An Open Letter to Arthur Brisbane

Here is my response to Arthur Brisbane, New York Times' Public Editor after his piece, "Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?" If you haven't read it yet, although I don't know how you may have missed it with all the hullabaloo about it, please follow the link.

Dear Mr. Brisbane:

"[Our readers] worry less about reporters imposing their judgment on what is false and what is true."

This line most struck me in your piece as an interesting take on what you feel is "judgment" as opposed to journalism. I was always under the impression that a reporter's job was not only to report on the facts of what they witnessed or heard, but also to distinguish between what is truth and what isn't.

The Mitt Romney example you put forth regarding his repeated accusation of President Obama "apologizing for America" is a perfect example. But let's take it one step further and ask the following: What if Mitt Romney had said that President Obama goes around the world insisting that the sky is green? Is the reporter bound to play stenographer and simply repeat the quote, or is he obligated to research the truthfulness of that quote in an effort to paint a more accurate picture? Facts are facts, opinions are opinions and lies are lies. The phrase "imposing their judgement" implies the reporter is giving their opinion and facts are secondary and inconvenient.

Maybe there is a difference between journalism and investigative journalism, but there shouldn't be. I would imagine a reporter wants to be as accurate as possible, and if that means researching to prove the subject of their story truthful or not, then in my opinion, that's what the job must entail. Otherwise, anyone can be a reporter simply by recording and transcribing an event.

Thanks,
Broadway Carl

And to me, that's the long and short of it. An entire online industry was born to fact check what journalists don't. Poltifact, Media Matters, FactCheck and others are watch dogs to what politicians, pundits and talking heads pass as news, but even some of them are now afraid to be labeled as biased toward the liberal end of the scale and try to play it down the middle. This was clearly evidenced by Politifact's 2011 Lie of the Year, calling the Democrats' accusation that the Paul Ryan economic plan would end Medicare as we know it, a falsehood.

Anyone looking at Ryan's plan would come to that conclusion - simply keeping the "Medicare" name while making the program an inadequate voucher system does not mean Medicare equals Medicare. I could shit in a box and gift wrap it, complete with a "Medicare" label on it. Does that make it Medicare? But I digress.

I agree with Tweeter @Shoq that the conversation is an important one, but I also understand the blowback when such a question need be asked, and that a reporter fact checking someone he/she is covering would be categorized as "truth vigilantism." There are still a majority of the population who rely on the fourth estate for their daily news. They assume what they read in major newspapers is fact. Opinion should be left in the editorial pages, but front page news must deal with the facts and be accurate. And I believe that it is the responsibility of the reporter to research the subject and double check the accuracy of the subject's statements.

Answer to an excellent question

POSTED BY JHW22

In the comments of the previous post, one of our loyal readers, Vic, asked a question of Broadway Carl and me. How do we feel about the federal pay freeze? Rather than answering in a comment, I figured I'd make it a post. I'm feeling rather long-winded today and it's a point that deserves more discussion than I could provide in a comment. And I am over-due for a post anyway.

I am very supportive of Pres O, but I admit that there are moments when the doubting arguments start to make a dent - like today. What do you and Jennifer make of his salary freeze announcement? The perception that he always caves before he needs to is starting to get to me.

Vic used a key word, "perception". It is exactly THAT -- a perception. One of my consistent beefs is with the distortion of, selection of and analysis of the administration by our media. THEY decide what we know. THEY decide what details we receive. THEY decide what tone to set. THEY decide OUR moods. But honestly, none of us know how Obama got to the salary freeze decision. Because it was a surprise to us does not mean that it wasn't without a fight.

I understand the frustration people feel but I disagree with the premise that he caves before he tries. We have no clue what or with whom or for how long or how he discusses any issue. Just as he says he needs to get out of the fishbowl that is Washington, we need to realize that we are not looking into a fish bowl and seeing all there is to see. However, we are told to believe he just jumps without thinking or fighting. Why? Why do we continually go where we are led by the very people we criticize repeatedly for being, as Palin correctly states, "lame"? What about Obama in his speeches, in his politicking, suggests that the perception is the reality? Why don't WE do a better job demanding that the two match? Instead we allow the perception to become the accepted stance and then we fight against it. In many ways, we create our own enemies out of thin air. We waste energy and resources punching shadows instead of stopping and thinking and trying to grasp why decisions are made.

We aren't in the room, on the phone or at the other end of the Presidential Blackberry. WE don't know when he goes to the wall or when he realizes that flexibility is key to progress.

Secondly, Obama wasn't really a fighter in the campaign. I don't know how many times Dems would say, "I wish he'd....". We've done it to him since day one. Often I hear "We want the campaigner" back as if that Obama were a different person. He hasn't changed. His job has changed. I've always said that a campaign is a wedding but being President is the marriage. Weddings are about the drama and excitement, the memories and good vibes. But everyone who is married, or in a long-term relationship, hell, even a friendship, knows that the wedding ends when the bride and groom drive off with cans strung to their bumper.

When my husband and I were first married, we fought all the time and the fights may have appeared to be about stupid things but they were always about one thing at the root of it all: communication. And it's with persistence and bending and listening and changing that a marriage progresses into a relationship that makes both people feel involved and active and stable.

The problem is that we can't communicate with Obama in any direct way. A speech is one-sided. A press conference doesn't necessarily address our specific questions. We can't get in deep to understand and share with the very person we want to hold accountable for every decision made. It's truly not fair. We demand so much of a President but have no way of communicating with him. Instead, we rely on the media to do it for us and we get frustrated at him when the messenger tells us to.

Now the Republicans are threatening to block all legislation unless the Democrats add to the deficit by extending the tax cuts for the wealthy. It's hypocrisy in so many damn ways. We all know that. But what is the best way of dealing with them? Is being equally stubborn the answer?

The Democrats didn't care about the deficit much more than being able to call hypocrisy on the Republicans before. We don't care if we add to it if it creates stimulus. But by goddess we won't add to it if it benefits the wealthy!

Well, here's the deal. We need to be grown-ups. Do I want us to add to the deficit? NO. I have been one of the Democrats who wants to pay it down so we can free ourselves from debt to places like, oh, China. But do I think there is no solution other than black and white? No. I am realistic. There are options. We are as bad as the Republicans when we say "we won't compromise". Hell, that's what the Republicans said in their letter. We know that Murkowski said she would vote to repeal DADT because it's the right thing to do. But now she'd block it because she wants to play a game of extortion?

Do I like extortion? No. That's why I also don't like blanket statements like "Tell Obama not to compromise" especially when followed by some vague threat of primarying him with someone "more liberal".

WE MUST COMPROMISE. But compromise is a bad word these days. So from now on I'll just call it what it is: being a grown up. Progress is working toward a goal. It isn't being a stubborn ass (pun intended) refusing to climb a mountain. Progress is being the bigger person and seeing that giving an inch gains a mile. Who gives a fuck about the inch when we have a mile?!

Priorities and perspective. We need them. We also need to step back from our knee-jerk emotional responses and see that big picture our President is always seeing and trying to show us. It's on us to stop demanding specifics and start thinking about what is more important: the result or how we get it. I want results and we are getting them from President Obama. How we get them is water under the bridge.

Back to the initial point about the salary freezes, the best I can articulate it is this: we have been creating private sector jobs. We have been losing public sector jobs. I would rather we freeze salaries than lay people off. And yes, some workers will be frozen at a pay that is too low already. But that is better than being without a job or having to get a similar paying job with zero health benefits.

I am constantly remind myself of four things:

1) Am I being a hypocrite? If so, reconcile it with integrity and honesty.

2) Do I believe the source or the spin? If not, decide what I think.

3) Read, watch or learn two positive things for every negative thing I read.

4) Obama IS the person I voted for. He IS doing the exact job I expected him to do. The frustrations are valid but irrelevant to the bigger picture of a nation consisting of opposing views and opinions and interpretations of fact. Follow Obama's lead on this because he's a grown up and I need to try to act like a grown up myself.

Oh, and I should probably add that we all define "fighting" differently. My idea of the President fighting may not be his idea or your idea or a Republican's idea. People need to stop clinging to semantics on this issue.

Fightin' Words

Cleveland Cavaliers' majority owner Dan Gilbert is not amused.

"The good news is that the ownership team and the rest of the hard-working, loyal, and driven staff over here at your hometown Cavaliers have not betrayed you nor NEVER will betray you.

...You simply don't deserve this kind of cowardly betrayal.

I PERSONALLY GUARANTEE THAT THE CLEVELAND CAVALIERS WILL WIN AN NBA CHAMPIONSHIP BEFORE THE SELF-TITLED FORMER ‘KING’ WINS ONE.

You can take it to the bank."

Read the complete open letter to Cavs fans here.

Open Letter to Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska)

Congressman Young,

Last week, you spoke on the House floor and apparently misquoted Abraham Lincoln when you said, "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."

I find it odd that Abraham Lincoln would have ever said something like that, and I was right. He never did. As you know probably know, just because you see it printed in a newspaper, especially the Washington Times or on a website that doesn’t check its facts, like Insight Magazine Online, doesn’t make it true. The same goes for the Nancy Pelosi plane request that she never requested and the madrassa that Barack Obama never attended. No, he isn’t a Muslim either.

Here is the Lincoln quote which I think you meant to recite:

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.'

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us."

Lincoln wrote these words while America was at war with Mexico, under the presidency of James Polk, and while Lincoln was a member of Congress. But Lincoln did more than talk about the fraud that had been used to launch that illegal and imperialistic war. He introduced a resolution demanding that Polk provide proof. Polk claimed to have launched that war only after American blood had been shed on American soil. Lincoln's resolution required Polk to identify the spot where that blood had been shed.

When President Polk did not answer, Lincoln and John Quincy Adams sought a formal investigation of the president's pre-war intelligence claims, and of his use of secret funds to launch his fraudulent and illegal war. Under this pressure, Polk announced that he would not seek reelection. Lincoln, Adams, and their allies in Congress then passed a resolution honoring the service of Major General Zachary Taylor "in a war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States."

So it would seem that Lincoln opposed the war for its illegality while at the ame time supporting the troops... interesting.

My question to you, Congressman Young, is how can anyone in public office see a quote this inflammatory, attributed to Abraham Lincoln, and not check to see if the quote was accurate? On its face, the thought that Lincoln would advocate the arrest, exile, or hanging of congressmen in disagreement with a war based on the premise that it would undermine morale is incredibly suspect. The fact is that Lincoln did just that very thing you state as being a hanging offense and falsely attribute it to Lincoln, albeit through ignorance.

I hope with this new information, you will go to the House floor and correct your statements for the record, although since the actual quote doesn’t suit your needs, you’ll forgive me if I don’t hold my breath.

Open Letter to Nancy Pelosi

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

I would like to congratulate you on your new position as Speaker of the House and know that you will serve it well.

You took the gavel in the spirit of “partnership, not partisanship”, and although your election for Speaker was secured, not one Republican representative voted in your favor. Not one of them offered an olive branch to you, in the spirit of partnership. I am not naïve enough to understand that the vote was purely political, but I thought it was still worth noting.

But the reason I am writing to you is of another matter.

In the lead up to the elections of November, I was receiving email after email from organization after organization asking for support of the Democratic Party in the upcoming elections, that the status quo was unacceptable, that “staying the course” was not an option for our current government as well as in Iraq. I received mailings from Rep. John Conyers regarding articles of impeachment drafted against President Bush in light of the faulty intelligence used to mislead the public, as well as misleading members of Congress, that Iraq posed a credible threat to the United States.

Once the war began, President Bush would roll out seemingly endless reasons for our pre-emptive strike and invasion of Iraq to suit his needs. We now know that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. We now know that there was no attempt to buy yellowcake from Niger. We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction despite fears of not wanting “the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” We now know that the aluminum tubes seen in satellite pictures were not intended for missiles to resume a nuclear weapons program. We know all of this. We know that this administration has used the fear of the American people to their advantage in invoking September 11th over and over again.

Yet after all of this, less than 24 hours after the Democratic Party regained control of the House and Senate in an incredible victory that echoed the voice of the people for change, you said, “Impeachment is off the table.”

When President Clinton was impeached by Congress, led by a Republican majority, we all heard the same thing. It wasn’t what he did that was offensive; it was because he broke the law by perjuring himself. The chants of “Rule of law!” were painfully heard. And President Clinton was impeached by nine votes in the House.

After six years of our system of checks and balances being kicked aside, I say to you Speaker Pelosi, that impeachment is not a choice. It is a Constitutional duty. Pursuing articles of impeachment is not about revenge or “getting even.” It is about restoring the rule of law. It is about accountability, and accountability transcends politics.

In his long awaited speech to the nation last night regarding his plans for a “New Way Forward” in Iraq, President Bush gave us some of the same rhetoric that we have wearily heard again and again. After weeks of consultation, with military commanders in the field, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and countless others, including the American people who oppose a “surge” of troops in Iraq, and all the while our men and women in uniform continued to die day after day, the President once again disregarded what the experts had to say and decided to do what we all knew he was planning on doing all along.

I applaud your stance in opposing escalation of the war, and of Senator Kennedy’s proposed legislation of Congressional approval for additional funds and additional troops to be deployed to Iraq. But there was something in the President’s speech last evening that frankly scared me:

“Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

Is this to mean that instead of trying to contain the war to Iraq, will we possibly be trying to fight on two or three fronts and stretch our military beyond its limits? This has to be stopped in its tracks before it begins. It is confirmation that the President is detached from the reality of what is happening in the region. The only thing that will continue to “embolden our enemies” is the continued deployment of US troops and our consistent occupation of Iraq.

In November, the pendulum swung to the Democratic side of Congress. As history has shown, it is only a matter of time before it swings back. I hope that when the high crimes and misdemeanors of this administration come to light after all the hearings and investigations, that you, as Speaker of the House, will take steps toward the appropriate actions demanded by the Constitution of the United States; that you will begin criminal proceedings on those responsible for their actions, and those responsible for the United States losing face on the world stage. There is much to repair to make this country great again. There is much to repair to gain the trust of our allies around the world again.

In the past six years under the Bush Administration, Patriot Acts I and II have passed that have eroded Constitutional rights; the Iraq war continues to inflict death and destruction on a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001; the response to Hurricane Katrina was an incredible debacle that continues to leave thousands homeless in Louisiana, as well as Mississippi and Alabama; the leak of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative for political gain endangered her life as well as those who worked with her in the field, and caused us to lose vital intelligence sources in that region; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was ignored to conduct illegal wiretapping without a warrant; and most recently President Bush’s latest signing statement of December 20, 2006, attached to a postal reform bill, claims federal officials can open US Mail without a warrant, in direct opposition to that very same bill that was passed by the House and Senate. And this short list only scratches the surface.

If these aren’t impeachable offenses, what are?

For the well being of the country and its citizens, the integrity of Congress and the survival of the Constitution of the United States, if after all the hearings and investigations you find that it is warranted, I pray that you will not hesitate. Please do not exclude impeachment from your plans “on the table”.

Open Letter to Bush from Pelosi & Reid

Speaker Nancy Pelosi & Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (God! I love saying that) have written an open letter to President Bush regarding his plan to send more troops to Iraq.

Excerpt: Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.

From the Houston Chronicle: The prospect of increasing troop levels has been greeted with so much hostility that some lawmakers are questioning whether Bush is serious.

Virtually the only prominent voices advocating the surge option are Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and some neoconservative scholars.

What a surprise... Looks like that 51/49 fragile Democratic Senate majority really is a 50/50 split with Lieberman in the fold. Mark my words.