Within the administration, and also among Europeans and others involved in trying to influence the atomic energy agency, the end of the effort to oust Dr. ElBaradei was seen as a defeat for John R. Bolton, until recently the under secretary of state for arms control and international security and now the nominee to be United Nations ambassador.
Mr. Bolton had convinced his colleagues at the State Department and the White House that Dr. ElBaradei should be ousted, but administration officials said he had failed to win international backing or to persuade anyone with comparable credentials to step forward to replace him.
A senior administration official said that Mr. Bolton's efforts "never got enough altitude" and that more recently he had been involved in getting himself confirmed for the United Nations job, with no one else in the administration ready to step in and push what he started.

The above is from David E. Sanger and Steven R. Weisman's "Bush Team Appears to End Effort to Oust Atomic Chief."


Rod e-mails to call attention to C.J. Chivers' " 6 Senators Urge Reassessment of Ties With Uzbekistan Ruler:"

The senators - four Republicans and two Democrats - also asked if the administration knew whether American-trained troops or American military equipment were used in the deadly crackdown, in Andijon, in northeastern Uzbekistan.
The senators' statement, in a letter sent to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, exposed growing unease about ties between the United States' military and Uzbekistan's president, Islam A. Karimov, who emerged in 2001 as an important ally in the fight against Islamic terrorists. Copies were obtained by The New York Times from the staffs of two of the senators who signed the letter.
Mr. Karimov's government has long been criticized by the State Department, private aid organizations and the United Nations for its poor human rights record, repression of political opponents and use of torture. Yet it has managed to maintain strong ties with Washington, in part by granting the Pentagon access to an airbase near the Afghan border.


Brenda e-mails to note Thom Shanker's "Rumsfeld Says Guantánamo Isn't Being Considered for Closing:"

"I know of no one in the U.S. Government, in the executive branch, that is considering closing Guantánamo," he said at a news conference.

Francisco notes that the littlest Judy Miller has an article on Bolivia in the paper today and pronounces it not worthy of reading (I'll take Francisco's word for it). He asks about an article offering perspective, so from Open Democracy, we'll note Nick Buxton's "Bolivia in Revolt: The campaign by poor, indigenous Bolivians against utility privatisation has become a political insurrection:"

"While the poor don't have food, the rich won't have peace," reads the graffiti scrawled onto the wall adjoining the dual carriageway that sweeps breathlessly from one of the world’s highest airports into Bolivia’s Andean city of La Paz.
In front of the graffiti lie six smashed-up tollbooths, destroyed by protestors who have marched almost daily in May 2005 the eleven kilometres from the impoverished city of El Alto towards the seat of government in the capital, La Paz.
Suddenly the traditional centre of power has been full of those excluded from power for centuries – indigenous women with swirling skirts and bowler-hats, Aymara men in deep-red ponchos with mouths bulging with coca leaves, rural farmers with weathered faces shaded by faded baseball caps, miners with sticks of dynamite ready to storm the congress building.
The resounding call by the largely indigenous protestors is for nationalisation of Bolivia’s gas reserves, currently controlled by six multinational companies, including British Gas and BP. Their march has profoundly shaken Bolivia's political elite; late on 6 June, President Carlos Mesa offered his resignation – a decision yet to be accepted by congress, which meets in the comparative safety of the southern city of Sucre on 8 June to consider the political options (including early elections) that might defuse the crisis.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]
 

In a sharp setback for the Bush administration's Latin America policy, the Organization of American States rejected a United States plan on Tuesday to create a committee to monitor the exercise of democracy in the hemisphere.
Instead, the organization agreed, at a meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on a declaration that attaches equal or greater emphasis to attacking poverty because of what it calls "the interdependent relationship of democracy and social and economic development."
The organization, which represents 34 states of the Western Hemisphere, voted to approve the resolution at midnight on Tuesday, but the language was not completed until Wednesday by staff members who lingered after the formal meeting.

The above is our spotlight story from this morning's New York Times. (Eli, Francisco and Martha noted it in e-mails.) It's written by Joel Brinkley and entitled "Latin States Shun U.S. Plan to Watch Over Democracy."

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

I wanted to make a few comments on "Felicity Barringer (New York Times) replies to the May 15th article."

I'm not going to refute her, I had my say, she had her say.

She may be right and I may be wrong.

Regardless, she has every right to weigh in.

When Dallas phoned me today about Barringer giving her permission to be quoted, I called two friends who are former Times employees. Ideally, I would have preferred to run Barringer's comments with "Felicity Barringer responds . . ." in one statement and then let her have her say.
But we have noted that reporters currently working for the Times have written prior. Some of those reporters have stated that they are not responsible for what appeared in print bearing their byline. They feel that what they wrote was altered, changed or, in one person's words, "slaughtered." Because of that, we do try to note here that a byline does not mean the work appears at the person credited wrote it or intended it.

In addition, we have noted that some who e-mail to complain are happy to pass on gossip about co-workers. (We haven't passed on any of that gossip here.)

Daniel Okrent wasn't the only one from the Times who has read entries posted here. And a friend at the Times has advised that "Who's been leaking?" is a question raised in regard to this community.

When speaking to two friends this evening, who had worked for the Times, I was attempting to figure out what needed to be stated, if anything, to make sure Barringer did not get fingered at the Times as a "leaker."

For Barringer, and only for Barringer, it's been noted that what is posted is the one and only time she's contacted this site. (Even her permission went through Dallas.) I will not note that in the future. Doing so could lead to past e-mailers being outed or zeroed in on.

It was important to note it for Barringer because no other reporter has been willing to be named or quoted. (That's not complaining on my part. And Times reporters can continue to respond in private e-mails as often as they feel the need.)

Should any other Times reporter elect to share something on the record with the community, we will not note if they've written before or not. That's really not the business of the Times. But with Barringer being the only one to have gone on record, it was felt that if a note was not added prior to her comments, she could be blamed for the actions of others.

One friend offered that there was always at least one lackey that you could count on to go running off with a print up of Barringer's remarks and say, "It's her!" Both agreed that a statement had to be added prior to the entry because a lackey is not going to provide another entry with Barringer's. So should the entry be printed and carried to upper management, it needed to state that Barringer had never written prior (or since).

Such a note will not occur again should any Times reporter elect to share their comments with the community. But since she was willing to go on record, she shouldn't have to suffer fall out for what others had written before her.

I had assumed she wouldn't weigh in so I'd tried to respond to her via the interview with Beth. (I've done that before but no reporter has ever been e-mailed a link to such a post prior to Barringer.) Had I known she would be willing to go on record, I wouldn't have done that. I had my say here, she's had her say. (And if she wants her say again, she's welcome to have it.)

There were no edits in her remarks (she gave permission for the full entry to be posted). The only time edits would occur is in the case of the words such as "f**k" being typed out by the sender in full. As noted many times prior, a friend got written up for going to a site and reading something with the f-word in it. (A Washington Post article on Dick Cheney's use of the word.)
We don't use the f-word or the s-word (rhymes with it) here. That's not a reflection of my language which is quite frank. And we don't supervise the entries linked to here. But if someone pulls this site up at work, they shouldn't have to worry about a write up.

For that reason, it is the policy to edit those words when quoting someone.

Whether you agree with her or not, she made a point to share with the community and I hope that will be appreciated.

She won't get preferential treatment as a result (nor, I'm sure, does she expect it). She shared what she thought. Not to slam others who have had their reasons for not sharing with the community; however, it should be noted that she went on the record.

Her words stand as her words. I'm not going to weigh in on them. If members wish to, I hope they will realize that she chose to enter this community and treat her as respectfully as she did the community in responding to her comments. (Her comments. If you see an article by her that you want to complain about or praise, by all means do so however you desire. But in terms of anyone who wishes to respond to what she's stated here, please attempt to treat her as you would a guest at your own home. She wasn't paid for weighing in nor did any member have to pay to read her comments.)

I'll say thank you to her for sharing. And note one more time, this isn't a slam on anyone who has elected not to share. I do realize that their are guidelines you operate under as an employee of the Times. And, as I've noted many times prior, you don't have to choose your words carefully when replying in private. Say what you want in whatever language you like.

Should there be another person wishing to go on the record (or should Barringer wish to go on the record again) there will be no note preceding it other than to provide a link to what s/he is replying to. There will also not be a follow up post by me.

I'm sure I'm repeating myself throughout this but let me repeat one more time, Barringer has written one time and one time only. That is what is posted. Those are her remarks in full. No one should have the impression that she's a "leaker" or that she's written prior.

Her remarks have been added to the May 15th entry as well.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]
 

Felicity Barringer wishes to share her comments on the May 15th entry with the community. Thank you to Barringer for sharing and to Dallas who e-mailed the interview to her and passed on today (by phone and forwarded e-mail) that she'd given permission to be quoted and named. I will add one statement here before her comments because we have noted that others from the Times have e-mailed and that they've frequently shared things that may or may not be within the Times guidelines. Ms. Barringer has only e-mailed the site one time and her full comments appear below.


I have a small factual point on your blog of three weeks ago, on the nuclear power debate among environmentalists. (I just caught up with your piece.)

You say: "Is the issue so unimportant that there's no need for reaction among the community? It's "important" enough to front page, right? It goes on and on about "several" and John McCain and Joe Lieberman." Why does it all come off so one-sided? Why does the article read like the decision's been made for you, so shut up and go along? (To quote Eddie from his e-mail this morning.)"

The article includes the following paragraphs, which seem to me to be "reaction from among the community." So I'm a little unclear on the factual basis for your rhetorical questions.

"Now, groups like Greenpeace U.S.A., the Sierra Club, the World Wildlife Fund and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group argue with one voice that any more time or money spent on nuclear energy would unjustifiably divert resources from more promising solutions, like conservation and renewable energy."

It has been 32 years since the last nuclear reactor was ordered and built in the United States, and 1996 was the last year in which a civilian nuclear reactor -- the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar reactor -- was commissioned. Nuclear reactors, almost all of them the first generation of this technology, now provide about 20 percent of electric power in the United States.

"Aside from the environmental issues, it is still far from clear when the fundamental economics of energy generation would favor the construction of new nuclear plants in the United States. Officials of electric company officials and those of companies that design and build reactors have said recently that without substantial government help, the costs of winning regulatory approval and building nuclear plants would be dauntingly high for investors.

"The proposals that Senator McCain is considering would provide a 50-50 cost-sharing arrangement, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies, to gain federal certification for three new designs for nuclear plants. On Monday he met with Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chairman and chief executive of General Electric, which constructs nuclear plants.

"Such subsidies are still anathema to most environmental groups, which believe that the nuclear industry got far more than its fair share of government aid in the last generation, while their technologies of choice were left hungry."

''The notion out there from some of these deep thinkers is that we have to take our medicine and if only we could accept nukes, the global warming problem would be solved,'' said Anna Aurilio, the legislative director at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. ''We have a whole bunch of solutions already that are not as risky.''

These include, Ms. Aurilio said, increasing national energy efficiency and investing in solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy, like ethanol.

"Thomas B. Cochran, the director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's nuclear program said: ''The issue isn't: Do you support nuclear? The issue should be: Do you support massive subsidies to the tune of billions of dollars for nuclear power?'' He said, ''The answer is no.''

"The most frequent objection to nuclear reactors is that they may lead to the spread of nuclear weapons. In an era when hostile or potentially hostile governments like those in North Korea and Iran are gaining proficiency in nuclear weapons technology, opponents ask, why support a technology that would generate more weapons-grade fuel? They also balk at the notion that nuclear waste can be safely and economically stored.

Aren't the sentiments that are paraphrased and directly quoted above a reaction from the environmental community? Why, then, pose a question that implies these points of view were left out?

Regards,
Felicity Barringer

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

This was posted as a rough draft because by the time I started editing down what topics C.I. and I discussed it was already late. What follows is my final draft. I'll point out that C.I. types very quickly. If that has been the case in pervious interviews we've done, I hadn't noticed it. What's below is a little less than half of the comments we made to one another because I wanted to play reporter and not be Barbara Walters waving a transcript. C.I.'s on i.m. with me and is making the changes to this for me line by line.

Beth: You wanted to jump in with something at the start.

C.I.: Right and stop me if I go on too long. There are two e-mails from people at the Times today. You've got one of them and we'll deal with that shortly. I'm dealing with the other. The person didn't ask to be quoted and we don't quote here without permission. Some comments sent in by people at the Times would get them in trouble (or they think they would) but reporters whose work has been discussed here can respond. I've offered my opinion and they're allowed to offer their's.
We're going to call the writer X and invent a story to give an illustration because this will be e-mailed to X by Dallas after it goes up.
So here's the story we're creating to attempt to give X some sort of a response.
A story on how audio recordings are a thing of the past. It tells us that this is the new position and we get prominent coverage, early on, from the likes of Tiffany, Corey Hart and Bob Dylan who all say that they no longer support audio recordings and will only instead support DVDs.
Later in the article, X goes to the RIAA for a quote. Besides the quote, near the end X also acknowledges in a sentence that VH1's Save the Music and assorted other groups disagree. They aren't quoted.
So in our commentary on the story, I note that it seems one-sided. X's position is that it's not one sided. That's X's opinion. I can see why X feels that way. But the fact of the matter is if Carly Simon is saying there's too many visuals in the world and we need more audio to inspire our thinking as opposed to being served easy visuals, then Carly Simon should be quoted in the article. Or another activist. Or another activist organization. Not a think tank.
Three people have been presented as recording artists who are part of a move away from recording audio only. Of the three, Tiffany has no career (not to be cruel) nor a recording deal. So why is she even mentioned? (There was a problem, and we noted this in our commentary, with one of the three people offered as examples at the top of X's actual article.) But the three were presented and their opinions heard. Going to an organization (or two) that wants to discuss issues that go beyond (my opinion) audio recording or that are "non-partisan" really doesn't address the fact that you started off with three people speaking as "activists" and "activists" weren't allowed to respond.
It's a matter of opinion. I see X's opinion. And it's in keeping with the Times' tendency to go with "official sources." X isn't familiar with The Common Ills (we don't call ourselves a "blog" for instance) (X doesn't pretend to be familiar with TCI). But this goes to who is quoted and who isn't. I do see X's point. But it's an opinion and it's not one I share. If X wants to comment to the community, X needs to do what anyone else has to which is to say "quote me on this."
I'm not going to argue X's points for X. Besides the fact that Yazz and Gina would be all over me and complaining about my "in fairness" tendency, X had X's say in an article. We responded to it here with our opinions. (And X is correct to note that not all opinions expressed were mine. Members can comment whatever they want. If it's an opinion, it's not fact checked nor does it need to be.)
We don't open the Times here each morning (or I don't) and go through the editorials and the op-eds and then comment on them here. (A member can, I'm not interested in the back and forth myself.) People are entitled to their opinions. People can express their opinions. At least one member was named in the entry X is responding to. The member's opinion is valid. X may disagree with it but it's valid and the member's entitled to share it.
X is entitled to share X's opinion with me. I'm offering my opinion and if it has to do with your work, by all means reply. You don't have to do it nicely (and many at the Times don't). Say what's on your mind. Even if I disagree, I'll think about it. I did consider X's remarks seriously.
(I still am in fact.) Wanting to be as fair as possible, I brought in Shirley, Eli, Kat, Elaine and Dallas. Elaine's a pscyhologist and one would think she could be fair. (She's also a long term friend -- and Rebecca and my mutual friend, that's how we [Rebecca and C.I.] know each other.) There was someone who was making a perfect ass of themselves and Elaine had a post to share with the community on that. She ended up asking that it be postponed and then a day later that it be pulled. A movement was more important to her than an individual so Elaine pulled it. She was very angry by the incident (as was I) but she can look at the larger picture so she was invited onboard.
The community knows Shirley (or should) so I won't offer an explanation there. (I will, however, say thank you to Shirley for taking all the e-mail questions on instant run off voting in our current election.) The community knows Eli. The community certainly knows Kat. I think we know Dallas from his comments and the individual entries he's done here.
I knew that all five would have no problem speaking their mind. I knew that all five would keep X's identity confidential. I asked for a ruling on it. I did not share my opinion that this was a disagreement of opinion. I just asked for a ruling. As Eli pointed out, to even note the remarks in the entry in question would point out that X had raised them and X hadn't given permission for that. But all five felt as I did that this was an issue where the paper decides what is a source and what isn't. They were sympathetic to X's point of view but they disagreed with it.
If X reads this (again Dallas will send this to X after it's been posted) and wants to be quoted here, it will be noted in it's own entry. There will not be a rebuttal on my part because I have no interest in debating opinion. (Members are allowed to comment on whatever they want.) But for the remarks to be noted here, X needs to give permission.
There are guidelines in place at the Times that govern statements and I'm in no position to decide what is and what isn't permitted. But even if that weren't the case, I wouldn't quote X without X's permission. If X wants to be quoted an entry will go up when X e-mails a statement that X notes is to be quoted on. In addition, it will be linked to and noted on the original entry.
X seems confused by the questions at the beginning of the entry and I'm not clear on what's confusing there. I think (and I could -- as always be wrong) that part of the confusion stems from not knowing The Common Ills. X isn't the first from the Times to write in. (And we've noted here that one person wrote a hilarious e-mail, parts of which I agreed with and parts of which I didn't.)
When someone from the Times writes in, I read it because I've offered my opinion and I think it's only fair that I read their's. One thing that has come through loud and clear (and probably the sort of thing that someone couldn't be quoted on) is "I didn't write that!" What they wrote was rearranged or parts rewritten by others at the Times. They didn't appreciate being held accountable for things they didn't write. The questions that confuse X may be a result of those e-mails. Since that's been noted (and noted and noted) in e-mails from people at the Times, I've tried to make a point to note that a byline does not mean this was what the person composed and this is what they intended to be printed. That's why we say:

Robert Pear or "Robert Pear" writes today . . .

That's why that sort of wording (in question format or otherwise) comes into play.
Writers have also noted, rightly, that they don't choose whether or not their story is front paged. That's fine. That's why we say "the Times." It's a good point and one that can't be made often enough.
X may not have been confused by the wording and may have just disagreed with the opinions I was expressing in question form. That's X's right. And it's X's right to tell me so and I will read it. But if X wants to be noted here, X needs to say "quote me" and indicate what to be quoted on.
An automated e-mail goes out to everyone who writes in and it notes the policy to be quoted.
I'm at a loss as to how to make this more specific than it already is. Lord knows, we've gone into it here over and over and over. (And that's not a gripe at X but it is a gripe at visitors who want to whine a week or so later that they weren't quoted. We get far too much e-mail for me to track down every non-member and ask, "Do you want to be quoted?" That's why the automated e-mail exists.)
X's opinion and my opinion are at odds. X may not see it as opinion (and that's X's right). I heard X on this, I sought out other opinions. I did take X's e-mail seriously. At this site, we're not impressed with "official sources." So X and the community are coming at from two different views. X can respond to this or not. It will be read. But if X wants something up here that strikes the community (as represented by Elaine, Shirley, Eli, Dallas and Kat) as a difference of opinion as to what "sources" are equal and which aren't, or as to what got emphasized and what didn't, X needs to make that case to the community for X.
If X does that, it will, again, go up in its own entry. I won't comment on it. (Members can -- and belive me they will because this is going to be seen as a difference of opinion and not a factual matter.) But I'm not going to defend something I don't believe in. I do believe in X's right to X's opinion. And I do belive that I can be wrong (and often am). X stated X's case and didn't descend into gossip (I feel I need to note that in case X does want to be quoted here since it's been noted that others at the Times feel the need to include office gossip in their e-mails). X has never written before and any comments about other writers from the Times do not apply to X. (And if X wants to share something with the community, I will note that again in the entry because the Times frowns on office gossip.)
I won't be responding to X in an e-mail. X may or may not have known that when X wrote. I don't do that. For the time being, we comment [on] the Times here. If I'm exchanging e-mails with someone, I'm not sure that I'm going to judge their writing by the same terms I would someone else. I'll exchange with bloggers (if they're doing work I support) or people running sites (ditto). But we critique the New York Times here. Whether we're right or whether we're wrong, we do that. Have since the first day.
To engage in a private e-mail exchange on my end would do a disservice to the community because they'd never know if I was backing off on someone because I e-mailed them or not.
So there aren't private e-mails to people at the Times that we cover.
I did check with friends who had worked at the Times (and two who work there now -- not in any form that we comment on here) and was hoping to hear that X was an ogre. I heard only nice things about X and things that indicated X's opinions are what X writes by. By that I mean, X truly belives that the sources in the article were equal. X strives very hard to be equal. I think X is being completely honest in the e-mail and completely sincere.
But I do think it goes to what X (and the Times) considers an equal or valid source and what this community considers equal or valid. (It also goes to what gets emphasized at the top of the story which -- especially if it is front paged -- is what is more likely to be read.)
X can write anytime X wants and doesn't have to be nice about it. But for X's opinion to be shared with the community, X has to state that it's for the community. And I will not be responding in private e-mails because we do critique the Times here.
I feel like I'm repeating myself (yet again) but were you able to follow that?

Beth: Yes, it was very clear. Okay, so now we're going to address the e-mail I'm looking at?

C.I.: Right.

Beth: Okay, let me start by saying the person's mad about an article. I'm not to say which one?

C.I.: No. But the person wrote the article.

Beth: The person makes the point that having passed on the "Green Zone Love Spot news" the person thought maybe there would be some sort of break granted.

C.I.: I had noted, several times, that when Editor & Publisher published the report of Love in the Green Zone allegedly involving two reporters for the Times, I was honestly surprised because e-mails from the Times often note every bit of gossip. Usually along the lines of, "I'm just doing my job here, why don't you go after ___ who's" fill in the gossip. I'd indicated then and since that I was curious about it and was, to a degree, joking. The person --

Beth: We'll call Z.

C.I.: Z apparently thought that passing on news of Love in the Green Zone meant there was some sort of break offered in exchange. If my comments indicated that, it was wrong on my part. If my jokes weren't clear, I apologize. We've never ran the gossip that came from inside the Times (and have no plans to do so now).

Beth: Z goes on to write that, paraphrase?

C.I.: Yes, because there may be some word in there that's unique to Z. That's why you're summarizing it and not me.

Beth: Z goes on to write that you're obviously attempting to set yourself up as the expert on the Times in hopes of going on TV and radio.

C.I.: Because, apparently, after Michael Jackson and Desperate Housewives, the Times is the the topic that steers all talk shows. Z reads things at this site apparently only when Z's work is commented on. That's fine. There's no need for Z to read anything else. However, it's been stated -- and I believe in an interview with you in fact -- that I have no interest in TV or radio appearences. I don't even have a desire to be quoted in print. It was like the third or fourth week when someone at a competing paper wrote a nice e-mail that honestly seemed heavy on the flattery and said they wanted to do a write up -- it was probably in response to the Times poll that we went into for four entries. "But, by the way, could you tell me your name?" No, I couldn't, no, I wouldn't. This isn't about me, I'm not the focus. And I've noted Ellen Goodman as an example, a strong example, saying that to go on the chat shows is to be required to have an opinion on every topic. I don't have an opinion on every topic. I'm not informed enough to discuss every topic. I have no interest in TV, radio or print. So to clarify for Z (who Dallas will also e-mail this to), I didn't set myself up as the authority of the Times.

Beth: Z says that you're Joan Rivers-style jabs are not funny.

C.I.: That made me laugh and I'm laughing right now. But seriously, humor's opinion. Whether Z thinks it's funny or not (and Z has thought it was funny when others were skewered) is Z's opinion. I'll choose to disagree.

Beth: Z says you hate the Times.

C.I.: I don't think you fork over money each month for something you hate. I am disappointed in the Times. Beyond the normal day to day things that would naturally occur. I've shared that I would be happy to cover another paper and asked for suggestions. We won't do the Washington Post because P.J. works there. (P.J. is Professional Journalist who is a community member.) And also because I can't stand their editorials. I'm more inclined to agree with the Times editorial board, in part or in whole, than any other paper.

Beth: Putting aside Z for a moment, what were the suggestions?

C.I.: There were a lot of good ones. The Baltimore Sun was one that came up a lot but it's not a national paper. Not every member of this community has access in their homes to the net. We need a national paper that can be read at a library in hard copy. Of the suggestions that fit that criteria, the only paper that I thought, my opinion, was a valid suggestion was The Christian Science Monitor.

Beth: Monday, The Christian Science Monitor shared an entry with the Times. So obviously some members have to be wondering whether or not we'll be switching to that?

C.I.: Possibly. Not in the near future. If we're breaking with the Times, we would probably do so when it switches to a for-pay site. Many members don't go to the links. They want the piece of an article that will speak to them. Which is why if members are excerting, I ask that you pick the part that most spoke to you. Either due to information or style or whatever. I try to do that on my end as well. We're busy and we don't have a great deal of time. Some will go online and read an article in full if the excerpt interests them, some will make a point to hunt it out in print.
But the excerpt needs to be the strongest part of the story for the community. When the paper switches to a for-pay site the chances of them seeking out a story just got cut in half. For that reason, the break with the Times is being considered.

Beth: The Christian Science Monitor, I think, only publishes five days a week.

C.I.: Monday through Friday. Which would mean no more lifestyle stories on the front page Sunday! Seriously, that would be two days we could devote to other things. Obvisously, more often than not, assisting The Third Estate Sunday Review is an all night session. On a personal level, it would be nice to go to bed after that and not go through the Times and do an entry. But I'm trying not to make that the focus of the decision.

Beth: What's the position of the community?

C.I.: Split down the middle. Some want to say goodbye to the Times, some don't. One way or another, I think the split will be less equal once the Times switches to for-pay.

Beth: I had a question and I forgot it. Give me a second. Oh it was that the community's split on NPR.

C.I.: Right. That's an even split as well. Some feel we need to do everything we can to save NPR and some feel that we need to cut it loose because, they feel, that NPR cut out the left along time ago.

Beth: But you added it as a link.

C.I.: Guilty of rooting for the underdog. But there's also the fact that if we do step away from the Times, NPR would be a mainstream source. A lot of broadcast news simply repeats what the Times prints. On Monday, for instance, if you listened to Morning Edition (and this isn't an endorsement of Morning Edition) [they] had a story on DeWine and the feelings in the state about whether DeWine was adequately [interacting] with the Bully Boy or not. The Times has a similar story. But there's no way that NPR was copying the Times. They had interviews and had sent someone out to get comments from citizens of that area. Whether it was good or bad, NPR was doing journalism. It has stories, articles, on it's main page, posted all the time. It's our only mainstream news link and it was partly added in case we do break with the Times. Also because I root for the underdog. And members can, and some have, complained about that link.

Beth: I find NPR useless but I do enjoy Ruth's coverage of it.

C.I.: Thanks for bringing that up because that's said a lot and I'd hate for Ruth to read this and think, "I'm covering something that everyone wishes I'd shut up about." Members enjoy Ruth's Morning Edition Report, whether they like NPR or not. Her entry this morning resulted in a lot of e-mails. All positive.

Beth: Do we need to go back to Z's e-mail?

C.I.: That's up to you. I dealt with X because I do understand where X is coming from. I could care less about Z. If there's something that you think is important, bring it up.

Beth: I'll note it's not from Dexter Filkins because I'm about to ask about Filkins. Has he written?

C.I.: I don't think I can answer that question because it might lead to a later question and people have been very vocal in their e-mails that some stuff they write could get them in trouble with the paper due to guidelines. So I don't think I can say someone's written or not because when I do that once, it puts someone on a list of having written or not having written and if "management," as one feared, follows this to any degree, I don't want to be responsible for a write up.

Beth: Okay, well my question then would be your opinion about Filkins' piece. Obviously it's won awards. You disagree with the piece strongly and think it's bad journalism.

C.I.: And said so the day it was printed. I've also stated that it's my opinion and I could be wrong. But awards don't indicate quality -- look at the Grammys on Christopher Cross' shelves.
And, as Amy Goodman outlines in her book Exception to the Rulers, the Times has won awards in real time that later were called into question. My opinion, Filkins' awards will be questioned later. I could be wrong. I often am. Amy Goodman's book written with her brother David Goodman to clarify.

Beth: At The Third Estate Sunday Review, you've noted that there's been some hostility to that opinion.

C.I.: Early on there was from some members. The membership now doesn't feel that it was good reporting. We still hear from visitors who feel that it was good reporting. I offered my opinion. I stand by it to this day.

Beth: Bill Keller, on Judy Miller, has griped about "arm chair media critics."

C.I.: It will be sad if he's known for that comment, historically known, or for his "circle jerk" comment. He defended Miller, that's his right. What's the question?

Beth: Well I'm picturing his rebuttal being, "They are risking their lives in the Iraq."

C.I.: In the Green Zone, some would argue. Although I remember rumors of someone being fired, at another news outlet, for not going to Iraq, I've heard nothing similar about the Times. Which suggests to me, they chose to be there. So do the job.

Beth: I'm thinking that Bill Keller would say, "They're there."

C.I.: This came up, in another context, in a conversation before The Common Ills started. A woman I know vaguely was going on about how mean the media was and how she just got her news from two friends who had sons in Iraq. That's all she listened to and put faith in. That's her choice. But they can give her, at best, a picture of what they see in the area they're assigned to. The Times can give you a picture of what they choose to cover, where they choose to go.
There are reporters who are un-embeeded. I'm not the one who accused Filkins of getting military approval, a claim made by another journalist that Filkins denies. I'm not sure I'm answering your question.

Beth: Okay, Bill Keller would say, "They are over there. They're risking their lives. Who are you to criticize?"

C.I.: A subscriber to the paper. I don't know that I even need that to offer an opinion. I was very offended by Filkins' article. When he came back to this country to claim his award, I held my tongue and noted it here without naming him, though it was obvious to most members I'm sure, to let him have his moment of glory. Whether he deserved it or not is a question for others to answer. Whether I was right or wrong to hold my tongue is somemthing for someone else to answer. Gina knew who I was speaking of and, I think when I used the phrase "I'm holding my tongue" or "I'm biting my tongue," e-mailed in to disagree with that approach. So I may very well have been wrong. And suffering from in fairness. My point of view, and I'll give this to Keller, it is dangerous regardless of whether Filkins is embedded or unembedded. And as a result, I was perfectly willing to allow him his down time in this country. Gina's opinion, which is valid as well, was that there are a number of troops from various countries and Iraqis who will never get to enjoy down time because they're dead. It's a valid point. I still question whether I should have bit my tongue or not during that down time.
But I can offer an opinion, anyone can offer an opinion. Keller may not like criticism of the paper, it's been noted here that if you praise he writes back but if you offer even a slight criticiscm in an otherwise praise-ridden e-mail he doesn't reply. It's also been noted that Gail Collins has replied to anything brought up by members, positive or negative. Add Martha to the list of people who can vouch for the fact that you don't need to say, "You're wonderful, I love you!" for Gail Collins to take time to reply to your e-mails. But whether Keller likes it or not, he's putting out a paper and he's wanting readership to pay for it. Or rather the Times is wanting that. If he doesn't feel it's valid, that's his opinion and he should express it. But I'm at a loss as to what country he lives in that operates under the principle of "You haven't earned the right to comment." I live in America where we have free speech.

Beth: I'm going to stay with Iraq for a minute. No reporting, in the paper, coming out of Iraq gets mentioned.

C.I.: By me. Members can highlight whatever they choose to. I can't remember the guest on Unfiltered but he spoke at length about how the Times was reporting from the Green Zone.
I do worry that we don't highlight Iraq here enough. Obviously, when the Times does, that would be an easy way to do so. On Sundays, when we do what they're reporting elsewhere in the world, I try to do one entry on Iraq. In addtion, it's rare that it's not a topic in some form on Democracy Now! so we have that. But there are other sources and I don't trust that the Times is doing the job it should be when it comes from reporting from Iraq. My opinion, I could be wrong. The Times relies on official sources. While we were commenting on the Iraq coverage, John F. Burns did do a piece highlighting Iraqis, the people, giving them a face and a name and a voice. We applauded that piece here. It was good reporting. It was strong reporting. Had there been more reporting like that prior to the Unfiltered segment, I probably wouldn't have made the decision I made. But I don't get a sense that Iraqis are leads in the stories of their own lives from the reporting in the Times. They come off as supporting players. That would be understandable in a paper not noted for its international coverage. The Times is noted for its international coverage. It should do a better job, whether from within the Green Zone or not, of explaining to the readers what's going on.

[Note: A visitor has e-mailed C.I. today -- Wednesday -- to ask why a left site is praising a Tucker Carlson show. Unfiltered refers to the Air America Radio program that no longer airs but was hosted by Lizz Winsted, Rachel Maddow and Chuck D, not to the Tucker Carlson show of the same name.]

Beth: Two words, Juan Forero.

C.I.: Juan Forero is the student in too many college courses I took who builds his argument by shaping what he emphasizes and what he doesn't. Were he working for a partisan publication, that would be fine. At the Times, I don't think it is. It gives me a headache to read him which is why he's so rarely commented on. A member has to e-mail "please comment" basically for me to address Forero. I'm just not interested. For me, that's the kind of thing I did in college. These days I don't have the time to waste. He has a world view that comes through very clearly in his writing. It's not one I agree with. And I'll note that he wrote a good article, one good article, that never got mentioned here because I read it later in the day and was somewhere waiting and had nothing else to read. But most days, I avoid him. Life's too short.

Beth: Is his view the paper's view?

C.I.: I really can't answer that with anything but opinion. I'll give you my opinion. The Times loves big business. That's hopefully not a scandlous judgement call on my part. But within that love, they can stand up for social justice at times. I think he represents a part of the Times outlook but not the full outlook. My opinion. I hope it's not the full outlook. He's a Thomas Friedman and were he on the opinion pages, I wouldn't comment on anything he wrote. But I do feel he shapes his reporting. The paper's obviously happy with it but I think the Times, and I could be wrong, is a little more compassionate than what comes across in Forero's writing. The Times as a paper.

Beth: I love Isaiah's comics.

C.I.: I do too.

Beth: But I'm wondering about the entries with voices. I don't see a lot of them lately.

C.I.: I agree with you on that one hundred percent and consider it a major failure on my part.
The reason, and it doesn't justify it, for that is there is a huge amount of work that goes into pulling those together. And with the e-mails there hasn't been time. Which is why I now say that if you're not a member, don't expect to be read in full. If you're a reporter who's work has been commented on, I'll read you in full. But if you're not a member, your drive by e-mails will be read until I've had enough.

Beth: That comes off kind of mean to visitors.

C.I.: You're right. And there are some great visitors and that point needs to be made. I'm stereotyping visitors into the category of the ones that I feel are a waste of time and that's not fair to them.

Beth: A 40K e-mail on how someone shouldn't be trusted because they were someone else in another life?

C.I.: Exactly. And again, I'm not slamming reincarnation. But I don't know why anyone would send an e-mail like that to this site. It's an opinion, fine. But how you do 40K of opinion, I don't know. Unless your last name is Friedman.

Beth: Meaning Thomas, not Betinna.

C.I.: Right, I love Betty's site.

Beth: Whichis a point I was going to raise with Isaiah. He's making great contributions to the community and so is Ruth. But Kat started her own site and I'm wondering if they will as well?

C.I.: That's something they'd have to answer. I urged Ruth to start her own site because I think she has an incredible voice. She's not interested nor is Isaiah. They may change their minds. We'd highlight them if they had their own sites but we're happy to highlight them here. Kat has made clear at her site and to me that her reviews will continue to debut here first. She can change her mind on that and more power to her if she does. But that's a spot for her to to comment from time to time.
We had more members entries in February and March obviously when we were asking for members to highlight African-Americans and women who stood out to them for Black History Month and for Women's History Month.
I say all the time, we need more voices, not less. Anything a member wants to share we share.

Beth: This is turning into a long discussion and I'm glad but do I need to provide links?

C.I.: This is your space so that's up to you. You're going to edit this to reflect what you think are the important topics discussed, right?

Beth: Right.

C.I.: If you don't have the time for links or the patience, don't do it.

Beth: Then I won't but I'll include this part in the interview to explain why. The impression I get is that we're going to become member focused. Is that correct?

C.I.: Yeah. Rod and Rob have both shared the opinion that we need to thin the herd, their term. I've never sought out links. I've never said "Please read me!" I think on the second day, when people started e-mailing, it's obvious from my embarrassing remarks, embarrassing to me to look back on, that I was obviously startled that anyone was reading. Things weren't being said that I felt needed to be said. I was speaking to students regarding the war and the election up until November (and I still do a study group) but after the results (which I question) came in, a group of friends and I asked what didn't we do? For me, I hadn't tried blogging. So I tried that.
and for a bit this was blog. By Thanksgiving, it was a community. What was that, a week?

Beth: The NPR entry.

C.I.: Right. People wanted that issue dealt with, for the record. Since there probably won't be links, I'll summarize briefly. NPR's Juan Williams evaluated a statement made by John Kerry. Listeners complained that it wasn't a fair evaluation. To address that, this all occurred on Morning Edition, they brought on another speaker. So the speaker was supposed to be providing a fair evaluation. Whether he did or not is a matter of opinion. But NPR didn't tell you that the man evaluating John Kerry was married to a woamn working for Dick Cheney. That calls his evaluation into question. I heard that interview and my jaw dropped when they announced him. It wasn't a secret whom he was married to, except to NPR listeners since it wasn't disclosed. Robert Kagan's the man, by the way. Victoria Nuland is his wife. The reason we addressed it was because the NPR ombdusman finally responded to the criticism. His response, in brief, was that some thought that since Kagan was a "hawk," he couldn't be impartial. That wasn't the only issue. That came out while we were starting up so that's how we approached the issue. The why was because members were complaining about it and wanting a for the record post from someone since they felt the issue got a pass originally and would get one again. For those who don't go that far back (check the archives, it's around Thanskgiving that it goes up or search "When NPR fails you, who you gonna' call, not the ombudsman"), NPR refused to allow a reporter to cover the elections because of whom she was married to. But it was apparently okay for Kagan to come in and offer his opinion on Kerry without informing listeners that Kagan's wife worked for Dick Cheney. Did that impact Kagan's judgement? People can decide for themselves. But it should have been disclosed.

Beth: That got linked online.

C.I.: Right and while grateful about that, we don't do "as linked to by" announcements here. The Times avoids being self-referential and a lot of what I operate under, good or bad, comes from reading the Times for so long.

Beth: But there is a post that is prepared acknowledging the links.

C.I.: Right. I had a health scare and we've discussed that here as much as we will. But due to that, I did make a point to prepare a list of thank yous to everyone who had linked to us. The health appears to be good currently, knock wood. But if it I step down for health or another reason, Ava would post that entry. As a closing statement. I think people should be thanked but I don't want to get into "as linked to by" or some other thing. We're trying to focus on the community and issues.

Beth: You noted when Dallas was linked to by BuzzFlash.

C.I.: And when Ruth was. And if a member ever writes soemthing and it's linked somewhere, e-mail and it will be noted. They deserve their praise and recognition. I'm just not comfortable with self-congratulatory. Or with taking credit for something I didn't do. Members have made this a community and they certainly deserve all the credit for it.

Beth: There are various blog alliances going on at any time and we haven't been a part of any.

C.I.: No. And we won't. We're a community, not a blog. Also members can and will speak their minds and I certainly will. If it's a Democratic blog and we're criticizing a Democrat it may not be good for their alliance. If I'm off on a tangent they don't agree with, they shouldn't have to suffer as a result.

Beth: I thought about, when I wrote that question, what you said in a roundtable at The Third Estate Sunday Review. It was about Filkins and how some suggested you were blowing your credibility by criticizing him.

C.I.: And some did suggest that. But if there's any credibilty for me (members are far more credible than I am), there's no point in having it if you're not going to risk it. I'm supposed to save it for a rainy day? I did a favor for a morning network show, for a friend that worked there. As an exchange, I was offered one favor. I did it as a friend but I was given a favor after the fact. Various things came up during the election but I was convinced the investigation into who leaked Valerie Plame's name would amount to something. Again, I'm often wrong. As a result, I passed on using it for other things. I saved it for a rainy day and I wasted it. My mistake and I kick myself for it to this day.
I honestly believed it would break and it didn't. I was wrong. I don't think that Robert Novak committed a crime, or Judith Miller or Matthew Cooper or anyone else involved on that end. But the person who leaked it appears to have committed a crime. I'm very disappointed in that investigation. I'm also disappointed in the lack of interest in the mainstream about it in any terms other than "a reporter could go to jail!" While that is an issue, the fact that someone in the adminstration apparently leaked the information is the bigger issue.

Beth: So say what you need to say and don't worry?

C.I.: To quote Phil Ochs, "When I've got something to say, I'm going to say it now." Before any e-mails come in, the song -- written by Ochs -- is ""I'm Going to Say It Now" and it's on Phil Ochs In Concert.


Beth: There was a blogger who e-mailed and it was addressed here and at The Third Estate Sunday Review.

C.I.: And hopefully he saw it. We're in the midst of an election and I'm focusing on members.

Beth: If a blogger e-mails something and they are of the same side we are, do they get highlighted?

C.I.: Absolutely. If you're someone the community would respond to and you think that you've got something to share, e-mail it in. But we're not a Democratic site. I'm a Democrat and I try to watch my words there [because] we're inclusive of third party members and we have a huge number of Greens. The way the party's been going, I may have to join them. But there are a lot of people who think that because they support Democrats, they've got something to say to the community. The members who are Democrats don't fawn over the party. We're of the left. We're pro-peace, pro-social justice, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-environment, etc. It's a long list. And I do hear about it when a member or members feel that we've crossed a line. Most of the time I have a pretty good idea what we will respond to, and if a member wants something highlighted from the left, it's highlighted.

Beth: Unless it's an attack on Naomi Klein. Or Jane Fonda.

C.I.: If someone on the left wants to critique Klein's position, we'll offer it. I have stated before that if I have a case of hero worship, it's Naomi Klein. I think she's an important voice today and I think in decades to come people will speak of her in the same manner of our strong voices that we've had around for years. As for Jane Fonda, I sometimes think I should change the title of this site to "I know Fonda and I support her." Maybe that would make it a little more clear where I'm coming from.

Beth: But you won't link to Guerilla News Network?

C.I.: We provide a permalink to them on the left. I won't pick a story and link to it, no. When we provided that link, I didn't realize that Francis Moore Lappe was the mother of anyone involved in GNN (she's Anthony Lappe's mother). I've disclosed on that topic and stated if you see something and want it linked, e-mail it in and we'll link to it. But I don't want to hear, "You link to Anthony all the time because of Francis!" I think they're a strong site and that's why they were linked. But to avoid charges of conflicts of interest, I don't link to them in entries unless someone e-mails it in. I belive I have noted when Anthony Lappe was on the Majority Report but we note The Majority Report here and I don't think I've noted him anymore than we've noted Bill Scher, whom I don't know but also enjoy as a guest on The Majority Report.

Beth: I like Bill. I didn't when his link went up. But I've visit his site now and he has some strong criticism.

C.I.: I agree with you. E-mail it in when you see something so we can highlight it because that's the other problems with links in entries. I can't go through all the e-mails and still surf the net.
What I link to myself is usually an online version of something I've read in print. I'm not an expert on blogs and I have stated that from the start.

Beth: And that's why the panel was created.

C.I.: Right. The panel will decide links to blogs. We haven't added any but Feministe when Jill went over there because it was an emergency to some members, she was going to blog irregularly at her own site and start blogging at Feministe. We already linked to Third Wave Agenda. There was a sense of urgency so I contacted all panel members and when enough replied to be in the majority, we linked. All were in favor it but I didn't hear from all of them before the link went up.

Beth: I like that they're deciding it.

C.I.: They obviously know far more than I do about blogs. In addition, it lets members have a voice. I've stated before that we weren't going to put something up here that said, I'll use Bill Scher since you mentioned him, "Hey do we want to link to Liberal Oasis?" because if we didn't link it could be hurtful the person. But having me decide which blogs to link to was ridiculous because I'm not a blog expert. I went by things members suggested and then there would be someone saying "I don't like that!" I really couldn't defend the link because it seemed fine to me but what do I know? The panel visits a site and discusses it. They debate it. That's how blogs are decided.

Beth: You linked to The Huffington Post.

C.I.: Root for the underdog. Arianna Huffington, whom I think is sincere from personal observation, was under attack. We linked, or "I" linked. That was a case of someone from outside the blog world starting up and the panel will tell you that they don't weigh in on that.
If Nora Eprhon started her own blog tomorrow, we'd link to it by the end of the day and it would be my decision based on her strong writing. I feel comfortable evaluating that. If someone's unhappy, I can say, "I understand what you're saying but my reasons for linking were . . ."
I can do that with Huffington. But it seemed really inept and wrong on my part to say, "Well a member suggested it." Or "a number of members suggested it" -- in the case of people who are making their names in the blog world. If I can't defend the choice when someone's tossing out something that went up a year ago, I can't defend it. So obviously I wasn't the person who should be making those decisions. The panel provided us an opportunity to let members have a voice but also avoid embarrassing someone if they didn't get linked to.

Beth: The e-mail from the centrist.org guy yesterday obviously bothered you. I think I know why but I wanted to go over that.

C.I.: Rebecca blogged on him, back in April. He had a problem with Rebecca's post. Why is he pulling me into it? Rebecca's a community member as well as a friend. I don't break with the community. If he thought I was going to side with him, he was mistaken. As Rebecca noted, my mother passed away and because he brought up his mother, I was sympathetic to him. But don't come to me with your problems with what Rebecca wrote at her site or Folding Star or Betty or Kat or something at The Third Estate Sunday Review that their note to the readers notes I excused myself from any input on. That's your problem with them. I'm never going to break ranks and say, "You're so right!" If a member has a problem, I will hear them out and I will acknowledge their view and try to present where I think the person was coming from. But that's with a member. We don't link to his organization here, we've never mentioned it. Why he feels he can trash Rebecca to me is beyond me. That's the kind of nonsense e-mails I don't need.
Rebecca needs to write in her voice. She's doing that. Good for her.
Some middle of the roader really doesn't need to waste my time or the community's time weighing in on something. In the past, they could and I would read every word (as I'd stated). I can't. There are too many e-mails for that. I don't know the guy, I've never heard of his organziation. He was mentioned in the Times on a Sunday. That's my quick read if I've finished an all night session with The Third Estate Sunday Review. But I think Rebecca said it was an article in the Week in Review which I don't read unless a member asks me to look at some story. We didn't comment on him here. We didn't mention his organization. But I'm in the midst of answering questions regarding the election and have to stop to listen to his gripes about Rebecca. As she pointed out, this e-mail that he wanted forwarded to her, wasn't to her. It was written to me. I didn't ask for the e-mail. I'd never commented on him or his organization. It should be obvious by any entry that I do not agree with his goals. If he'd approached me in public, I would've said, "Take a hike!" Instead, because we were operating under the I read every word policy, I was trapped listening to his long rant.
I don't have the time for it. I would never write the ombudsman at the Wash Post to say, "Look, I've got a problem with what ___ at the Times wrote."
Now some might argue, "But you know Rebecca." Exactly, so why do you think I need some stranger trashing her to me? I don't. You're wasting my time and I don't have it to spare.
I also don't agree with you deciding what she can write and how she can write it.
I mean where do you get off? You e-mailed me so presumably you know that at the very least, Rebecca's a community member here. You probably know that she and I are friends. And you write me about how mean she was? What is that? Run to teacher and tattle?
He had nothing to say about The Common Ills so why was he writing me to being with. If he wanted somethign forwarded to Rebecca, as she noted, he needed to write her. All he needed to say to me, was please forward to Rebecca.
When I called her to make sure she was aware of the e-mail in her inbox, I asked her, "didn't the UK Computer Gurus fix the e-mail for you?" because I talked her through setting up her site. They did fix it. All you do is go tot he about page and click on "e-mail." Why in the world this man wanted to go on and on about his problems with Rebecca to me still puzzles me.
But I am not responsible for the content on Rebecca's site. As long term friends, we've disagreed before. We'll disagree again. But you're crazy if you think I'm going to side with you on this. Especially when you play gatekeeper and want to instruct on how she should blog. That's not even your business.
And I didn't appreciate the attempt to put me in the middle.

Beth: Especially during the election.

C.I.: Right. And he may or may not have known that. But I'll be spending four hours tonight on e-mails. I need to be getting more sleep, that's medical instruction, not my opinion. I don't have time for that kind of nonsense. Oh, Rebecca gave you a boo-boo. Well, I don't have time to kiss it and make it better and I'm not your parent.
And, again, the person brought up his mother. That's the easiest way to pull my heart strings. I even wasted time with a reply to the guy. I didn't send it but it was a "I understand that her comments bothered you but she needs to speak in her voice and she needs to decide whether or not she wants to dicuss your policies. Those are her decisions. Not mine, not yours." I didn't send it. Or, I didn't send it to him. Rebecca asked if I'd replied to him and I told her I'd composed one but then looked at the time and realized I'd wasted a half hour on this nonsense and just thought, "Forget it."
And with the blogger we didn't link to. I wasted a lot of time with an e-mail I didn't send. I stopped after 15 minutes and reminded myself that there are members who are not getting personal replies. So why am I, on Memorial Day Weekend, writing to someone who obviously doesn't know the sort of things members are interested in and apparently doesn't know that I don't decide who gets linked to on the side as a permalink? The guy said he really liked this community (he used "site") and gave the impression he knew something about it. He didn't.
Just because he wrote doesn't mean he gets a personal reply. His reply was on this site and if he truly visited the site regularly he saw it. But there's no staff doing these e-mails. I did draft Ava, Kat and Shirley for the days after the announcement went up about the election because questions needed to be answered quickly and I ended up having to fly out of town.
But they have other things to do. I read what comes in. If it's a member (or someone in the press whose work's been commented on), I'll continue to read every word. But if you stumbled upon the site and you're talking about things I don't care about or don't agree with, I've got other e-mails waiting.

Beth: Can you check and tell me how many e-mails are in the inbox right now.

C.I.: Hold on. Back. 825. Not counting the junk mail folder which I do have to check because from time to time something will end up there. Luke of wotisitgood4 was going straight there for a week and I hadn't been checking and missed all those e-mails forever. I made a point to note that here when we did bring the issue up that Luke had been trying to raised and I e-mailed him on Sunday, I was in the middle of helping The Third Estate Sunday Review and on a break when I thought to check the spam folder, to apologize for that [delay] and explain that he wasn't being ignored but [that] I just hadn't checked the junk mail folder where he was going for some reason.

Beth: The reason I asked for a count was because Rebecca made the point that everyone wanting a personal reply better ask themselves do they want entries here or do they want personal replies because the e-mail is too much to have both.

C.I.: And there's an example of where we have publicly disagreed. Rebecca's opinion is that the site comes first and her e-mail is something she'll get to when she has time. She's running a blog. That can work for her. This is a community and if I'm not reading the e-mails, I'm not dealing with what we need to talk about, with the things that are on members' minds. But she had a point, that the more I thought about it, the more I saw she was right. Focus on the members. That doesn't mean a visitor is ignored. But members need to come first. In relation to the Times, I'd offer my opinion that far too much time is spent worrying about what nonreaders of the paper think. When Dallas e-mails the Times, he usually notes two things, or at lest does in the e-mails he forwards here. 1) This is a private e-mail not for publication. You have to do that now thanks to Daniel Okrent. 2) He notes he subscribes to the paper and provides his address for verification. That's to show that if there's some e-mail campaign going on, he's not someone who never reads the paper but saw a "flood the Times" notice and decided to participate. He's someone who reads the paper. The paper should focus on their readers. When it was put to me in those terms by both Dallas and Rebecca, I saw the point.

Beth: You've got e-mails to read and we've gone on for about two and a half hours. So I'm looking through my questions and trying to pick one last one. Okay, I'll go with the gina & krista round-robin. I really love that and I'm wondering how open it is?

C.I.: I'm confused.

Beth: In terms of people signing up.

C.I.: Oh, okay. Well that's a closed e-mailing that Gina and Krista do for members. Members have to ask. I pass it on to them, they decide. They may ask me a question like, "What does this person suggest[,] if anything?" But it's for members and they have the final say. They noticed Zach awhile back and asked me to e-mail him to ask if he wanted to receive it (he did). But no, that's not open to all. They've gone into why on that with The Third Estate Sunday Review. And since you're not providing links, right?

Beth: Right.

C.I.:Then people need to be responsible enough to go to that site and locate the article. The Third Estate Sunday Review. It's an article in the month of April, I believe. Since we're closing here, I want to say thank you for agreeing to table a few issues for a later date. I want to say I'm sorry that you had to wait so long. And also say thank you for letting us deal with the two e-mails at the start.

Beth: And two weeks from now we're doing this again.

C.I.: Right. E-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

Beth: Which is kind of funny considering the conversations on e-mails that we've had.

C.I.: Anyone can write. I'll read or not if you're a visitor depending on your topic. If you start telling me that someone's not to be trusted because in a previous life . . . More power to you but I don't have the time for it. And if the centrist wants an airing of his "side" he needs to take it up with Rebecca. He pulled me into this, not the other way around. I'm not wasting any more time on that. The community doesn't want to hear his "side." And I don't need members complaining that we've passed up Nepal or Iraq or a choice issue because they've had to waste time on his whining.

[Note: This is Beth's final draft of this her article.]

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Where are the posts?

A) Errands
B) Beth and I spoke via i.m. for one of her interviews that will go up shortly.
C) God bless Rebecca, but I'm not staying up until midnight for Coldplay's X&Y. (At midnight some stores, including Tower, can sell an album due out Tuesday's because after 11:59 Monday night, it is Tuesday.) I will, however, make a point to pick it up on the day it's out. (Translation, I was at Tower.)

Two things on the above.

Beth's pulling the interview together. That will mean editing as she sees fit. If either of us wants to go off record during we type "*"; other than that everything exchanged is open to being included. She plans to have that finished tonight and if it is, it'll go up here tonight. If it's not, it'll go up tomorrow.

Tower. I'm not endorsing Tower over another music store. There was an e-mail this weekend (from a member) asking about that because Kat and I will both mention Tower. If you have an independent music store in your area, please take your business there. If you don't, please consider Tower or another music store. If Wal-Mart is your only choice, by all means utilize but (my opinion) I firmly belive Wal-Mart is detrimental to music. (Again, we have members in rural areas -- Wal-Mart conquered those first and when they make their big promises, cities might want to check out how they've played out in those areas -- who only have Wal-Marts. One member shared with the community that if it's past nine, the only thing open in her area is Wal-Mart if she needs diapers or something else. By all means she should use what's she has in her area. Wal-Mart is, of course, now attempting to move into non-rural areas. If you live in an area where you have the choice, I hope you'd consider an alternative to Wal-Mart. But as stated before, doing so is my opinion and not a make-it-or-break-it position for the community.)

Now let's move on to the e-mails. Martha and Pru both found something via Evan at AlterNet's Peek and wanted to share it. Martha calls it "your laugh for the day" and we could all use more laughter. It's from (and by) DownLeft and it is entitled "You might be a corporate media news editor if..."

I've seen these done for Republicans and Democrats. Here's one for the corporate news media. Please post in the comments if you have any to add.
You might be a corporate media news editor if...
You think politicians receiving big campaign donations from defense contractors is a conflict of interest that corrupts the system, but you expect people to believe that your parent company making millions or billions of dollars in defense contracts doesn't have any influence on how you cover the news. Ditto for polluters and union-busting corporations that provide major advertising revenue.
You look down on blogers who won't disclose their real name but you never disclose the political leanings or campaign donations made by your editors and journalists.
When someone from one Party tells the truth about an issue you allow someone with an opposing view to make statements that are blatantly false without correcting or challenging them, and you think its good journalism because that provides "balance."
You think only pretty white girls are ever abducted or go missing.
You think Deep Throat was a hero but anything said by Richard Clark, Paul O'Neill or the Downing Street Memo is discredited because they hate Bush and have an agenda.

I agree with Martha and Pru that it's very funny. If it made you smile, click on the link before the excerpt to continue reading.

Maria e-mails to note "this great piece by Candy Perfume Boy." [That's the nickname Ava and I devised for Brian Montopoli.] It's entitled "Atlantic Runs Worst-Case Scenario, Patents Run Amok, Hersh Runs With Kissinger" and here's an excerpt:

Finally, we turn to Seymour Hersh, who writes in the New Yorker about covering Watergate while at the New York Times. A choice anecdote: Before Hersh went to print with a story that Henry Kissinger, then Richard Nixon's national security advisor, had been involved in wiretapping reporters, officials, and his own aides, he got a call from Alexander Haig, Kissinger's deputy:
"You're Jewish, aren't you, Seymour?" In all our previous conversations, I'd been "Sy." I said yes. "Let me ask you one question, then," Haig said. "Do you honestly believe that Henry Kissinger, a Jewish refugee from Germany who lost thirteen members of his family to the Nazis, could engage in such police-state tactics as wiretapping his own aides? If there is any doubt, you owe it to yourself, your beliefs, and your nation to give us one day to prove that your story is wrong."
The Times printed the story, and Kissinger survived politically, of course. (In fact, he survived it so well that he was nominated by the current administration to chair the 9/11 Commission, in spite of the wiretapping.) Ultimately, writes Hersh, "neither [Kissinger nor Nixon] understood why the White House could not do what it wanted, at home or in Vietnam. The reason it couldn't is, one hopes, just as valid today: they were operating in a democracy in which they were accountable to a Constitution and to a citizenry that held its leaders to a high standard of morality and integrity."
Hopefully, it's a lesson the pro-gay African-American Osama-capturing Christian commando president we elect in 2012 will take to heart.

Maria offers that Montopoli has really gotten stronger in his commentaries. I personally agree and Ava's noted funnier as well. Going by what is sent in here, CJR Daily appears to be on a quality streak of late and good for them.

And before moving on, let's note that Pru and Gareth of the UK live for Peek. Gareth feels like he gets "the pulse of America with a peak at peek." My apologies to Gareth because he'd asked to be quoted on that and was but the entry was one of those that ran together (two links at different points in the entry when composed suddenly decide to blend into one -- and knock out everything between them -- during the posting stage) and when the blend/merge occurred, Gareth's statement was lost (and I obviously was cursing and yelling at the computer and not focusing on what got lost when I tried to fix it). Thanks Gareth for e-mailing again on that and sorry for not catching it myself.

Lloyd e-mails to say that "lately I've been living at Media Matters." They may start charging you rent, Lloyd. He steers us to this "Strike two: Excerpt of new anti-Hillary book filled with factual errors, misleading claims, very little context:"

The July 2005 issue of Vanity Fair contains an excerpt from the forthcoming The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President (Sentinel, June 2005), a book-length attack on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) written by Edward Klein with the stated intent of inflicting electoral damage on her. But a review of the error-ridden excerpt in Vanity Fair suggests the book may inflict more damage on its author, publisher, Vanity Fair, and other news organizations that take it seriously than on Clinton. The first verifiable claim reportedly from the book turned out to be false; a Mail on Sunday article showed that Klein is peddling gay-baiting sexual innuendo and gossip; now, the Vanity Fair excerpt reveals the book to be a sloppily researched, factually challenged hit piece that merely recycles long-debunked and dismissed criticism of Clinton.
Perhaps the most sensational allegation against Clinton in the Vanity Fair excerpt is Klein's claim that she "suddenly turned up a long-lost" Jewish relative in response to furor over her controversial embrace of Suha Arafat. Klein portrayed the incident as an example of Clinton's supposed opportunism and pandering:
When Hillary made the obligatory trip to Israel to win Jewish votes back home, she went to the Palestinian-controlled city of Ramallah. There she appeared onstage with Yasser Arafat's wife, Suha, who made the outrageous charge that Israel was poisoning Palestinian women and children with toxic gas. At the end of Mrs. Arafat's speech, Hillary marched to the podium and gave Suha Arafat a big hug and kiss. The photo of the two women kissing, which was played around the world, sowed serious doubts about Hillary in the minds of many Jewish voters.
When Hillary realized that she had gotten herself in a jam with Jewish voters, she suddenly turned up a long-lost Jewish step grandfather -- an announcement that was dismissed by many cynical New York voters as an example of her pandering.
But Klein, trying to portray Clinton as a political opportunist, got the facts completely wrong: News of Clinton's Jewish step-grandfather came long before the Suha Arafat incident, as even a cursory check of the facts would have quickly revealed.

Click link above the excerpt to continue reading. I wonder where the fact checkers Conde Naste is famous for were on that item. Lloyd asks if I'll buy the issue? Not for that article. If there's something else in it, I will. But I skipped the issue with the Super Model cover story as well. Lloyd asks if the excerpt is a sign that Vanity Fair's moving to the right in their politics. I don't think Graydon Carter would decide now is the time to appease the right. But it bears noting that being of the left does not require looking up to Hillary Clinton. (Nor does it require attacking her.)

I'll also note that Media Matters is doing longer entries these days which is why we're quoting them more often. (As far as I know, they aren't an open source publication so quoting them requires following fair use guidelines.)

Kara e-mails to note that Monster-in-Law (starring Jane Fonda, Jennifer Lopez, Wanda Sykes and Michael Vartan) crossed the seventy million mark this weekend. (Folding Star e-mailed earlier to note when it crossed 68 million.)

Kara: I love that movie. I'm not a movie goer and really haven't been since 1996. But probably due to a combination of the push here by members and you and the DVD reviews of Fonda's comedies at The Third Estate Sunday Review, I started thinking I'd probably see it. Then Betty, Folding Star and Rebecca's response to the film cinched it but what made me see it the first time was the thing where you and Ava took on two idiot critics and I was hoping you could link to that and excerpt something from that.

Kara's speaking of "Film: Rebuttal to Davey and Lisel half-baked Monster-In-Law reviews."
I asked Ava if she could do a cutting or excerpt (we could post the rebuttal here in full, Ava, Jim, Dona, Ty and Jess give permission and we might do that on Saturday) and here's what she pulled together (Thank you, Ava):

"Feminist" Lisel dubs Fonda's character "a narcissistic bitch."

Take back the night, Lisel, with your abundance of sisterhood!

(Lisel also uses the "feminist" term "old cow" in her review. Someone send her a copy of Our Bodies, Ourselves. Or Women Coming of Age.)

Lisel's offended that the film's not a drama and that Fonda's not playing one of the First Lady of the Screen roles. Those First Lady of the Screen roles always delight middle-brow critics and almost always kill off the career faster than you can say Greer Garson.

But Lisel, who writes about film, is offended that Fonda's playing "a narcissistic bitch." More than that:

a narcissistic bitch who wages war on a younger woman before undergoing tit-for-tat humiliation in a punitive comedy that tramples on decades of feminist progress with a blithering giggle.

Help us out Lisel, we're not remembering you from any of the marches. Are you current with you NOW membership dues?

Regardless, your concern for feminism comes way too late in your career to strike either of us as sincere. We also question your ability to understand the dramatic concept of conflict. People have to be at odds, Lisel, or we're watching one of those dreary, pointless, talking head films that you so love to praise.

Lisel's too busy passing herself off as the last defender of feminism to grasp the movie (or even enjoy it but she only laughs at independent films and then, judging by the pedistrian review of Flirting With Disaster, not too loudly or often.).

So help us out Lisel, where's the feminist critique in your work? We see the trashing of Julia Roberts for I Love Trouble (the mocking of her and letting Notle off with a pass comparatively).

We see you shine it on for Chris O'Donnel. (Tell us Lisel, do you still feel he's that talented.)

We've seen you focus on Michelle Pfieffer's looks excessively (is that it, you need beauty from women to appreciate them?). Or maybe it's that "arouseability" factor you refer to on Dangerous Liasons? Did Lopez not do enough for you? Did Monster-In-Law not meet your "ha-ha funniest" meter? (That's your term, Lisel.) You seem keen on "normal size" (we won't touch that except to note that you think Jeff Bridges achieves it), was Monster-In-Law not "normal size" enough for you?

Do you still hold so much of that "deep affection for Chris O'Donnell's adorableness" that you "hope to heck Hollywood doesn't get to him . . ."? Are "normal size" and "adorableness" the way you evaluate a film? While praising his filmography, did you, feminist that you suddenly are, ever wonder if maybe the women in School Ties could have been more than objects and if maybe the story wasn't so universal?

[. . .]

You're just so offended that Fonda goes "facedown into a plate of tripe." We found the scene hilarious and, we'd add, Fonda got paid for it. We went facedown in the plate of tripe that are your reviews and we did it for free. Pay up, Lisel, pay up.

Now we'll move on to the other one who went gunning for the film, David. (Rebecca's dubbed them David & Lisa.) David's convinced himself that Viola is an ethnicist, she's against Charlie due to her Hispanic bloodlines. We wondered (we includes Hispanic Ava) how the hell David pulled that one out of his ass? And if he could shove it back up there? If he can't, will he allow us to?

If David had bothered to check, he'd find out that the issue he and he alone sees isn't "played up" because the script wasn't written for Lopez. It was adapted to her once she was interested. That meant adding touches here and there. David doesn't grasp a great deal. He also complains that Wanda Sykes is African-American. Or rather that Sykes was cast in the role of Viola's assistant and he has a problem with Sykes being cast in the part and being African-American. We're not sure what Davey's suggesting here? That Skyes shouldn't have turned down the role or that she should have bleached her skin?

While Lisel's concerned that audiences might see a character with edges (see our review of The Electric Horseman to realize how badly Lisel represents all that is wrong in film these days), Davey's upset that Fonda's apparently blowing her wad by not doing drama (see our review of Nine to Five). Why oh why won't Fonda make small independent films? That's what Davey wants to know. While Lisel fumes that Fonda should get herself over to a TV drama pronto (we're sure there's bound to be some new Law & Order or CSI version casting shortly).

What neither grasp, because they don't know enough to do their jobs, is that Susan Sarandon didn't just come along. In the late nineties, Sarandon received a great deal of praise for her lead performances as a woman over forty. We don't begrudge Sarandon for her lead performances (many of which are truly amazing). But we're not stupid enough to believe Sarandon changed Hollywood. The cut off age by the seventies was mid-thirties. (Goldie Hawn addresses this in her book, written with Wendy Holden, A Lotus Grows in the Mud.) Fonda was among the actresses challenging that notion. Fonda and Streisand were the ones regularly proving it wrong. Before there was Sarandon proving that a woman could still be box office in a lead over forty, there was Fonda and there was Streisand. Not with one role, but with many.

Fonda's now proving that a woman of 65 can be a lead in a movie. We imagine that Lisel and Davey will be praising Sarandon for this in a few years. (That's not a slight at Sarandon's age. We're not aware of her exact age, hence the use of a "few years.")

We're not going to suggest that the films Monster-In-Law or Meet-the Fockers are great art. We are going to say that they're funny and, possibly due to the cast, they're funnier than what usually gets churned out by Hollywood (Raising Helen, anyone?). Davey wants Fonda to create her own in-house independent studio and play the drama roles that will satisfy his heart. Lisel can't get past the fact that Viola's not Mother Teresa brought to screen. Neither of them can review what's up on the screen because they're too busy focusing on what's not up on the screen.

Which strikes us as strange. We don't see Wanda Syke's hilarious performance (which does touch on the issue of Lopez's ethnicity as well as on race in one scene, guess Davey was off getting Junior Mints during that) as some sort of insult to African-Americans. We see it as hilarious and applaud Sykes. We're far more concerned that at this late date, Hollywood continues to churn out so many other films with all white casts. Maybe we're missing the racism? Or maybe we just realize that Wanda is playing the Eve Adren/Thelma Ritter role in this film -- and doing it funnier than it's been done before.

Davey and Lisel have platforms and it's really sad that they can't move beyond the capsule reviews that are so common these days. Davey works for The New Yorker and rarely fails to disappoint. He's not as bad as his partner-in-crime, Tony, who sees himself as "Libby Gelman Waxner." But where "Waxner" makes social commentary that goes to the film, Tony just wants to crack wise. (Reading Tony's collected writings, you quickly grasp how empty his reviews are.)That the magazine which gave Pauline Kael her berth and platform and helped influence film bothers to print Davey's half-baked concepts and Tony's spitballs lobbed from the back row of the classroom is truly disappointing. Lisel, at least, has a found an outlet for her writing that she deserves. As the years have passed, Entertainment Weekly has apparently decided more and more to leave "in depth" writing to In Style Magazine. Which accounts for the larger photos and smaller space for actual text. As a "writer" at a magazine that doesn't prize writing, we'd say Lisel has found the perfect platform.

Since this is going up here, let me do a disclosure (one that's been up here before, I believe), I knew Pauline Kael and think she set the bench for film criticism. (Which doesn't mean that I agreed with everyone of her reviews. But she enjoyed discussing film even if you disagreed with her.)

Apologies for the delay on this post. I thought I'd hit publish and went to e-mails. I only realized nothing was up when e-mails started coming in. (I'm always using multiple screens.)

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]
 

Ruth: This weekend my best friend, my lifelong friend, Treva came for a visit.

I've known Treva forever. We went to summer camp together. We went to college together. She was the maid of honor at my wedding. I was the matron of honor at her wedding. She was there each time I gave birth, usually staying for a couple of weeks after, and vice versa.

I say all that to make two points:

1) We're known each other forever.
2) We're old, really old.

With regard to the second point, Treva and I were talking about NPR's Morning Edition and the loss of quality that coincided with the departure of Bob Edwards. Treva made the point that Steve and Renee are the Mouseketeer. There have been other versions of The Mickey Mouse Club; however, Treva and I grew up on the original.

The one with Karen, Cubby, Annette and the cute, but gone too soon, Johnny. They were chipper and chirpy. They smiled wide. They always gathered round in that beaming circle.

But you never thought that they had a lot on the ball. Even Annette Funicello never seemed to offer much more than sweet.

Now all I ever knew about Annette was that, supposedly, her contract with Disney forbade her from wearing a bikini in those beach movies with Frankie Avalon. Possibly, the contract also is the reason why Annette and Frankie never did more than kiss onscreen?

Two summers ago, my granddaughter Tracey discovered those beach movies and asked me, "Grandma, is that what the sixties were like?"

"Yes, Tracey," I told her, "in the sixties America was nothing but beach front. The only person of color was Stevie Wonder. Otherwise, it was nothing but goyim for the eye to see from coast to coast. In fact, the whole point of integration was to provide Stevie Wonder with a date so that he didn't have to go stag to the luau mixers. And, of course, no one did the deed before marriage."

Fortunately, Tracey gets my dead-pan sarcasm.

To repeat, Annette seemed like a sweet person, always has. Which is probably at least partly why we all think of her as "Annette" and not as "Ms. Funicello." The other reason is she appears to have never left Disney.

No matter how old she gets, and she is older than me, she never loses that child-like purity in her persona. That might be a endearing, if perplexing, trait in a friend but it's not really what we look for in a news provider.

Steve and Renee are like that. They are two Mouseketeers who, though they're older now, remain Mouseketeers through and through.

This morning, as on The Mickey Mouse Club, it was time to gather round and listen to the wisdom of the elder. On The Mickey Mouse Club, that would be Professor Wonderful but, each Monday on Morning Edition, that part is played by Cokie Roberts.

This morning [Monday] you could just hear in Mouseketeer Steve's voice that he was practically jumping up and down with excitement as Professor Cokie came on, begging her to explain what the talk of a resolution against the war was all about.

Political Analysis By Cokie Roberts
Political Wrap: Republicans on Iraq, Democrats on Democrats
Morning Edition, June 6, 2005 · News analyst Cokie Roberts discusses Republican divisions over progress in Iraq and behind-the-scenes conflict among Democrats and their party chairman, Howard Dean.

Professor Cokie: The situation there which they, they have some skeptism about administration's assurances that the situation is getting better when they see the news reports every day and uh the polls which are showing that voters are saying the-the war isn't worth the cost either in terms of dollars or lives. Look, any kind of resolution like that if it happens would be more symbolic than anything else.

You could almost hear Mouseketeer Steve whimper in disappointment, as though he'd just learned Jiminy Crickett wouldn't be dropping by anytime soon. But he was a brave little Mouseketeer and quickly turned to a topic he could get excited about again, those Democrats!

Professor Cokie: Well there is some sense of optimism. As one senior Democrat said to me the other day "Things are looking good for us because they're, meaning the republicans, are screwing up." There is a sense with social security, the president once again is going to be tauting his social security plan this week which seems to be going nowhere, the problems with majority leader Tom DeLay, all of these things are things that would be working for democrats in the next election. but as we've talked about before, Steve, there are problems with the discticts being so safely drawn that there aren't many seats in play and the and the luck of the draw in the senate is that it's going to much tougher for Democrats to gain seats than Republicans.

That "as we've talked about before, Steve" touch might come off as a pat on the head to some but to me, it was Professor Cokie scolding the Mouseketeer for not paying close enough attention.

Which may explain why the Mouseketeer went into overdrive to please the professor as Cokie offered as fact, though it's her opinion, that Democrats can't come up with a message. Chuckling and practically dancing on the balls of his feet, I'm sure, Mouseketeer Steve gloated that Howard Dean didn't have any trouble finding a message. Professor Cokie chuckled "True enough" because she likes it when Mouseketeers laugh with her about Democrats.

Professor Cokie: He has said in recent weeks that uh people who were waiting in line to get into the polls in-in Florida, uh, the Republicans didn't understand why this was a problem because Rep had never done an honest day's work in their lives. And, uh, he also said that Congressman Delay, uh, should go home to Houston where he can go to jail. Now Congresman Delay has not been, uh, accused of any crimes. And, uh, and as the Republican National Committee Chairman said yesterday, "Insulting people in red states is probably not the way to win them over."


Uh, it was certainly not surprising that Professor Cokie quoted the RNC Chairman. And, uh, I believe the word Cokie was struggling to find in the sentence prior was, uh, "charged." Tom DeLay has not been, uh, charged with anything. Not, uh, accused. Tom DeLay has been accused.

But the professor was not yet finished explaining to America how, in her opinion, that Howard Dean was, uh, out of the mainstream.

Professor Cokie: Now, uh, Mr. Dean has said that, uh, he was talking about Republican leaders not Rep ... regular Republicans. But yesterday Senator Joe Biden said he, Dean Dean doesn't speak for him. John Edwards, the vice-presidential candidate last time around said that Dean doesn't speak for him. Even Dean's own spokeswoman has said that he is a voice for the Democratic Party not the voice for the Democratic Party.

Since Disney can get a bit testy about their copyrights, possibly Morning Edition might need a new nomer for the kids. Possibly The Cokie Roberts Gas Bags?


It was as though Professor Cokie was explaining to Mouseketeer Steve that Tinkerbell could fly and would live if we'd all just cup our hands around our mouths and boo Howard Dean.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

You don't get to be the squad leader of the Elite Fluff Patrol without having some instincts. Apparently Elisabeth Bumiller's instincts told her this wouldn't be a good morning for me (I'm under the weather). But in this non "White House Letter," Bumiller does some dance steps that truly have to be remarked upon (no matter how sick I feel).

President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain presented a united front on Tuesday against a recently disclosed British government memorandum that said in July 2002 that American intelligence was being "fixed" around the policy of removing Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

So begins the "reporting." The article's entitled "Bush and Blair Deny 'Fixed' Iraq Reports" and it could only be penned at the Times by Bumiller. It's later noted that the memo was reported by the Sunday Times of London on May 1st (as all community members know). We're on June 8th, right? Recent?

It's not even recent since Douglas Jehl told Times readers about it. (May 20th for anyone who's forgotten.) The press has ignored this but it refuses to go away. (Bumiller notes that it has "dogged" Bully Boy -- from outside the mainstream press and outside the Times reporting in the main section. She also notes that 89 House Democrats have signed on requesting answers.)

So here's the thrust of the piece. This "recent" memo that's only seriously been addressed in one article (Douglas Jehl's)? Bully Boy and Blair, standing side by side, deny. They deny it.
Bumiller quotes a section of it (the same quote we've noted here when running The Third Estate Sunday Review's editorials) and then offers in the article the assertion by Blair that it's simply not true.

Wow.

Thanks for clarifying, Bumiller. As you soar off into the clouds, be sure to dip a wing to the Bully Boy, I'm sure he's tipping his hat to you.

Maybe in a month, the Times will tell us about another "recent" revelation in the Sunday Times of London?

Let's quote it, then note it.

THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.
The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive.
The details follow the leak to The Sunday Times of minutes of a key meeting in July 2002 at which Blair and his war cabinet discussed how to make "regime change" in Iraq legal.

You have to work awfully hard to fluff like Bumiller. It's hard work, Bully Boy would tell you that. But she's repeatedly proven she's up to the task.

Let's be really clear here, there's no excuse for any reporter covering the White House for the Times (New York Times) to be unaware of that above. It's from the May 29th Sunday Times of London -- Michael Smith's "RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war."

There's no excuse not to know. So unless Bumiller's soared so far into the clouds that her brain's been starved of oxygen, she should have mentioned it.

The Times (NY) has remained silent on this story. Here was the time to bring it up. They didn't want to before (ask them why), but here she is offering that a memo said this and Bully Boy & Blair said that. And hmmm, twiddle the fingers, what else can I write?

How about informing the readers?

How about letting them have access to information that would indicate this isn't a draw?

Is that too much for you to do?

This isn't a "White House Letter." This isn't what Bob Somerby has rightly deemed one of Bumiller's many tongue baths for the Bully Boy. This is supposed to be a news article.

The Times hasn't done anything on the memo other than Douglas Jehl's piece. They haven't explored Michael Smith's article. Do we need to purchase a subscription to the Sunday Times of London for the New York Times? Do we need to find someone to read the piece aloud to Bumiller?

Tell me, what is it going to take for the Times to report on this?

Bully Boy & Blair held a press conference. Steno pad in hand, Bumiller notes that. Is she kidding herself with this?

This isn't reporting.

What it is (my opinion) is shameful that our supposed great paper, our beacon of freedom of the press, can't tell the readers what's going on.

When you send Bumiller in, you're sending in the designated fluffer. Charlie: "She's ready to once again recite the infamous line uttered by Farrah Fawcett in The Substitute Wife," "I'm not just a whore, I'm a damn good one." [Note: That link takes you to a previous entry on Bumiller, Juan Forero and Jodi Wilgoren. For the record, Wilgoren's found her way back to reporting -- my opinion and turned in some strong pieces. I fail to see how Bumiller ever can recover from today's nonsense. I would love to be proven wrong.]

Don't like that? Well what are you because you're not a reporter. And you're not in the safety of you "White House Letter."

Let's all stop kidding ourselves that Bumiller's a reporter. She elected to tackle the story. Where's Michael Smith's report? A reporter, a real one, would have included it. Instead it's a he-said/she-said piece. It's a real shame that bravery seems in such shortage at the Times.
And it's becoming a sad joke what passes for reporting from Bumiller.

I'd love to crack wise. I'd love to find some way to to make everyone laugh with this entry. Pin it on my feeling under the weather, if you'd like. But I see very little humor in the fact that when the opportunity is there, when the topic cries for it to be noted, Bumiller takes a pass on Smith's reporting.

The Times didn't inform their readers of the memo in any detail until May 20th (a mention during the election, in passing, doesn't count -- nor does Paul Krugman's op-ed which is on the opinion page -- though credit to Krugman for getting the first serious discussion of the memo into the Times). And apparently as long as we have the Elite Fluff Patrol squad leader on the White House beat, many things never will go into print.

A lot of times I make a note that the piece may or may not be the responsibility of the writer credited. Bumiller's blown the right to such a disclaimer. Which is too bad, because for all any of us know, she included it in her draft and an editor came along and cut it. But when you've fluffed nonstop for the Bully Boy, you're left with walking it like you talked it. I can note, for instance, that the piece appears to be stilted (especially near the end) but I can hear picture the e-mail response, "When isn't her writing stilted?" More importantly, if she did include it, she should have fought to have had Michael Smith's article's revelations kept in. She should have known how important they were to the topic and, indeed her own image.

Susan e-mails on the story a Carole King quote (from "Chalice Borealis" off Speeding Time): "How you gonna explain it to your grandkids?" How indeed?

What's in the future for Bumiller? A tawdry tabloid cover, possible book deal, "I fluffed for the White House!" I don't think any of us are seeing reporting because so much of the work is not reporting.

In fact the problem is what she's NOT reporting.

This is a news article, not a White House Letter. If you're in the new business, get in the news business. If you're not, change the printed slogan to "All the Fluff That's Fit to Print."

Bumiller closes with:

The White House has always insisted that Mr. Bush did not make the decision to invade Iraq until after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented the administration's case to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, which relied heavily on claims, now discredited, that Iraq had illicit weapons. But as early as Nov. 21, 2001, Mr. Bush directed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to begin a review of what could be done to oust Mr. Hussein.

Yes, that is what they've always insisted and we can always, apparently, count on Bumiller to remind us of that. She just won't inform us that in 2002 we apparently increased bombing of Iraq in an attempt to goad a retaliation with the hopes of starting a war.

That would be while Bully Boy and his lackeys were in the midst of informing us of the grave danger Iraq posed to the United States. Back when we were being told that assorted weapons (chemical, et al) could be unleashed on the United States.

A real reporter would have noted Smith's article. A good one would have brought up the fact that if the statements by Bully Boy, et al were true, they put the nation at risk. If they truly believed that WMD existed, they put the nation at risk by increasing bombings. A good reporter would have noted that.

Bumiller's not a good reporter. She's proving, with pieces like these, to not even be a reporter. Put her on the op-ed pages already because there appears to be no redeeming her. This is not unlike when they continued to pimp Judith Miller's grudge f**k against the U.N. Not many cared. Not many saw the Miller byline and thought, "Oh wow, real reporting in here." Bumiller's trashed her own reputation.

Whether that was at the urging of the Times or her own decision, she's the one who'll have to live with it. Awhile back, she showed a glimmer (to me anyway) and there was hope for her. (It was noted here.) But I'm not Vanna White. I'm not going to cheer everytime someone steps up to the wheel.

Bumiller's demonstrated something that goes beyond bad reporting or even bad writing today. It's a willingness to obscure the truth (my opinion). It's not mere fluffing, it goes far beyond that. It's shameful and it's embarrassing. My apologies to members for not being able to think of a funny wise crack. But, as we noted before, sometimes you're a joke. Sometimes your a dirty joke. Bumiller's work has made her an old joke. America, hopefully, is tired of laughing.

Hopefully, we see the article today and our jaws just drop in disbelief because this isn't just a record low for Bumiller (or the Times, for that matter), it's probably the lowest any mainstream paper can go. It's shameful and it's embarrassing. You don't want to look. But it's so horrid that you can't help but look.

Maybe she can talk hot-rods with Timmy Russert or make small talk with Andrea Mitchell, but how she'll hold her head up high when she's not running in those gilded circles, I have no idea.
A democracy depends upon an informed public and, when given the chance to inform, Bumiller takes a pass.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]