Second-Day Lede

Still blogging...

2004-10-20T16:27:00.000-04:00

...daily on The Dagley Dagley Daily.

Here's what I posted there today.

"...And the Clinton administration before that"

2004-07-22T11:30:00.000-04:00

We interrupt our summer hiatus with this breaking news: CNN's William Schneider just reported that the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks not only pressured the Bush administration, but "the Clinton administration before that", for an independent commission to investigate the intelligence failures and other shortcomings that allowed the attacks to happen.

Hope he gets an extra jelly bean for sticking to the GOP talking points, even though that required bending not only the truth but the laws of physics.

The Clinton administration ended on January 20, 2001. The attacks happened in September, 2001. The victims weren't victims until September, and that means the families of the victims weren't families of the victims until then. Nonetheless, Schneider tells the world, the families were prescient enough to begin demanding an investigation nearly a year before there were attacks to investigate.

If that's the case, Mr. Schneider, then let's hope the 9/11 Commission report recommends putting those families of victims in charge of our nation's security from now on, since they apparently are able to see the future.

We now return you to our summer hiatus, already in progress.

Thanks for your patience...

2004-06-08T15:40:00.000-04:00

...Second-Day Lede is on summer hiatus until September 12. In the interim, postings will be intermittent. Meanwhile, our top story today and every day, reported live: Former President Ronald Reagan remains dead. And news organizations everywhere are finally recouping the investment they've made over the past few decades: generation upon generation of canned Reagan obits.

Famed Tennessee Baptist comes to Greenwich Village to preach to locals about dominance, humiliation, and perversion

2004-05-27T07:50:00.000-04:00

(The following is a simulpost with my other blog, The Dagley Dagley Daily.)

Does former Vice President (and my fellow Tennessean) Al Gore have a future as a fire-and-brimstone preacher? He showed quite a talent for it Wednesday at New York University as he preached to the choir: more than 800 cheering members of the moveon.org Political Action Committee. In a one-hour sermon on the subject of Iraq, Gore used his full dynamic range, from a hoarse whisper to a top-of-the-lungs shout that left crying babies in its wake. Bland? Wooden? Not this Al Gore. It appears that Bob Dole syndrome -- boring-until-out-of-office -- is an equal-opportunity affliction.

Gore did some party-line-crossing himself, quoting more Republicans than Democrats, as well as the Bible, Mr. Bush, tortured detainees, their torturers, and a whole contingent of retired and active-duty military personnel.

He got standing ovation after standing ovation, and thunderous applause when the crowd was taking a break from standing, all of which illustrated a basic rule of preaching (or performing) that Mr. Gore hasn't quite learned yet: when you're interrupted by applause, let yourself be interrupted. Don't just shout over the cheering and continue your speech, because nobody can hear you.

Fortunately I was only about 10 yards away from the man who won the 2000 popular vote, and I was able to see the Teleprompter -- otherwise I wouldn't have known that Gore was calling for the resignations of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his deputies Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and Stephen Cambone, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. The room was a bit quieter, though, as Gore called for the resignation of CIA Director George Tenet. "He is a personal friend and I know him to be a good and decent man. It is especially painful to call for his resignation, but I have regretfully concluded that it is extremely important that our country have new leadership at the CIA immediately."

And just as fortunately, I was able to relay that information to some of those leaving the speech who were asking, "But what did he say? Whose resignation was he asking for?"

An effective preacher also needs to fire up the congregation with a hunger for something more than fried chicken and nanner puddin after the service, by assigning them a task for the week ahead. Gore fired 'em up all right, but he didn't assign a task. Moveon.org was already calling for the resignations of Rumsfeld and others, and even as Gore spoke, more than 1,000 Moveon members were visiting the local offices of their senators and congressional representatives to reinforce that call. In fact, Moveon members in the New York City area had to choose between making those visits and listening to Gore's speech.

A preacher also has to be able to do one more thing: change minds, get people to see the light. But everybody in this crowd already agreed with Gore; he'll have to go elsewhere to find minds to change.

Which brings us to the Rocky Top Brigade, a diverse conglomeration of bloggers of all persuasions who have only one thing in common: our connection to the state of Tennessee, which we also share with Mr. Gore. The Brigade is having one of its regular online git-togethers today, this time at a spot on the far right of the spectrum, Rebel Yell. Rebel Yell's proprietor, Stoney, has assured all us left-leaners that he won't poke fun at the Brigade's liberals, so I'm testing his limits by contributing this piece.

For security reasons, we weren't supposed to bring anything -- no purses, backpacks, cellphones, cameras -- so I left everything at home except my wallet, keys, notebook, pen, and ticket to the speech. I must have been the only one who followed that directive, and now I wish I hadn't been so obedient. I took notes like crazy, which wasn't necessary since the entire speech is available online.

Gore seems to have aged more than his 2000 opponent, although he might just have decided that Grecian Formula is for those who seek the center. In any case, he's letting his gray flag fly these days, and he's definitely not seeking the center.

"George W. Bush promised us a foreign policy with humility," Gore began. "Instead, he has brought us humiliation in the eyes of the world. He promised to 'restore honor and integrity to the White House.' Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest president since Richard Nixon.

"Honor? He decided not to honor the Geneva Convention. Just as he would not honor the United Nations, international treaties, the opinions of our allies, the role of Congress and the courts, or what Jefferson described as 'a decent respect for the opinion of mankind.' He did not honor the advice, experience and judgment of our military leaders in designing his invasion of Iraq. And now he will not honor our fallen dead by attending any funerals or even by permitting photos of their flag-draped coffins."

In a neighborhood where leading people around on leashes is a form of entrepreneurism, Gore addressed the Bush administration's fondness for the word "dominance."

"An American policy of dominance is as repugnant to the rest of the world as the ugly dominance of the helpless, naked Iraqi prisoners has been to the American people. Dominance is as dominance does. Dominance is not really a strategic policy or political philosophy at all. It is a seductive illusion that tempts the powerful to satiate their hunger for more power by striking a Faustian bargain. And as always happens -- sooner or later -- to those who shake hands with the devil, they find out too late that what they have given up in the bargain is their soul."

Amen, brother. Preach on:

"Our founders were insightful students of human nature. They feared the abuse of power because they understood that every human being lives with an internal system of checks and balances that cannot be relied upon to produce virtue if they are allowed to attain an unhealthy degree of power over their fellow citizens. Listen, then, to the balance of internal impulses described by Specialist Charles Graner: 'The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the corrections officer says'" -- Gore paused to apologize in advance for the language he was quoting -- "'I just love to make a grown man piss on himself.'"

He quoted the Institute of Strategic Studies, which reported Tuesday that the U.S. invasion of Iraq "has arguably focused the energies and resources of Al Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition."

(It wasn't surprising that within hours, right-wing commentators were comparing Gore's fiery speech with the "Dean scream." You remember Howard Dean, who months ago pointed out that the Iraq war did not make us safer? Remember when that suggestion was controversial? Can you think of anyone, other than Rush Limbaugh, who disputes it today?)

Gore quoted Gen. Joseph Hoar, former head of the U.S. Marine Corps: "I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss."

And he quoted retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, who says our nation's current course is "headed over Niagara Falls." He quoted Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack, Jr., commander of the 82nd Airborne, who said, when asked if the U.S. was losing the war in Iraq: "I think strategically, we are." He quoted Army Col. Paul Hughes, who directed strategic planning for the U.S. occupation authority in Iraq. Hughes, who lost his brother in Vietnam, said that "I promised myself when I came on active duty that I would do everything in my power to prevent that from happening again." Hughes said that, "unless we ensure that we have coherence in our policy, we will lose strategically."

And he quoted one of the Judge Advocates General in the Defense Department who asked a human-rights lawyer for help, telling him, "There is a calculated effort to create an atmosphere of legal ambiguity where the mistreatment of prisoners is concerned."

In light of the photos, affidavits, and other evidence of abuse of prisoners held by the U.S. in Iraq and elsewhere, including at least 37 deaths in captivity, Gore shuddered as he quoted Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, in which he reported that more than 3,000 "suspected terrorists" had been arrested and "many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way: they are no longer a problem to the United States and our allies."

Gore quoted Gen. William Boykin, who apparently doesn't realize this nation was founded on the concept of freedom of religion, since he told evangelical groups that in the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. is "a Christian nation battling Satan."

He quoted victim Ameen Saeed al-Sheikh, who told the Washington Post that he was ordered to denounce Islam after torturers broke his leg and continued hitting it, ordering him "to thank Jesus that I'm alive."

Then Gore quoted the Bible:

"In my religious tradition, I have been taught that 'ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so, every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit...Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.'"

He quoted Abraham Lincoln's Dec. 1, 1862, address to Congress: "The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country. Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history ... the fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation ... We shall nobly save, or meanly lose the last best hope of earth ... The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless."

And as the Tennessee preacher got around to the subject of salvation, he quoted another Republican, Reagan-administration Labor Secretary Ray Donovan, who, when cleared of all charges in a corruption investigation, asked, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"

Where do we go to reclaim our nation's honor? To the polls, Gore said, just six months and a few days from now. And he quoted Lincoln again:

"We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility."

Helen Thomas wasn't on hand for the occasion, so as Gore concluded and the crowd went wild, I stood in for her.

"Thank you, Mr. President!" I hollered -- not that anybody heard me, but just for the record.

All the apology that's fit to print

2004-05-26T20:24:00.000-04:00

The New York Times now acknowledges that its reporting leading up to the invasion of Iraq was "not as rigorous as it should have been."

They could have said so in far fewer words, such as "We were had" or "Michael Massing was right."

Fake news guy addresses real grads

2004-05-20T13:33:00.000-04:00

The worse the news gets, the more we enjoy the fake news on Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. It's in reruns this week, but for those who need a few words from the fake newsman himself, here's Jon Stewart's address to the class of '04 at William and Mary College.

Questions somebody should be asking

2004-05-19T17:06:00.000-04:00

This is the most-linked-to item in the Blogosphere today, according to Daypop. For those who prefer not to follow that trendy link, I'll summarize: a childless heterosexual couple married 8 years went through extensive fertility testing, during which doctors discovered they'd never had sex and didn't know what it was. The doctors blamed the couple's religious upbringing. The pair are now being trained in the proper procedure.

Question 1: Why would anyone encourage these people to reproduce?

Next, why is firing live ammunition into the air anybody's tradition for celebrating anything?

Finally, one of the main points made by those who doubt the official story about what happened to Nick Berg and when is this: the executioner is wearing a gold ring, which is forbidden in Islam. That leads us to our last question for today:

Wearing a gold ring is forbidden in Islam, but beheading a hostage isn't?

More abuse

2004-05-18T17:37:00.000-04:00

In this case, the victims included four Iraqi journalists, working for Reuters and NBC, subjected to treatment consistent with those famous photos, detained last January by the U.S. military in Fallujah.

Most underplayed story of the day

As of June 30, the U.S. will stop paying $340,000 a month to Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress.

Missed connections

2004-05-17T16:27:00.000-04:00

If the press corps were a basketball team, they'd be stepping all over each other on the court, unaware that the ball had bounced out into the parking lot. Here are some of the connections they've missed lately:

Missed connection #1:

We told you about it in January.

We didn't know until we saw it on 60 Minutes II.

How could that be? They told us all about something they hadn't heard about themselves. But what did enquiring reporters want to know on yesterday's Sunday talk shows? "Has Rumsfeld had it with the media?"

Missed connection #2:

The 50th anniversary today of the U.S. Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education ruling that "separate but equal" is an oxymoron.

The beginning of court-sanctioned government-approved same-sex marriages today in Massachussetts.

One reporter got that connection, and wrote about eloquently in an op-ed piece published today in The New York Times.

Mr. Bush didn't see the connection: he practically took credit for the Brown v. Board decision today, while calling for separate-but-equal in that discriminatory constitutional amendment he's pushing for.

Missed connection #3:

Colin Powell was in the middle of answering Tim Russert's question yesterday on "NBC's Meet the Press" when this happened:

Russert: Finally, Mr. Secretary, in February of 2003, you placed your enormous personal credibility before the United Nations and laid out a case against Saddam Hussein citing...

Powell: Not off.

Emily: No. They can't use it. They're editing it. They (unintelligible).

Powell: He's still asking me questions. Tim.

Emily: He was not...

Powell: Tim, I'm sorry, I lost you.

Russert: I'm right here, Mr. Secretary. I would hope they would put you back on camera. I don't know who did that.

Powell: We really...

Russert: I think that was one of your staff, Mr. Secretary. I don't think that's appropriate.

Powell: Emily, get out of the way.

Emily: OK.

Powell: Bring the camera back, please. I think we're back on, Tim. Go ahead with your last question.

Russert: Thank you very much, sir. In February of 2003, you put your enormous personal reputation on the line before the United Nations and said that you had solid sources for the case against Saddam Hussein. It now appears that an agent called Curveball had misled the CIA by suggesting that Saddam had trucks and trains that were delivering biological and chemical weapons. How concerned are you that some of the information you shared with the world is now inaccurate and discredited?

"Emily" is apparently Sec. Powell's press aide.

Missed connection #4:

This one's a local story in the blogosphere. Blogware provider Movable Type announced it would be charging for what was previously free almost immediately after Blogger irritated some of its users with a redesign that giveth as it taketh away. If Movable Type had waited a few weeks, they might have picked up some Blogger emigrants before they announced their new pricing plan.

Global dimming

2004-05-14T18:45:00.000-04:00

It's been happening for the past 50 years, at least, so most of us don't know the world any other way, but science tells us that it's not just our imagination: we don't see as much sunlight these days as we used to.

The next time Al Gore gives a speech in the daytime, I expect some rightwinger will say that proves conclusively there's no such thing as global dimming.

Bible quoters take on Bible thumpers

2004-05-13T18:14:00.000-04:00

The Bible thumpers you already know about: they have control of the White House, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court, but not Iraq.

But it's possible to do more with a Bible -- if you stop thumping it long enough to look inside, you find some revelatory reading, as Bible-quoters Buddy Don and Kurt Vonnegut tell us.

U.S. Army needs to change its recruitment slogan forthwith...

2004-05-12T17:35:00.000-04:00

...because "put yourself in the picture" has taken on a whole new meaning.

Ugly American du jour

2004-05-11T17:51:00.000-04:00

Today's winner is Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), who today was the embodiment of ignorant hatefulness, and who has flushed the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" down the toilet:

"I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment...These prisoners, you know they're not there for traffic violations.. "If they're in cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."

A Red Cross report quotes coalition military authorities themselves as saying that "70 to 90 percent" of those detained were "arrested by mistake."

Was it a photo contest?

2004-05-10T19:30:00.000-04:00

An Al-Jazeera journalist who was held by the U.S. in Abu Ghraib prison told Britain's ITV, among other things:

"They were enjoying taking photographs of the torture. There was a daily competition to see who could take the most gruesome picture.

"The winner's photo would be stuck on a wall and also put on their laptop computers as a screensaver."

Attention, all you people who've been chanting "God Bless America" since September 2001. You might want to update that to "Heaven help us." We have met the evil-doers, and they is us.

Secretary of Evasiveness

2004-05-07T17:53:00.000-04:00

"...if there's a failure, it's me." -- Donald Rumsfeld, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on torture of prisoners in U.S. custody in Iraq

If? If? If? If? If? If?

Here's another "if" for you: if Rumsfeld takes the fall and resigns, that resignation would most likely be announced sometime between 6 p.m. Friday and noon Sunday.

And one more: IF Rumsfeld resigned, would that solve the problem? Only if he were the whole problem.

Sticking to the script

2004-05-06T20:53:00.000-04:00

George Bush continues to say, in most every campaign appearance, that "the torture chambers are closed." He's insisted it all along, even after the February report that he says he didn't know about, and even as the International Red Cross "repeatedly asked the U.S. to take corrective action.

Does anybody believe him anymore? If you're one of those who do, please use the comments field here to tell us what you believe, and why.

The only way...

2004-05-05T09:33:00.000-04:00

...George Bush's appearance on Arab TV might even possibly make even one iota of difference would be if he put himself in the position of the torture victims. So for this appearance, he won't need a suit, a tie, or even cowboy boots. He doesn't even need a hood, though he might prefer to wear one.

Maybe we all need to read this again, carefully

2004-05-04T20:02:00.000-04:00

The Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war, 1949.

because the people who did this (caution: disturbing images that you've probably already seen on TV) didn't.

Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist Seymour M. Hersh, who told the world about the My Lai massacre in Vietnam back in 1969, is also telling the world about this disgraceful scandal.

Mission not accomplished, Iraq veteran says

2004-05-03T19:48:00.000-04:00

Iraq veteran Lt. Paul Rieckhoff, U.S. Army Reserve, rebutted Mr. Bush's weekly radio address with some words of his own on Saturday. (Yes, that's a link to, of all places, Fox News -- it's the only place I could find the transcript posted.)

Not just a number

2004-04-30T17:53:00.000-04:00

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.

She's the mom

2004-04-29T18:25:00.000-04:00

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.

Thank you...

2004-04-28T18:14:00.000-04:00

...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.

Listening to the Supremes

2004-04-27T18:44:00.000-04:00

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.

Meet the prince

2004-04-26T18:52:00.000-04:00

'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.

We see dead people

2004-04-23T18:40:00.000-04:00

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.

Folos

2004-04-22T12:21:00.000-04:00

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."

Dueling military records

2004-04-21T18:16:00.000-04:00

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.

Forbidden image

2004-04-20T16:17:00.000-04:00

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.

Isn't it ironic?

2004-04-19T17:27:00.000-04:00

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.

Another Vietnam?

2004-04-16T09:17:00.000-04:00

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.

2004-04-15T18:25:00.000-04:00

"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

2004-04-15T17:31:00.000-04:00

The incumbent always has the advantage in an election. But this takes that advantage to a new extreme.

One more question, Mr. President!

2004-04-14T10:30:00.000-04:00

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."

Press conference manners

2004-04-13T17:34:00.000-04:00

(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.

Headlines on holidays -- how to minimize the impact of news you'd rather not break

2004-04-12T16:42:00.000-04:00

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

Stuff I'm wondering about...

2004-04-11T18:23:00.000-04:00

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.

Man resembling Dennis Kucinich occupies White House

2004-04-09T16:44:00.000-04:00

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.

Get me rewrite!

2004-04-08T17:44:00.000-04:00

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

2004-04-08T17:15:00.000-04:00

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

Prouder than ever to be a card-carrying member

2004-04-07T17:08:00.000-04:00

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 ~~they'll~~ we'll do tomorrow?

Where have all the embeds gone?

2004-04-06T17:31:00.000-04:00

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.

Stealth news

2004-04-05T17:49:00.000-04:00

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.

-30-

2004-04-02T16:15:00.000-05:00

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.

Bringing up the volume on the left

2004-04-01T18:04:00.000-05:00

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:

More voices in the mix

2004-03-31T17:32:00.000-05:00

Congratulations to Air America, the new liberal talk radio network, which launched today at noon on a handful of stations. If you're not within earshot, you can tune in online. Not only does the network feature such informed, entertaining liberals as Al Franken, Chuck D, and Randi Rhodes -- it also offers live reports from Wally Ballou, played by Bob Elliott himself.

So far the low point has been Rhodes shouting over Ralph Nader. Before that, they managed to go nearly six hours without anybody shouting, period, let alone over a guest.

Stuff we'd rather not hear

2004-03-30T17:10:00.000-05:00

National Public Radio Ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin is also campaigning against cliches.

BBC icon Alistair Cooke, who dispatched his last Letter from America last month, died last night. He was 95.

And this -- this is just appalling. But then, what else can we expect from Robert Novak:

NOVAK: Congressman, do you believe, you're a sophisticated guy, do you believe watching these hearings that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?

EMANUEL: Say that again?

NOVAK: Do you believe that Dick Clarke has a problem with this African-American woman Condoleezza Rice?

Oh, and Dr. Rice will be testifying under oath and in public after all. That's yet another Bush flip-flop.

Parrots, reporting live

2004-03-29T18:36:00.000-05:00

The other day I suggested that if news organizations want to use dead reporters, the venerable Edward R. Murrow might be a good choice. But today I've found an even better suggestion: Monty Python's dead parrot. Because it seemed the whole press corps was made up of parrots today, parrots reporting live.

I could tell they were parrots because all they did was parrot, all day long. "...but Rice said it was unprecedented for a National Security Advisor to testify before a congressional..." (that's a composite, not a direct quote from any one of them). They offered no other side to that story, they just squawked and squawked the same line over and over all morning. I didn't expect to be complimenting the man who pompously declares, "Stand by for hard news!" every day at 5 p.m. (on a channel broadcasting same all day and all night!), but finally around noon, CNN's Wolf Blitzer was the first TV news personality to do anything but parrot that quote from the reluctant witness. He must have gotten around to reading last Saturday's Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial, which called the National Security Advisor on that claim before she even made it on the Sunday morning news shows or 60 Minutes.

Why should the media impose 'balance' on a story that isn't?

2004-03-26T18:24:00.000-05:00

Sean Aday of The Gadflyer addresses that important question in "He Said, She Lied: The media in an imbalanced world." Your assignment: read it before Monday.

Good at hiding?

2004-03-25T15:19:00.000-05:00

A species of mountain lion that has not been seen in New Jersey for nearly 200 years has been sighted near a pond in Mahwah. That's what the lede says, but if you read the whole story you discover that numerous hunters and farmers have reported encounters with "big tawny-colored cats" over the past few years.

The cats apparently are much better at hiding than the brown bear, because so many of those have been sighted in the Garden State that the state even had an official bear hunt last year.

On Jeopardy! -- bay-bee

2004-03-25T09:57:00.000-05:00

Some of the people who shout over each other on political talk programs will be joining other celebrities for a special week of Jeopardy! in May. Remember, folks, you'll have to wait until Alex Trebek finishes saying the last syllable of the last word of the answer BEFORE you ring in, and then you have to wait until he calls on you to say the question. Or if you can't be that civilized, then at least make sure that everything you shout is in the form of a question.

Elvis

2004-03-25T09:25:00.000-05:00

No, not a sighting: that's what they were arguing about on New Year's Eve in a Staten Island firehouse. Specifically, the disagreement that left a firefighter critically injured was over the date of Elvis's birth.

Dawn of the Wounded

2004-03-25T07:30:00.000-05:00

A moviegoer watching Dawn of the Dead yesterday at a Times Square theater in New York accidentally shot himself in the leg with the gun he happened to have in his pocket. Remember, New York has been on orange alert since the color-coded alerts were invented, even as the rest of the country has gone back and forth between yellow and orange.

If you're confused about which guns you're allowed to own, Say Uncle offers this handy reference guide. But as Johnny Cash once sang, "leave your guns at home" when you go to the movies, OK? Even the drive-in.

Refer Madness #4 -- Special LIVE Edition

2004-03-25T07:24:00.000-05:00

This Thursday we offer a special LIVE edition of Refer Madness. All day long, we'll be adding new refers to interesting news and commentary elsewhere in the blogosphere and cyberspace beyond.

Ban these, too, says Plain English Association

2004-03-24T18:24:00.000-05:00

'At the end of the day' tops this list of the most irritating cliches in our language, at this point in time (that's #2 on the list). Here's the whole Top Ten:

1) At the end of the day

2) At this moment in time

3) Like,(as a form of punctuation)

4) With all due respect

5) To be honest

6) Let's touch base

7) I hear what you are saying

8) Going forward

9) Absolutely

10) Blue sky (thinking)

'24/7' also made the list, which I appreciate. I'd also like to nominate "...and the good thing about that is..." -- not only because it's overused, but because it's just plain wrong. Is there ANYTHING that has only one good thing about it?

Ban these words, please! Part 2: Words that TV news could do without

2004-03-23T19:10:00.000-05:00

...Annnnnnnd we're back with another edition of Ban these words, please! Thank you for joining us on this Tuesday.

ARE there words and/or phrases that should be banned from television news, not because of offensiveness but the annoyance of overuse or misuse? That's all coming up. Please stay with us for a special report on words and phrases that we feel should no longer be allowed on TV news.

...annnnnnd...let's start with AND, especially at the beginning of a sentence. While it may be useful for floor directors advising "talent" that they are back on the air, viewers already know that "we're back" without any explanation. Annnnnnnnnd there's no reason to begin all your sentences with "annnnnnnnnnd" if you're not a floor director yourself.

LIVE -- as in, "Our Joe Blow is live in front of the courthouse that won't be open for another five hours. Joe, what are the latest developments this morning?"

As long as all your reporters are alive when they're reporting, it's a waste of your time and ours for you to point out that they are live. If you do use dead reporters, I recommend the legendary Edward R. Murrow.

OUR (also OUR OWN)-- as in the same example.

If a reporter is on your air, reporting for you, that should be enough. If that reporter is a freelancer, stringer, special correspondent, or similarly labeled independent contractor, they are not "yours." Acknowledge the freelancers working for you as the independent contractors they are. If you are unsure about which reporters you can call yours, ask yourself, "Does our parent company provide health insurance, sick pay, vacation, and other benefits for this reporter?" If not, omit the "our".

Coming up -- There is a classic rule for public speaking that was once explained to me like this: tell em what you're gonna tell em and then tell em and then tell em what you told em. TV news has rewritten that: tell em what you're gonna tell em and take a quick break and then tell em what you're gonna tell em and then tell em what you're gonna tell em and then take a short break and then tell em what you're gonna tell em and then tell em what you're gonna tell em and then, if there's time left, tell em, and then if there's still time left, fill it with a mixture of what you think about what you just told em and intermittent chuckling.

Just briefly, real quick -- best illustrated by The New York Times's Elisabeth Bumiller's unbelievably stupid question to John Kerry in the New York Democratic presidential debate: "Really fast, last, on a Sunday morning, President Bush has said that freedom and fear have always been at war and God is not neutral between them. He's made quite clear in these speeches that he feels God is on America's side. Really quick: Is God on America's side?

How _____X_____ does it feel? When I was a cub reporter, the journalists' incessant chant was just as Bob Dylan immortalized it: "How does it FEEL? How does it FEEL?" But no more. Now the journalist fills in the blank -- how frustrating does it feel? How bad does it feel? "How worried are you, ma'am, about your missing child?" All that's left for the interviewee is the intensity of the specified feeling.

Our hearts go out to you. (Usually followed by: Let's take a short break.). Yes, let's.

Give me a sense... If you must say this, make it "Give me some sense..." at least until an interviewee replies, "Ma'am, if the Good Lord didn't give you any, there's nothing I can do to help you."

Thank you for taking the time -- stop saying this, especially to:

-- the desperate parent of a kidnapped blond white child (the parents of nonblond, nonwhite ones rarely get the chance to go on TV, do they?)
-- a flak ("public relations person") or spokesperson
-- any politician
-- one of "your" reporters.

Thanks for joining us, and tune in again next week when we go after some words and phrases we'd rather not see in print news media.

Chasing the cat in the box, missing the story

2004-03-22T20:05:00.000-05:00

If the conditional tense were suddenly eliminated from our language, the people who tell us what's going on in the world would suddenly find themselves at a loss for words. If they couldn't report anything they didn't know for certain, if they couldn't speculate about either the future or the past, the silence would be deafening.

The other day, for example, the news machinery was running at top speed, fueled by reports that a person who may be one of the leaders of al-Queda might be among a group of fighters that may be surrounded by the Pakistani army (possibly assisted by the U.S. Army), in a place called Waziristan on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, While the non-American news organizations (usually called "the international media") managed to avoid climbing that spiral of what-ifs and maybes and continued telling us about the news that was actually happening, the domestic media got stuck in conditional mode.

They didn't tell us about the violence in Kosovo, sparked by the drowning deaths of two children. We didn't hear much about the bizarre, possibly staged, assassination attempts on both the president and vice president of Taiwan on election day eve, or the equally bizarre replay of our 2000 election that ensued. They were about to tell us about the day's new round of explosions in Baghdad when the maybe-maybe-maybe story broke, not hypothetical blasts but real ones, but Wolf and the rest of the pack seem to have forgotten all about what was actually happening as they turned their (and our) attention to the hypothetical scenario in a place with no live video.

Maybe they measured the Baghdad blasts by the old man-bites-dog rule and decided they weren't news, really. Everybody knows that if a dog bites a man it's not news, but if a man bites a dog, that's news because it's unusual. The Baghdad blasts happen every day, so are they still news? Apparently not -- not if a possible "high value target" might be involved in what might be a firefight in a place so remote that all you can do is point to it on a map over and over. Maybe if there's a day without explosions there, we'll get a live breaking-news report. Maybe. (Hey, I've learned from watching them.)

With the notable exception of crusading journalist Lou Dobbs (may he remain on the air for decades to come), they stopped talking about the economy, stupid or not -- except to report on how the markets were reacting to their reporting on the speculation that somebody who might be somebody, referred to as "that guy" by at least one TV news reporter, might be surrounded, and presumably subsequently captured or killed, by a bunch of other guys who may or may not be on our side.

They even stopped, for a few hours at least, going on and on about the latest breaking developments in the stories that usually expand to fill the space available, like the live reports from bleary-eyed stringers standing outside closed courthouses at 4 a.m local time to give us what we need to know about motions that might or might not be filed in the Scott Peterson trial, or the charges against Michael Jackson or even his sister's overexposed parts.

And they showed us, once again, that the laws of physics also apply to journalism. In this case, the journalists were after what the physicists refer to as Schroedinger's Cat:

Physicist Erwin Schroedinger's cat was a hypothetical critter that lived, or didn't live, in a box that had, or didn't have, something in it that could kill it, or not kill it, at any moment, and there was a 50-50 chance. The box was sealed with the cat and its potential death inside, so from the outside nobody could tell if the cat were alive or dead at any given moment. The cat exisited as a half-dead, half-alive entity: as long as the box was closed, it was nothing but a probability wave.

The barking news hounds' cat, Ayman al-Zawahri, one of the apparently gazillions of #2 masterminds in al-Queda, may not even have been in the box at all.

Most underplayed story of the week

2004-03-19T18:44:00.000-05:00

And it's good news, too: "Mass Extinction Not Inevitable," WIRED News reports.

Refer madness #3

2004-03-18T17:20:00.000-05:00

Our weekly list of refers to good reading elsewhere in cyberspace begins with congratulations to TomPaine.com, which just won the 2003 Herbert Block Freedom Award from The Newspaper Guild-CWA, for being "a consistent voice of reason and democratic discourse at a time of increased political attacks on civil liberties and a flattening of discourse in the mainstream media."

"Like its historical namesake, TomPaine.com promotes informed public discourse, which is essential in a democratic society," TNG-CWA President Linda Foley said. "The group's continuing efforts to promote anti-establishment viewpoints on issues of the day are exactly what Herb Block's cartoons did for readers of the Washington Post."

Second, if you haven't seen Donald Rumsfeld explaining what he said he said, click here to watch Moveon.org's latest ad. This one's simply an excerpt of a news program, but it speaks for itself. Of course, the Defense Secretary's manner of speaking has already been noted in the literary world:

Third, please welcome The Gadflyer to our online political discourse. So far, it looks good, but it's just in the process of launching.

Next, Calpundit Kevin Drum has moved to the Washington Monthly, where his new Political Animal blog picks up the thread uninterrupted.

Then there's cousin Buddy Don. Not only has he given us more than 100 chapters of his fictional life story (so far), but he offers his pinions as well from time to time, and this week he's been on a roll. If you have trouble understanding his hillbilly dialect, he's also provided a dictionary.

Last, your tax dollars at work: "Iraq on the Record," prepared at the request of Rep. Henry Waxman not only counts (237) the Bush administration's misleading statements about Iraq, but it has a search feature. You can type in keywords such as "mushroom cloud" or "smoking gun" to find the quotes in which one or more administration official used that term.

'It's a scene from hell here, Wolf'

2004-03-17T18:15:00.000-05:00

There's a time to talk about what the news industry does wrong, but today let's focus instead on what it does right. Kudos to CNN Baghdad Bureau Chief Jane Arraf for her excellent live reporting today, distinguished not only by the courage and tenaciousness she displayed, but especially by her honest acknowledgment of the horror and outrage she felt as she reported from the scene of today's bombing. Unfortunately, Wolf Blitzer's breathless Chicken Little approach to the story was nowhere near as exceptional.

What didn't Kerry say, and when didn't he say it?

2004-03-16T19:02:00.000-05:00

I had the TV news on today most of the time I was perusing the first annual State of the News Media report from the Project on Excellence in Journalism, and to be honest I found out more about what's wrong with the news industry from today's news coverage than I did from the report. Nothing against the report, except that I do wonder who they expected to read it: seems unlikely that either the average consumer of news or the average producer of it would take the time to read through all 500 pages. Academics might take the time, but the people who need it most probably won't get it. Besides, it's full of numbers, and editors always tell us that numbers put readers, viewers, and listeners to sleep. I don't mean to dismiss the report, but I find today's news a more vivid, immediate illustration of the problem. We'll have more on the report itself later in the week.

The other day, a reporter transcribing an audio recording of a John Kerry campaign event got one of the words wrong. But his report was the only account of the event, because he was a "pool" reporter covering the event for all news organizations everywhere, by agreement. This is sort of like a "fair catch" in football, when a player receiving the ball on kickoff can signal to the opposing team that if they let him catch the ball without tackling him, he'll stay put without being tackled. For various reasons, such as short-staffing on the part of news organizations or limited access to an event, the news industry often depends on a single reporter or photographer to provide pool coverage. On the local reporting level, that hardly matters because -- except in very big cities (i.e., "media markets"): -- there's probably going to be only one reporter covering the story anyway.

So this reporter, Patrick Healy of the Boston Globe, quoted Kerry as saying "foreign" when he really said "more." Which means it wasn't "foreign leaders" that Kerry said would prefer him to Bush as U.S. President, but "more leaders."

The Bush/Cheney campaign came out swinging, armed with the erroneous transcript, its spokesmen and women absolutely incredulous at the very idea that there might be either foreign leaders or more leaders who would prefer to deal with someone other than the current occupant of the White House. And the press corps responded not by pointing out the obvious, that of course there are leaders that would prefer someone other than Bush, even anyone-but-Bush, but by parrotting the Bush campaign's demands that Kerry name the names behind this ludicrous nonstatement.

Comic David Letterman jumped on the nonstory last night: "John Kerry says that foreign leaders want him to be president, but that he can't name the foreign leaders. That's all right, President Bush can't name them either."

The TV talking heads did stumble a time or two as they acknowledged that the reporter who said Kerry had said what he said had since said that Kerry had actually said something else, but they weren't about to let the facts get in the way. Not just the facts about what Kerry said, but the more important fact that, as the Pew Charitable Trust reports in a study released today, "A Year After Iraq War: Mistrust of America in Europe Ever Higher, Muslim Anger Persists." Here's the summary:

"A year after the war in Iraq, discontent with America and its policies has intensified rather than diminished. Opinion of the United States in France and Germany is at least as negative now as at the war's conclusion, and British views are decidedly more critical.

Perceptions of American unilateralism remain widespread in European and Muslim nations, and the war in Iraq has undermined America's credibility abroad. Doubts about the motives behind the U.S.-led war on terrorism abound, and a growing percentage of Europeans want foreign policy and security arrangements independent from the United States. Across Europe, there is considerable support for the European Union to become as powerful as the United States.

The latest survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted from late February to early March in the U.S. and eight other countries, shows that Muslim anger toward the United States remains pervasive, although the level of hatred has eased somewhat and support for the war on terrorism has inched up. Osama bin Laden, however, is viewed favorably by large percentages in Pakistan (65%), Jordan (55%) and Morocco (45%). Even in Turkey, where bin Laden is highly unpopular, as many as 31% say that suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable."

There's your story, folks. And not just that, but the people now in charge of this country don't want to hear it. They seem unwilling to even consider the possibility that the world isn't on their side. And that's your lede story.

Your story is also that it is more and more often the case that there is only one reporter covering a story, and that the entire news industry, and its consumers, are depending on that lone reporter, and that the reporter on whom all that depends is a human. The story is not that the reporter in this case made a mistake and fessed up to it; but that reporters make mistakes all the time, and they usually don't admit it. And the story is that even after the reporter sent out a correction, Vice President Dick Cheney is still out there using the erroneous quote:

'I noticed recently that Senator Kerry has been making some observations about foreign policy. (Laughter.) He's been telling people that his ideas have gained strong support, at least among unnamed foreigners he's been spending time with. (Laughter.) Senator Kerry said, and I quote, "I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but, boy, they look at you and say, you've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy, things like that." End quote.'

Cheney said that on Monday. But even after the correction went out, it's still on the whitehouse.gov web site.

All that fuss over whether Kerry said what he said distracted the entire media machinery from the latest news about attitudes toward the U.S. -- a much bigger story any way you look at it. That brings us to one of the main points in the State of the News Media report:

"Those who would manipulate the press and public appear to be gaining leverage over the journalists who cover them."

Looking for excellence in journalism, finding mediocrity

2004-03-15T18:25:00.000-05:00

The Project on Excellence in Journalism has issued its first annual State of the News Media report, and I'm perusing it as I type. It's a hefty document -- the executive summary is 34 pages -- so it's going to take me awhile to read it all. Meanwhile, you might want to take a look at it yourself. At first glance, it appears that the news about the news industry is not good.

Licensed to...

2004-03-12T17:38:00.000-05:00

A second-day lede on yesterday's item on the rights of salamanders, et al. The State of New Jersey, which goes out of its way to allow salamanders of all sexual orientations to mate, but only recognizes the unions of opposite-sex human couples, has given your humble blogger the same rights as the salamanders: I get to use the roads, too. I'm unlikely to exercise the driving privilege much, as one must be a native New Jerseyan (i.e., "guy") to be able to navigate the place: the road signs here, when there are any at all, are even more obtuse than the ones in California, where "west" and "Orange" are considered opposite directions.

The New Jersey licensing process is now the new New Jersey licensing process, although only some of the bureaus have the new digital equipment. The guy next to me was a native "guy" with an existing analog license, and he wanted to swap it for one of the new ones. He showed me his old one, and I couldn't believe it: no picture. None. Not digital. Not analog. None. It looked like something a high-school kid could have forged back when I was in high school (in those days, the "copy machine" was called a "mimeograph."

In the process of improving the process, the motor vehicles bureau has changed some things but not everything. Some parts of the process now take longer than they did before the switch to digital. Some take less time, and some may no longer be necessary. But as one bureau employee explained today, they haven't necessarily adapted the rest of the process to the new gee-whiz digital gizmos, so sometimes there's way more that enough time between one step and the next, and other times there isn't possibly enough. Then she handed me yet another set of papers, told me to go fill them out and then wait until my name was called. I had barely stepped away from the counter when I heard my name. I responded in keeping with local customs: "You talkin' to me?"

"You Janet?" The bureaucrat replied, answering my question with a question.

"Yes."

"Your application, please."

"I haven't had a chance to fill it out yet -- your colleague just gave it to me less than a minute ago."

"Go fill it out and then come back up here."

I guess I was too slow. As I rushed back to the counter with my quickly-filled-in form, the worker walked away. Very, very slowly, she walked over to the time clock on the far wall, where she punched out for a break. She noticed me standing there as she walked -- very, very slowly -- to what I presume was the break room. More than half an hour later, one of the other workers there noticed that no one was working that position, and as a result, the lines weren't moving properly. No one could use the fancy digital gizmo until the worker returned, because it was registered to her thumbprint alone and she hadn't bothered to log out when she clocked out. She had to interrupt her break to log out so that someone else could log in and do her job. But then she went right back to her break. As all this was going on, several other employees were announcing to their colleagues that they were going home early, and they did.

"You should see it here on Thursday evening," the native Jersey guy said. "That's the only night they're open late. I tried to get in here last week, and the line was around the block."

Refer Madness, Second Edition

2004-03-11T16:56:00.000-05:00

It's Thursday again, and that means it's time for a second round of Refer Madness, featuring "refers" (pronounced RE-fers) to some interesting reading elsewhere in cyberspace.

First, let's doublecheck the calendar: mine says it's Thursday, March 11, 2004. Yours too? OK. Keep that in mind as you read this news item. The U.S. government says it's got a plan for 24-hour surveillance of the place they suspect Osama bin Laden may be hiding, and they'll be implementing it "soon."

Meanwhile, this photo is from my local cable channel's "community bulletin board" -- this morning!

Next, it appears that in New Jersey, salamanders of all sexual orientations have more rights than same-sex human couples. In keeping with the "Amphibian Road Kill Reduction Project" in New Brunswick, a road was shut down so that salamanders could cross it to mate. Meanwhile, although the courageous mayor of Asbury Park did officiate at the licensed wedding of one same-sex couple, the state intervened and put future same-sex Garden State weddings on hold. When I moved to New Jersey myself a few years ago, I was advised by one of the natives that technically, everyone in New Jersey is considered a "guy" -- but I guess it doesn't say that on marriage licenses here.

Ban these words, please

2004-03-10T18:06:00.000-05:00

These aren't the famed "seven dirty words" or even words that have caused trouble for anyone in the media lately. But please, if we must ban words, let's start with these. Today's installment: words that should be banned from public radio. In coming days, we'll also include words and phrases that should disappear from television and print media as well. I'm not saying anybody should be fired for using these words; if they were, there'd be nobody left on the air.

1) Sort of

2) Kind of

(Eliminating those two phrases alone would make room for 30 percent more content on public radio.)

3) Arguably (Enybody who's been through as many divorces as I have knows everything, absolutely everything, is arguable)

4) If you will (What are you going to do if I won't? Get arguable?)

5) Um (Eliminating this one would make room for another 7 percent more content)

6) Support (If they're giving you advice or letting you cry on their shoulder, then go ahead and call it "support." If it's money, it's "underwriting.")

7) On the other hand (I know it's easy to imagine that every story has only two sides, but few do, actually. While Harry Truman may have longed for a one-handed economist in hopes of eliminating that phrase, journalists should go in the other direction, and become more like the many-handed Hindu god Vishnu. Or better still, the "television-handed ghost" in Amos Tutuola's book, My Life in the Bush of Ghosts:)

Crosstalk disturbs the curtained clouds of America's airwaves

2004-03-09T13:43:00.000-05:00

Censorship is only one of many threats to freedom of speech

A new arrival in heaven was on a tour of his new home, the old joke goes. The angels were flying him from cloud to cloud, pointing out important landmarks and the homes of celebrities, when the new guy noticed that one of the clouds had curtains all around it. "What's up with that?" the newbie asked (he was from Jersey, OK?). "Oh, that's the [insert name of religious group here]," one angel explained. "They think they're the only ones up here."

Until very recently, radio in America was a lot like that, with public radio and commercial radio rarely even acknowledging each other's existence even though they were next-door neighbors on what was once called "the dial." Listeners, of course, have always seen right through those curtains, if they perceived them at all. They routinely jump from one station or band to the other, they assume that everybody in radio probably knows everybody else, and they don't hear much real difference between the loud, compressed ads on commercial radio and the slick-but-subdued "underwriting" on public radio. Those listeners would be surprised to learn how uncommon it is for journalists or other radio "talent" to move successfully -- or even attempt to move -- from one realm to the other.

Not only do public radio and commercial radio each have their own organizations, conventions, and publications, but other than engineers -- who focus on laws of physics that apply everywhere -- people who work in one radio world rarely get together with their colleagues in the other realm. Shop talk would be difficult in any case, because they even have separate jargon, and to be honest, the public folks kind of look down at the commercial people as having sold out for advertising, while those in commercial radio look down at the public people because, frankly, underwriting generally produces smaller paychecks than advertising does. Similarly, AM and FM radio do acknowledge each other, especially when they share the same markets and/or owners, but they also tend to keep to themselves.

But early in 2004, distressing sounds began filling the airwaves, to the extent that all the curtained clouds in radioland suddenly started picking up each other's signals. That cacaphony of crosstalk delivered a disconcerting message: not only are they not alone, but they're not in heaven, either. And if they're not very, very careful, they may not even be in radio much longer.

The problem began not with a sound but with a sight: the notorious Super Bowl flesh flash. Days earlier, there was a touch of dramatic foreshadowing, but it seemed more humorous than ominous at the time. When candidate Dennis Kucinich held up a pie chart to illustrate a point in a January radio debate, everybody laughed and pointed out that visuals don't matter on the radio. Turns out they do, as Congress, the Federal Communications Commission, and private enterprise have subsequently made clear. (Once again, Kucinich was right, and once again, it did him absolutely no good.)

So now you've got your public-radio people coming out in support of the likes of Howard Stern, and the embattled shock jock speaking out on behalf of a public-radio commentator who was fired by one of the nation's top public stations because an obscenity she blurted in a prerecorded program didn't get edited out before it aired. You've got right-wing pain-pill-aficionado Rush Limbaugh taking Stern's side as well. And you've got one of the most progressive, open-minded people in public radio taking shockingly conservative action to protect her station and its license from the aural equivalent of the exposed areola.

So far the FCC's jurisdiction does not extend into new-media spheres such as cyberspace or satellite networks. Nor does the FCC regulate cable-television programming as it does the public airwaves, so cable comics can continue using words that can't be broadcast and adult channels can still be adult. But as economist William Hamilton pointed out some decades ago, and Clear Channel Communications illustrated just last week, “Business succeeds rather better than the State in imposing its restraint upon individuals, because its imperatives are disguised as choices.”

In the case of the Nipplegate ripple effect, private enterprise may well be making the choices it does in response to such powerful government imperatives as a 20-fold increase in fines. But while government may be taking the lead in protecting us from bare breasts and worty dirds, that censorship is only one of many serious threats to our public avenues of communication. For the past decade or so, under Democrats, under Republicans, more and more of what was traditionally considered public intellectual property has been claimed as private. Every time the copyright on Mickey Mouse was about to expire, Congress extended the term for all copyrights, and those extensions were upheld by the Supreme Court. Public-domain material whose copyright has long since expired, distributed digitally with copy-protection, has become the private property not of the original author, but the owner of the copy-protection code. Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig tells us all about it in his new book, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity:

That book won't be officially published until later this month, but even as Lessig was finishing it, yet another threat to the public discourse emerged, yet again in the halls of Congress. Traditionally, while compilations of facts, such as directories or databases, can be protected by copyright, the facts themselves were considered public property. But in January, the "Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act," a bill that would have put the raw material of those databases -- just plain facts -- under copyright protection for the first time, got preliminary approval from the House Judiciary Committee. Now that some light has been shown in its direction, the bill appears dead for this session, with nary a mention remaining on the web site of the congressman who sponsored it. But the threats to the public domain, to fair use, and to free expression are still very much alive.

I was reminded of all that the other day when my husband and I were shopping, and the cashier made a mistake, giving our receipt to the customer in front of us, and vice versa. "Oh, %$#@!" she exclaimed when she realized what had happened. She's lucky she doesn't work in radio. And she's even luckier that so far, the word she used hasn't become anybody's private property.

Stern warnings

2004-03-08T18:43:00.000-05:00

Update: see comment below, and new post above. jdd

Blogger's note: This post is just a draft; stay tuned for an updated, expanded version soon. Thanks! jdd

A pie chart and a nipple illustrate what's happening to radio

Everybody chuckled back in January when Dennis Kucinich pulled out a pie chart to illustrate a point in a radio debate. But that was before February's Super-Bowl nipple flash. Now it's March, and we're learning that visuals do too have an effect on radio.

Howard Stern is no stranger to flesh on the radio: putting naked women in front of live mics is his trademark stunt. What a strange twist that the exposed breast that may end his career was never even on his show, except in whatever mention he made of it after it was broadcast live on national television. But now that FCC fines have ballooned like a starlet with a silicone job in the wake of the boob-on-the-tube incident, Stern says he's "a dead man walking" and will soon broadcast his last show. Listeners in six cities where Stern was heard until recently won't hear that last show or any other, because Clear Channel, owner of the Stern affiliate stations in those cities, had already pulled him off the air.

Meanwhile, in public radio, Los Angeles station KCRW fired commentator Sandra Tsing Loh after she blurted an obscenity in a taped program -- a word she said she thought the engineers would cut before broadcast. "It is the equivalent of the Janet Jackson performance piece and there is not a radio or TV programmer today who does not understand the seriousness involved to the station," KCRW General Manager Ruth Seymour told the BBC.

At this point, we should explain for those just joining us that the rules for over-the-airways broadcasting are quite different from those regulating any other kind of broadcasting, such as cable TV, satellite or Internet. That's because the public airwaves are considered public property, property that is governed by the Federal Communications Commission, a group of political appointees currently chaired by Michael Powell, son of Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Meddlesome conservative busybodies hiding behind the nipple shield are charging forward to claim jurisdiction over our airwaves, and they're gaining ground fast. But all the excitement over the bared breast and its consequences is itself a distraction from an even bigger story: not only is free speech on the public airwaves under threat, but the public domain is being claimed by private enterprise. And worse, now even facts, long assumed to be in the public domain, may soon become private intellectual property as well. And that's the real obscenity.

Pin the tail on the story

2004-03-05T19:22:00.000-05:00

The press corps has spent the past 24-hour news cycle bumbling around like a bunch of blindfolded kindergarteners in its attempt to cover the outrage over the Bush/Cheney campaign's use of images from the World Trade Center attacks, including one of a team of firefighters hauling the flag-draped remains of a fallen brother out of the Ground Zero rubble.

Somehow one reporter got the notion that the only people with any right to say anything about the political use of those images are those who lost loved ones, or at least someone they knew, in that day's terrorist attacks. And from there it seemed the rest of the pack just followed the leader. (More often than not, when a pack of reporters takes off chasing a story, all but a few of them are actually chasing each other.) They tried to outdo each other, pulling in widows and former co-workers, preferably in twos, following the lazy journalist's assumption that if you talk to two people, you've covered both sides of the story, that assumption a result of the more widespread misconception that there are only two sides to any story.

And while those most vulnerable to the traumatic impact of those images are way too young to vote (or be interviewed without their parents' permission), the media machine completely ignored the effect those ads, or their coverage of them, will almost certainly have on children.

While the reporters were asking 9/11 survivors (and honey, we are ALL 9/11 survivors, just as those of us who are old enough to remember are all survivors of the Vietnam war) to quantify just how bad (or good) the political use of those images made them feel, their producers were busy putting together montages of 9/11 images to illustrate the news about the controversy over 9/11 images, much easier news to illustrate than problems with Social Security. That leads us to another news biz insider term: tragedy porn. I trust that one is self-explanatory.

Visuals are very, very, very important in the news biz (outside of radio, where the choice bits are called "actualities"). They're important in newspapers -- I once had an important story buried, without so much as a refer on the section front, because a competing story came with "good use of yellow" in its illustration. But visuals are everything in television. So when visuals themselves became the news of the day, the people who went to school to study things like "good use of yellow" just couldn't help themselves.

Meanwhile, as usual, the news was frequently interrupted by advertising. Coincidentally, some of those ads were the very same ones they were talking about, and showing along with lots of other 9/11 images, in the programming they interrupted. It was like a snake eating itself: "I'm George Walker Bush and I approve of this message"...political ad using 9/11 images...news about political ads using 9/11 images..."easy money from Green Light"..."I'm George Walker Bush and I approve of this message"..."You lost your husband on 9/11; nice to have you with us..."

The peak of the whole experience for me was a shameless, thoughtless segue on WCBS-TV's noon news, going from their live coverage of the controversy over the images to a story that had happened earlier in the day over in Germany. "The conviction of a man accused of helping the 9/11 hijackers was overturned today..." the talking heads droned; behind them flashed yet another image of Twin Towers rubble.

The news corps talked all day about the ads, even as they avoided pointing out that the Bush/Cheney campaign's "$10-million ad buy" was paying their salaries. And that's the elephant in the living room.

Meanwhile, they missed the day's big story, perhaps because the visual that was supposed to go with it didn't turn out as planned. The signing of the interim Iraqi constitution was postponed again today after the Shi'a faction balked at the last minute. Early this morning, I saw the council members assembling for their group photo op right before the scheduled signing, and then disassembling. There were only three women, all with their heads covered, in the group of about 20 people. There's your story, boys and girls.

Refer Madness

2004-03-04T18:27:00.000-05:00

Five columns a week is a lot of writing for me and a lot of reading for you, especially considering that this is not my only blog. Besides, there's a lot of good stuff out there that I don't need to write because somebody else already did. So we're introducing what we hope will be a weekly feature: Refer Madness, in which we send you off to other exotic outposts in the Blogosphere to read what's been written and posted on other walls.

Since one purpose of this site is to let you in on how news is cultivated, harvested, processed, packaged, marketed, and distributed, we're throwing in another insider term: refer, in this case with the emphasis on the first syllable, as in RE-fer. Journalists don't always deliberately misspell words when using them as jargon (like "lede" or "graf"); sometimes we just mispronounce them. That's the case with a refer, or a headline, blurb, photo or graphic on the front of a magazine, newspaper, or a newspaper section front, referring the reader to the story somewhere inside. In a news "budget" meeting, in which editors sort through the day's stories and decide what gets published and where, you'll sometimes hear an editor say, "We can refer that," meaning that the story has a high enough priority to get a headline on the front, but not quite high enough to land there itself. So it's both a noun and a verb. Questions? Post 'em in the comments field for this post. Now on with the first edition of Second-Day Lede's Refer Madness:

Apocalypse November!: South Knox Bubba, point man of the legendary Rocky Top Brigade, has outdone himself and everybody else in the Blogosphere today with a dramatic and hilarious piece of political commentary. Bubba, the entire editorial staff of Second-Day Lede (that'd be me) is giving you a standing ovation. Bra-VO and YEE-ha!

Exploding Twenties: The most linked-to news item in the Blogosphere is a disconcerting one, and it's sorta kinda related to yesterday's post here about sci-fi genius Philip K. Dick's fictional solution to the problem of counterfeiting. I don't know if it's true (can't spare the Twenties to find out), but it's got some interesting photos. Speaking of Philip K. Dick, I included a link to the official Philip K. Dick site yesterday, and this morning I went back to check it out in more detail. Good news: even though Dick died in 1982, he's got a new book coming out March 9, it's all his writing and never before published in its entirety. Lies, Inc. is an expanded version of The Unteleported Man. I recommend the latter, and look forward to reading the former. Here they are (more refers below):

This next one is also a second-day lede on yesterday's post: here's a firsthand account from a computer science professor who served as an election judge on Super Tuesday, and his assessment of e-voting.

Finally, a refer not to a single post but to a whole category of news coverage. Here's today's Google News search on the term "gay marriage." What you find there will change as the news changes.

Truffle-skin ballots may be our only hope

2004-03-03T17:39:00.000-05:00

As the media machinery drones on in its one-note post-Super-Tuesday Democratic primary coverage today, ("John Edwards dropping out...our top story...John Edwards dropping out...Kerry won big, so Edwards is dropping out...we'll be back after these messages...most of our "news team" has gone home to sleep it off...though a lot of them will get reassigned or laid off now that it's a two-man [that is if you don't count Nader] race...Welcome back...This just in...John Edwards giving up..."), let us turn our attention to the most overlooked, and most important, election day story, a story that the Cleveland Plain Dealer broke way back in August, 2003. The report quoted a letter -- that's right, it was in WRITING -- from Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold, Inc., which has a subsidiary called Diebold Election Systems. According to the company's web site, "Over 109 million voters in 5,500 counties accurately and securely cast their votes using a Diebold election system solution." To familiarize voters with its "solutions," Diebold offers this handy online demonstration. (Their slogan -- I am not making this up -- is "Just say the word, and Diebold will provide a solution." No word on whether that was in the controversial letter.)

So the head of that company sent a fund-raising letter out to his fellow Republicans, stating that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

All that is a story again now, in earnest, because an estimated 10 million people will use Diebold "solutions" to vote in the primaries, and especially because an estimated 50 million people will vote electronically in November's presidential election.

So how did it go yesterday with more Americans voting via those "solutions" than ever before? Depends:

WIRED News reports "Snafus Aplenty in E-Voting."

According to The Washington Post, the new voting systems got "high marks."

The Financial Times took a "good news, bad news" approach.

The AP's technology writer reported scattered glitches, sticking closely to his beat and the assigned task.

CNET said it went smoothly.

The Tri-Valley Herald in California broke from the pack entirely to cover an angle no one else seemed to notice: Those glitches were driving some voters away.

All of which reminds us why you should always, always, always, get your news from more than one source. And it reminds us of the old three-source rule, which regrettably seems to be optional these days. But most of all, it reminds us that science-fiction visionary Philip K. Dick called it decades ago. In one of Dick's parallel sci-fi universes, counterfeiting was so easy that the only negotiable currency remaining -- i.e., the only thing left that couldn't be copied -- was truffle skins:

We need to find some of those truffle skins, and use them as our ballots this November.

Cooke files his last 'Letter from America'

2004-03-02T17:22:00.000-05:00

Sad, but not unexpected news today from the BBC: The world's longest-running spoken radio program is ending, as 95-year-old cross-cultural icon Alistair Cooke is retiring after 58 years of weekly dispatches to the world from his adopted homeland. He's only giving up his marathon career on the advice of his doctors, and considering that he was propped up on pillows for his final dispatch, it appears the doctors have a valid point.

They say the U.S. and Britain have a special relationship; Alistair Cooke has been the embodiment of it for several years longer than I've been alive. Born in Britain, he became an American, and for 58 years, he sent weekly dispatches to his homeland and the world, dispatches that added up to 2,869 shows totaling to more than 717 hours of broadcasting. While we can't complain about his retirement, it is a pity indeed to lose his weekly outsider's view of the United States at a time when America and the rest of the world desperately need to understand each other better.

He didn't know his last 'Letter' would be his swansong; he just propped himself up to talk about what was going on that week, as he'd done so many times before. But it's as fitting an end to his long career as anything could be. Sit back, relax, and listen online to Alistair Cooke's final 'Letter from America'. You'll have to click on that link and then click on the words 'The Last Letter' to hear it in -- it wouldn't be fair to the BBC, or to Mr. Cooke, to link to it directly. (UPDATE: So many people from all over the world were trying to listen to Cooke's last letter yesterday that the BBC's audio server just couldn't accommodate them all. Fortunately, the Letter is also available in text form here.)

Homophobes attack heterosexual marriage

2004-03-01T17:46:00.000-05:00

The people who claim traditional opposite-sex marriage is under attack are absolutely right, and they ought to know, because they're the ones attacking it. Maybe that's because they've admitted they're going to lose their battle against same-sex marriage.

Even as he was bashing both heterosexual and homosexual marriages yesterday, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) conceded defeat on the issue in the Leap Day debate-before-the-debate on CBS News's Face the Nation. When host Bob Schieffer asked, "Is there a difference between being for or against same-sex marriage and being for or against this amendment?", Santorum insisted there was not, because "the fact of the matter is, unless we amend the U.S. Constitution, the courts will require it." We presume that by "it," the Senator meant "the full legalization of same-sex marriage," rather than same-sex marriage itself. (That reminds us of Jon Stewart's succinct commentary on the issue: "Are they going to MAKE us marry gays?" Because if not, I don't see the problem.")

Santorum attacked not only same-sex marriage, but opposite-sex marriages that are not focused on procreation. "It is a- an obligation on those of us who have to make the laws to make calls as to what is the best way in-in in the case of marriage, to raise children." So Senator, should people applying for marriage licenses be given fertility tests, with those who fail pledging to adopt? What about marriages between heterosexuals who aren't able to reproduce, who plan to remain childless, or whose children are no longer children?

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin), the only openly lesbian member of the House of Representatives, was the voice of reason when Santorum blamed same-sex couples for the erosion of the American family. "To make these false associations -- to somehow indicate that same-sex couples are somehow to blame for some of these problems in society -- is harmful," she said.

Meanwhile, officials at the Social Security Administration have decided not to accept even opposite-sex marriage certificates issued in San Francisco as evidence of a legal name change. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said Mr. Bush is "now discriminating against San Franciscans gay and straight."

You have to look beyond the news to find some of heterosexual marriage's staunchest champions. Every week, the Fab Five of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy help hapless heterosexual men clean up their acts so that they might have a better chance of finding a girlfriend, or, if they've already got one, of turning that girlfriend into a fiancee and then a wife. We watched the show Saturday night, and when the freshly-spiffed straight guy got down on his knee to propose -- with his gay life coaches cheering as they watched on video, there wasn't a dry eye in our house or theirs. They were so happy the guy was getting married, and nobody mentioned the fact that (except in San Francisco and New Paltz, New York) the Fab Five aren't allowed to do that themselves. Someday, they'll show an episode of that show along with other artifacts of the days when bigotry was acceptable, like Song of the South, or maybe Gone With the Wind, with the slaves helping Miss Scarlett get all gussied up for another encounter with Rhett Butler:

Why same-sex marriage isn't for the majority, or the states, to decide

2004-02-27T17:57:00.000-05:00

A pop quiz this Friday: How many advances in U.S. civil rights came about because a majority voted for them? How many happened because states were allowed to decide for themselves? And how many -- if any -- came about because of constitutional amendments? And a special bonus question that I can't answer, but maybe you can: why aren't any journalists asking or answering those same questions?

Let's look at that another way: did a majority of voters in either the U.S. or Alabama decide that Rosa Parks should be allowed to sit in the front of the bus if she wanted? Or did that happen because Alabama was allowed to segregate public transit within its borders, without interference from the federal government? Did separate schools for white students and black students become extinct because of a referendum? Did couples of not only different genders, but different races, win the right to marry because their neighbors went to the polls and declared it OK?

Even in a democracy, the majority doesn't always get to decide. And rights issues are usually decided not by opinion polls or referenda, but by courts. Anybody with a high-school diploma ought to know that. But when politicians are interviewed on the subject of equal marriage rights, a lot of them keep talking about how the voters have to decide whether to allow same-sex marriage. So far, all the reporters just nod silently and then go on to the next interviewee, who generally says something about how it should be up to the states.

Since nobody else is asking this important follow-up question, I will: Sen. Kerry, you say you are opposed to same-sex marriage personally, but you say you believe the states should decide. I hope I'm summarizing your position accurately. Mr. Kerry, as you know, your own wife was born outside the United States, though she has made her home here and contributed a great deal to her adopted country. Are you aware, Mr. Kerry, that currently only the partners of heterosexuals are allowed to live here? Heterosexuals who don't have partners are even allowed to import complete strangers and marry them. Do you realize that even if every state in the union allowed same-sex marriages, that would still be the case? Why do you believe such discrimination is appropriate? And Mr. Edwards, Mr. Bush, and all you other candidates, please feel free to answer this question also.

And when you answer that question, gentlemen, please address it not just to me, but to people like my friends Jennifer and Zlata, who live in a small town in the Czech Republic. Jennifer is an aeronautical engineer, and had a great career in her home state of Texas. She met Zlata, a teacher, on an educational exchange, and the two fell in love and have now been together for more than a decade. In order for that to happen, Jennifer had to move to the Czech Republic, because Zlata wasn't allowed to move to the U.S. She might have been able to manage a visa for herself, but Zlata also has three children. Four visas, three of them for children, were out of the question. So Jennifer gave up her career as an engineer and became a teacher of English as a Foreign Language in Zlata's home town, working for less than 10 percent of what she earned in Texas.

Mr. Bush, you've come out in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Do you believe it's right for Jennifer to have to live abroad in order to be with her life partner? Do you believe that if the amendment is adopted, Jennifer will leave Zlata and come home to marry a man? For that matter, do you believe that proposed amendment will cause anyone in a same-sex relationship anywhere to trade their partner for one of the opposite gender?

Those of you who say it should be up to "the majority" and not the courts: why should this civil rights issue be decided differently? Is it because some people don't approve of homosexuality? In 1967, the same year the Supreme Court threw out anti-miscegenation laws that prohibited mixed-race marriages, the nation was shocked by a movie on that subject:

A year later when Star Trek's (white) Captain Kirk -- who had already had flings with assorted green- and purple-skinned lady space aliens -- kissed (black) Lt. Uhuru, people freaked out again even though mixed-race marriages had been legal nationwide for a year.

And to those who say it should be up to the states: if the states had that kind of autonomy, Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, and all the other schools in that state would still be segregated. Which president sent in federal troops to ensure compliance? Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower. He explained that action to the nation by saying, "There must be no second class citizens in this country."

Social insecurity

2004-02-26T18:00:00.000-05:00

Did you catch yesterday's big news story? It wasn't the one they were throwing at us.

What is Social Security? It's a support network that's only available to heterosexual families.

The news story that wasn't

2004-02-25T17:51:00.000-05:00

SAN FRANCISCO -- Chaos was the order of the day as thousands of married heterosexuals left their spouses in order to take advantage of this city's controversial new policy of allowing same-sex marriages. Wives and mothers left their suburban families sitting at the dinner table hungry as they threw down their aprons and ran off to elope with their girlfriends. Meanwhile, hundreds of husbands and fathers all over the nation called to leave messages for their wives as they gathered hand-in-hand with their beer buddies to stand in line at city hall for their chance to exchange rings and kisses.

"We knew this would happen as soon as same-sex marriages were allowed anywhere in the nation," religious conservatives announced at press conferences in major cities. "It was clear to us experts for a long time that equal marriage rights would destroy marriages and families everywhere, because obviously the laws allowing only opposite-sex couples to marry were the only thing keeping these individuals in their heterosexual unions."

"Hi, Honey," one groom-to-be shouted happily as the television cameras focused on him and his fiance. "It's been a great 15 years, but now that I'm allowed to marry a guy, it's over between us. I'm sure you understand, and hey, give my best to the kids!"

Didn't happen; ain't gonna happen. If there is an existing healthy heterosexual marriage, or even a salvageable heterosexual marriage, anywhere in this nation that is the least bit threatened by equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, it sure hasn't made the news: not before the current titular head of the Party of Lincoln announced that he wants to write bias into the Constitution, not after, either.

And even before the first 24-hour news cycle was up, the media machine was already getting bored with the constitutional amendment story: those things aren't easy to get approved, as correspondents pointed out as soon as Mr. Bush announced his pre-emptive plan to ensure that only some will have equal protection under the law.

So what was that all about? Did Republican strategists become concerned that their party's most conservative voters might stray -- and vote for Kerry or Nader -- if Bush didn't take a hardline stand against gay marriage? Or did they take a look at the latest poll numbers and conclude that their man could win without the support of gay and lesbian Republicans, or gay and lesbian swing voters, or even just conservative voters who don't believe the Constitution needs a rewrite, period, let alone the first rewrite that would take away rights? Bush lost a LOT of votes in throwing his support behind the homophobia amendment. Did he gain any votes anywhere, and if so, which candidate were those voters considering supporting?

I believe it was an act of desperation. As Bush himself explained yesterday, "There is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down." Nor is there assurance that it will be, but if it is, then Bush can tell his conservative followers that he tried his best. Except -- couldn't he have told them that anyway?

Lord of the Hats in the Ring?

2004-02-24T17:45:00.000-05:00

He's annoying at any speed...but there IS a way candidate Nader can further his cause, and the Democrats', too

The fact that Ralph Nader is so persistently and profoundly right doesn't make him the least bit less annoying, and it doesn't seem to matter much whether you agree or disagree with what he has to say. Not that he's ever seemed to care all that much about being liked, of course: gadflies usually don't. But politicians have to. Just weeks ago, every Democratic presidential candidate who received even one percent of the vote was declaring himself a winner, of sorts -- at least Mom was proud of him. Now that all those guys have decided against seeking similar victories and gone back home, along comes Nader to tell us that if he can participate in the debate and get his message out, he'll be a winner, too -- we'll all be winners! Rejoice! But this is a presidential election, not a contest for a European parliamentary seat. Over there, the Extremo Christian Democratic Alliance or the Friends of Beer Party or the Reformed Peasants Coalition or even the Unreformed Working Girls Union might be able to pull together enough votes to get a seat for a single one of their members, just so as to have a voice in a parliamentary system, albeit a lone one crying out in the wilderness. Here, the Ralph Party would have to win a seat behind the desk in the Oval Office in order to win anything at all. And as we were reminded just four years ago, even winning a majority of the popular vote isn't enough: you have to have the all-or-nothing electoral votes of each state, and if there's a dispute about that then you'd best have a majority on the Supreme Court. Nader has always seemed like a pretty smart guy, but his deciding to run this year kind of makes me wonder if he's the kind of person who figures that if the lotto jackpot is at a record high and record numbers of tickets are being sold, his chances of winning must be better than ever.

So far, he has won something valuable indeed: time on television, more than 24 hours of it since he announced his candidacy on Meet the Press Sunday morning (remember when "the Press" on Meet the Press was more than one person?). And he has spent that time wisely, using his turn to talk* to focus on real and important issues and point out what he sees as the shortcomings of both parties, particularly the one now controlling the White House, the Supreme Court, the House, the Senate, etc. As I listened to him go through his talking points all day yesterday, I kept thinking of his previous round of television interviews a few months ago, in which he responded to all inquiries about whether he would run by pointing out that he was supporting Dennis Kucinich. And I began to perceive a scenario in which candidate Ralph could do some good in this race after all.

If if if if if he were pure of heart like Frodo the hobbit -- well, if he were then he wouldn't be running for office, but just hypothetically, then Ralph could help rid the world of some of the evils he keeps telling us about. All he needs to do is carry the hat he's just tossed into the ring all the way into the mouth of the volcano. It will be an arduous journey over many months and many obstacles, pressing flesh and, if not kissing babies, then at least lecturing them on the importance of wearing seat belts, or the perils of corporate influences in politics. As an independent, he must go it alone, learning to shout above everyone else on cable news shows. Every time a reporter asks him a question, he can use his turn to talk, knowing that he has to be in the race and stay in it in order for the reporters to keep asking him those questions so that he can talk, and so on until, say, long about Labor Day. At that point, end of September at the latest, our long shot candidate would have to be strong enough to do what he must: toss that hat into the fires of Mt. Doom and urge his supporters to support the Democratic nominee.

Can he do it? Would he? That depends on which Ralph Nader we're dealing with here, because this Frodo is also part Gollum. There's the Ralph Nader who campaigned for car safety in the 60s and warns us about genetically engineered food in the 21st Century and who makes a whole lot of sense when he talks about what's wrong with our political system. There's also the Ralph Nader who thinks he can change that system by running for a position he can't possibly win, and who seems to get not just annoying but annoyed whenever anyone points out how pointless that is.

Ralph, if you really want to help us graduate from the Electoral College, if you really want smaller parties to have an influence in our nation's politics, then you know damn well that's not going to happen in an election year, and certainly not during a campaign. If you want it to happen, start working on it: after the election. Meanwhile, keep taking advantage of your turn to talk.

*When a reporter asks a politician a question -- any reporter, any politician, any question, anytime, anywhere -- it means only one thing: it's the politician's turn to talk.

What's a Second-Day Lede?

2004-02-24T15:45:00.000-05:00

"Second-day lede" is journalistic jargon for putting a new spin on a story for a second or subsequent news cycle. A 'lede" is the lead sentence of an article, deliberately misspelled to make it more easily recognizable as jargon. Once upon a time, news moved in daily cycles, but now it has become a constant flow of rewrites and "second-day ledes."

Second-Day Lede is also the name of this blog, where you'll find commentary on the news, and especially on the industry that cultivates, harvests, processes, packages, distributes and delivers it to us.

A veteran of more news cycles than she'd care to admit, Janet Dagley Dagley entered the profession of journalism at the age of 17, covering local government meetings at night for the Dayton Daily News in Ohio, later moving on to the Orange County Register and Los Angeles Times (Orange County Edition). Over the years she has worked as a freelance writer, editor, and radio producer in the U.S. and Europe. Although she has won numerous awards, she lost both times major metropolitan dailies submitted her work for the Pulitzer Prize in Feature Writing, and also lost on Jeopardy! (though she did win a trip to Hawaii). Most recently, she was editor of AIRSPACE, the journal of the Association of Independents in Radio, a U.S.-based group of public-radio producers, and a member of the AIR Board of Directors. She has been blogging independently at The Dagley Dagley Daily since February, 2003.