The WikiLeaks doc drop (part 1)

I find it amusing that Fox News yesterday featured stories about how it is participating in a suit (with Bloomberg) to get the Federal Reserve to release information about the specific banks bailed out or bolstered with money from the Fed and to what extent, while the WSJ ran a piece today about why the Fed should release this information. Yet Fox News and the WSJ are both terribly upset that WikiLeaks released raw reports on actions in Afghanistan. I'm all for releasing both kinds of information; government in general operates too much in the dark, relatively free of scrutiny from the people who are forced to fund it and on whose behalf it supposedly operates. In a decent society government would have almost no secrets. The fact that it has operated so secretly for so long -- and sold various portions of the population on the notion that such secrecy is essential and actually in the interest of those being blindfolded -- obviates any realistic notion of government transparency and breeds a culture of cover-up and eventual corruption.

One can see some rationale for secrecy. The Fed and its partisans will argue that if we knew which banks had been bolstered we might lose confidence in some of them and a bank run might even ensue. Keepers of military secrets will argue that letting loose of secrecy gives our enemies insight into how we operate and in some cases might reveal the names of people who cooperate with the U.S. and might therefore be targeted by insurgents and other bad guys.

Neither rationale holds up against the desirability of people knowing what their government is doing "on their behalf." In a sensible market weak players would be capable of being identified and would pay the price for their poor decisions rather than being bailed out in secrecy, making for a system in which there would be more incentives to make good decisions. In the military, it's often enough the case that our adversaries ((which we seem to create systematically; apparently governments need enemies to thrive) know full well what our government is up to, and the only people in the dark are Americans. Even here, however, secrecy is overrated; it is more often used to cover up embarrassments than to serve anything remotely resembling "national security," that catch-all concept so capable of covering a multitude of sins. In both cases we are talking more about history than about current operations. How long should government be allowed to keep its activities secret? Forever?

I haven't read more than a few of the WikiLeaks papers in question -- too much else to do -- but I've read a few along with news summaries of what's there, about which I'll have more to say in a future post.

How the cables coped

It's been fascinating to channel-surf on the Mass. election. Fox brought pretty much their entire operation to Massachusetts, covering election night as if it were the Normandy invasion or thre signing of a major peace treaty. Most (besides Hannity, of course) have tried to avoid looking pleased and smug. Meanwhile on MSNBC Rachel Maddow pulled off the amazing trick of combining a furrowed brow with a smirk and focused on "dirty tricks" and allegations of irregularities, then brought on Howard Dean to opine gravely that much of the surge for Scott Brown could be attributed to Obama not bringing "real change" fast enough. The presumed implication would be that if Obama had introduced single-payer he'd be in great shape, basking in approval. Marvelous capacity for self-deception. And on CNN Larry King was busily interviewing PA Gov. Rendell about the 54 Haitian orphans brought to Pittsburgh, studiously ignoring all that folderol in Mass.

In a way it's comforting for all of these purveyors of news and opinion to be so transparent about where they're coming from.

Opposition media thriving -- except newspapers

On the Register's Orange Punch blog I did a post that linked to a story by Glenn Garvin, TV critic at the Miami Herald, noting that during the era of Obama, that it turns out to be CNN sinking and Fox rising during the age of Obama. It seems fairly natural to me. There's usually a media market (and often good fundraising times for political organizations like the ACLU or NRA for those in opposition to the current regime.

Unfortunately the current economic climate for newspapers -- Freedom Communications just announced a top-to-bottom 5% pay cut, which our family will definitely feel -- seems to override that equation.

Jesse's mouth

Here's a link to the blog post I did for the Register this afternoon about Jesse Jackson mouthing off about Barack Obama. When I wrote it I hadn't seen the actual video but relied on another blog for an approximation of what was said. When I watched it on TV tonight, it was more like "I'd like to cut his nuts off." And the apparent context had to do with reliance on "faith-based" rather than being a direct reference to Obama's Cosbyesque Father Day speech -- although O'Reilly said they hadn't shown the entire exchange, so maybe there was some reference.

As I noted, I would hardly be amazed if Jesse harbors some deep resentment against Obama. Jesse has spent his life race-mongering and trying to be a pioneer (at least in his own estimation), and now the first black with a real shot at being president turns out to be a vague let's-get-beyond-race kind of guy.

Having seen the footage, I'm a little concerned about ethics at Fox News. Jesse was obviously whispering to his fellow guest, making what seemed to be an effort not to be overheard. Yet Fox put what he had tried to make a private moment on national television. Do they routinely have hidden cameras in the green room, or was one installed especially for Jesse? Do they warn guests there's a camera there? I understand that when you're anywhere in a TV studio you don't expect perfect privacy, but this looks a bit like an ambush. It revealed a fascinating side of the good reverend, but I wonder how ethical that was.

Why in South Carolina?

I have to admit that I haven't heard the official explanation yet to the obvious question. Why was Ron Paul excluded from the Fox-sponsored Republican debate (OK, they called it a "forum") in New Hampshire on Sunday but included in the Fox-sponsored Republican debate in South Carolina tonight? Did they get enough complaints that they decided to change their policy? The idea that he did well enough in New Hampshire to warrant inclusion along with Thompson, who came in at 1 percent, doesn't really wash given that he got 10 percent in Iowa and only 8 percent in New Hampshire.

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that they feared he might make a breakthrough in the "Live Free or Die" state and wanted to do whatever little bit might be in their power to prevent that from happening, but they figured he wasn't going to do all that well in South Carolina anyway, and perhaps exposing his views to more South Caolinians might actually hurt him (he came in last in Frank Luntz's focus group). As it happened, Ron Paul would probably have done quite well in the somewhat more relaxed (almost chummy) environment Chris Wallace provided in New Hampshire, but I have my doubts whether that one event would have helped him all that much (the foofaraw over the exclusion might have helped him). As Ron's New Hampshire office manager told me election night, he did almost exactly what the pollsters said he would do, as did almost all the other GOP candidates.

Fox doctors Ron Paul story

It looks as if Fox News has a special animus against GOP candidate Ron Paul, though that way it doctored the AP story about Ron Paul getting an endorsement from a brothel owner in Nevada is almost more inept than malicious. Since Chadwick Matlin over at Slate did a fairly comprehensive critique, I'll just give you his whole post:

Doctored Paul
At 11 a.m. today, one of FoxNews.com's top stories was an article about a Nevada brothel owner endorsing Ron Paul. But the story wasn't written by Fox News; it was a tweaked version of an Associated Press story that hit the wires early Monday. And, to make matters even more muddled, that story was taken from a Reno Gazette-Journal piece. Something was lost in translation.
The original article was a solid piece about a strange scene at a Ron Paul event in Reno. Tucker Carlson, who was trailing Paul for a magazine piece, invited his friend Dennis Hof out to the event. Hof, who owns the Moonlite BunnyRanch brothel, emerged from a limousine with Carlson and two prostitutes. He then took a liking to Paul and decided to endorse the Republican, saying that he would "get all the Bunnies together, and we can raise him some money."
The Associated Press then adapted the story and sent it out on the wires. But the AP story that Fox News published is different than the one the AP originally ran.
Changes include:
The headline: "Paul Endorsed by Nevada Brothel Owner" became " ‘BunnyRanch' Brothel Owner Endorses Underdog GOP Candidate Ron Paul." Note that Fox News thinks you need more detail to know who Ron Paul is. Also, they add the brothel's name in the headline--the Playboy bunny allusion makes it a bit sexier. It's common practice for news organizations to spice up AP headlines.
The donation box: One of the best details in the AP story is Hof's plan to put a "collection box" outside the brothel's door for patrons to donate money to Paul. It's not in Fox's story.
The kicker: In the most curious change, Fox took a sentence from the middle of the AP's article and stuck it at the end. By concluding the piece with the true statement, "Paul also is a devout Christian who opposes abortion," it makes Paul sound like a hypocrite for accepting the brothel owner's endorsement. You don't get that impression reading the AP's article, which is more about the oddity that a political candidate isn't trying to distance himself from Nevada's brothel industry.
In principle, Fox hasn't done anything wrong. News outlets edit AP content all the time, and the AP's senior managing editor told me that Fox was within its rights to make changes to the copy. He added that he doesn't think Fox's tweaks change the fundamental tone of the story.I disagree. The emphasis on its home page and the altered kicker suggest Fox is getting in a dig at Paul, however minor it may be. But if Fox wanted to make Paul look like he was taking money from prostitutes and their patrons, why remove the detail about the donation box? I'm not asking for fairness or balance--just consistency.One more detail that Fox inexplicably eliminated: The damning revelation that MSNBC anchor Tucker Carlson emerged from a limousine with prostitutes at a political event. Have Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes gone soft?
Posted Monday, November 26, 2007 5:58 PM by
authLink();
Chadwick Matlin