Year: 2009

Live-blogging Obama’s news conference

I’ll be live-blogging President Obama’s news conference tonight. If you like multi-tasking, please drop by a few minutes before 8 p.m.

8:00: Bill Bennett, on CNN, says independents now favor Republicans. But Real Clear Politics average on Obama’s job-approval rating shows the president at 61.2 percent favorable, 30.5 percent unfavorable. Who are these independents?

8:04: Cites Geithner’s bank plan. Good timing for news conference — Geithner finally got off the mat yesterday.

8:06: “I’m as angry as anybody about those bonuses” but “we’re all in this together.”

8:07: Much shorter opening statement this time.

8:11: Chuck Todd: Why haven’t you asked the American people to sacrifice, given that some (who?) have compared the economic crisis to war? But Chuck — the crisis is eased when people spend.

8:15: Still thinking about Todd’s question. What does it even mean? Savings rate is higher than it’s been in many years — and that’s a big part of the problem.

8:19: Chip Reid of CBS News another economic ignoramus: Isn’t that debt what you were referring to when you said we didn’t want to pass it on to next generation?

8:20: Obama: I inherited a huge deficit from Republicans. My budget will drive it down.

8:26: The questions show a fundamental lack of understanding that, in the midst of an economic crisis, the best approach for the federal government to take is to spend in order to offset at least part of the lack of spending by the private sector. If anything, as Krugman keeps pointing out, Obama isn’t doing enough.

8:27: Mexican reporter asks about drug violence in her country and spillover effect on the border. Who let her in? Serious, substantive questions not allowed.

8:31: Obama’s lost in the weeds responding to a question from Stars and Stripes on military spending. Or, to be more accurate, he’s led us into the weeds and now we’re lost.

8:33: Ed Henry of CNN: Why is Andrew Cuomo getting better results going after AIG than you and Geithner? Good question. Then, before Obama can answer, he follows it up with another dumb budget question. Not surprisingly, Obama chooses to answer the dumb budget question.

8:36: Obama on why he waited to express anger at AIG: “It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I’m talking about before I speak.”

8:40: Mike Allen of Politico: Are you reconsidering tax deduction for health care and charity? Do you wish you hadn’t made that promise? Obama: We would return to the Reagan percentages, and it would only affect one percent of the American people. If you’re rich, you’d be able to write off 28 percent of charitable deductions, not 39 percent.

8:43: Allen: Charities say this will hurt giving. Obama: No, it won’t. What really hurts charities is an economy that isn’t working.

8:46: Ann Compton of ABC News: How is race affecting your presidency? Obama: I’ve been focused on the economy. Racial significance of inauguration “lasted about a day.” “Are we taking the steps to improve liquidity in the financial markets, create jobs, get businesses to reopen, keep America safe.”

8:48: Washington Times guy: How much did you wrestle with your conscience over embryonic-stem-cell research? Half a nanosecond is my guess as to what would be a truthful answer.

8:52: Agence France-Presse guy: How are you going to bring peace to the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation given Israel’s new anti-Palestinian government? Funny — no mention of Hamas’ terrorism against Israel. Obama: Former enemies in Ireland celebrated in the White House on St. Patrick’s Day. “What that tells me is that if you stick to it, if you are persistent, then these problems can be dealt with…. I’m a big believer in persistence.”

8:56: “We’re moving in the right direction.” Geithner now has a plan. We’ve reached out to Iran, but that will take time. We haven’t eliminated the influence of lobbyists immediately, nor have we eliminated pork-barrel spending. The idea is to keep moving forward. “This is a big ocean liner, it’s not a speedboat. It doesn’t turn around immediately.” But after four years, I hope people will see we’ve moved in the right direction.

8:57: And that was that.

9:03: Bill O’Reilly: He was boring! Karl Rove: “I think he’s sort of an arrogant guy.” Now they are sharing their deep knowledge of economics.

9:06: O’Reilly: When I interviewed Obama, man, I was so great.

Final word: I’ll be wrapping up morning commentary for The Guardian tomorrow. But it strikes me that what we saw tonight was the normalization of the Obama presidency. This was no big deal, very much unlike his last prime-time news conference. Obama seemed to feel free to deflect stupid questions. It helped that Geithner’s having a nice little two-day run.

People should pay attention to Obama’s closing, in which he talked about persistence and the long run. It’s how he got elected. And it seems to be how he approaches politics, and life.

Gitell on Jewish war veterans

Friend of Media Nation Seth Gitell hasn’t had to give up all his writing since becoming House Speaker Robert DeLeo’s spokesman. Recently he wrote a fascinating piece about about Jewish veterans of the Vietnam War, pegged to a book by Col. Jack Jacobs and Douglas Century titled “If Not Now, When?”

In the course of exploring Jacobs’ book, Gitell discusses his father, Gerald Gitell, himself a member of the Green Berets. The elder Gitell — who helped discover Staff Sgt. Barry Sadler, whose “Ballad of the Green Berets” was an unlikely hit in 1966 — was an uncredited source of mine when I wrote about the 2001 revelation that former senator Bob Kerrey had committed war crimes in Vietnam. (Pay no attention to the date at the top of the page; it’s merely a script that displays today’s date.)

Seth writes:

Back in the late 1960s, American Jews weren’t exactly renowned for their fighting skills. Jewish service in World War II (such as my grandfather’s) had been taken for granted as part of the total war effort America waged against the Axis Powers. But Jews as fighting men still hadn’t entered the general consciousness.

Indeed, as Seth notes, Jewish antiwar radicals such as Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin were far better known during the Vietnam years than any Jewish military officers. In that respect, Jacobs’ book is something of a forgotten history.

Tweaking Media Nation’s appearance

I’ve made some minor changes to the look and feel of Media Nation, mainly to accommodate the newish, extreme-vertical ad that takes up the top of the right-hand column.

I’m also thinking about switching to WordPress.org so that I can have a little more control as well as multiple static pages. But this should do for the time being.

A no-class comment

As the father of a son who recently earned his Eagle award and a daughter who just got her Silver, I’m appalled at a comment from a spokeswoman for the Boy Scouts of America that appears in today’s Boston Globe. Renee Fairrer tells reporter Irene Sege:

The Girl Scouts, pretty much they’re known for the Girl Scout cookies. When people think of Boy Scouts, they think of Eagle awards. They think of service.

Girl Scouts have to put in a tremendous number of service hours for their awards. The requirements can’t be directly compared, but the Silver award, for girls 11 to 14 years old, specifies that a girl put in 40 hours. The Gold, for girls up to the age of 18, requires 65 hours, according to a workbook my daughter has.

The Eagle, which a boy can earn up until he turns 18, does not specify a minimum number of hours for a service project, though such projects usually run about 100 cumulative hours from everyone who participates. In practical terms, that means the scout himself generally puts in fewer than 40 hours of his own time.

Too bad Fairrer didn’t understand that before she opened her mouth and inserted her foot.

Pundits on Patrick: Not a pretty picture

Gov. Deval Patrick’s politically clueless performance of recent days has brought out some sharp commentary from local pundits. A quick round-up — not meant to be comprehensive, just stuff that caught my eye:

  • Joan Vennochi, Boston Globe: “The Massachusetts governor is presiding over a local version of the larger, national disaster that is chipping away at confidence in government and the economy. But Patrick’s instincts for the symbols that enrage taxpayers are poor, and so, apparently, are the instincts of those who report to him.” Comment: Vennochi pretty much nails it. But it’s not just Patrick’s inept handling of political symbolism — it’s the lack of substance, too.
  • Jon Keller, WBZ: “It’s been a dismaying, demoralizing turn of events, coming at the worst possible time for the only thing that really matters, the ability of our state to deal with our crises in a way that protects and provides opportunity to the working classes. Things are bad out here, and no one wants to hear Deval Patrick whining about what a drag his chosen profession has turned out to be.” Comment: Keller’s pretty rough on everyone. Nevertheless, there’s a difference in tone here that suggests Keller thinks the governor has reached the point of no return.
  • The Outraged Liberal: “Patrick came to this job from the world of business, where executives got what they wanted by the sheer force of their will and personality. Some learn that politics is not the same environment and that accommodation is required…. But the biggest loser will be Patrick, who tried to strong arm the process and failed. In spectacular fashion.” Comment: Outside of Blue Mass. Group, Patrick has had no better friend in the local blogosphere than Mr. O.L. Very ominous.
  • Jay Fitzgerald, Hub Blog and Boston Herald: “Gov. Patrick’s ‘trivial’ comment is perhaps the single most stupid political remark I’ve heard muttered by a state or national pol in the face of genuine public outrage. It will stick with him for the rest of his years in the corner office.” Comment: I think Jay’s right.
  • David Kravitz, Blue Mass. Group: “It’s more than passing strange for this particular crowd to be so clueless about why stuff like this matters. No, the money at issue in the AIG bonuses, or Carol Aloisi’s job, or Marian Walsh’s special election, will not make or break the state or the country. But the damage these kinds of things do is, while less tangible, no less real.” Comment: If Patrick is losing one of the BMG co-editors, then he’s pretty much down to family and childhood friends.
  • Paul Flannery, Boston Daily: “Patrick has never bothered to take care of the little things — the car, the drapes, the chopper, the book deal while the casino bill went down in flames — and now the big things are slipping out of his grasp.” Comment: Call it the “broken windows” theory of politics.

We are now past the half-way point of Patrick’s four-year term. It’s pretty sobering — and discouraging — to realize that, without a major turnaround, we’re looking at yet another disappointment in the governor’s office.

When Media Nation met Suldog

This past Saturday, I had the honor of introducing the 2005 film “Good Night, and Good Luck,” about the life of Edward R. Murrow, at the Boston Athenaeum, part of a “Civic Discourse” series it’s running along with Suffolk University.

I also had a chance to meet Jim Sullivan, who writes the excellent local blog Suldog, as well as Mrs. Suldog. Jim has got some interesting things to say about Murrow and the how the media landscape has changed since the 1950s, when Murrow’s CBS program “See It Now” played a major role in ending the witch-hunting career of Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

First Circuit rejects libel appeal

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston has refused to overturn a ruling (PDF) that statements made in matters of private concern may be found libelous even if true.

The court has also declined to accept (PDF) an amicus curiae brief filed by several dozen of the largest and most influential media organizations in the country, citing a conflict of interest that would be created if it were to do so. Apparently one of the judges has a tie to a media organization, which would force a recusal.

No word on what comes next. Is it possible that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on this? The idea that a statement must be defamatory and false in order to be held libelous is so fundamental to our notion of a free press that it’s hard to imagine the ruling will stand, even if it pertains only to Massachusetts, based as it is on a 1902 state law.

From the time I reported on this case for The Guardian, I’ve heard a low buzz suggesting that the ruling may not matter all that much, given that it pertains to private parties — and that, in fact, private persons deserve more protection under the libel laws than public officials and public figures.

My answer to that is that they already do, but that private figures — according to all the libel law that we understand — still have to prove falsehood.

I think the most telling case is that of Gertz v. Robert Welch, a 1974 Supreme Court decision about a libel suit brought by a lawyer who had been falsely defamed by a John Birch Society publication. The court ruled that the lawyer, Elmer Gertz, was a private figure, and would thus not to have to prove “actual malice” as defined by Times v. Sullivan (1964) — that is, he would not have to prove that the Birchers had published defamatory material knowing it was false, or with reckless disregard for the truth. Instead, the court ruled that, henceforth, private figures would have to show negligence at the very least, with the states free to adopt more stringent language if they chose.

Reading the Gertz decision, you can’t help but be struck how the notion of falsehood is raised over and over. The phrase “defamatory falsehood” is used repeatedly. The most famous section of the majority decision, written by Justice Lewis Powell, is built around the principle that libel is a false and defamatory statement of fact:

We begin with the common ground. Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas. But there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. Neither the intentional lie nor the careless error materially advances society’s interest in “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” debate on public issues. They belong to that category of utterances which “are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”

Remember, Gertz was a private figure. Powell was writing quite specifically about the libel standards that should prevail when a private citizen brings a libel suit, yet he made it absolutely clear that falsehood and defamation are the two key elements of libel.

It’s hard to imagine what the First Circuit is thinking.

Imus’ judgment

No, Don Imus shouldn’t have said he’d “shoot” Jay Severin — but, based on Jessica Heslam’s account, it sounds like no one ever would have known about it if the Severin camp hadn’t started blabbing. And come on — does Severin actually believe Imus was going to pull out a gun and blow him away if he refused to get off the stage?

The shooting remark aside, you can’t argue with Imus’ judgment.

The ties between journalism and community

In my latest for the Guardian, I argue that a new survey showing that people don’t make much of a connection between their local newspaper and civic life gets it exactly backwards. In fact, folks have lost interest in journalism because they’ve lost interest in democracy. For newspapers and Web sites to succeed, they’re first going to have to re-establish a sense of community.