Monday, November 29, 2010
Philly Police Corruption Watch
Philly.com: "A Philadelphia police officer was arrested this weekend for domestic assault on his girlfriend, making him the 17th cop arrested in the department in little more than a year."
Bill Keller on Wikileaks
The New York Times editor explains himself:
We get to decide (to cover the documents) because America is cursed with a free press. I’m the first to admit that news organizations, including this one, sometimes get things wrong. We can be overly credulous (as in some of the reporting about Iraq’s purported Weapons of Mass Destruction) or overly cynical about official claims and motives. We may err on the side of keeping secrets (President Kennedy wished, after the fact, that The Times had published what it knew about the planned Bay of Pigs invasion) or on the side of exposing them. We make the best judgments we can. When we get things wrong, we try to correct the record. A free press in a democracy can be messy.
But the alternative is to give the government a veto over what its citizens are allowed to know. Anyone who has worked in countries where the news diet is controlled by the government can sympathize with Thomas Jefferson’s oft-quoted remark that he would rather have newspapers without government than government without newspapers. And Jefferson had plenty of quarrels with the press of his day.
As for why we directed our journalistic attention to these cables, we hope that will be clear from the articles we have written. They contribute to our understanding of how American foreign policy is made, how well it is working, what kind of relationships we have with allies and adversaries. The first day’s articles offered the richest account we have yet seen of America’s attempts to muster a regional and global alliance against Iran; and disclosed that the State Department has increasingly put its diplomats in the uncomfortable position of gathering intelligence on diplomatic counterparts. There is much more to come. We sincerely believe that readers who take an interest in America’s conduct in the world will find this material illuminating.
Regarding Wikileaks, Max Boot Gets Silly
He's usually more serious and less silly than this: "Reading the New York Times’s “Note to Readers” explaining why it has decided once again to act as a journalistic enabler of WikiLeaks, I wondered why, if the Times believes that openness is so important to the operations of the U.S. government, that same logic doesn’t apply to the newspaper itself. The Times, after all, is still, despite its loss of influence in the Internet age, the leading newspaper in the U.S. and indeed the world. It still shakes governments, shapes opinions, and moves markets, even if it doesn’t do so as often or as much as it used to."
I don't debate that the Times is an important institution in our public life. Nonetheless, the Times is also not the government. Differing standards are ok, because the Times and the government have different roles to play. That said, if Max Boot wants to publish internal Times correspondence about matters of public concern, I invite him to do so.
I don't debate that the Times is an important institution in our public life. Nonetheless, the Times is also not the government. Differing standards are ok, because the Times and the government have different roles to play. That said, if Max Boot wants to publish internal Times correspondence about matters of public concern, I invite him to do so.
Bad Idea: Apple Pulls 'Anti-Gay' App
I can't say I'm thrilled with this:
Now, I don't really agree with anything that's in the Manhattan Declaration. But it strikes me as a relatively thoughtful statement of mainstream evangelical Christianity's beliefs regarding abortion and marriage. It doesn't call for violence or cast slurs against people who disagree, but it doesn't pussyfoot around its own point of view, either.
I'm fine if such beliefs, regarding gay marriage particularly, are pushed to the fringe. I'm not comfortable trying to silence them entirely. It's Apple's sandbox, so they get to decide who plays in it. But I'd rather be part of a movement that responds to the Manhattan Declaration with forceful -- but respectful -- counterarguments. Hell, I'd rather be part of a movement that ignores the Manhattan Declaration entirely and lets the people behind it do their own thing. I don't want to be part of a movement that tries to erase conservative evangelicals from the digital universe.
And for what it's worth, it's also tactically problematic. Part of the reason for evangelicals' resistance to state-sanctioned gay marriage is because they believe it might infringe on their ability to practice their religion as they believe it. Getting the Manhattan Declaration booted from the App Store confirms that point-of-view, and probably gets conservative Christians to dig their heels in against the otherwise-secular decisions of the state.
"After some controversy and complaints, Apple has reportedly pulled an application from the iTunes App Store after claims it was anti-gay. Highlighted by The Huffington Post and others last week due to its reportedly objectionable content, the Manhattan Declaration iPhone application has been quietly removed sometime in the last few days."
Now, I don't really agree with anything that's in the Manhattan Declaration. But it strikes me as a relatively thoughtful statement of mainstream evangelical Christianity's beliefs regarding abortion and marriage. It doesn't call for violence or cast slurs against people who disagree, but it doesn't pussyfoot around its own point of view, either.
I'm fine if such beliefs, regarding gay marriage particularly, are pushed to the fringe. I'm not comfortable trying to silence them entirely. It's Apple's sandbox, so they get to decide who plays in it. But I'd rather be part of a movement that responds to the Manhattan Declaration with forceful -- but respectful -- counterarguments. Hell, I'd rather be part of a movement that ignores the Manhattan Declaration entirely and lets the people behind it do their own thing. I don't want to be part of a movement that tries to erase conservative evangelicals from the digital universe.
And for what it's worth, it's also tactically problematic. Part of the reason for evangelicals' resistance to state-sanctioned gay marriage is because they believe it might infringe on their ability to practice their religion as they believe it. Getting the Manhattan Declaration booted from the App Store confirms that point-of-view, and probably gets conservative Christians to dig their heels in against the otherwise-secular decisions of the state.
Wikileaks: Victor Davis Hanson Makes Stuff Up
VDH writes at The Corner: "Under Bush, press discussion of leaks focused on their embarrassing contents (after all, it was supposedly a higher calling that made brave whistle-blowers release confidential communications emanating from the Bush-Cheney right-wing nexus). In contrast, the press now seems more interested in responses of “How dare they” to the WikiLeaks methodology — as in, how could one be allowed to break laws and leak things from the Obamian State Department, if doing so might harm liberal diplomats, human-rights activists, etc., and embarrass a progressive government?"
Except this is demonstrably not true. Here's the Times' "complete coverage" of the latest round of Wikileaks revelations. Where's the "how dare they?" story? There is none. It's entirely focused on the (ahem) contents of the cables. Here's a roundup of the Washington Post's coverage. Same story. Here's the Guardian's coverage. Same story.
In fact, the main umbrage at the release seems to be coming from Hanson and Max Boot and Jonah Goldberg and ... other people on the right. There's no problem with that. But it would be nice if Hanson didn't make stuff up and offer no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Except this is demonstrably not true. Here's the Times' "complete coverage" of the latest round of Wikileaks revelations. Where's the "how dare they?" story? There is none. It's entirely focused on the (ahem) contents of the cables. Here's a roundup of the Washington Post's coverage. Same story. Here's the Guardian's coverage. Same story.
In fact, the main umbrage at the release seems to be coming from Hanson and Max Boot and Jonah Goldberg and ... other people on the right. There's no problem with that. But it would be nice if Hanson didn't make stuff up and offer no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Simon Jenkins on Wikileaks
At The Guardian: "Clearly, it is for governments, not journalists, to protect public secrets. Were there some overriding national jeopardy in revealing them, greater restraint might be in order. There is no such overriding jeopardy, except from the policies themselves as revealed. Where it is doing the right thing, a great power should be robust against embarrassment."
'Empire' Director Irvin Kershner: RIP
Cinema Blend: "Irvin Kershner, director of the almost universally best-loved Star Wars film The Empire Strikes Back, has died at age 87, according to The Associated Press. Taking over for George Lucas to make the sequel to the mega-hit Star Wars, Kershner crafted a film that felt far more grown-up and fully realized than its predecessor, setting a standard for sci-fi and adventure films that carries on to this day."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Stubborn desperation
Oh man, this describes my post-2008 journalism career: If I have stubbornly proceeded in the face of discouragement, that is not from confid...
-
Just finished the annual family viewing of "White Christmas." So good. And the movie's secret weapon? John Brascia. Who'...
-
Warning: This is really gross. When the doctors came to me that Saturday afternoon and told me I was probably going to need surgery, I got...
-
John Yoo believes that during wartime there's virtually no limit -- legal, constitutional, treaty or otherwise -- on a president's p...