Monday, July 28, 2008
Talk, it's only talk ...
... Comments, cliches, commentary, controversy
So many are looking at the digital spike the LA Times has driven into the Edwards affair allegation and questioning why supposedly poor sourcing has left them so cautious when a similar problem with the McCain allegation earlier did not. Silly rabbit, trick like these are not for kids, but for sophisticated trained professional journalists. Fortunately for my three or four readers, I managed to swipe a glance at the official journalist manual of standards and found the applicable loophole.
You see, right now the National Enquirer is reporting that Edwards has not only had an affair with the lady in question, but has even sired a child. However, no independent objective quality evidence to support this allegation has delivered to their offices. Therefore, the allegation is poorly sourced and should not be reported or commented upon. In the McCain affair, however, the New York Times and others never actually alleged that any affair took place. You see, the story in that case was that such allegations had been made and these allegations were made by more than one person and directly reported to the news paper. Therefore, the news that allegations had been made was absolutely true, had multiple sources and was directly known to the reporter (since it was directly to the reporter that these allegations had been made).
Once you think about it the difference is so obvious. No wonder conservatives are viewed as lacking in nuance.
So many are looking at the digital spike the LA Times has driven into the Edwards affair allegation and questioning why supposedly poor sourcing has left them so cautious when a similar problem with the McCain allegation earlier did not. Silly rabbit, trick like these are not for kids, but for sophisticated trained professional journalists. Fortunately for my three or four readers, I managed to swipe a glance at the official journalist manual of standards and found the applicable loophole.
You see, right now the National Enquirer is reporting that Edwards has not only had an affair with the lady in question, but has even sired a child. However, no independent objective quality evidence to support this allegation has delivered to their offices. Therefore, the allegation is poorly sourced and should not be reported or commented upon. In the McCain affair, however, the New York Times and others never actually alleged that any affair took place. You see, the story in that case was that such allegations had been made and these allegations were made by more than one person and directly reported to the news paper. Therefore, the news that allegations had been made was absolutely true, had multiple sources and was directly known to the reporter (since it was directly to the reporter that these allegations had been made).
Once you think about it the difference is so obvious. No wonder conservatives are viewed as lacking in nuance.
Friday, July 25, 2008
California sunlight ... the song remains the same
Mickey Kaus, in discussing the stealth scandal of John Edwards and the rumored fruit of his loins, brings up points that Jon Fine made in Business Week. Mainly that the MSM determination to mimic the wise monkeys of Toshogu may be predicated on a desire to protect the Democrat's prefered choice for Attorney-General and that if the story wrer true that it reveals him to have orchestrated an "elaborate cover-up" with the complicity of the MSM.
Hmmmmmm, an A-G being deeply involved in a major cover up with the help and knowledge of powerful agents? Now, where have I heard that one before?
Hmmmmmm, an A-G being deeply involved in a major cover up with the help and knowledge of powerful agents? Now, where have I heard that one before?
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Beauchamp; On Choosing the Lesser of Multiple Evils
With Drudge's big scoop (Drudge link gone, but here's a good round-up) the blogoverse has once again acquired a taste for French cuisine, or at the very least chewing on a fellow with a French surname. Michael Yon, who passed on the first course, takes a nibble this time with his characteristic grace, wit and consideration. For some, though, the calls for forgiveness and a second chance ring hollow without the catharsis of an open confession, a penance required not even by that benchmark of stricture, the Catholic Church. For me, though, the absence of public flagellation is entirely understandable once you consider the often unspoken of player in this drama, his wife.
I do not know the man, and so I will ignore all the bad conjecture that passed for commentary during the first go around and assume he married his wife for many of the same reasons I married mine, chief among these being love. Assuming this, there is no question that having lied to his command, his wife's employer and, possibly, his wife, Pvt. Beauchamp was left with the conundrum of what course he could take to cause the least least damage to both himself and his wife in the future. By being honest with the Army and standing by his 'toon mates he is trying to do right by them and himself. By keeping mum and not throwing her or her employer under the bus he is trying to do right by the woman he loves. It's really no more of a mystery than that.
That his stories were fabrications is as well recognized as the fact that Dan Rather's TANG documents were fake, but that will not keep some from steadfastly persisting in a belief of both. A public confession will no more change their minds than Mary Mapes could have been dissuaded from publishing that embarrassment of a book she wrote. Denial is both cheap and easy. I neither need Beauchamp to prostrate himself upon the alter of truth nor do I need to know how many times my neighbor coveted my ass. I am perfectly content to let both be between the sinner and their personal confessor.
I do not know the man, and so I will ignore all the bad conjecture that passed for commentary during the first go around and assume he married his wife for many of the same reasons I married mine, chief among these being love. Assuming this, there is no question that having lied to his command, his wife's employer and, possibly, his wife, Pvt. Beauchamp was left with the conundrum of what course he could take to cause the least least damage to both himself and his wife in the future. By being honest with the Army and standing by his 'toon mates he is trying to do right by them and himself. By keeping mum and not throwing her or her employer under the bus he is trying to do right by the woman he loves. It's really no more of a mystery than that.
That his stories were fabrications is as well recognized as the fact that Dan Rather's TANG documents were fake, but that will not keep some from steadfastly persisting in a belief of both. A public confession will no more change their minds than Mary Mapes could have been dissuaded from publishing that embarrassment of a book she wrote. Denial is both cheap and easy. I neither need Beauchamp to prostrate himself upon the alter of truth nor do I need to know how many times my neighbor coveted my ass. I am perfectly content to let both be between the sinner and their personal confessor.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Translating Mediaese
Reading between the lines of a news article is not a new practice. It was raised to a high art during the Soviet era when the old joke concerning the two official newspapers, Pravda ("The Truth") and Izvestia ("The News") was that "there's no izvestia (news) in Pravda and no pravda (truth) in Izvestia". While I don't think western media has universally devolved to quite that paragon of unreliability, it has been a well worn tenet of the new media that often one is best armed not with grains but with an entire block of salt.
A recent article, Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran, concerned an all-too-frequent event, the leak of classified national security information to a news media source. While it contained the obligatory disclaimer that their "sources ... spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject," it seems more honest to say that they spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the illegality of their actions. I am no longer surprised but continue to be disappointed that the assumed responsibility of adversarialism taken on by the media leads then to unquestionalbly side with criminals in all cases involving national security. It would be an interesting mental exercise to imagine a media source that was equally accomodting to rapists, fences, muggers and murderers.
On the same page, supposedly in the interest of context, ABC conviently links to a photo gallery of "another Iran operation", namely the Iran-Contra Affair. In this gallary they included such key players as Dick Cheney, "ranking minority member on the joint congressional committee investigating" and John Bolton, "assistant attorney general at the Justice Department [who] thereby participated in meetings ... on how to handle the growing crisis." Inexplecibly there were no other "committee members" or "meeting participants" profiled, but I guess it's just a matter of how one defines "key". If it were me, however, I would think a background story on the Iranian Islamic Revolution that helped create the current crisis might be more useful context, but then again Dick Cheney, John Bolton and other Republicans probably didn't have as much to do with that issue.
A recent article, Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran, concerned an all-too-frequent event, the leak of classified national security information to a news media source. While it contained the obligatory disclaimer that their "sources ... spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject," it seems more honest to say that they spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the illegality of their actions. I am no longer surprised but continue to be disappointed that the assumed responsibility of adversarialism taken on by the media leads then to unquestionalbly side with criminals in all cases involving national security. It would be an interesting mental exercise to imagine a media source that was equally accomodting to rapists, fences, muggers and murderers.
On the same page, supposedly in the interest of context, ABC conviently links to a photo gallery of "another Iran operation", namely the Iran-Contra Affair. In this gallary they included such key players as Dick Cheney, "ranking minority member on the joint congressional committee investigating" and John Bolton, "assistant attorney general at the Justice Department [who] thereby participated in meetings ... on how to handle the growing crisis." Inexplecibly there were no other "committee members" or "meeting participants" profiled, but I guess it's just a matter of how one defines "key". If it were me, however, I would think a background story on the Iranian Islamic Revolution that helped create the current crisis might be more useful context, but then again Dick Cheney, John Bolton and other Republicans probably didn't have as much to do with that issue.
