occupants were experiencing firing guns and throwing firecrackers out the windows. Shorn yesterday said he heard nothing, or nada, because he, 42 Friday, is trying to learn Spanish by attending Thursday night classes at RCC on Wednesdays, located just eight blocks from his home. Police declined to comment on that. RCC also declined to comment.
Ironically, police said it had been a coincidence that had allowed them to experience capturing the suspect. Chief Sandford "Daddy" Linsey-Woolsey had been at a news conference this morning and had been asked how the suspect had been captured.
"Well," Chief Daddy said, "It was night at the time, of course, but nobody had told me about the darkness, so I hadn't known what to expect. There had been a Santa Ana blowing and the wind had been hitting 90 mph. My officers and the subject had been traveling at 90 mph in the opposite direction. That means that both cruiser and the suspect's car had been at a standstill, relative to each other, so my officers had just walked over and had arrested the suspect, as well as the suspect's car, as well as the dead person."
"It certainly was ironic, Chief Daddy Linzy-Woolzy."
"That's just what one of my lieutenants had been saying."
"Chief Daddy Lindsey-Woozy, did you say the suspect was six feet tall?"
"No. I said he IS six feet tall."
"Was."
"Is."
"Ok then, is it safe to say he had been six feet tall?"
"It has been all right with me," he added.
Yesterday the Board of Supervisors sent both Chief Daddy Linsey-Woolsey and Shorn to Ironics Anonymous, a support group for those who feel compelled to use the word "ironic" when the circumstances call for use of the word "coincidentally."
Officer Rick Doo Dah of the Mesa Police Dept. had said the day before yesterday that police had experienced recovering the gun, but Chief Daddy Lydsey-Woodsy has said that since it had never been lost, it could never have been recovered. Nor was the gun retrieved, Chief Daddy, said, because it hadn't been sent anywhere.
Doo Dah, inadvertently, had been sent to Experiences Anonymous, a support group for those who say something was "experienced" when simply "had" or "have" will do. The entire police department and the entire reporting staff of the PeeEee were ordered to Had Been Anonymous, a series of seminars for those who insist on writing "had been" when simply "was" will do.
CORRECTION
A story in yesterday's editions of the PeeEee, because of misinformation, incorrect editing, inappropriate writing and just plain bad luck, contained one or two errors. The burglary suspect's name had been Bradford "Daddy" Linsy-Woolsy. The chief of police had been Rip Shorn. There was no Santa Ana wind yesterday; it had been a tornado, which destroyed Temecula. The dead person in suspect Linsy-Woolsey's car had been in fact a stuffed caricature of Burl Ives, circa 1956, as he was seen in the movie "West of Thermopolai." The house burglarized was on A Teeth Street, not Eighteenth Street. The gun that had been seen in Rip Shorn's left hand was a 105mm naval rifle and the silver teapot in his other hand had been a potty for children under two and a half. Finally, there had been no burglary. The incident instead had involved a domestic violence dispute in which 38 people in one family had been killed, with 76 receiving injuries. Chief Shorn said this morning that it had been ironic.
AMPLIFICATION
Two days after the alleged high-profile burglary/massacre/speeding incident reported in Tuesday's editions, Chief Tip Gorme, the chief's real name, reported that burglary victim Lizzey-Woolsley's siblings, proved to be such by DNA tests, were in fact involved in the burglary of Lindsey-Woozey's house. When police arrived at the sprawling house three people had gained entry and were in occupancy.
Friday, April 16, 2004
Another Vietnam?
My reply to this comment from an anonymous visitor was too long for the comments feature on this blog, so I'm posting it here:
Anonymous visitor: "I like a comment Senator John McCain made today -- and we needn't re-establish his credentials.
'Those that say Iraq is another Vietnam either didn't understand, or have forgotten what Vietnam was.'
Good enough for me."
JDD: I have tremendous respect for Sen. McCain and the lifetime of service he has given this country. I know he suffered terribly as a POW in Vietnam and yet maintained his dignity. But even John McCain cannot be in two places at once. As a POW, he was not able to keep up with current events back in the U.S., or get an overall view of how the war was going.
My favorite "Iraq is not either Vietnam" argument is this one (a composite quote here): "Of course not! Vietnam is a jungle. Iraq is a desert." Absolutely true.
But both wars began on false premises, in both cases we went into a conflict that had been going for centuries without really understanding either what we were getting into or how we might get out, both are based on unfeasible "guns and butter" deficit spending, both involve presidents from Texas, both dragged on longer than the gung-ho generals predicted in the beginning. The Vietnam war became very unpopular and eventually the U.S.pulled out fled. The Iraq war hasn't quite reached that point.
My reply to this comment from an anonymous visitor was too long for the comments feature on this blog, so I'm posting it here:
Anonymous visitor: "I like a comment Senator John McCain made today -- and we needn't re-establish his credentials.
'Those that say Iraq is another Vietnam either didn't understand, or have forgotten what Vietnam was.'
Good enough for me."
JDD: I have tremendous respect for Sen. McCain and the lifetime of service he has given this country. I know he suffered terribly as a POW in Vietnam and yet maintained his dignity. But even John McCain cannot be in two places at once. As a POW, he was not able to keep up with current events back in the U.S., or get an overall view of how the war was going.
My favorite "Iraq is not either Vietnam" argument is this one (a composite quote here): "Of course not! Vietnam is a jungle. Iraq is a desert." Absolutely true.
But both wars began on false premises, in both cases we went into a conflict that had been going for centuries without really understanding either what we were getting into or how we might get out, both are based on unfeasible "guns and butter" deficit spending, both involve presidents from Texas, both dragged on longer than the gung-ho generals predicted in the beginning. The Vietnam war became very unpopular and eventually the U.S.
Thursday, April 15, 2004
"If someone had said, 'Would you, a year ago, have expected you would be where you are at the present time,' obviously ... one would not have described where we are." -- Donald Rumsfeld, April 15, 2004
Your humble blogger, one year and three days ago: (April 12, 2003):
Mass destruction, and weapons thereof
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld laughed yesterday, literally laughed at the hundreds of reports from journalists on the scene in Baghdad, account after account, image after image of looting, anarchy, and chaos as mobs attack building after building, stripping hotels, shops, offices, even hospitals down to bare walls.
"It's untidy. And freedom's untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things," Rumsfeld said, smug as ever. "The images you are seeing on television, you are seeing over and over and over, and it's the same picture, of some person walking out of some building with a vase."
He also insisted that U.S. forces now occupying the city are trying to do something about the looting: "Where they (U.S. forces) see looting, they're stopping it. And they will be doing so."
Not only reporters, not only cameras, not only humanitarian workers, but the occupying troops themselves tell a different story, inadvertently contradicting the Secretary of Defense. The BBC's Paul Wood, a credible journalist if ever there were one, reports: "We have seen the Marines standing by as people carry off armfuls of stolen goods. And the Marines will tell you these are not their orders and that they're here as a fighting force, not a police force."
Wood also answered Rumsfeld's charges that the news media were distorting the story by repeatedly showing the same images of an isolated incident. He said that four BBC reporters went out in four different directions yesterday and all four came back with reports, including video, of looting and chaos. "It's not difficult to find," Wood said, reporting from the media center on the roof of the Palestine Hotel. On the street below him, a small but growing group of Baghdad citizens was staging a peaceful demonstration, with signs in English and Arabic demanding a new government as soon as possible to stop the looting and violence. Most of Baghdad still has no electricity, and therefore no television even though the U.S. military is now broadcasting over the Iraqi airwaves, so it seems unlikely that the demonstrators were there because of distorted images they saw on television.
If Rumsfeld is telling the truth, and the reports we've seen and heard from each and every media organization on the scene not just in Baghdad but in Basra, Najaf, Nasiriyah, Kirkuk, Mosul and elsewhere are not reports but fabrications and distortions, then why is the U.S. military now trying to get police and other officials from the deposed regime to put on uniforms and weapons again and go back to work? If it were just one person carrying the same vase out of the same building over and over, it would seem unnecessary for the liberating forces to be begging the same people who used to round up citizens for torture or execution to help restore order.
U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said at yesterday's CENTCOM briefing that "when we entered the city, we found that there were police radios that we'd captured, and the police were calling for (and adjusting?) indirect fire in support of the regime. So putting the police back on is not an easy solution for us."
If the Red Cross and the journalists on the scene are telling the truth, if the buildings we see burning on TV really are burning, if the looters we see gleefully pushing chairs and hospital gurneys down the street loaded with sinks and pipes and refrigerators are really doing what we're seeing them doing, if the hospitals we've seen on TV really have been stripped of everything but the wires that wouldn't come out of the walls, then there really is mass destruction going on in Baghdad.
Mass destruction — as in "weapons of:" the reason the U.S. broke with its own history and invaded another nation unprovoked, as you may recall. The U.S. still insists those weapons are there, somewhere, though the invading forces have had no more luck finding them than the U.N. inspectors before them. If those weapons exist, then what's to prevent the looters from finding them and dragging them home along with the baby incubators and heart monitors they're stealing? Would Iraq, or the world, be a safer place than it was before the invasion and liberation?
The Associated Press reports that yesterday, U.S. Marines found "an enormous cache" of suicide-bomb vests in a Baghdad elementary school, each packed with explosives and ball bearings. There were nearly 50 of them, although it appeared there were a few missing. In a nearby middle school, Marines discovered "hundreds of crates filled with rocket propelled grenade launchers, surface to air missiles, shoulder launched rockets and ammunition," the AP reports. How many other such caches might there be? And how many of them have been discovered by looters rather than the Marines? (By the way, briefing generals: the word "cache" is pronounced like "cash." The word you've been using, "cachet" [pronounced "cash-ay"] is French for stamp, mark, or style.)
The Secretary of Defense says he has "a lot of confidence" that the American people will not believe the reports from journalists and humanitarian workers in Iraq. He did not say whether he had the same confidence about the rest of the world, nor did he respond directly to charges that the U.S. and U.K. are in violation of the Geneva Convention's requirements for occupying forces.
However confident it may be, the U.S. military has also expressed concerns that looters might get their hands on evidence and/or records relating to weapons of mass destruction, and coalition forces are working to keep Iraqi experts on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons from leaving the country. If the records, or the experts, could get loose, then why not the weapons themselves?
I know there are some who sincerely believe that the U.S. invasion of Iraq made the world a safer place. Maybe there are even some who believe Rumsfeld's version of the news. There may still be some who believe that opening all Iraq's cities to looters is the best way to find those weapons of mass destruction and get them out of the hands of those who might use them, and some who believe that asking Saddam's henchmen to go back to policing as usual is the best way to solve Iraq's problems. There are some who believe that the invasion of Iraq will change the mood of the much-talked-about "Arab street," so that the increasing numbers of people who have come to distrust and even hate America and Americans will experience, if they haven't already, a change of heart and come to love us. If you're one of those people, then I hope and pray that you're right, and I'm wrong.
Your tax dollars at work
The incumbent always has the advantage in an election. But this takes that advantage to a new extreme.
The incumbent always has the advantage in an election. But this takes that advantage to a new extreme.
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
One more question, Mr. President!
Wednesday April 14, 8:30 a.m., The White House. The morning after the big press conference, one more reporter shows up...
"Mr. President! Mr. President!"
"You're a little late. The press conference was yesterday. And besides, as I said last night, those who yell will not be called on."
"Yes sir -- if I may call you 'sir'; I know you had a problem with a reporter calling you that the other day -- yes sir, I know the press conference was last night, but if it's not too much trouble, I'd like a follow-up."
"Look, I've already answered enough questions about Iraq. I will not waver."
"But sir, my question isn't about Iraq."
"And I'm not answering any questions about the economy, either. My answer on that is always the same, anyway: tax cuts. I will not waver."
"OK, no questions about the economy, either."
"I said I will not waver, and I mean what I say as president. I will not waver."
"But what about your tie, sir?"
"My tie? Which tie? My tie to the Saudi royal family? I bet you heard that from Michael Moore. That has nothing to do with --"
"Not that kind of tie -- your necktie, sir. Do you feel it was a mistake to wear that particular tie on television?"
"A mis-WHAT? I don't understand that question. I made a mistake when I traded Sammy Sosa. That was my first, and last mistake. As president I stand firm. I do not make mistakes. I chose this necktie because I love freedom, and because I will not waver, and when I say that I mean that I will not waver because I love freedom."
"You may not waver, Mr. President, but your necktie wavered the whole time. The reporters in the room didn't see it, but to those of us watching on television, your tie was dancing around like a psychedelic boa constrictor. You see, sir, the image on a television screen is made up of a bunch of little dots. And the tie you wore last night, it was covered with little dots. The pattern of dots on the tie conflicted with the pattern of dots on the screen, which made your tie look like this:
"It wasn't quite as bad on CSPAN, but even there you had some stripes moving up and down as you swayed back and forth at the podium. If Karen Hughes had been there last night instead of on a book tour, she would have advised you not to wear that tie, because she was once a TV news reporter and everybody who works in television learns that lesson early on."
"Those TV people distort everything! It's the liberal media..."
"Actually, sir, it's just a phenomenon of physics. If you superimpose a pattern over another pattern, you're going to get some distortion, kind of like looking through a window screen. If one or both of those patterns is in motion, the distortion will move around in a downright trippy manner, reminding many Americans of the 1960s, and I'm not talking about Vietnam. So would you admit that it was a mistake to wear that tie?"
"How dare you insult our troops! Next question. Let's call on somebody else. Let's see..."
"Mr. President, all the other reporters went home hours ago. The only ones left are myself and Helen Thomas."
"I see. Well, in that case, go ahead and ask your next question. And Helen, you might as well put your hand down."
"Did you make a mistake in choosing that tie for your television appearance?"
"I want to assure the American people that I will not waver, that I love freedom, and that if I had had the slightest inkling that the liberal media would distort this tie, then of course I would have gone after them. We cannot allow a threat like that to gather."
Wednesday April 14, 8:30 a.m., The White House. The morning after the big press conference, one more reporter shows up...
"Mr. President! Mr. President!"
"You're a little late. The press conference was yesterday. And besides, as I said last night, those who yell will not be called on."
"Yes sir -- if I may call you 'sir'; I know you had a problem with a reporter calling you that the other day -- yes sir, I know the press conference was last night, but if it's not too much trouble, I'd like a follow-up."
"Look, I've already answered enough questions about Iraq. I will not waver."
"But sir, my question isn't about Iraq."
"And I'm not answering any questions about the economy, either. My answer on that is always the same, anyway: tax cuts. I will not waver."
"OK, no questions about the economy, either."
"I said I will not waver, and I mean what I say as president. I will not waver."
"But what about your tie, sir?"
"My tie? Which tie? My tie to the Saudi royal family? I bet you heard that from Michael Moore. That has nothing to do with --"
"Not that kind of tie -- your necktie, sir. Do you feel it was a mistake to wear that particular tie on television?"
"A mis-WHAT? I don't understand that question. I made a mistake when I traded Sammy Sosa. That was my first, and last mistake. As president I stand firm. I do not make mistakes. I chose this necktie because I love freedom, and because I will not waver, and when I say that I mean that I will not waver because I love freedom."
"You may not waver, Mr. President, but your necktie wavered the whole time. The reporters in the room didn't see it, but to those of us watching on television, your tie was dancing around like a psychedelic boa constrictor. You see, sir, the image on a television screen is made up of a bunch of little dots. And the tie you wore last night, it was covered with little dots. The pattern of dots on the tie conflicted with the pattern of dots on the screen, which made your tie look like this:
"It wasn't quite as bad on CSPAN, but even there you had some stripes moving up and down as you swayed back and forth at the podium. If Karen Hughes had been there last night instead of on a book tour, she would have advised you not to wear that tie, because she was once a TV news reporter and everybody who works in television learns that lesson early on."
"Those TV people distort everything! It's the liberal media..."
"Actually, sir, it's just a phenomenon of physics. If you superimpose a pattern over another pattern, you're going to get some distortion, kind of like looking through a window screen. If one or both of those patterns is in motion, the distortion will move around in a downright trippy manner, reminding many Americans of the 1960s, and I'm not talking about Vietnam. So would you admit that it was a mistake to wear that tie?"
"How dare you insult our troops! Next question. Let's call on somebody else. Let's see..."
"Mr. President, all the other reporters went home hours ago. The only ones left are myself and Helen Thomas."
"I see. Well, in that case, go ahead and ask your next question. And Helen, you might as well put your hand down."
"Did you make a mistake in choosing that tie for your television appearance?"
"I want to assure the American people that I will not waver, that I love freedom, and that if I had had the slightest inkling that the liberal media would distort this tie, then of course I would have gone after them. We cannot allow a threat like that to gather."
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
Press conference manners
(On the occasion of George W. Bush's 12th press conference, I'm reposting a piece I wrote in March, 2003, after Mr. Bush's last prime-time press conference.)
Mr. President! Mr. President! Helen, no
Who’s afraid of an 82-year-old woman? A powerful world leader 26 years her junior, it appears, a remarkably fit-looking fellow who could easily outrun, outwrestle, or otherwise trounce the feisty doyenne of the White House press corps in less time than it takes to holler, “Mr. President! Mr. President!” He could take her, easy, without even calling for backup from even one of the hundreds of thousands of troops at his disposal as Commander in Chief.
We didn’t hear anybody hollering that traditional greeting at last night’s press conference, did we? But that wasn’t the only innovation in this apparently scripted session. George W. Bush did something predecessors Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush, and Clinton never, ever did: he ignored Helen Thomas.
Traditionally, the most senior White House correspondent asks the first question at a presidential press conference. Traditionally, ever since her very first press conference in 1960 — when she was the most junior correspondent, not to mention the first female — Helen Thomas has ended each and every presidential press conference by saying, “Thank you, Mr. President.” She was the one who added that polite phrase to the ritual, and presidents, press secretaries and reporters alike have honored that custom, and her with it, for more than 40 years.
Not last night. It wasn’t in the script. Last night the press corps spoke not a word, raised not a hand when the man himself strode regally into the East Room and took his place at the podium for the second prime-time news conference of his presidency. He began the proceedings with a five-minute overview of recent events and hints of future ones, somberly repeating many of the same things he’s been saying for months, especially the phrase “regime change.”
He already knew which reporter would get to ask the first question: it was written on the paper in front of him. And the next, and the next, and the next. At one point, he even explained, “this is scripted,” although for some reason the early versions of the transcript came out as “this is unscripted.” Helen Thomas was not on the list. And when the last question was asked, it was not a reporter at all, but George W. Bush himself who said, “Thank you,” thus signaling not only the end of an event but the end — or at least interruption — of an era.
A leader who seems bent on breaking the longstanding American tradition of not attacking first might not even think twice about violating a news-conference custom. But Mr. President? Mr. President? With all due respect, sir, you blew it — bigtime. Yes, I know the press conference has been over for hours, but as they say in the White House press corps, I’d like a follow-up.
What harm could Helen Thomas possibly have done to you or your cause? Why was it necessary to break with a tradition of good manners that your own father always respected, along with seven other presidents, both Democrat and Republican? Especially, sir, especially when you could just as easily have used it to further your own cause? You’re telling Saddam Hussein that you’re a-comin’ in after him, you’re making it clear to our longterm allies on this continent and elsewhere, not to mention the United Nations, not to mention the American people, that while you’ll listen and nod politely for awhile as they express their views, ultimately they have no say in this. You have the courage to take a stand like that, and yet you’re afraid to let a little old lady ask you a question?
Yes, I know that month after month, day after day, Helen Thomas has been asking the same kinds of questions lately, questions about the looming war on Iraq, downright heckling White House Spokesman Ari Fleisher at times with queries about how much the war might cost, whether oil is the main reason we’re so interested in Iraq, whether war is inevitable. She has nothing to prove anymore, not to anyone. She can say — and ask — what she pleases. Lately her style has been a bit more adversarial than usual, but she still isn’t nearly as abrasive as her late colleague, Sarah McClendon of McClendon News Service, who joined Ms. Thomas in the White House press corps in the mid-60s and gained fame by brusquely and persistently hounding Presidents Johnson and Nixon about Vietnam, among other matters. But the questions she’s asking these days are no tougher than the questions she’s been asking all along. And they’re pretty much the same questions that people all over the nation, all over the world, are asking.
I have no way of knowing whose decision it was to shut Helen Thomas out of that conference, but if I were a White House strategist, I would demand a word or two with that person. And I would begin by asking a question of my own: “When a reporter asks a politician a question, no matter what the question, it means only one thing. Do you know what that is?”
Do you?
When a reporter asks a politician a question, it means it’s the politician’s turn to talk. That’s it. No matter who the reporter is, no matter who the politician is, no matter what the question. Think of it as a tennis game. The reporter serves, the politician returns, the ball goes back and forth. The politician is under no obligation to aim the ball in a direction that is convenient for the reporter, and vice versa. Both players are trying to score. You can’t hit the ball if it’s not coming at you. (At most press conferences outside the White House, the best reporters ask no questions at all. They stand in the shadows and let the TV reporters, and anybody else who likes to hear the sound of their own voice, ask anything they want. They take good notes. Then when the lights go out and everybody else heads back to the office to file identical reports,
the best reporters move in, catching up with their quarry in a less formal moment to ask questions the other reporters don’t even hear. Under the controlled circumstances of the White House, however, the closest thing to an opportunity like that is the traditional shouting of questions over the roar of helicopter blades on the White House lawn, which is not much of an opportunity at all.)
Any question, or questions, or follow-ups, that Helen Thomas might have asked had she not been silenced would have been a perfect opportunity to address the questions everybody’s asking about this impending war, a chance to use a skeptical, even cynical customer as a foil for the hard sell.
But in addition to her impertinent questions, Helen Thomas made a statement a few months ago, a statement that a Canadian newspaper, the Globe and Mail of Toronto, used as the basis for a poll in which 51 percent of respondents agreed. That statement: “George W. Bush is the worst president in all of American history.”
Ms. Thomas never covered William Henry Harrison (who refused to wear a hat at his inauguration, caught cold and died a month later) or Warren G. Harding (look up “Teapot Dome”); if so she might (or might not) have a different opinion. But in thumbing its nose not only at the most respected veteran in the press corps, but traditional and harmless courtesies that have been honored for decades, the current administration did nothing to discredit her controversial statement. Au contrere, as some of our former longtime allies might say.
(On the occasion of George W. Bush's 12th press conference, I'm reposting a piece I wrote in March, 2003, after Mr. Bush's last prime-time press conference.)
Mr. President! Mr. President! Helen, no
Who’s afraid of an 82-year-old woman? A powerful world leader 26 years her junior, it appears, a remarkably fit-looking fellow who could easily outrun, outwrestle, or otherwise trounce the feisty doyenne of the White House press corps in less time than it takes to holler, “Mr. President! Mr. President!” He could take her, easy, without even calling for backup from even one of the hundreds of thousands of troops at his disposal as Commander in Chief.
We didn’t hear anybody hollering that traditional greeting at last night’s press conference, did we? But that wasn’t the only innovation in this apparently scripted session. George W. Bush did something predecessors Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush, and Clinton never, ever did: he ignored Helen Thomas.
Traditionally, the most senior White House correspondent asks the first question at a presidential press conference. Traditionally, ever since her very first press conference in 1960 — when she was the most junior correspondent, not to mention the first female — Helen Thomas has ended each and every presidential press conference by saying, “Thank you, Mr. President.” She was the one who added that polite phrase to the ritual, and presidents, press secretaries and reporters alike have honored that custom, and her with it, for more than 40 years.
Not last night. It wasn’t in the script. Last night the press corps spoke not a word, raised not a hand when the man himself strode regally into the East Room and took his place at the podium for the second prime-time news conference of his presidency. He began the proceedings with a five-minute overview of recent events and hints of future ones, somberly repeating many of the same things he’s been saying for months, especially the phrase “regime change.”
He already knew which reporter would get to ask the first question: it was written on the paper in front of him. And the next, and the next, and the next. At one point, he even explained, “this is scripted,” although for some reason the early versions of the transcript came out as “this is unscripted.” Helen Thomas was not on the list. And when the last question was asked, it was not a reporter at all, but George W. Bush himself who said, “Thank you,” thus signaling not only the end of an event but the end — or at least interruption — of an era.
A leader who seems bent on breaking the longstanding American tradition of not attacking first might not even think twice about violating a news-conference custom. But Mr. President? Mr. President? With all due respect, sir, you blew it — bigtime. Yes, I know the press conference has been over for hours, but as they say in the White House press corps, I’d like a follow-up.
What harm could Helen Thomas possibly have done to you or your cause? Why was it necessary to break with a tradition of good manners that your own father always respected, along with seven other presidents, both Democrat and Republican? Especially, sir, especially when you could just as easily have used it to further your own cause? You’re telling Saddam Hussein that you’re a-comin’ in after him, you’re making it clear to our longterm allies on this continent and elsewhere, not to mention the United Nations, not to mention the American people, that while you’ll listen and nod politely for awhile as they express their views, ultimately they have no say in this. You have the courage to take a stand like that, and yet you’re afraid to let a little old lady ask you a question?
Yes, I know that month after month, day after day, Helen Thomas has been asking the same kinds of questions lately, questions about the looming war on Iraq, downright heckling White House Spokesman Ari Fleisher at times with queries about how much the war might cost, whether oil is the main reason we’re so interested in Iraq, whether war is inevitable. She has nothing to prove anymore, not to anyone. She can say — and ask — what she pleases. Lately her style has been a bit more adversarial than usual, but she still isn’t nearly as abrasive as her late colleague, Sarah McClendon of McClendon News Service, who joined Ms. Thomas in the White House press corps in the mid-60s and gained fame by brusquely and persistently hounding Presidents Johnson and Nixon about Vietnam, among other matters. But the questions she’s asking these days are no tougher than the questions she’s been asking all along. And they’re pretty much the same questions that people all over the nation, all over the world, are asking.
I have no way of knowing whose decision it was to shut Helen Thomas out of that conference, but if I were a White House strategist, I would demand a word or two with that person. And I would begin by asking a question of my own: “When a reporter asks a politician a question, no matter what the question, it means only one thing. Do you know what that is?”
Do you?
When a reporter asks a politician a question, it means it’s the politician’s turn to talk. That’s it. No matter who the reporter is, no matter who the politician is, no matter what the question. Think of it as a tennis game. The reporter serves, the politician returns, the ball goes back and forth. The politician is under no obligation to aim the ball in a direction that is convenient for the reporter, and vice versa. Both players are trying to score. You can’t hit the ball if it’s not coming at you. (At most press conferences outside the White House, the best reporters ask no questions at all. They stand in the shadows and let the TV reporters, and anybody else who likes to hear the sound of their own voice, ask anything they want. They take good notes. Then when the lights go out and everybody else heads back to the office to file identical reports,
the best reporters move in, catching up with their quarry in a less formal moment to ask questions the other reporters don’t even hear. Under the controlled circumstances of the White House, however, the closest thing to an opportunity like that is the traditional shouting of questions over the roar of helicopter blades on the White House lawn, which is not much of an opportunity at all.)
Any question, or questions, or follow-ups, that Helen Thomas might have asked had she not been silenced would have been a perfect opportunity to address the questions everybody’s asking about this impending war, a chance to use a skeptical, even cynical customer as a foil for the hard sell.
But in addition to her impertinent questions, Helen Thomas made a statement a few months ago, a statement that a Canadian newspaper, the Globe and Mail of Toronto, used as the basis for a poll in which 51 percent of respondents agreed. That statement: “George W. Bush is the worst president in all of American history.”
Ms. Thomas never covered William Henry Harrison (who refused to wear a hat at his inauguration, caught cold and died a month later) or Warren G. Harding (look up “Teapot Dome”); if so she might (or might not) have a different opinion. But in thumbing its nose not only at the most respected veteran in the press corps, but traditional and harmless courtesies that have been honored for decades, the current administration did nothing to discredit her controversial statement. Au contrere, as some of our former longtime allies might say.
Monday, April 12, 2004
Headlines on holidays -- how to minimize the impact of news you'd rather not break
Hours after Condoleezza Rice finished testifying before the 9/11 Commission last Thursday, the news broke that the White House staff was "working to declassify" the Aug. 6, 2001 memo that she and her boss insist contained no warning of what was about to happen, the memo titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." And wouldn't you know it, those devoted public servants kept on "working to declassify" the document from then until midday Saturday, when they finally achieved that hard-fought goal. While we saw no video, not even a still image of the team slogging away, we could easily picture them slaving away there, teams of them lifting weighty phrases, carefully replacing them with ellipses, clearing all the brush, day after day, with hardly a break for rest or even water, until they finally emerged -- dirty, sweaty, but proud of a job well done and ready to celebrate the holiday weekend, already in progress for the rest of us. Coincidentally, that moment of accomplishment occurred, and the memo was released, at the exact best time to release news you'd rather nobody noticed: right smack between 5 p.m. Friday and midnight Saturday, the slowest time in the news business and a time most people are paying attention to their own private lives. Regular readers of Second-Day Lede may recall a mention of that rule here the other day, but we didn't mention then that holiday weekends are even better for releasing stealth news, especially if it's a holiday for several religions, but most especially if it's a big holiday for the people most likely to vote for the guy you work for: conservative Christians, for example.
For the rest of us, however, the memo reveals far more than the administration might have wanted to disclose. It clearly illustrates something about the socioeconomic situation of everybody that received it: apparently none of them has ever had to put together Ikea furniture, a toy train set, or anything else that has instructions in something less than clear English. Because if they had, they might have been able to assemble the thing out of the parts that came in that package:
Bin Laden: 14 references
Attacks: 8 references, including one "U.S. attack"
Bomb: 3 references
Hijacking: 2 references (including the phrases: "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings" and "hijack a U.S. aircraft" )
Terrorist: 3 references
World Trade Center: 1 reference, in lede
New York: 2 references
Washington: 1 reference
"Bring the fighting to America": 1 reference
Hours after Condoleezza Rice finished testifying before the 9/11 Commission last Thursday, the news broke that the White House staff was "working to declassify" the Aug. 6, 2001 memo that she and her boss insist contained no warning of what was about to happen, the memo titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S." And wouldn't you know it, those devoted public servants kept on "working to declassify" the document from then until midday Saturday, when they finally achieved that hard-fought goal. While we saw no video, not even a still image of the team slogging away, we could easily picture them slaving away there, teams of them lifting weighty phrases, carefully replacing them with ellipses, clearing all the brush, day after day, with hardly a break for rest or even water, until they finally emerged -- dirty, sweaty, but proud of a job well done and ready to celebrate the holiday weekend, already in progress for the rest of us. Coincidentally, that moment of accomplishment occurred, and the memo was released, at the exact best time to release news you'd rather nobody noticed: right smack between 5 p.m. Friday and midnight Saturday, the slowest time in the news business and a time most people are paying attention to their own private lives. Regular readers of Second-Day Lede may recall a mention of that rule here the other day, but we didn't mention then that holiday weekends are even better for releasing stealth news, especially if it's a holiday for several religions, but most especially if it's a big holiday for the people most likely to vote for the guy you work for: conservative Christians, for example.
For the rest of us, however, the memo reveals far more than the administration might have wanted to disclose. It clearly illustrates something about the socioeconomic situation of everybody that received it: apparently none of them has ever had to put together Ikea furniture, a toy train set, or anything else that has instructions in something less than clear English. Because if they had, they might have been able to assemble the thing out of the parts that came in that package:
Bin Laden: 14 references
Attacks: 8 references, including one "U.S. attack"
Bomb: 3 references
Hijacking: 2 references (including the phrases: "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings" and "hijack a U.S. aircraft" )
Terrorist: 3 references
World Trade Center: 1 reference, in lede
New York: 2 references
Washington: 1 reference
"Bring the fighting to America": 1 reference
Sunday, April 11, 2004
Stuff I'm wondering about...
Arnie's last round
So they're making a big deal out of Arnold Palmer's 50th time in the Masters golf tournament at the gender-segregated Augusta National Golf Club. He's retiring. So if golf is work for you, what do you do when you retire: play more golf? Or go sit in an office all day, just for fun?
Weeds in Paradise Square
With all the U.S. has put into its invasion of Iraq, would it have been too much to pay some kid $20 to mow the lawn? On Thursday, the BBC's Lyse Doucet reported live from Paradise Square in Baghdad, and the weeds that have grown up there since the Saddam statue was pulled down on TV a year ago -- those weeds were nearly as tall as she is. Why give the locals yet another reason to hate us? Any neighbor who moves in next door and lets the lawn go straight to heck is going to have problems. Doucet reported from near Paradise Square again Friday -- the square itself was closed off, with a U.S. military vehicle circling slowly, its loudspeaker threatening that anyone with a gun would be shot dead. That sound competed with calls from a nearby mosque for blood and humanitarian aid for people trapped by the fighting in Fallujah. Folks, a neighbor who drives around the block over and over blasting his stereo and making threats is also not going to make a lot of friends. Would it have been too much to broadcast a different message, even if it had to be alternated with the threats? Something like this, maybe:
"Greetings, friends. U.S. Military here. We hope you like your country better today than you did a year ago. We don't, ourselves, but that's beside the point. In fact, many of us would like to go home because we only signed up for a weekend a month and two weeks in the summer in the first place. Anyway, enjoy the anniversary, and remember, anyone who appears to have a weapon will be shot dead. You may never travel to our country, but at least you'll get an idea what it's like to be a black man who happens to be packing a wallet on an American street at night. Or, closer to home, what it's like to be one of us well-meaning citizens who signed up to serve our country and ended up patrolling yours. Have a nice day."
Your tax dollars at work
Not only is our government paying people to consume pornography,it's we're paying for the counseling they get for the effect that kind of work has on them.
The Passion of the Easter Bunny
If you want to whip the Easter Bunny, you've got to break some eggs, I guess.
Arnie's last round
So they're making a big deal out of Arnold Palmer's 50th time in the Masters golf tournament at the gender-segregated Augusta National Golf Club. He's retiring. So if golf is work for you, what do you do when you retire: play more golf? Or go sit in an office all day, just for fun?
Weeds in Paradise Square
With all the U.S. has put into its invasion of Iraq, would it have been too much to pay some kid $20 to mow the lawn? On Thursday, the BBC's Lyse Doucet reported live from Paradise Square in Baghdad, and the weeds that have grown up there since the Saddam statue was pulled down on TV a year ago -- those weeds were nearly as tall as she is. Why give the locals yet another reason to hate us? Any neighbor who moves in next door and lets the lawn go straight to heck is going to have problems. Doucet reported from near Paradise Square again Friday -- the square itself was closed off, with a U.S. military vehicle circling slowly, its loudspeaker threatening that anyone with a gun would be shot dead. That sound competed with calls from a nearby mosque for blood and humanitarian aid for people trapped by the fighting in Fallujah. Folks, a neighbor who drives around the block over and over blasting his stereo and making threats is also not going to make a lot of friends. Would it have been too much to broadcast a different message, even if it had to be alternated with the threats? Something like this, maybe:
"Greetings, friends. U.S. Military here. We hope you like your country better today than you did a year ago. We don't, ourselves, but that's beside the point. In fact, many of us would like to go home because we only signed up for a weekend a month and two weeks in the summer in the first place. Anyway, enjoy the anniversary, and remember, anyone who appears to have a weapon will be shot dead. You may never travel to our country, but at least you'll get an idea what it's like to be a black man who happens to be packing a wallet on an American street at night. Or, closer to home, what it's like to be one of us well-meaning citizens who signed up to serve our country and ended up patrolling yours. Have a nice day."
Your tax dollars at work
Not only is our government paying people to consume pornography,
The Passion of the Easter Bunny
If you want to whip the Easter Bunny, you've got to break some eggs, I guess.
Friday, April 09, 2004
Man resembling Dennis Kucinich occupies White House
No, he's not a vegan and he's definitely not in favor of pulling out of Iraq. But the current occupant of the White House and his team are resembling Democratic Congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich more every day. Week after week, primary after primary, every time Kucinich got 3 percent of the vote, he gave a victory speech. And as the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate a year after the invasion, the administration's words are sounding more and more like Kucinich's definition of triumph.
"We're facing a test of will, and we will meet that test," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld yesterday. Here he is meeting the press yesterday:
Q: Mr. Secretary, (inaudible) Iraqi security forces in (inaudible), why don’t they (inaudible)?
Rumsfeld: Well, they’ve lost over 250 people killed in action, so the suggestion that they’re not out providing security for the country of Iraq would be a misunderstanding of the situation.
Q: Mr. Secretary, have you seen images today (inaudible)?
Rumsfeld: Well, of course terrorists have been doing that type of thing for hundreds of years.
But Gen. John Abizaid, "commander of Central Command," seems to disagree in this report from the UK Telegraph: "U.S. commander will not take blame for unrest".
And here's Secretary of State Colin Powell, also yesterday:
"Whether we are confronted by an outlaw and his mobs claiming to themselves the mantle of religion, or by disgruntled members of the former tyrant's regime, or by foreign terrorists, we will deal with them. In that we are resolute."
Perhaps President Kucinich will keep them on in his new administration.
No, he's not a vegan and he's definitely not in favor of pulling out of Iraq. But the current occupant of the White House and his team are resembling Democratic Congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich more every day. Week after week, primary after primary, every time Kucinich got 3 percent of the vote, he gave a victory speech. And as the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate a year after the invasion, the administration's words are sounding more and more like Kucinich's definition of triumph.
"We're facing a test of will, and we will meet that test," Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld yesterday. Here he is meeting the press yesterday:
Q: Mr. Secretary, (inaudible) Iraqi security forces in (inaudible), why don’t they (inaudible)?
Rumsfeld: Well, they’ve lost over 250 people killed in action, so the suggestion that they’re not out providing security for the country of Iraq would be a misunderstanding of the situation.
Q: Mr. Secretary, have you seen images today (inaudible)?
Rumsfeld: Well, of course terrorists have been doing that type of thing for hundreds of years.
But Gen. John Abizaid, "commander of Central Command," seems to disagree in this report from the UK Telegraph: "U.S. commander will not take blame for unrest".
And here's Secretary of State Colin Powell, also yesterday:
"Whether we are confronted by an outlaw and his mobs claiming to themselves the mantle of religion, or by disgruntled members of the former tyrant's regime, or by foreign terrorists, we will deal with them. In that we are resolute."
Perhaps President Kucinich will keep them on in his new administration.
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Get me rewrite!
The New York Times story on the 9/11 families' reaction to Condoleezza Rice's testimony today had this headline an hour ago:
9/11 Widows Not Convinced Enough Was Done on Terror
but it's been changed to:
9/11 Survivors See Hearing From Various Angles
The New York Times story on the 9/11 families' reaction to Condoleezza Rice's testimony today had this headline an hour ago:
9/11 Widows Not Convinced Enough Was Done on Terror
but it's been changed to:
9/11 Survivors See Hearing From Various Angles
Correction
In a post titled "-30-" published here April 2, 2004, Second-Day Lede included a link to my obituary for writer Alan Levy and stated that there was no obituary for the Prague Post editor in The New York Times. That situation has now been corrected: click here to read the Times' obituary for Mr. Levy.
“I’m still forming and maybe I’ll find out who I am when I read my obituary. Until then, I work hard, play hard, take good care of my health and enjoy life to the hilt.” – Alan Levy
In a post titled "-30-" published here April 2, 2004, Second-Day Lede included a link to my obituary for writer Alan Levy and stated that there was no obituary for the Prague Post editor in The New York Times. That situation has now been corrected: click here to read the Times' obituary for Mr. Levy.
“I’m still forming and maybe I’ll find out who I am when I read my obituary. Until then, I work hard, play hard, take good care of my health and enjoy life to the hilt.” – Alan Levy
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Prouder than ever to be a card-carrying member
What a news week it's been for the American Civil Liberties Union, defenders of our Constitution. And it's only Wednesday!
Yesterday, the ACLU challenged the government's "no-fly" list.
Today the attorneys charged on two fronts, supporting right-wing-radio hatemonger Rush Limbaugh's efforts to keep his medical records private in Florida, and suing the State of New York on behalf of 13 same-sex couples who want to marry. The ACLU had already filed similar suits in other states.
Wonder whatthey'll we'll do tomorrow?
What a news week it's been for the American Civil Liberties Union, defenders of our Constitution. And it's only Wednesday!
Yesterday, the ACLU challenged the government's "no-fly" list.
Today the attorneys charged on two fronts, supporting right-wing-radio hatemonger Rush Limbaugh's efforts to keep his medical records private in Florida, and suing the State of New York on behalf of 13 same-sex couples who want to marry. The ACLU had already filed similar suits in other states.
Wonder what
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Where have all the embeds gone?
Remember last year at this time, before "major combat operations" in Iraq ended, when there were 700 "embedded" reporters moving along with U.S. troops? Many of them have gone back to Iraq to report on the anniversary of the invasion, but are any of those, or any other journalists, covering the various battles we're only seeing as cities on a map with arrows pointing at them?
This morning's "question of the day" on CNN was "Is Iraq Bush's Vietnam?" My answer wasn't among the choices: Let's hope it's his only one.
Remember last year at this time, before "major combat operations" in Iraq ended, when there were 700 "embedded" reporters moving along with U.S. troops? Many of them have gone back to Iraq to report on the anniversary of the invasion, but are any of those, or any other journalists, covering the various battles we're only seeing as cities on a map with arrows pointing at them?
This morning's "question of the day" on CNN was "Is Iraq Bush's Vietnam?" My answer wasn't among the choices: Let's hope it's his only one.
Monday, April 05, 2004
Stealth news
Ever notice how the correction to a story that made big headlines never seems to get such big headlines itself? Some news organizations have made token attempts to correct that, requiring that if an error appeared in a front-page story, the correction should be on page one as well -- but that only helps a little because the headline is still very small. No newspaper is going to publish a banner headline announcing "We were wrong!" when a single paragraph with a 14-point headline will suffice.
There's another trick to ensure the correction will get even less notice, and every publicist knows how it works. Release the correction, or any news you want to downplay, on the weekend, especially between Friday evening and Saturday night. Don't wait too long, though -- the new week starts on Sunday afternoon for Monday publications, and they'll be looking for fresh material.
This weekend the Bush administration demonstrated its mastery of those two strategies, releasing Secretary of State Colin Powell's correction to his dramatic, prop-enhanced presentation on Iraq's alleged weapons to the United Nations last February -- Oops! That incontrovertible evidence wasn't "solid" after all -- on Saturday morning during the cartoons.
Ever notice how the correction to a story that made big headlines never seems to get such big headlines itself? Some news organizations have made token attempts to correct that, requiring that if an error appeared in a front-page story, the correction should be on page one as well -- but that only helps a little because the headline is still very small. No newspaper is going to publish a banner headline announcing "We were wrong!" when a single paragraph with a 14-point headline will suffice.
There's another trick to ensure the correction will get even less notice, and every publicist knows how it works. Release the correction, or any news you want to downplay, on the weekend, especially between Friday evening and Saturday night. Don't wait too long, though -- the new week starts on Sunday afternoon for Monday publications, and they'll be looking for fresh material.
This weekend the Bush administration demonstrated its mastery of those two strategies, releasing Secretary of State Colin Powell's correction to his dramatic, prop-enhanced presentation on Iraq's alleged weapons to the United Nations last February -- Oops! That incontrovertible evidence wasn't "solid" after all -- on Saturday morning during the cartoons.
Friday, April 02, 2004
-30-
When a reporter dies of natural causes after a long and distinguished career, that news doesn't usually get much notice. Still, I thought for sure that Alan Levy, founding editor of The Prague Post, would get a New York Times obituary, especially since he used to write for them. They didn't give him one, but I did.
What does the headline mean? Back in the days of newsrooms full of clattering typewriters, every story ended with:
-30-
so that all the editors handling it would know exactly where it ended.
When a reporter dies of natural causes after a long and distinguished career, that news doesn't usually get much notice. Still, I thought for sure that Alan Levy, founding editor of The Prague Post, would get a New York Times obituary, especially since he used to write for them. They didn't give him one, but I did.
What does the headline mean? Back in the days of newsrooms full of clattering typewriters, every story ended with:
-30-
so that all the editors handling it would know exactly where it ended.
Thursday, April 01, 2004
Bringing up the volume on the left
Hi, this is Janet in Hoboken, New Jersey: longtime listener, first-time reviewer (and, incidentally, a former radio talk-show host in a very different place and time).
I've been listening to Air America since its inception yesterday at noon -- not nonstop, of course, but enough to offer a review based not on the pre-launch press releases but hours and hours of actual listening.
As you've probably heard from the established media, Air America is a fleeting novelty, doomed to fail because it's liberal and trying to be funny and everybody knows liberals are too serious to be funny, always doing math and stuff like that, and/or it's doomed to fail because it's a commercial (i.e., profit-seeking) venture and everybody knows that profits are the realm of the right. Or it may be doomed to fail because the only people who'll tune in are liberals already so Al Franken and all those other lefties are just preaching to the choir.
Although Air America is available on XM Satellite Radio and in streaming audio online, so far only a handful of actual broadcast stations have picked it up. That might lend some credence to the preaching-to-the-choir argument, since people in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Minnesota and Portland, Oregon, who can tune in on AM are likely to be lifelong left-leaners. The same might be said of online and satellite listeners.
And it's true that so far, most of the callers (and presumably, the listeners) have agreed with the on-air personalities on just about every point. But this is not exactly preaching to the choir. They're preachy, all right, but more important, the voices of Air America ARE the choir. And the choir is singing. In harmony. Can they drown out the cacaphonous crap spewing from the right side of the radio dial? Who knows. But at least the left has cleared its throat, broken its silence, and given us a chance to have a national dialogue once again instead of a national monologue.
The first item on Air America's agenda is to reclaim the word "liberal" and the dignity it deserves. Those who prefer to say "the L-word" can go right ahead; on Air America, the L-word has a new meaning: "liar." As in Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right by Al Franken himself. Which reminds us that like Air America, Second-Day Lede is an advertising-supported, profit-seeking enterprise:
Hi, this is Janet in Hoboken, New Jersey: longtime listener, first-time reviewer (and, incidentally, a former radio talk-show host in a very different place and time).
I've been listening to Air America since its inception yesterday at noon -- not nonstop, of course, but enough to offer a review based not on the pre-launch press releases but hours and hours of actual listening.
As you've probably heard from the established media, Air America is a fleeting novelty, doomed to fail because it's liberal and trying to be funny and everybody knows liberals are too serious to be funny, always doing math and stuff like that, and/or it's doomed to fail because it's a commercial (i.e., profit-seeking) venture and everybody knows that profits are the realm of the right. Or it may be doomed to fail because the only people who'll tune in are liberals already so Al Franken and all those other lefties are just preaching to the choir.
Although Air America is available on XM Satellite Radio and in streaming audio online, so far only a handful of actual broadcast stations have picked it up. That might lend some credence to the preaching-to-the-choir argument, since people in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Minnesota and Portland, Oregon, who can tune in on AM are likely to be lifelong left-leaners. The same might be said of online and satellite listeners.
And it's true that so far, most of the callers (and presumably, the listeners) have agreed with the on-air personalities on just about every point. But this is not exactly preaching to the choir. They're preachy, all right, but more important, the voices of Air America ARE the choir. And the choir is singing. In harmony. Can they drown out the cacaphonous crap spewing from the right side of the radio dial? Who knows. But at least the left has cleared its throat, broken its silence, and given us a chance to have a national dialogue once again instead of a national monologue.
The first item on Air America's agenda is to reclaim the word "liberal" and the dignity it deserves. Those who prefer to say "the L-word" can go right ahead; on Air America, the L-word has a new meaning: "liar." As in Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right by Al Franken himself. Which reminds us that like Air America, Second-Day Lede is an advertising-supported, profit-seeking enterprise:
