Daniel Schorr Remembered

NPR senior news analyst Daniel Schorr has died at the age of 93 after a lifetime in journalism. NPR has put together several pieces on him, including a 3 minute one, a 12 minute one, and a 55 minute memorial special (see the left column at the link). His stints in Moscow and Germany yield some interesting tales, and I found the Nixon and 70s era stories particularly fascinating. Here's one:

In 1975, Schorr reported on assassinations that had been carried out by the CIA. "The anger of the administration can be gauged from Richard Helms' denunciation of Schorr," historian Garry Wills recounts in his 2010 book, Bomb Power.

Helms, then the CIA director, confronted Schorr in the presence of other reporters at the White House, calling him names such as "son of a bitch" and "killer."

"Killer Schorr: That's what they ought to call you," Helms said.

In 1976, Schorr reported on the findings of the Pike Committee, which had investigated illegal CIA and FBI activities. The committee had voted to keep its final report secret, but Schorr leaked a copy to the Village Voice, which published it.

Schorr was threatened with a $100,000 fine and jail time for contempt of Congress. But during congressional testimony, Schorr refused to identify his source, citing First Amendment protections. The House ethics committee voted 6 to 5 against a contempt citation.

But CBS had already taken Schorr off the air. He ultimately resigned from the network that year.

"CBS found that, like other big corporations, it did not like to offend the Congress," Mudd said. "He broke his ties to CBS and before they could fire him, he resigned."

That's pretty gutsy. In the NPR pieces, Schorr's recent and past colleagues speak with him and about him with admiration and affection. And if one is also judged by the quality of one's enemies, Schorr did quite well:

Schorr was surprised to find himself on the so-called Enemies List that had been drawn up by Richard Nixon's White House when he read it on the air. The list — naming hundreds of political opponents, entertainers and publications considered hostile to the administration — became the basis for one of the charges of impeachment against Nixon.

Schorr, along with some other members of the list, counted his inclusion on it as his greatest achievement.

Update: Gordonskene at C&L has posted the audio of a piece by Schorr – the "CBS Reports documentary Berlin: Wall of Shame, which aired on January 4, 1962. A vivid picture of just how bad relations had become between East and West."

(Cross-posted at Hullabaloo.)

 

"In Their World, Iraq is Okay."

Seymour Hersh's latest New Yorker piece "Preparing the Battlefield," about the Bush administration's "secret moves against Iran," has justifiably gotten a fair amount of attention. Read the article if you haven't. Meanwhile, here's some of Hersh on CNN, on NPR's Fresh Air and Democracy Now! Meanwhile, via Dan Froomkin, there's this gem caught by ThinkProgress (they have the video, too) from Hersh's conversation with Andrea Mitchell, after she asked Hersh about the possibility of the U.S. attacking (or supporting an attack on) Iran:

Hersh: "Oh, you know, how the hell do I know? . . . What I can tell you is we're loaded for bear. And we've been looking at it for three years... If Israel goes -- I'll tell you what Cheney says privately. . . . What he says privately is, 'We can't let Israel go because, first of all, they don't have the firepower, we do. We have much more firepower. And secondly, if they go, we'll be blamed anyway.'"

Froomkin cited others' opinions on the likelihood of an attack on Iran in his online discussion yesterday, as well as in his column today. I'll also pass on thoughts by Jill, Steve Audio and DDay.

While we definitely shouldn't stop scrutinizing the Bush administration on Iran (not to mention Iran itself), Iraq also bears watching. Not only do the administration's views on Iraq shape their attitudes toward Iran, their policy and rhetoric on Iraq is closely tied in as well. One section of Hersh's interview with Terry Gross on Fresh Air really leapt out at me. You can find it about 35 minutes in. Here's my transcription (with some verbal stutters omitted):

Terry Gross: I can't help but wonder, if Cheney or whoever else is considering a military strike against Iran, what they make of how things have turned out in Iraq, because some of the justifications and some of the tactics we've used so far in Iran seem to parallel Iraq, and I can't think of a lot of people who are happy with the outcome so far in Iraq. Plus, we've spent so much money, and have deployed so much of our military resources, including lots of the National Guard in Iraq, could we even afford to tie up more in Iran? But anyways, I can't help but wonder how Iraq is influencing people like Vice President Cheney now?

Seymour Hersh: You just have to listen to what they say. Because what they say is fascinating. We're actually winning. We're turning the corner. And we got rid of Saddam Hussein, and by any chance, that's a plus. Just listen to what they say. Because in their world, Iraq is okay. They've done something useful. And it's gonna be great. We're turning the corner, we're gonna solve the problems. The surge, quote unquote, worked. Never mind that the country is completely destroyed physically, and that ethnic cleansing… If you just read and listen to what they say, it's upbeat. So they don't see this mess they've created as a mess.

So the argument that why would they expand the war, we're not doing so well, into yet another country, they're not sure we're not doing so well.

Hersh goes on to mention one of the key elements of his article, how Cheney and others in the Bush administration kept Admiral Fallon in the dark about covert operations in the Middle East, despite that Fallon was slotted to oversee military operations there. There's also the recurring theme of Cheney micromanaging, and thinking he's a military genius. Oh, and a Democratic Congress giving Bush pretty much everything he wants.

Currently, the Bush administration and its allies – including Tony Blankley, David Brooks and Joe Lieberman are trying to sell the dangerous horseshit that Iraq is doing well and Bush's ongoing adventure was and is all worth it. We’ve already seen key members of the press eager to run with this, even though it's a shameless falsehood. As we’ve gone over many times, any decrease in violence, however momentary, is of course welcome, but the Iraq-is-getting-better crowd never discuss the 4-5 million displaced Iraqis, and rarely mention that the stated purpose of the "surge" was to buy time for political reconciliation that just hasn't come, and is by no means imminent. Bush's embassy staff in Iraq are claiming big progress, but those claims are highly suspect at best, and directly contradicted by the more independent Government Accountability Office.

For a more accurate picture of Iraq, one could check out a recent Tom Dispatch piece, "The Good News in Iraq (Don't Count on It)" or Juan Cole's "The Real State of Iraq" (this latter piece previously linked by QuestionGirl, and a more detailed examination of themes explored in our March piece, "The Surge is Still Not Working"). Then there's the McClatchy page for Iraq news, as well as our humble efforts in the BH and VS Iraq categories. Needless to say, Iraq is not okay. Nor are any Bush officials or their pundit supporters to be trusted for a moment and taken at face value when they claim otherwise. To sell a new war, they need to convince people that their previous, ongoing one is a success, the truth be damned. As for the press, besides wanted a new headline besides "Iraq is still in horrible straits," some of them probably want validation for being so disastrously wrong before. (Certainly unrepentant hawks such as Michael O'Hanlon fall in that camp.)

One of many freedoms in America has been the First Amendment, which includes freedom of speech and freedom of the press. There's a responsibility that comes with that freedom, especially when coupled with power. Thomas Jefferson once said that "If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter." As a whole, it's hard to argue that the press justify Jefferson's faith. But while David Broder, Richard Cohen and Charlie Gibson, among many others, fail miserably in that respect, there are other journalists, including Helen Thomas, Dana Priest, Lara Logan, Daniel Schorr and Seymour Hersh (among others) who exemplify how it should be done. As DDay put it in the post linked above:

…It's clear to me, as we approach July 4th, that there's no better patriot in this country than Seymour Hersh, taking on the job of 236 Democrats in the House and 50 in the Senate, trying to hold off this insanity for a few more months before transitioning into a new Adminstration which will hopefully recognize the broad consensus for negotiation and diplomacy with the Islamic Republic as opposed to the folly of war.

Indeed. Happy Independence Day, especially to the true patriots.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

Reilly Issues Correction

(crossposted at The Blue Herald)

In this recent post, I criticized a piece by The Phoenix's Adam Reilly. I thought it only fair to leave a condensed version of my criticism in the comments for his piece, along with the URL for my post. To Reilly’s credit, he looked into the error I raised and acknowledged it. He also quoted a new blog comment to substitute for the problematic one. While I still question aspects of his original piece, and question his new quotation, he deserves credit for issuing a correction and being very civil in his comment thread. Feel free to read all the comments here. Here’s the response I wrote:

Adam, kudos for acknowledging the mistake. I went into more detail in my blog post, but the url is hard to see. Based on my research at least, the correction was posted close to 1:50pm EST (I wrote WGBH to confirm this but haven’t received a reply yet). The second quotation, as you note, did occur afterwards. I found it ironic that in a sense you repeated Carroll’s error by basing a large part of your critique (essentially, bloggers are churlish) on false information (although I do understand how it happened).

As an occasional blogger, let me weigh in. I believe your larger point is that bloggers and the mainstream media can have an uneasy relationship. That’s certainly fair and accurate. There are also certainly bloggers and commentators, who are immature, abusive, can pile on, or read conspiracies into everything. But that’s free speech, and other bloggers and commentators are free to call them on anything they think goes over the line. However, blog communities do develop standards and the coin of the realm for most political and news blogs is the same as it is for traditional media – credibility. As others have noted, if a major site gets something factually wrong, readers write in pretty quickly, and the good blogs always issue a correction. In my experience, most prominent liberal bloggers want accuracy and laud good journalism (although you can find bloggers of every political stripe who want advocacy versus “straight” reporting).

If I may make a few respectful requests: Please distinguish between blog posts and thread comments. Commentators tend to be much more extreme, and popular sites tend to attract “trolls.” Please consider whether a comment is representative of the thread before you use it. The range of opinion between blogs, or even in a single post’s thread, can be very diverse, and anyone can cherry-pick them. Most prominent bloggers, even when criticizing each other, tend only to quote someone else’s *post* versus a comment in a thread. (It’s my view that your quotations were not very representative. While some of the Greater Boston thread comments express the distrust you highlight in the first quotation and your new, third one, I found that overwhelmingly, the comments plead for accuracy and transparency. For the second, sarcastic quotation, the actual post it comments on is a pretty serious inspection of Carroll’s accuracy and the issue of disclosure, and most of the other comments are in the same vein.) Personally, I consider Carroll’s gaffe a dead issue now that he and Greater Boston issued a correction and apologized. As I mentioned before, however, Carroll’s disdain and his error fit a pattern of such incidents from traditional journalists, which is why he received the reaction he did. (Frankly, I feel you fell into some of the same pattern, but I also have to credit your correction.) Finally, I know the Phoenix is a physical paper, and adding hyperlinks for the web version could be a pain if you’re understaffed. However, it’s a wonderful feature to link any blogs you quote, because then readers can check out things for themselves.

Sorry, this has gotten long. I’d end by saying I’m a fan of good reporting, whether it appears in traditional media or on blogs. Best of luck in your future work.

I’ll say it again — the traditional media (in this case Carroll and Reilly), deserve to be challenged when they get something wrong. However, they also deserve credit when they correct the record. Proven hacks may not deserve mercy, but the entire point of engaging with traditional journalists is to encourage better reporting. Here’s hoping this incident leads to more of it.

Adam Reilly Repeats John Carroll’s Mistake

(crossposted at The Blue Herald)

Updated below

On the blog-smear front, one of the big stories this week has centered on John Carroll. Appearing on the show Greater Boston on famed PBS station WGBH, Carroll criticized MyDD’s Jerome Armstrong for scurrilous conduct, specifically, posing as different users on his site — the only problem being that Armstrong didn’t do it. Carroll misread a satirical post as serious. Had he bothered to read the comment thread, or contacted Armstrong or anyone else at the blog — y’know, that journalistic verification thing — he’d have caught his mistake. To their credit, Greater Boston issued a correction and apology, as has Carroll.

Considering the dismissive tone of Carroll and his tut-tutting about a lack of professionalism among bloggers, the ridicule and criticism he received from the blogosphere was justified. However, bloggers reported the correction and apology as well. Bloggers also noted that part of Friday’s 12/15 installment of Greater Boston is scheduled to address this entire incident, and were interested as to what would be said.

Of course, that’s not the end of it. As John Amato notes on Crooks and Liars, “Apparently, when we call for good and honest reporting we're hypocrites because we also praise good and honest reporting.” Amato links Adam Reilly of The Phoenix in Boston. For a column on the Carroll affair, Reilly noted Greater Boston’s correction, then wrote:

But the blogosphere (terrible term, but unavoidable here) wasn’t satisfied. Consider this response to Mills’s correction: “The ethics of those working at Greater Boston are now in question.” Or, from a comment on Blue Mass Group: “[H]ow can you blame John Carroll for not knowing that. [H]e is a journalist, and he merely repeated the innuendos and rumors he heard as The Wisdom Received. [H]ow could you expect him to do any better?” All told, the mix-up generated well over 100 comments on Boston-area blogs.

Obviously, Carroll screwed up — and the snarky discussion that followed his story certainly didn’t help matters. But what’s really fascinating about this whole episode is that it reveals the blogosphere’s profound ambivalence about traditional journalists.

Reilly goes on make some disparaging comments about bloggers. But guess what? Reilly repeated Carroll’s mistake! He didn’t bother to read the comment thread carefully and a key aspect of his central accusation is false.

Anyone can cherry-pick comments from a thread on a blog. The real question is how representative a comment is. It’s also been a common mistake of “old media” journalists to conflate blog posts with comments. In the case of Reilly’s piece, his central claim is that commentators were still railing against Carroll, Greater Boston, and WGBH after they issued the correction. However, one of the comments he quotes occurred before the correction, and the other comment occurred in a thread primarily about blogger disclosure issues and the inaccuracy of Carroll’s original report.

The Greater Boston comment thread (linked again here) is confusing to read at first because the post issues a correction while the earlier comments ask for correction as if one hasn’t been issued. It’s natural to wonder what’s going on. It turns out it’s because the actual post has been edited at least twice, as noted by webmaster Frank Capria in this comment. Many commentators take issue with this, noting that instead Capria or someone else should have posted an update to the original post, made a new one, or something similar. Of course this wasn’t a “nefarious” move by Capria, but it was a faux pas, because the earlier comments no longer refer to the displayed post.

John Amato reported Greater Boston’s correction at 12:32pm PST (3:32pm EST) on 12/11. The Blue Mass Group, which may have been the first blog to report on Carroll’s piece here, on 12/9, received the Greater Boston correction from Mark Mills, the Executive Producer of Greater Boston at 2:43pm EST, in the thread of this 12/11 post (and good for him). The first direct mention of the correction in the Greater Boston comment thread comes here at 1:56pm EST 12/11. A commentator asks for a correction as late as 1:45pm, so I’d guess the post itself was updated to print the correction at roughly 1:50pm. (I’m writing WGBH to confirm this, not that the exact minute is crucial.)

Reilly’s first quoted comment was posted at 10:53am on the Greater Boston blog, hours before the correction was issued. His second quoted comment was posted on Blue Mass Group at 12/12, 10:24am, after the correction was issued. However, the post it commented on was about the accuracy of Carroll’s report and blogger disclosure issues, not the correction. I suppose Reilly can lambast “Shai Sachs” for not immediately forgiving Carroll his mistake. However, at that point Carroll had not apologized publicly apart from Greg Sargent’s blog less than two hours earlier and I doubt Shai Sachs knew that. The post itself was about Carroll’s accuracy, not his or Greater Boston’s contrition. Most importantly, this was a comment, not a post, and as a casual read will reveal, Shai Sach’s quick, sarcastic comment was not even representative of the discussion in that thread! (Even if it were, personally I wouldn’t find a problem with it.)

Reilly’s piece was published on 12/13 and probably was written on 12/12. Consequently, he really has no excuse not to catch his error with the first quotation, since the post editing issue was clear in the Greater Boston comment thread by the afternoon of 12/11. The second quotation is just bad judgment on his part (that’s my judgment, anyway).

So, to recap, Adam Reilly chastises bloggers (although he only quotes blog commentators) in one case for not acknowledging a correction that hadn’t been issued yet, and in the other case just cherry-picks (I consider the first quotation something of a cherry-pick as well). Who really has the thin skin here? Irony of ironies. John Carroll slammed a blogger because he misread a blog entry, didn’t bother to read the comments, and didn’t research. Adam Reilly then enters the fray, slamming bloggers in part because he didn’t bother to read all the comments, and didn’t research. Apart from these issues, both seem to have started with their conclusions predetermined. Contrary to Reilly’s claims, as John Amato alludes to, the liberal blogosphere is overwhelmingly concerned with accuracy in the media, not in receiving praise. The reason the Carroll report attracted attention is because it fits a pattern of undue disparagement toward bloggers, and frankly, PBS and NPR typically uphold higher standards. It’s also simply good to be accurate, especially if you’re making a negative claim.

Personally, I love PBS and NPR, and WGBH produces many of PBS’ excellent programs. While I found Carroll’s initial report disappointing and dismissive, I credit WGBH, Greater Boston and Carroll for admitting their mistakes and correcting their errors. That sort of behavior should be encouraged, and assuming they’re more careful in the future, all is well.

As for Adam Reilly — we all make mistakes. However, the condescending tone coupled with a central error doesn’t really help your credibility or your appeal. Let’s see if you can follow Carroll’s example a second time, admit your mistake and apologize.

Updated 12/16/06

To his credit, Adam Reilly has admitted to his error about the first quotation he used. I have a follow-up post with more detail here. Thanks to C&L for the link, and to any readers for stopping by!

Matthews Grills Schlesinger

Over at TPM Café's Election Central section, there's a clip of Connecticut Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger on Hardball with Chris Matthews. Matthews is an odd bird, very ego-driven and opinionated, and has said more than his fair share of stupid, false or misleading things over the years (Media Matters for America named him their 2005 "Misinformer of the Year," beating out some stiff competition). However, at his best, he's a bulldog on getting straight answers and is not afraid to call bullshit on his guests. Many a blog commentator has observed that Matthews is much more deferential to "established" Beltway insiders (his fawning over Tom Delay here, here and here is embarrassing, and why does he no longer grill Ann Coulter with the same tenacity?). Still, interviews such as this one show what Matthews can do and should do more often.

Reliable BS

After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
-"The Solution," Bertolt Brecht, 1953

Remember — the problem is not that the Bush administration is breaking the law and concealing it or lying about it. The real problem is that you know about it. And that, friends, means it’s time to play that beloved conservative game: Blame the Fourth Estate!

The Raw Story has the video up of a segment from Howard Kurtz’ CNN show Reliable Sources. In it, New York Times columnist Frank Rich must defend against the by now familiar BS line that the press are traitors for revealing yet another secret, illegal government program (this one deals with global banking — I know, it’s hard to keep track any more). Three papers initially covered the story, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and The Wall Street Journal (no link because subscription is required). Guess which newspaper earned conservatives’ ire and which paper received no comment?

Rich is first subjected to Dick Cheney’s charges that revealing the program is irresponsible and hurts the war on terror. In the next clip, Peter King (R-NY) does Cheney one better by insisting that criminal charges be filed against reporters. Finally, Rich must fend off former White House speech writer David Frum, who denouces the dissemination of this information as treason most foul, and who divines the machinations of The New York Times in all three newspaper accounts based on the “grammar” of the story. Never let the realities of media competition interfere with a good liberal conspiracy theory! Rich does a fine job of laughing in Frum’s face in a mostly civil manner.

A shorter statement from these conservative press critics could just as well be: “I’m disappointed that this truth-telling may become a trend.”

Really, I think the American people would be more forgiving about the Bush administration's unprecedented law-breaking if they were just more, well, competent. At this point, Bush’s approval rating hovers around 30%, down to his base, the “yellow dogs,” so to speak. These are the people who a) think he’s competent or b) think the Democrats would do an even worse job or c) are sticking with Bush out of stubborn loyalty or d) hate the Democrats so much anything they oppose must be good.

The Washington Post’s account of the story contains a choice quotation:

"We are disappointed that once again the New York Times has chosen to expose a classified program that is working to protect Americans," spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "We know that al-Qaeda watches for any clue as to how we are fighting the war on terrorism and then they adapt, which increases the challenge to our intelligence and law enforcement.”

"
Yeah, well, Dana, some of us are pretty damn disappointed "once again" in this administration. I know you’re a paid flack, but anyone who thinks that terrorists aren’t aware they may be monitored or recorded is a complete idiot. Mobsters have been using surveillance-foiling tactics for decades. Hasn't the White House crew seen Casino? Or is it only Rambo, based on their disastrous foreign policy? Maybe if your team could, y’know, follow the law and uphold the Constitution - oh, not to mention, tell the truth without being forced to at gunpoint - you’d have a little more credibility when you complain about the press. (Apparently, the Bush administration chose to brief lawmakers on this latest disclosed program only after the newspapers said they would run the story, all for the purpose of the White House minimizing damage and being able to claim, "they were briefed!")

And let's not forget about Cheney, as transcribed from the video:

What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some in the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people. That offends me.

Considering Cheney’s batting average is almost nil, and he’s a well-established liar, if he’s genuinely offended (or even if it's the usual manufactured outrage), it probably means you’re doing something right. What I find most "disturbing" about Dick Cheney is that he’s taken it upon himself to bypass the legislature and the judiciary and push for a series of dangerous, harmful and illegal actions, from warrantless eavesdropping to torture, thus making it more difficult for America to retain its previously positive image abroad, not to mention the problems caused by a direct and sustained assault upon the Constitution and the core values of America itself. That offends me.

And sorry, no, you don’t get to lie repeatedly to the American people and to Congress and keep on telling the same discredited story about Atta in the Czech Republic even after DCI Tenet has told you to stop doing that because they know it’s false and the Czechs say so, too... (whoops, sorry the list can go on for so very long...) You don’t get to lie repeatedly, perform horribly, break the law and then complain about other people when they tell the truth. There’s a reason that Cheney’s approval rating is regularly below 20%, and it says something that not even all the diehards will stick up for Cheney.

Ask not how your government can better serve you. Ask how you can better assist the government in curtailing your civil liberties.

There's a saying that the only certainties in life are death and taxes. However, knaves and scalliwags vilifying those who tell the truth about them is a pretty reliable occurence as well. The only question is what flavor the BS will come in this time, and from whom.

Perhaps if Cheney is unhappy with the people, he can dissolve them and elect another. Personally, I’m hoping a step in the other direction shall occur this November.

The Hiding of Illegal Actions

Glenn Greenwald has produced two more splendid, definitive columns. Unquestionably one of the best writers in any medium on the illegal NSA wiretaps, Greenwald points out that the Bush administration always knew the program was illegal in "Gen. Hayden admits the Administration knew it was violating FISA." And, if you missed it, this weekend Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stated that the Bush administration can and may prosecute journalists for publishing leaked, classified information that makes it look bad. Crooks and Liars has the video here. In "Imprisoning Journalists," Greenwald observes that even Nixon didn't go this far, and persuasively argues that the illegality and the efforts to cover it up are of course related. However, the main thrust of his post is a passionate defense of Freedom of the Press. The only sad thing is that it's at all necessary to write in the first place.

(In a third post, Greenwald also has a nice account of National Review editor Rich Lowry's latest hypocrisy.)

When hostility toward the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the Constitution are accepted as mainstream ideas, we're in deep trouble. When essential civil liberties are viewed as an inconvenience and basic honesty is seen as a nuisance by the key players in the White House – and no one with the power to do so challenges them - we're in grave danger.

The consistent line of the Bush administration has been: "The incompetence and illegality of our actions is not the problem. It's the damn media reporting it." Greenwald cites a Thomas Jefferson quotation that's been much used on the blogosphere of late:

"If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter."

Reporters' Phones Tapped?

I doubt there's any major reporter that didn't wonder about his or her phone being tapped when news broke of the NSA call-tracking program. Today, there's evidence that even if reporter's phones are not being tapped, their phone records are being scrutinized. Joshua Micah Marshall at Talking Points Memo links a story posted by ABC's Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross:

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.

How worried should they be? Well:

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with The New York Times and The Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

Does this impulse originate from the CIA or the White House, and are they in accord? Because Porter Goss, a partisan Bush political appointee, has until very recently been running the CIA, it's highly unlikely this activity would proceed without Bush's implicit approval and may be the result of an explicit order from his administration.

Ross reports ABC is under scrutiny because of their reporting on CIA secret prisons and the CIA use of predator missiles in Pakistan. At The New York Times, the targets would undoubtedly include James Risen and Eric Lichtblau for their Pulitzer-winning work revealing another illegal NSA program of domestic surveillance. At The Washington Post, one of the targets would have to be Dana Priest, who also just won a Pulitzer, for her excellent reporting about CIA black op prisons located in foreign countries and the practice of "extraordinary rendition."

In Dana Priest's weekly online chat on 5/11/06, one interchange made the rounds in the blogosphere:

Rockville, Md.: Isn't it possible that the massive database of phone records could also be used to expose whistleblowers, reporters onto stories damaging to the Bush administration, and/or political opponents of the current administration?

Dana Priest: hmmm. sure hope we can answer that for you, and for me, by the end of the day.

Two other interchanges received less play on the web but are also essential:

Anonymous: Dana - How does the NSA data "drift net" that was exposed today differ from the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program led by Poindexter that was supposedly disbanded? Did the Pentagon just continue the program under a different name?

Dana Priest: That's a possibility. We don't know yet.
_________________
Washington, D.C.: In response to anonymous and TIA, this from Feb 2006--The National Journal reports that the Pentagon transferred two of the most important TIA components of TIA to Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA), located at NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Md. One piece was the Information Awareness Prototype System. It helped extract, analyze and disseminate data collected under the project. Once the Senate cut off funding, ARDA stepped forward to fund the program and it was given a new name "Basketball." All references to TIA were dropped

Dana Priest: thank you. passing on...

The National Journal article can be read here. William Arkin has previously reported on his Washington Post blog Early Warning similar news. When the Pentagon was criticized for performing surveillance on Quakers, vegetarians, lesbians and peace groups (NBC's account here and Arkin's account here), and illegally retained records they were required to destroy, essentially they merely moved the program to escape further scrutiny.

So are Dana Priest's phone records being scrutinized, along with other recent Pulitzer winners at The Times? Considering the track record and mentality of the Bush administration, I'd frankly be shocked if they hadn't at least inquired about such an action. If they already possessed the records, provided by the NSA call-tracking program, and they wanted to track down the government officials who leaked information that made them look bad, what would restrain them? Unless there was serious internal dissent, I can't imagine them holding back… After all, in the Plame affair, Bush has not launched his own investigation, fired people, acknowledged a problem and pledged to do things differently (in fact, he authorized Libby to leak classified information while publicly decrying leaking!). Similarly, with their secret torture policy, the Bush administration faced serious opposition in private from career officials of integrity such as Alberto J. Mora but merely did an end-run around them. The same pattern has played out again and again: we can do anything we want to do, we will not be forthcoming, and we will only reveal information or act in an honorable fashion when outmaneuvered and forced to do so.

The exact extent of any activity against reporters is of course unclear, but the Bush administration doesn't need much information to work with, and who the hell trusts these guys? As Ross reports:

Under Bush Administration guidelines, it is not considered illegal for the government to keep track of numbers dialed by phone customers.

The official who warned ABC News said there was no indication our phones were being tapped so the content of the conversation could be recorded.

A pattern of phone calls from a reporter, however, could provide valuable clues for leak investigators.

Who watches the watchmen? And who are the watchmen? On Friday, 5/14/06, The New York Times' Scott Shane and Eric Lichtblau reported that after 9/11 Vice President Dick Cheney and key aide David Addington pushed the NSA to conduct warrantless wiretaps, according to "two senior intelligence officials":

If people suspected of links to Al Qaeda made calls inside the United States, the vice president and Mr. Addington thought eavesdropping without warrants "could be done and should be done," one of them said.

He added: "That's not what the N.S.A. lawyers think."

The other official said there was "a very healthy debate" over the issue. The vice president's staff was "pushing and pushing, and it was up to the N.S.A. lawyers to draw a line and say absolutely not."

Healthy debate? Riiiiight. When in the history of the Office of the Vice Presidency has Dick Cheney and his staff ever backed off? From the Iraq war, to torture policy, to energy policy, to taxes, to transparency, to unilateral executive power, the occasions Cheney has not gotten his way are few, if any exist. The fact that a program he wanted currently exists suggests that the usual pattern of Cheney prevailing continued.

As to these latest revelations about reporters under scrutiny, Josh Marshall cogently observes:

I think part of the issue for many people on the administration's various forms of surveillance is not just that some of [their] activities seem to be illegal or unconstitutional on their face. I think many people are probably willing to be open-minded, for better or worse, on pushing the constitutional envelope. But given the people in charge of the executive branch today, you just can't have any confidence that these tools will be restricted to targeting terrorists. Start grabbing up phone records to data-mine for terrorists and then the tools are just too tempting for your leak investigations. Once you do that, why not just keep an eye on your critics too? After all, they're the ones most likely to get the leaks, right? So, same difference. The folks around the president don't recognize any real distinctions among those they consider enemies. So we'd be foolish to think they wouldn't bring these tools to bear on all of them. Once you set aside the law as your guide for action and view the president's will as a source of legitimacy in itself, then everything becomes possible and justifiable.

Power without checks and balances, without oversight, almost always leads to abuse. As with most issues with the Bush administration, this really comes down to, do you trust these guys? If Bush's current job approval ratings are any indication, over 70% of the country says no (Bush's personal ratings have plummeted as well). Given that this administration has never restrained its own power through governmental oversight or simple moral conscience, why would anyone believe they would voluntarily start doing so now?

The 2006 Pulitzers

The Pulitzers were announced last week. While some in the blogosphere are upset about certain choices, I thought it was quite a good list, recognizing the most important work of the year, as the prizes should. You can see the complete list at the Pulitzer website (click on “What’s New” and then the 2006 list). The site also provides links to the winning coverage. The Washington Post, which lead all papers this year with four prizes, has a good write-up here, and a chat with some its winners here. As much as the “mainstream media” gets criticized — often deservedly so — newspapers continue to be the heart and soul of investigative journalism, and it’s too easy to forget how much superb, essential work gets done.

The prize for Public Service was particularly well-deserved, by The Sun Herald, Biloxi-Gulfport, Mississippi, and The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, Louisiana, for their exemplary Katrina coverage. The staff of The Times-Picayune also garnered a Pulitzer for “Breaking News Reporting.” While these awards may seem to be no-brainers, there had been scuttlebutt that The Times-Picayune might not be eligible because, in the wake of Katrina, it not could always produce a physical paper and existed primarily online. Kudos to the Pulitzer board for not staking out some silly “old media” stance and instead recognizing fine reporting.

At The Washington Post, Susan Schmidt, James V. Grimaldi and R. Jeffrey Smith won for their superb “Investigative Reporting” into Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, the K Street Project, and an ever-expanding web of scandal. Some journalists now feel that when all’s revealed in the Abramoff affair, it may well be the biggest congressional scandal in American history. The details can easily become dizzying, and the articles defy casual reading, but The Post’s provided the most elucidating coverage I’ve yet found.

Long admired for her work, Dana Priest of The Post won the “Beat Reporting” prize for her work revealing CIA black ops prisons in foreign countries and the practice of “extraordinary rendition.” The legality, morality, and effectiveness of these facilities continue to be debated.

This week, the firing of CIA agent Mary McCarthy has brought up new issues. McCarthy claims that while she spoke with Priest, she did not leak any classified information. The CIA claims, or at least implies, she did. McCarthy, less than two weeks away from her official retirement, was undoubtedly fired to send a chilling message to any more potential whistleblowers in the CIA. But was the firing deserved? Is McCarthy the victim of a witch hunt? It seems someone must be lying, and at the very least there’s a great deal more to this story.

Still, while Katrina was undoubtedly the biggest story of the year, the biggest “scoop” of the year was the NSA warrantless wiretapping story, which justifiably won James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times a prize for “National Reporting.” Regardless of one’s feelings about the matter, the secret NSA program has triggered a Constitutional crisis, with the President unapologetically asserting virtually unlimited powers, unfettered by the laws of congress or the oversight of the judiciary.

The Toledo Blade was among the worthy nominees that did not win. Their work on “Coingate” has been important, as was their disturbing but crucial work exposing how the police covered up sexual molestation by Catholic priests going back to at least the 1950’s. Honored in the past, The Blade has earned a great deal of respect from their peers, and here’s hoping they continue to excel.

The Washington Post’s chat provided three interchanges I found especially interesting as to who tends to win and why:

Anonymous: How come whenever there is a disaster, the hometown paper wins a Pulitzer?

When the Hyatt catwalk collapsed in Kansas City, the KC Star won a Pulitzer.

After the Columbine massacre, both Denver papers won Pulitzers.

And now this year, in the aftermath of Katrina, the New Orleans and Biloxi papers won Pulitzers.

I'm sure there are other examples, as well. Why does this occur?

Susan Schmidt: It's when there is a disaster that a news organization really tests its mettle. Many times--as was the case this year in New Orleans and Biloxi--newspaper reporters and editors mount a superhuman effort because they know readers are really counting on them.

Anonymous: Who picks the Pulitzer Prizes?

It seems like every year the Washington Post and New York Times dominate the awards.

Is this because of these papers' excellent work or because the committee that picks the prizes is from the East Coast?

R. Jeffrey Smith: a very interesting question. while it's true that editors from big city newspapers frequently serve on the pulitzer board -- including, from time to time, those from the washington post and the new york times -- the process is actually fairly democratic. around 2000 entries are initially sifted and sorted by committees of prominent journalists from all over the country, and they recommend the finalists (usually three per category). then the board picks the winners. but the members must leave the room when the work of their own publications is being discussed. the real answer to your question, however, is that a relatively small number of newspapers support the kind of sustained investigative work that wins prizes -- including the Post and the Times. lots of other newspapers have also won, but these two papers often dominate simply because their editors are committed to dogged investigative work.

Alabama: Congratulations to both of you, and the following is by no means meant as a disparagement of your excellent work.

The Pulitzers have been criticized for playing favorites with large-circulation newspapers, and rewarding work that only large papers can afford to do. A paper with a big staff can afford to put two reporters on a year-long investigation. A small newspaper obviously doesn't have that luxury, and smaller newspapers often don't get consideration for Pulitzers until something like a disaster occurs in their hometown (as an earlier poster pointed out).

My question, then: Do you think the Pulitzers, like other journalism honors, should hand out awards based on circulation? For instance, one beat reporting award for a paper of 200,000 or more, one for 100,000 to 200,000, etc.?

Susan Schmidt: It's probably true that the big papers win more often, but they are the only ones that can foot the bill for some expensive enterprises, like foreign reporting. When there are big pressing national and international issues, the papers that cover those areas--by definition the bigger papers--are probably going to win many prizes. Still, even tiny papers can win, like the Point Reyes Light a number of years ago.

While all the winning stories deserve further discussion, for this entry I mainly wanted to salute some fine work. Bravo, and keep it coming.

The Benefits of Online Chats

Every weekday The Washington Post hosts several online chats, from the serious to the silly. Apparently, The Post leads the field by far in terms of the sheer hours of chats it hosts (something like 60 hours per week, likely more). Add in several excellent online-only columns, and you have a nice model for what the modern newspaper can be. No paper is perfect. The Post was the most prominent paper I know of to botch coverage of the West Virginia miners, printing that they had been found alive when in fact most had died (the perils of a midnight deadline). Still, The Post’s own media critic Howard Kurtz skewered The Post for this (in his online column and his weekly chat), and surely it’s a healthy sign that this is possible (personally, I do not completely blame The Post on this, but they should have made their sources of information clear in the article itself and issued a brief front page apology/explanation the next day).

Similarly, many of The Post’s columnists and reporters host chats, and this allows for frequent interchanges with readers. This builds on and in some cases improves on the letters-to-the-editor and ombudsman mechanisms in place at major papers. Reporters will clarify points in articles, admit mistakes, and offer new insights. Comments raging in the blogosphere about a given issue — or a journalist’s latest piece — will often actually get a response. The Post also gives a Technorati link so that online readers can see what registered blogs have linked to a given article and read what they’re saying. The chats with filmmakers and authors are very welcome, but the chats with journalists really adds to, and improves, the dialogue occurring online in newspapers, magazines, and blogs.

One of the best chats I’ve read was Editor-in-Chief Len Downie responding to readers about Bob Woodward’s belated disclosure that Valerie Plame Wilson’s CIA identity had been revealed to him as well. Woodward, Downie and The Post kept credibility in my eyes for several reasons (whereas Judy Miller and Viveca Novak do not). The first is that Woodward admitted his mistakes and apologized. The second is that Downie publicly scolded Woodward for his actions but also expressed his overall support for him as a journalist, and spoke of steps both men agreed to to avoid a repeat performance. Finally, Downie held the chat and addressed reader concerns directly, including correcting himself about a mistake he made earlier in the chat.

The chats can also be revealing in other ways. The Post’s polling editor, Richard Morin, got inexplicably mad in a chat because many, many readers wanted him to ask a poll question about public support for impeaching Bush. As he correctly stated, with a Republican Congress, the chances of Bush being impeached are highly unlikely. Still, that has little to do with the public’s feelings on the matter. I remember reading the chat and being taken aback by his anger — what was the big deal? If at least twenty people wrote in asking about the same issue, what was wrong with a poll question on the topic, especially when impeachment polls on Clinton were widespread immediately after the Lewinksy scandal broke? I liked the fact that other Post columnists later questioned the Morin's reaction as well.

Meanwhile, most revealingly, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales refused to define torture in a chat (following up his op-ed on the Patriot Act) and also stressed how renewing the Patriot Act would respect civil liberties because one could not get a wiretap without a warrant. The very next day, Friday 12/16, The New York Times published its story on illegal NSA wiretaps. On Monday 12/19, Gonzales was on TV defending President Bush and the illegal wiretaps. The irony was almost as thick as the bullshit, but not quite.

UPDATED slightly on 1/12, mainly to add links.

Blame Game: Gregory vs. McClellan

I had heard about this interchange between NBC reporter David Gregory and White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, and I read the transcript, but it really must be seen and heard to be believed. Granted, being a press secretary, especially for this administration, must be stressful. That said, McClellan comes off as a little kid yelling “I’m rubber and you’re glue” in a schoolyard.

Crooks and Liars has the video for this via Imus, listed under 9/8. Also of note is the Keith Olbermann video listed under 9/7, contrasting official statements with reality and Tim Russert on Imus under 9/6.

A Pattern of Skullduggery

Sorry, yes, another Plamegate entry. I find it a fascinating glimpse into how politics actually work, from bureaucratic turf wars to smear campaigns and backstabbing to the relationship between reporters and politicians to the active distortion and obfuscation of the truth for political gain. At least two reporters feel as I do... You can hear Adam Liptak of The New York Times and Anne Marie Squeo of The Wall Street Journal discussing it with Terry Gross on NPR here.

Several good timelines of this affair have sprung up on the web, but one of the more interesting is a recent article by Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), who’s been doggedly pursuing this for some time. He recaps no less than eleven security breaches. This particular version has interactive footnotes, but no article links (alas).

Regardless of how Novak changes his version of events, and how Rove claims a reporter fed him the covert information on Valerie Plame Wilson, I keep coming back to an article The Washington Post ran way back on September 27, 2003. The money quotation, also used in part by Waxman, is:

Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.

It’s very, very hard to believe otherwise. If only the Bush admin had heralded the cardinal rule of DC, “The cover-up is almost always worse than the crime.”

At this point, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus and the official who leaked to him have both been interviewed by Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald. Pincus writes about this, and about the journalistic ethics he practices regarding confidential sources here . Even though Pincus was leaked the material about Valerie Plame Wilson on July 12, 2003, before Novak’s article was published, Pincus relates:

I didn’t write about that information at that time because I did not believe it true that she had arranged his Niger trip.

The first of Pincus’ three standards for granting confidentiality is:

Determining whether the information is credible and verifiable.

Compare this behavior with Novak’s. Pincus later wrote about what the official told him in a October 12, 2003 article. He recounts:

I wrote my October story because I did not think the person who spoke to me was committing a criminal act, but only practicing damage control by trying to get me to stop writing about Wilson.

Again, compare this with Novak. Both reporters were leaked the same essential information, but Novak ran with it and Pincus didn’t. Pincus apparently did not print the information because he correctly viewed it as damage control or spin, and because his instincts were correct — the “leak” was not true; Plame did not arrange for her husband’s trip (although she did play a peripheral role, which has been consistently distorted by some parties). Pincus’ invoked standards suggest that he would have confirmed the leaked information first before publishing it, but apparently he did no feel the info was credible enough to begin with to bother to do this.

Apparently, at least four other reporters were leaked the same information. Yet they, like Pincus, did not run it, probably for similar reasons. But Novak was all too willing to print what he was fed.

To Novak’s credit, he did at least half-heartedly try to confirm the story by calling the CIA, but as recounted earlier, when he was told not to use Valerie Plame Wilson’s name, he ignored this. At least one pundit has posited that Novak took the denials he received as proof he was on to something, and this is likely what he thought... but it’s still sloppy reporting, with Novak all too willing and eager to bear some pretty brackish water for the Bush administration.