What the Meaning of "Is" Is to Alberto Gonzales.

"Data mining has also been far less controversial than warrantless eavesdropping."

True.

So what the heck were GOP tough-on-crime types like Comey, Ashcroft, Mueller, and their staffs threatening to resign over?

There's still more here that we don't know.

"probably means that Gonzales did not commit perjury"

Um, on the basis of one anonymously sourced NYT article? You might want to try a little skepticism, there, Judy Miller.

(Kidding, kidding).

(Well, like 90 percent kidding, anyway).

And everyone noticed your absence! Glad that all is well with you, and glad you're back.

They're not separate programs if the (probably illegal) data mining is being used to pick out the targets for the (certainly illegal) warrantless surveillance.

You can't really think the top echelon of Justice, which was not willing to resign over the blatantly illegal warrantless surveillance, was willing to resign over data mining.

The interesting part isn't what this reveals, it's what they're still trying to hide.

"This distinction--one that Senators have not generally made when discussing the two programs--probably means that Gonzales did not commit perjury in last week's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. "

Welcome back, but.... not so fast.

What makes you so sure that the illegal wiretapping was NOT of concern to Comey, et. al. What makes you think that the "leak" that there was a "controversial" data mining program isn't designed as a misdirection move designed to the media's attention and get it to basically get the story wrong.

The wiretapping was clearly illegal under the FISA law. But you're assumption is that the FBI and Justice Department DID NOT DISAPPROVE of a program that was clearly outside of the law.

If Comey et. al did, as we should assume he did, have concerns about the ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING in addition to other aspects, then Gonzales perjured himself....pure and simple.

"The interesting part isn't what this reveals, it's what they're still trying to hide."

my guess about what they are trying desperately to hide is HOW these programs were being used -- that in addition to "foreign terrorists", these programs were being used to monitor domestic anti-war groups like ANSWER under the guise that their radicalism represented a "terrorist threat."

Welcome back, Karen. I did notice you were gone, and really did have a thought of you vacationing.

As to Oscar the Cat, well, I gotta say that one of the final, final stages when the body is shutting down that the blood supply to goes to the vital organs and the extremities loose body temperature (mottling is usually noted). So, my guess is that Oscar is responding to bring 'warmth-comfort' to the people he is connected with. Just a guess. Still it is a nice, warm thought that Oscar cares.

Gonzo, Gonzo, Gonzo and the Fielding hair splitting. I am also watching Cullum on Howie getting down to 'DC short term memory thing', Clinton-Reno did it. [thx for reminding us, again]
"it" "it" "it"

So, when do we get to the ETHICS of going to the hospital room of an acutely ill, sedated person to get a signature, especially, after Ashcroft had transferred authority to Comity [my memory is that Gonzo used 'we didn't know' on this one-gag]? So, where is the Bar Association? It is time for a 'NIFONG for GONZO'?

Some thoughts on this one: Distraction from 'Iraq-Iraq-Iraq' and the obvious censorship of information, continue the 'DEMs will suffer blowback' spin, no one available to replace Gonzo, there is much more to be found [reminds me of racketeering hearings].

Why could data mining be objectionable? Hmm? Who sets the parameters for the data to be mined would Congress even understand now that Al Gore is gone that broad parameters mean that almost everything is spied upon and recorded?
Imagine what I could do in the stockmarket if I managed the Republican National Committe's money!
Imagine the blackmail possibilites! Imagine me or anyone trusting Karl Rove with that kind of information.

wHAT THE MEANING OF IS IS IS IMPEACHMENT!

NOW THE NEOCONS TASTE WHAT OUR MAN BILL CLINTON HAD DO UNDERGO!

VENGANCE IS OURS!

wHAT THE MEANING OF IS IS IS IMPEACHMENT!

NOW THE NEOCONS TASTE WHAT OUR MAN BILL CLINTON HAD DO UNDERGO!

VENGANCE IS OURS!wHAT THE MEANING OF IS IS IS IMPEACHMENT!

NOW THE NEOCONS TASTE WHAT OUR MAN BILL CLINTON HAD DO UNDERGO!

VENGANCE IS OURS!

wHAT THE MEANING OF IS IS IS IMPEACHMENT!

NOW THE NEOCONS TASTE WHAT OUR MAN BILL CLINTON HAD DO UNDERGO!

VENGANCE IS OURS!

wHAT THE MEANING OF IS IS IS IMPEACHMENT!

NOW THE NEOCONS TASTE WHAT OUR MAN BILL CLINTON HAD DO UNDERGO!

VENGANCE IS OURS!

wHAT THE MEANING OF IS IS IS IMPEACHMENT!

NOW THE NEOCONS TASTE WHAT OUR MAN BILL CLINTON HAD DO UNDERGO!

VENGANCE IS OURS!

wHAT THE MEANING OF IS IS IS IMPEACHMENT!

NOW THE NEOCONS TASTE WHAT OUR MAN BILL CLINTON HAD DO UNDERGO!

VENGANCE IS OURS!

wHAT THE MEANING OF IS IS IS IMPEACHMENT!

NOW THE NEOCONS TASTE WHAT OUR MAN BILL CLINTON HAD DO UNDERGO!

VENGANCE IS OURS!

Karen: "If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct."
This seems to be the only part of the NYT story that connects data mining to either Gonzalez' testimony or the confrontation in Ashcroft's hospital room, and it is preceded by an "if." Perhaps someone can parse the Times' article to make a clearer connection between the program (data mining) and the event (Ashcroft's room). Until then, it might be a good idea to treat them as separate issues or separate events.
Great to have you back, Ms. Tumulty.

Oops. my bad: Comity instead of Comey.

"However, that is a risky strategy if the report is not accurate, given that it can be challenged by the other people who were in the room. And further, it raises new questions, and potential new political problems, about the data mining program. Specifically, WHY were Justice Department officials objecting to it? "

Two points:

1) The strategy is only risky if members of the mainstream media start demanding answers --- but it looks like they are buying it hook, line, and sinker. (I mean it does look like you bought it.)

2) The strategy is only risky if the mainstream media starts treating this as the serious story it is, and stops portraying it the way the White House wants it portrayed -- as partisan squabbling. Its not partisan squabbling --- its about our system of constitutional government and the checks and balances built into it. But you would never know it from reading the posts on this blog.

Hi Karen! Welcome Back.

You said "Data mining has also been far less controversial than warrantless eavesdropping."

That's probably because most people don't understand it. People better wake up to this issue-- it is very dangerous. It's wiretapping on steroids. They are keeping tabs on who everyone is calling, at least the numbers and probably more. If you do some searches for certain drugs online you could be suspected of manufacturing meth.

Remember our old friend John Poindexter from Iran-Contra? He was put in charge of the government's data mining unit but IIRC he was removed by Congress. I wonder what old John is doing now?

Glenn Greenwald to the rescue:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

oh Karen, that blind trust in Dear Leader™ is so quaint. There's a phrase journalists used to follow: afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. You're doing the opposite.

Karen,

I second Philly Boy above. Glenn Greenwald provides compelling counterpoints to your entire hypothesis.

It is tragic to witness the ongoing credulousness (to the point of sychophantsy)of our so-called 'independent press'.

"However, that is a risky strategy..."

Cornered rats often exhibit strange behaviors. Imagine the stress.

There was a biggy about the data mining, especially as it involved BellSouth-Verizon.

http://www.internetnews.com/bus.news/article.php/3606516

http://www.iht.com/article/2006/05/11/america/web.0511phone.php

SIDE BAR: Breaking news ?Maliki requesting that Gen. Petreaus be withdrawn from Iraq?

Obviously, this story is a strategic leak. Come on.

From the Greenwald link above:

~~
The leak designed to save Alberto Gonzales

Anonymous sources seeking to protect Alberto Gonzales have leaked to the NYT the claim that what triggered the 2004 DOJ dispute over the NSA program "involved computer searches through massive electronic databases" -- i.e, "data mining" of the "records of the phone calls and e-mail messages of millions of Americans." The Post has amplified the leak.
~~

There's a lot more of that at the link.

Here's what I predict: Whatever the program is/was, it is so, so reprehensible that the beltway press will grab at this bone in profound relief lest they might be forced to dig up the bodies and ask discomfiting questions. We saw this outright relief with the Armitage disclosure that relieved the beltway of having to ask questions about activities related to the OVP. Remember that palpable relief?

Already you see this palpable relief in the beltway: Oh! Data mining! heh heh, is THAT all. We all knew that! Nothing to see here, folks. Move on. I SAID MOVE ON!!!

Glad to see you back, Karen, and posting about this issue. We did miss you, but (I for one) didn't want to intrude.

Also, there was this:

http://www.anonymousliberal.com/

and be sure and check out the link contained in the data mining article to the previous post of 'perjury'.

Thanks for replying, Karen.

I adopt and incorporate by reference the points made by p_lukasiak in his response to your update.

The Bush administration is capable of doing things for short-term gain that are in the long-term interests of neither the administration nor the country. Some observers are even beginning to question their competence!

In their defense, though, they've gone this long without facing tough questions from the media about just what on earth they were doing that inspired non-civil rights fanatics like John Ashcroft to threaten to resign. So this leak to the NYT may be a calculated risk on the part of the administration, based on past events, that the media won't bother to figure out what's actually going on.

Even though, as you point out, if followed to its logical conclusion, today's story opens up many new questions, there's no guarantee that those questions will ever be asked, much less answered.

Marty Lederman takes a stab at all what all this might mean here:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/07/whats-legal-significance-of-data-mining.html

So, that's that. One anonymously sourced pro-administration article and you're ready to say that it "probably means that Gonzales did not commit perjury in last week's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee." Glad that's over.

Glen Greenwald's doing the heavy lifting over at Salon. Take your laptop to brunch (go somewhere that has free wireless) and take a look.

Hey Elvis.... were anonymously famous!

Greenwald did an update to his piece, pointing out the dynamic involved in spreading administration propaganda, using Karen as an example, but then says:

"Equally revealing, several regular Swampland commenters objected to her gullible ingestion of the NYT leak and "caution[ed] against taking the NYT story on its face." To her credit, Tumulty notes that warning in an update, but this is how our country's political press works. The administration secretly decrees. Their selected journalist passes it along, soaking up the rewards of their "scoop." Other journalists believe it and disseminate it. And all administration problems are solved, painlessly fading away. "

So, Karen gets props from Greenwald! Yeah Karen!

His object is clearly to mislead and obfustacate throughout all his testimony, not just this aspect.

Being pretty cherry-picky here.

According to this post titled “CRS Explains Congress's Contempt Powers” in the American Constitution Society Blog (http://www.acsblog.org/separation-of-powers-crs-explains-congresss-contempt-powers.html)

“The Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken the position that Congress cannot, as a matter of statutory or constitutional law, invoke either its inherent contempt authority or the criminal contempt of Congress procedures against an executive branch official acting on instructions by the President to assert executive privilege in response to a congressional subpoena.”

“Under the inherent contempt power the individual is brought before the House or Senate by the Sergeant-at-Arms, tried at the bar of the body, and can be imprisoned in the Capitol jail. The witness can be imprisoned for a specified period of time as punishment, or for an indefinite period . . . until he agrees to comply.”

“While it is true that the President can immunize persons from criminal prosecution, it does not appear that he has authority to immunize a witness from congressional inherent contempt proceeding. . . . A finding of inherent contempt against an executive branch official[] does not appear to be subject to the President’s Pardon power. . . . “

“Although the contemnor can seek judicial review by means of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the scope of such review may be relatively limited, compared to the plenary review accorded by the courts in cases of conviction under the criminal contempt statute.”

"Proceedings under the inherent contempt power might be facilitated, however, if the initial fact-finding and examination of witnesses were to be held before a special committee – which could be directed to submit findings and recommendations to the full body – with only the final decision as to guilt being made by the full House or Senate. . . . “

“[S]o long as the minimum protections of notice and opportunity to be heard are provided, the courts, it seems, will not interfere with Congress’s decisions regarding proper procedure. “

So is this going to be that the last recourse for the MAIN culprit who enabled this failed administration to defile and destroy the US constitution and make us look nothing better than a pathetic Banana-Republic? Is “gonzy the (s)tool” going to go down on his stubby knees and beg for “a petition for a writ of habeas corpus”?????? Wonder how #@%!$ QUAINT he is going to think habeas corpus is then??????

Hope Democracy will finally arrive here before we are nothing more than an embarrassing and sad foot note in history http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWka3rZE3zI

p_lukasiak,
Where did Glenn Greenwald give Karen props? He lambasted her for not checking the facts.

p_lukasiak-- hooray! It's about darn time Greenwald started giving me some credit. I link tirelessly to him practically every day.

Also, "anonymously famous" is a terrific phrase.

The problem is keeping up with the lies. We knew about the datamining because of the reporting of Time et al-- but I didn't realize the administration had denied it. So how about following up, everyone? Keep going this time. Don't let this drop. Now it's pretty much proved the administration lied about this. Keep asking. Use the word LIE for goodness sake.

"Tony, why did the president lie about data-mining?"

"Mr. President, why did you lie about this, and what are you going to do now that it's come out that Gonzalez lied under oath?"

Phone calls are digitized these days, thus they are "data". Listening to people's phone calls would be "data mining". Not that hard to parse.

JKC...

Greenwald wrote: "To her credit, Tumulty notes that warning in an update..."

Greenwald didn't so much "lambast" Karen as use her as an examine of his thesis in action. He then praises Karen for acknowledging the validity of the cautions provided in the comments.

After six years of this administration, don't you think it's time to edge ever so slightly closer to erring on the side of skepticism rather than trust?

Two years ago it was considered crazy wing-nut talk to think the Bush Administration was using the surveillence program to spy on US citizens for political gain, not to fight "ter'ists". But after all the revelations about the politicization of the EPA, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the surgeon general's office, the Iraqi redevelopment team, and now the Justice Department, the burden of proof should be on the those who might say the Bush Administration DIDN'T use this internal spying technology for political reasons. Spying on John Kerry's campaign e-mails in 2004 is totally consistent with the picture of extreme politicization we're seeing here.

The big point is, we still don't know jack about what they're really doing.

Thanks Karen for covering this issue and your ever civil tone. Signed by apparently "a hater" according to Ana Marie,

Beth in VA

Data mining is worse than regular illegal phone tapping with phone tapping the government suscpects that your a bad guy, maybe for no other reason than your Catholic or AfricanAmerican. With data mining the government looks for trigger words and then starts recording.
For example if Karen were to do a story about Al Quieda and talk about her story to her editor on the phone chances are she would trigger the mine by saying Al Quieda too many times and the tapping would start. We can assume that once the mine is tripped her cell,home and office number calls will also be recorded.
Freedom of the press would disappear without ever once having to present a judge with a warrant to listen to Karen. Now if Karren were also doing a story the White House did not like and she were using a phone thats being recorded well. Somehow I doubt that Rove would let something like the law stand in his way from listening to all Karen's phone calls.

Data mining is illegal phone tapping but its actually less consitutional seeing as instead of tapping a bunch of people you are spying on Everyone who uses a phone first to determine who you should bother tapping.

Regarding above:

I'm not saying Bush DID read on the Kerry campaign's e-mails, I'm just saying/asking: couldn't they? Would they? What is there to stop them?

Put this together with the latest Executive Orders to seize assets of even American citizens who show insufficient support of Iraqi reconstruction. Isn't this a slow motion coup of the Bill of Rights?

Shorter CW: "Look, Gonzalez was talking about some other super-secret program that was probably illegal... so he probably wasn't lying about anything. Look! A shiny penny!"

Yeesh.

Karen:

I think Tony Snow said it best. According to him Gonzales gave the correct answer but, unfortunately, Tony could not provide details because it was classified. How nice. How convenient. Ïf I tell you what I am unable to tell you because of security restraints then you will know that Gonzo did not mislead the Senate Committee."Don;t you find it extraordinary that all the exculpatory information is secret. Now Bush and Cheney will never declassify it to help Tony explain himself. They only declassify stuff that will hurt their opponents.

Chris Wallance informed viewers that no Republican or White House official was prepared to go on Fox News Sunday today to defend Gonzales. That said it all.

Someone needs to look into these voting machines that can be hacked! That is why I ALWAYS use the old voting machine so that there is a PAPER TRAIL of my vote and NO one can manipulate it!!

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/07/voter-alert-electronic-voting-machines.html#links

Elvis and p_l,

Stop questioning the propaganda. Do you know how "risky" it would be for the administration to spread propaganda? It could be "challenged" by others.

Also, please disregard all claims that the administration's claims about WMDs and Iraq's connection to 9/11 are propaganda. Really, if they had made up a phony story to go to war with a country that never attacked us, let those who do want to destroy us grow stronger, and kill thousands of American troops in the process, they would surely be impeached by now. The media would not believe anything they said afterwards. Obviously.

"....caution against taking the NYT story on its face."

Too late! This is something you as a "journalist" need to do before you write the story in the first place, not after someone points out the bloody obvious.

Sigh...

"UPDATE: Commenters, including P_Luk and Elvis Elvisberg, caution against taking the NYT story on its face. They apparently read it--correctly, I'm sure--as an Administration leak to get Gonzales off the hook on perjury accusations."

No kidding. How many times does Time and every other member of the MSM have to swallow some cock and bull story "leaked" by Bush Admin sources before they learn that truth is not part of their modus operandi?

"However, that is a risky strategy if the report is not accurate, given that it can be challenged by the other people who were in the room. "

Risky in what way? The Bush Admin does not care a bit about the truth. Almost every commenter I have read about this sorry saga pussyfoots around the basic issue - Gonzales knows where all the bodies are buried, and if he is fired then he will be prosecuted and then he will flip on Bush. That is the only reason Gonzalez is still here and the only reason he will stay until Bush leaves or until Bush can replace him without Senate approval and then pardon him.

If I'm ever accused of a crime, I want Trixie on my jury.

What interests me in what Greenwald said is the *why*. Why do the Trixies rush out for "scoops" exonerating people like Gonzales, when the "scoop" implicating them would grab much bigger headlines? They sat around and said nothing while the Justice Department was being politicized, while this whole wiretapping story was unfolding (but not being covered), and they have largely served as impediments to the coverage of these stories (Rick Stengel: "I'm so not interested"). Yet those are the kinds of stories, misbehavior by top level government officials, that have historically grabbed the public's attention. If, as Greenwald posits, it's been a hunger for "scoops" that has made the Trixies so malleable for the administration, why aren't they interested in the bigger scoops?

"why aren't they interested in the bigger scoops?"

Because they want to be employed by big corporations, and big corporations are pro GOP.

Here is a snapshot of the United States from 2000-present. The Bush administration whispers something to "journalists." They repeat it uncritically on their front page. Other "journalists" read it. They believe it uncritically and then repeat it. With nothing else required, it becomes "fact" (that is the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman and Iraqi WMD Process, repeated over and over and over).

Hence, Time's Karen Tumulty this morning recites the storyline of the NYT and pronounces:

This distinction -- one that Senators have not generally made when discussing the two programs --probably means that Gonzales did not commit perjury in last week's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
And presto, just like that -- from the administration's anonymous lips to the American public, making a pit stop with leading journalists only to be amplified and bolstered but never examined or investigated -- Alberto Gonzales is vindicated.

***************************************

I find it amusing that the day after Ana has a little hissy fit about commenters criticizing here and the other Swampland blogger writers....Karen provided Example A of the journalistic desire to provide cover for the administration. You'd have to laugh if it wasn't so sad. They are truly blind to their behavior. I guess the environment that they exist in, their bubble, blinds them to logic. Hey...if they want to continue to be the pinata, we'll be the stick.

I think the problem, Karen, that most people are pointing out, is that it HASN'T been risky for them, because the press HASN'T asked the questions needed of them when things like this have come out, rather acting as stenographers and writing down the official government line without actually seeing if it's bull or not.

Regardless....it's still good to see that it's being covered here finally.

"why aren't they interested in the bigger scoops?"

I think another part of this is that they want to project an image of themselves, and of mainstream journalism in general, as occupying an "objective" and Olympian view, above the fray of messy and impure political struggles, which by their very nature require strong position-taking stances that defend partial rather than universal interests.

But if you call out a person in authority for their b.s., your fear as a journalist is to be perceived as a partisan political position-taker (unless he's a jerk like Al Gore, who thinks he's smarter than you are--nyeahh! fish-eater!!!).

So you avoid that pitfall by falling into the habit of he-said, she-said "reporting."

David Ignatius made this same point--in a completely different way, of course--when he claimed that journalists during the Bush era have been "victims of their own professionalism."

So, uh, duhhh, journalists: maybe it's time to rethink those professional standards now that we have a shameless administration that knows how to exploit them for their own ends.

Jake Gittes, I really don't think it's that simple. I think it's more about a culture among journalists, that you don't want to seem like a wide-eyed radical, so you don't rock the boat.

A weakness of extremist libertarianism is that people just don't act the way that models predict that they would. I attribute the behavior of DC journalists to group pressures more than a desire to work for corporations.

I have no evidence, just a feeling. So, I'm open to debunking.

Karen:

Welcome back!

How do you know that "Today's lead story in the New York Times brings some clarification--and illumination--to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' claim that the NSA's domestic surveillance program was not the subject of that now-infamous March 2004 dispute at John Ashcroft's hospital bedside"?

Should reasonable human beings just take at face value any claims sourced by "according to current and former officials briefed on the program"? (from the NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/washington/29nsa.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1185731091-N6wdI8SqX+R1ou8TKfckNw)

Was there anything (other than reading today's paper) that you did to verify such a claim, i.e. investigating the source of the story?

I mean, you're a journalist, right? Can't you call up SCOTT SHANE and DAVID JOHNSTON (the authors of the story) and ask them to reveal to you (off the record, of course) the identities of their sources?

I mean-- that's it? That's all there is to your post, just that somehow Gonzales's testimony has now been "illuminated"? You can't check to see whether these sources' motives or records of honesty or history of psychosis or whatever are consistent with the "information" we've been given here? I mean, for all we know, this is Monica Goodling's opinion about Gonzales's testimony. How is it possible that you can simply "report" what somebody else "reports" about what third and fourth parties are asserting, and call that "clarification"?

Please, please tell us: what other work did you do besides reading the paper today to verify that this story is what it purports to be?

I just don't understand what you're thinking...help us out here. How does this work? How do you know what you know?

OK, let's try that again:

Karen:

Welcome back!

How do you know that "Today's lead story in the New York Times brings some clarification--and illumination--to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' claim that the NSA's domestic surveillance program was not the subject of that now-infamous March 2004 dispute at John Ashcroft's hospital bedside"?

Should reasonable human beings just take at face value any claims sourced by "according to current and former officials briefed on the program"? (from the NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/washington/29nsa.html
)

Was there anything (other than reading today's paper) that you did to verify such a claim, i.e. investigating the source of the story?

I mean, you're a journalist, right? Can't you call up SCOTT SHANE and DAVID JOHNSTON (the authors of the story) and ask them to reveal to you (off the record, of course) the identities of their sources?

I mean-- that's it? That's all there is to your post, just that somehow Gonzales's testimony has now been "illuminated"? You can't check to see whether these sources' motives or records of honesty or history of psychosis or whatever are consistent with the "information" we've been given here? I mean, for all we know, this is Monica Goodling's opinion about Gonzales's testimony. How is it possible that you can simply "report" what somebody else "reports" about what third and fourth parties are asserting, and call that "clarification"?

Please, please tell us: what other work did you do besides reading the paper today to verify that this story is what it purports to be?

I just don't understand what you're thinking...help us out here. How does this work? How do you know what you know?

The NYT did NOT "report today that the program in question was not the warrantless wiretapping of international phone calls."

The NYT reported that an anonymous "current and former officials briefed on the program" made this claim, which conveniently attempts to exhonorate Gonzales.

I know this is subtle, but the inability to distinguish the difference between these two notions leads to uncritical parroting and reinforcement of the Bush team's propagnda, and is why the MSM is countinuously skewered in the "liberal blogosphere."

It's not about our anger, mean-spiritedness, and hatred, it's about the apparent lack of basic journalistic skills, and the resulting criminality that the MSM's sloppy reporting allows to continue - unchallenged.

"However, that is a risky strategy..."

Not risky at all, given the previous conduct of the MSM. The administration knows that the MSM doesn't follow up, doesn't mind being lied to, doesn't ask tough questions and keep asking them till there's an actual answer.

For 6 years, the administration has been able to keep real investigation at bay just by lying, knowing there's little penalty for that. It's not risky at all-- it's been the safest strategy so far. Worked every time. It effectively makes the MSM parties to the lie (cf. Rove et al leaking the CIA agent's name to reporters who then felt duty bound to pretend they knew nuffing, nuffing, about it). And reporters aren't good at accusing each other of lying or even gullibility. So are you going to accuse the NYTimes writer of unquestioning parroting administration talking points? Not hardly.

Thank goodness for the blogosphere.

So... when is Time going to let Bill "Enabler" Kristol go and hire Paul Lukasiak to write something insightful? Soon, I hope. The usual suspects of the MsM are all so naive and easily gulled-- how about hiring a skeptic who doesn't share a cocktail weenie with Karl Rove every week?

Gonzales just didn't shade the truth this week. Let's also recall the differences between his testimonies and those of Sampson, Goodling, Comey, etc.

Let's also remember the "I don't recall" fests and how Gonzo claims to have no idea *cough Karl Rove cough* attorney's names got on the list.

There is a pattern of dishonesty here.

Oh, and I noticed you were gone Karen. Welcome back.

Posted by Enceladus
July 29, 2007

But if you call out a person in authority for their b.s., your fear as a journalist is to be perceived as a partisan political position-taker (unless he's a jerk like Al Gore, who thinks he's smarter than you are--nyeahh! fish-eater!!!).

--------------------

They poured years and God only knows how much corporate money into Whitewater, despite there being nothing there. And then there was Monica. Hoooo boy, how much ink was spilled (and still is being spilled) over that blue dress? And did you hear that Nancy Pelosi wanted a plane big enough to fly her back to San Francisco?

I don't like the "corporate media" explanation given by someone else above, because it seems too easy and obvious, but what else is there? I will agree that a desire to appear "objective" and non-partisan is part of it, as is a desperate terror of being labeled a member of the "liberal media," but what we've seen for the past 10 - 15 years is so excessive, so one-sided, that that can't be all there is to it, can it? These people essentially decided the 2000 race in the favor of one party, then eagerly facilitated an utterly disastrous invasion, and have been ignoring behavior that damaged the foundation of our democracy, and are trying to stymie any attempts to repair that damage. All because they want to appear objective?

Elvis

Look at how personally outraged MSM types were over the Clenis. They were besides themselves.

These Time bloggers here...the 4 of them....don't get outraged over anything the Bush administration has done. None of it. And it is the same for all of the MSM types.

I don't think there is anything....ANYTHING....the Bush administration could do that would bring the kind of anger from the MSM.

All of this lack of interest to investigate an administration will suddenly change once a Democrat gets into office. Look at the coverage the GOP congress got for investigating the Clinton's christmas card list.

I don't think there is any to explain it away without the corporate angle. If Joe Klein wrote like Glenn Greenwald, he wouldn't be on Meet the Press and he wouldn't be a columnist at Time. He knows that.

Karen, here's what skepticism does-- makes you look underneath, explore motives and possibilities (this is Jack Balkin, who knows his stuff):

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/07/whats-legal-significance-of-data-mining.html

Now I'm sure that is not what Joe Klein considers "reporting". But it was much, much more illuminating than the Times article or your post, because it didn't take anything at face value and actually considered what all this meant.

I don't know why he's just writing a blog instead of being employed by Time.... Oh. Right. In-depth analysis isn't fashionable in these glossy times!

"Look at how personally outraged MSM types were over the Clenis. They were besides themselves."

I remember listening to Maura Liasson and Cokie Roberts on oh-so liberal NPR speaking about Bill Clinton with such contempt dripping from their tones it was palpable.

I agree with the corporate angle to a large degree -- Bob Somerby has made a good case for the NBC group, for example.

But, I also think that the endless yammering for over 20 years about the "Liberal Media" has created a reflexive "gotta show I'm objective" even if it doesn't make sense.

Hoplite, I was watching This Week today. George S actually worked for Clinton, so I'm not going to say he's pro-Repub, but I do think he's become pro-status quo.

He had on Bob Dole and Donna Shalala, discussing their Walter Reed report. At the end, he said that he had to ask Dole a political question, about whether he thought Fred Thompson should get in the race. Dole said quizzically, "Well, all the excitement's on the other side (the Democrats). Maybe you should ask Secretary Shalala about that." Pause. Nothing from George. Dole gamely says something about the latest also-ran-to-be, Thompson, and ends, and he looks at Ms. Shalala and she looks at George, and we all wait for him to ask her about the Dem race.

Cut to a commercial.

This is WEIRD. Bob Dole has to tell the ABC political analyst his job? And Dole was right!

Then the roundtable gets on and they do talk about the Dems-- about Edwards making the joke about Clinton's coat (if he were talking about Obama, it would have been the tie he said he didn't like-- this is an OLD joke). Cokie Roberts insisted that it was offensive to all women. And on and on. No talk about, you know, the issues raised in the debate.

Later one of them mentioned that it would be hard for the Republicans, now that Bush's approval ratings were "mired in the mid-30s." Huh? He would be happy if that were so! Low thirties, high twenties, maybe.

Finally George pointed out that the young people identify themselves almost 2-1 as Democrat now. David Gergen tried to say how this is very bad for the Republicans, but Cokie Roberts interrupted to say something bogus (that young people support Bush more than anyone... maybe young Repubs) and then that young people don't vote. It was as if she simply couldn't allow it to be said that the Repubs are in trouble-- and George just let it go in his beatific way. It's gotten so that the MSM are doing their best to avoid addressing anything that reflects badly on Repubs, and since most everything does now, they're talking about coats (and haircuts).

This whole Time article seems more of the same. It presents conflict (Gonzalez might have lied, duh) only to quickly resolve it (but he didn't! The admin says so!), and the basic issue of spying on Americans gets swept under the rug.

Karen, why is this? Why is there no followup? Why is the press seemingly so eager to accept anything that helps them move past conflict?

Hoplite, I completely agree with your response about the one-sidedness of this purported objectivity.

To supplement what you're saying: I think Somerby is right to point out that part of the blame lies with the democrats for not fighting back against the republican noise machine as aggressively as they should (e.g., I was hoping that at least Russ Feingold this morning on Faux Opinion would have snuck in a few gratuitous digs at Chris Wallace for pretending to be a newsman while he's working for a progaganda outfit).

I think democrats still don't realize that civil, rational, and reasonable conduct isn't always a good political virtue. Often, definitely; but not always.

And I think it was Walter Pincus or someone in that Moyers show a few months back who noted that the public complained of media bias when the press would debunk some of the lies of the Reagan administration. So they just decided, ah, screw it, let the democrats fight their own battles...

But there are a whole host of other cultural reasons, too, why the press takes the default position that republicans have a greater monopoly on truth, or "values" (as CNN keeps claiming), or stomach-scratching manliness.

So as a result, it's "natural" when republicans engage in Hobbesian politics. But when democrats do it--oh my god, look at all these politicians being political!!! What a bunch of clowns! (That's been the prevailing tone of this last week's TV coverage, and that tone serves absolutely no purpose except the expressive one of letting journalists present themselves as the responsible adults standing above and apart from this silly political children's game.)

Accordingly, if a questionable White House leak FURTHER obfuscates Gonzales's prima facie disgraceful, ludicrous, and mendacious testimony, then the issue has been "clarified--and illuminated."

This is why The Onion is funny--because it shows how easily this neutral and objective journalistic tone can be reduced to absurdity.

petra--I'll speak for Mr. Klein and say, "No!" Most of that Balkin article relies on print and documentary legal sources.

To qualify as actual "reporting," it would have to consist of telephone or face-to-face oral conversation with high-placed officials or regular Americans who could have told him what they THINK those printed documents say.

Clearly, Balkin doesn't know what real reporting is.

Petra:

thanks for including the link to Balkinization's analysis.

Ms. Tumulty,

You have made me more than slightly confused by your following claim:

"However, that is a risky strategy if the report is not accurate, given that it can be challenged by the other people who were in the room."

I am confused by this statement because the above statement brands you as either incredibly lazy, or a liar.

It is either laziness because you did not bother doing even minimal research of a topic you are reporting on... Research that would have shown you that people that were present in the room already HAVE challenged Gonzales' statement. Comey and Mueller have both already stated that Gonzales' prior claims that the disagreement was in relation to a separate NSA program were misleading and false... and guess what? They were both present at the time of hospital visit! Every Democratic Congress member of the gang of eight has also said that Gonzales lied when he claimed there were different programs discussed at the meeting he mentioned. They have all stated that there was only ONE NSA program discussed at the meetings he sited.

You have the entirety of the Democratic membership of the gang of eight, the head of the FBI, and the man that was the Attorney General of the United States at the time of incident ALL saying that Gonzales lied when he said different NSA programs were discussed. Every one of these people have already stated that there was only ever ONE NSA program that was discussed!

Or you weren't lazy, you did research this topic of discussion, and chose to ignore the facts and lie instead. So which is it, lazy, or lies?

Interesting discussion over at Balkinzation. Thanks for the link. He engages in some responsible discussion about what might have been being done with the data mining products.

I'll go farther out with my speculation; I have no doubt whatsoever that the program, or the product of the program, was being used political ends, not anti-terror. Being used for caging, perhaps? Turned over to data management companies for the purpose of purging voter rolls? Because, so far, that's what ALL this AG stuff has been all about, fundamentally, isn't it?

Comey hadn't objected to many apparently anti-constitutional measures to "fight" the "war on terror." Yet this one thing, he chose to die on THIS hill? Yes, I have no doubt that, IF this were a data mining program (and we don't know that it is, let's not get ahead of ourselves) its products were, almost had to be, being used for political purposes, and that's what offended.

And don't forget, people who reside in the real world, you really can't put anything past these people. Just when you think you have imagined the worst, they do you better to the log 10.

THAT'S what scares the Beltway Bunch. It's too hard, and it's too scary.

"And don't forget, people who reside in the real world, you really can't put anything past these people. Just when you think you have imagined the worst, they do you better to the log 10."

Yeah, sure, OK. But boys will be boys, so it's nothing to get all worked-up about.

Right?

So obviously the MSM doesn't even take Sunday's off in their intrepid defense of the Bush Admin. Karen, go back on vacation please. What lives you must lead to be so completely devoid of skepticism. I'm picturing a place w/ lemonade rivers and candy cane trees where everyone is happy and people never, ever lie.

The commentors here have dissected the article well, I'll just say that I don't think we'd see this much energy spent to keep a data mining operation secret...its just not bad enough. I've always suspected that the only thing that could cause this level of deception and fear is if they're spying on political opponents. As we have seen, virtually everything this administration does is politically motivated and I don't know why this would be any different.

"Yeah, sure, OK. But boys will be boys, so it's nothing to get all worked-up about."

About the systematic voter suppression tactics behind a lot, if not most, if not all, of the AG scandal, I get the feeling that much of established Washington DC think it is a GOOD idea and thus have no objection to, or actually approve of, those goals. I mean, haven't the Broders and the Cohens and the Hiatts railed mightily against anything that might smack of populism or hell, even Democracy itself, where the actual populace get to elect their representatives? I get the feeling they'd rather pat us on the head in a very very paternal and tender way and proceed to make the choices themselves. Someone manly, who smells good. And doesn't rock the very, very comfortable boat the lot of them are in.

It would certainly explain the otherwise inexplicable foot-dragging they've displayed about getting to the bottom of this.

What I would like to know is what that unmentioned program that Ashcroft and all the other DOJ and FBI personnel were willing to resign over was intended to do. That program that was at the heart of the discussion between Ashcroft, Comey, and Gonzales at the hospital with Mueller subsequently visiting and talking to Ashcroft about it. It seems to be a given that this was domestic surveillance. Who were the targets? Domestic terrorists, suspected terrorists, or, potential terrorists, which may or may not have included possible political opponents? Did that cross a line somewhere. I'd like an answer to those questions because I suspect that the answer(s) are at the root of Gonzales' perjury and the White House stonewalling.

Pettie: I caught just a bit of 'This Week' with the 'biggie' Edwards' jacket line being the talking point about his part in those 'ragged' debates. I am still waiting for someone to replay the Edwards response that got the highest positive instant response from the focus groups during the whole debate. I believe it had to do with changing business as usual in DC, attacking the lobbyists and giant corps.

There was a YouTube link on DailyKos to Edwards addressing a group in Creston, IA where he got positive response to a similar statement. It appeared that he was talking to a group of retirees in what I recall as GOP country in IA. Seems to me that these folks are pretty reliable voters.

I posted earlier a Breaking NEWS that Maliki had asked for Petreaus to be recalled. Later, I heard that it was just a 'rumor'--but there is 'tension' between Maliki and Petreaus over the 'arming of tribal leaders is al Anbar and other areas'.

Another dumb question: Why is Sports Illustrated the only one following the Pat Tillman Story? Didn't Congress ask for Bush's end of the 'intel' on this one with refusal from the Rovians?

SHHHH, FOIA. Is the type of toilet paper classified and the elevator music censored also?

In English, this translates to...

BUSH WINS AGAIN.

oh please, do lets stop with the Karen bashing. She is, after all, making progress.

For people like Karen, acknowledging that there is cause for skepticism about something that appears in the NY Times is a high risk activity. After all, the entire journalistic "establishment" is built on the assumption of the credibility and good faith of all members of the "establishment".

More on Gonzo, cabinet sec.:
http://kargo-x.dailykos.com/
[sorry this link is not going correctly so you have to scroll down past the meteor blades which might be of interest to Joe on the numbers reported from Iraq]
http://meteor-blades.dailykos.com/

This is not even truthiness.

Posted by p_lukasiak
July 29, 2007

oh please, do lets stop with the Karen bashing. She is, after all, making progress.

------------------------

Taking ironic jabs at her is fun, but in case someone misses the irony...

I no longer think it's possible for her to make progress. She claims to read Somerby every day, has been subjected to the pleasant, and not-so-pleasant, feedback from this place for eight months, and she still does the same old thing she, and the rest of her crew, have been doing for over a decade now. She admitted the possibility that the Times article was not correct only because she had no choice, and only after she passed it off without expressing one iota of skepticism. That isn't progress. Progress would have meant an entirely different post than the one she wrote.

I will also note that she had to get in a Clinton dig in the title of her post. That isn't progress, either. Oh, how they love the "is."

p_lukasiak,

Damning with faint praise, are we?

James in LA, yeah, remember when it turned out they were spying on that notorious terrorist outfit, the Indianapolis Vegans?

Not to mention those violent Quakers jihadists.

This is the actual scoop, Karen. It's already been reported that some of this datamining somehow ensnared American organizations that are anti-war (which is exactly the opposite of "terrorist). How about digging into this and find what the administration is hiding?

Only by IMPEACHMENT and full disclosure of all documents can the truth be learned!

Gonzo pleads off because he was carrying out a different attack on the Constitution and the American people.

Why does this remind me of John Demjanjuk's defense? He wasn't the Beast of Belsen because he was busy at a different death camp at the time...

This is 'risky'...it is more about what bushco has to hide...and none of you are doing the work to reveal it...once again the NYT gets judithmillered.
for some strait poop the anonymousliberal and Glenn Greenwald deconstruct the parse. And linda right on about Tillman.

check this
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/07/data-mining.htmlonymous

Another heads up: Glenn has posted Update II in which is leaning toward Gonzo's perjury as the peanut with the Bush-data mining being the elephant in the room. Bring out the big GUNS;

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

NOW WE HAVE THE EVIDENCE WE NEED TO FORCE IMPEACHMENT OF THEM ALL!

CALL PELOSI IN THE MORNING AND TELL HER NOW IS THE TIME!

Not to douse anyone with their hair on fire, but there's a slight problem with the conspiracy angle of all this. Namely, that this sort of data mining, if it in fact exists, would have a lot of moving parts to gather data from so many sources, and a lot of different hands on it. Likely a few hundred, tip to tail. Major analysis and research projects aren't running on magic. You need everything from network administrators to management to analysts to people actually collecting this information. Far too many that could be effectively silenced or controlled, or screened for "unshakable political reliability".

I'm all for being skeptical of our political leadership, especially the competency and motivation of the current crowd. Still, that requires skepticism of your own analysis. While certainly President Bush might be tempted to use data mining data for nefarious purposes, the fact of the matter is he's not a one-man intelligence collection agency.

The NSA is a government agency with a broad mix of political leanings in it's civil servant staff. There's no way you'd be able to put together a project as large as the alleged data mining one without having people in it who would run to the press in the event of actual wrongdoing. Even the best screened conspirators might have a change of heart. Especially since they'd be the ones going to prison when the music stops.

If the President was wiretapping, say, Nancy Pelosi, all it would take would be one guy with one disk to bring him down. Bush may be shady, but he's not as dumb as he looks. There's no way the benefit of such a program would outweigh the risks.

"once again the NYT gets judithmillered." myshadow, I hope you don't mind if I use that line.

Anon, I get what you are saying. However, there are many sources of data. The feds themselves have massive databases. In addition, there have been a number of massive data breaches in the past few years. It is known that some of the airlines shared passenger data with the feds. (U.S. to Push Airlines for Passenger Records (The Washington Post, Jan 12, 2004) So have the telecoms. There are large public databases available: LexisNexis, Experian, etc. The PATRIOT Act made it easier for the feds to access this kind of data secretly. And, of course, we already know they've used these databases for voter roll purges, Florida, e.g. It isn't that hard, or that complex, actually.

And who can forget Poindexter's TIA program? (Total Information Awareness.) Remember it was supposedly defunded after public outcry? Recall who Poindexter *is*: an Iran-Contra convicted felon. Oliver North: "Sometimes you have to go above the law." Congress defunded a program they were particularly fond of, so they found a more underhanded way to carry it out?

Data mining isn't the same kind of operation as wiretapping Pelosi's telephone. It involves sifting through large databases, possibly matching on SSNs and DOBs for data points of interest. From Wikipedia "the nontrivial extraction of implicit, previously unknown, and potentially useful information from data." Technically, it isn't that hard to do, doesn't take a lot of people to do it.

You say: "There's no way the benefit of such a program would outweigh the risks." Of course, someone could have warned these people along the same lines with respect to the US Attorney purge, but here we are. You may be correct, however. This group is too cautious and too rational and too reality-based, and too competent, to think they could get away with a scheme like this. I'm stocking up on popcorn, nevertheless.

Anon - you are WRONG.
Bush is dumber than he looks because he is a neocon.
This is IMPEACHMENT worthy.

Karen, you aren't doing your job.

You need to pick up the phone and call, or better yet, go meet with, PRIMARY SOURCES. Playing Operator, using other reports, of unknown veracity, isn't journalism.

You should be ashamed that the shmucks in your Comments area are doing a better analytical job than you.

Stop acting like the Reader's Digest, get your butt out there, and do some real reporting.

"I no longer think it's possible for her to make progress. She claims to read Somerby every day, has been subjected to the pleasant, and not-so-pleasant, feedback from this place for eight months, and she still does the same old thing she, and the rest of her crew, have been doing for over a decade now. She admitted the possibility that the Times article was not correct only because she had no choice, and only after she passed it off without expressing one iota of skepticism. That isn't progress. Progress would have meant an entirely different post than the one she wrote. "

IMHO, progress is recognition that a Somersbyan critique of a story is valid --- that its not just crackpots screaming "media bias" that can be ignored (which is the default position of most professional journalists.)

We've been reading MWO and DailyHowler and all the other blogs and sites that deconstruct the media for over a decade -- and we now deconstruct stories ourselves practically automatically. Karen's been at it for, at most, a few months. Additionally, we are outside the system -- we look at the system as a whole and as consumers. Karen is inside the system and a producer of "news product"-- and things always look different from inside a system than they do from the outside, and a producer of a product is going to perceive "competing" products in a whole different way than a consumer does.

(For instance, that whole series on Cheney that was in the Washington Post was considered a masterpiece by professional journalists --- to those of us who have been paying attention, it was mostly old news with a few interesting anecdotes thrown in. Professionals went gaga because Gellman and Becker got people on the record -- whereas we looked at all the "on the record" stuff to determine what the agenda of these "on the record" speakers was. )

Again, the simple fact that Karen's "default position" on media critique (i.e. she no longer writes it off, like Klein and Carney do) is progress -- and I think its highly significant progress.

"And further, it raises new questions, and potential new political problems, about the data mining program. Specifically, WHY were Justice Department officials objecting to it?"

For one, because it would be illegal under the pen register provisions of FISA. Then again, the whole program was likely illegal under FISA.

"Karen, you aren't doing your job. You need to pick up the phone and call, or better yet, go meet with, PRIMARY SOURCES. Playing Operator, using other reports, of unknown veracity, isn't journalism"

I hate to break it to people here, but Karen Tumulty is a "beat" reporter, not an independent actor. She gets assigned stories, and then writes those stories for the dead tree version of Time, and increasingly, the on-line version of Time. In general, she doesn't get to decide what subjects she covers -- she can pitch a story, but if Carney and Stengal don't think it deserves coverage, there is nothing she can do about it.

So please knock off this crap about Karen "not doing her job" because she isn't covering what you want her to cover. She may not be covering what SHE wants to cover.

Also note that these explanations do not apply to AMC, Klein, and Carney. AMC is seldom assigned specific stories to cover, Klein is a columnist and gets to write about whatever he wants to write about (although occasionally he will do some straight "reporting), and Carney is DC Bureau Chief -- the guy who decides what DC stories to cover, and what stories to ignore.

PS I missed you.

p_lukasiak:

Well said regarding Karen's progress (as it were). Actually, a Bob Somerby-esque critique is what you just applied to Hoplite's "no longer possible" post.
( See his defense of Joe Klein here: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh070506.shtml )

That's a compliment, btw.

But let's get this last post straight:

In response to: "Playing Operator, using other reports, of unknown veracity, isn't journalism"

you wrote:
"she doesn't get to decide what subjects she covers"

How does this explain her (apparent) lack of personal verification of the Times story?
Regardless of whether or not Rick Stengal decides that it's of interest for her to cover the USA firings, doesn't she have an obligation to at least "pick up the phone and call, or better yet, go meet with, PRIMARY SOURCES" as Diogenes posts?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here; your explanation is a worthy response to many hater (as Ana would say) posts of little merit. I just don't see how it applies to *this particular Karen post*...

"So please knock off this crap about Karen "not doing her job" because she isn't covering what you want her to cover. She may not be covering what SHE wants to cover."

p-luka,

Sorry, that's pure bull. First, I never said she should cover some other story. I said she's not doing her job covering this one.

Second, anything Tumulty writes becomes part of her job. Ignoring the possibility of an intentional administrative "leak", is an example of not doing that job.

Whether a story is assigned or self-directed, it is the job of the beat reporter to cover it accurately. If she wrote it, she's responsible for it's accuracy. Lifting her phone from the cradle, or her butt from the chair, to fact-check another's story, before parroting it in Swampland, is definitely part of her job.

Let's not get too protective of our new friends in the media. I'm not here to make pals, I'm here discover facts.

"How does this explain her (apparent) lack of personal verification of the Times story?"

it doesn't. But that's not relevant. She was BLOGGING here on a sunday morning, bringing something to our attention.

What was missing from Karen's original post wasn't skepticism about the facts presented, but skepticism about the presentation of the facts. The story was administration propaganda being filtered through the New York Times. Karen didn't catch that right away -- but Karen hasn't been "watching the media" for the last 15 years, she's been inside it. The fact that she understood and acknowledged Elvis' and my critique of the Times piece -- and her reaction to it --- is something that very few professional journalists are capable of doing. Unlike Klein (who lashes out at his critics for pointing out his errors) or Carney (who apparently doesn't understand what happens when you deconstruct a news story -- and lashes out at those who do), Karen is willing to accept legitimate criticism.

And she'll pwn me when I screw up! :)

"Sorry, that's pure bull. First, I never said she should cover some other story. I said she's not doing her job covering this one."

She was BLOGGING.... she read a story in the Times, and commented on it. When it was pointed out to her that the story might not be what it appeared, she acknowledged that -- just like GOOD BLOGGERS do.

Karen writes for the dead tree Time, and does articles for Time online in which she functions AS A REPORTER. She is also BLOGGING for Swampland, and BLOGGED on this topic -- which is separate and distinct from being "a reporter" who is covering this story.

Okay, so when Tumulty got caught re-spouting planted propaganda, she admitted her mistake. Fine, give her a merit badge for Accepting Forced Honesty.

But don't mistake what she's doing. You can call it blogging, reporting, chatting, or whatever you want, but when a paid reporter for Time magazine says: "probably means that Gonzales did not commit perjury", she is shaping public opinion with unverified misinformation. If she doesn't want to take the time to fact-check, then she shouldn't re-post the propaganda.

And for gawd's sake, please don't use Klein or Carney as contrasting examples. That's like saying I'm a great singer 'cause I carry a tune better than Helen Keller.

I'll be impressed when Tumulty does her job without being prodded. Until then, she's just another echo for the voice of power.

From rove's lips to the medias ears.

p_lukasiak:

OK, I understand your point ("blog post != assigned coverage"). I'm willing (minimally) to accept her lack of experience in the role of news-consumer advocate/media analyst as a qualifier of her blogging skills. If what you're suggesting is true, though, then source-checking or independently sourcing the Times piece was not her "job" when she posted this. If that's the case (and I'd really, really like to hear this from her, hence my original question to her), then you are correct, and "skepticism about the presentation of the facts" is an absolute, primary requirement.

It's funny. Maybe I'm just a naive who doesn't really understand how the news business works, but until you made this point ("She was BLOGGING"), I didn't make any distinction in my mind at all between reporters blogging, and bloggers reporting. None whatsoever. I thought that the same standards could be applied to both activities, and in addition, that the same standards could be applied to articles, stories and columns published by traditional news. All anybody had to do live up to those standards was to report, then link to or provide data sources, evidence or testimony, or issue coherent, similarly supported analysis.

I haven't accepted that a different standard of criticism would apply, depending on whether there was a printed column (somebody doing their "job"), or whether a professional reporter was "just blogging". In my world, both "skepticism about the facts presented" *and* "skepticism about the presentation of the facts" are required elements of a post that reports news--even if it's the "the NYT reported today" kind (that we see demonstrated by professionals on CNN and elsewhere every week, btw).

I guess you and I may just have a difference of opinion about what constitutes legitimate criticism of a reporter's blog entry. In my opinion, if what you suggest is true, and there is this kind of distinction to be made, then we're left with a paternalistic sort of "here: I'll write something about something that I heard; now you peons chatter your worthless time away about it--go to it, guys!" premise to this kind of blogging. This premise obviates any need for critique other than stylistic, really, and in it's light the "what do these wacky commenters want from us" responses (or lack thereof) by some featured posters here become quite understandable.

If true, it explains the difference between a post by Karen, and say, Christy Hardin Smith.

As I mentioned, I don't think that blogs like this one are premised in this idiot-talk-radio way...or if they are, then they shouldn't be, and it's our job as consumers to let them know what we expect. There is a wikipedia-esque quality that is the real premise behind news/politics blogs--a sense that the combined efforts of the pros and thousands of committed, knowledgeably-contributing quality-control engineers can result in a really great product benefiting both producers and consumers. That's what I think that we're trying to do here.

All that being said, I absolutely do agree with you that Karen does gracefully accept legitimate (according to both of us) criticism, and that there is a great degree of difference between her responses and the bathos of Mr. "My sources? I've been in the business for thirty-five years, so there!"...

"If true, it explains the difference between a post by Karen, and say, Christy Hardin Smith."

I don't think its fair to compare Karen to Christy. There are different blogging styles -- Christy, like Glenn Greenwald, is an "essayist". But not all bloggers are "essayists" --- in fact, I'd say most bloggers are "reactors" -- they read something interesting, then describe/quote from it, post a link, and offer some brief commentary. (Duncan Black and Kevin Drum would both fall into this category). And as a blogger, Karen is a "reactor" not an "essayist".

And "reactors" don't always get things right --- Kevin Drum in particular gets a regular drubbing from his audience for getting stuff wrong.

For reactors, the more ideological you are, the less likely you are to be called on errors by your audience --- because while Duncan Black may screw up, his audience is likely to read and interpret a news article the same way he does.

I'm an ideologue -- and because of that, I will see subtexts in the writings of others that are obvious once they are pointed out, but that non-ideologue isn't going to notice at first glance.

Karen isn't an ideologue -- so she's gonna miss stuff that is obvious to a lot of us....

Your points are all well taken, and since we're the only ones talking, I'll let this thread go.

Let me just say that it was very worthwhile to have conversed with you.

Your posts are also excellent reads; we're very luck to have you commenting here. Thanks for the good work, see you in another thread soon.

p-luka,

I don't' entirely disagree with your take on different writing styles, but keep in mind we're not talking about a trivial issue here. The possibility of perjury, committed by the highest law enforcement official in the country, in what may be an attempt to hide vast unconstitutional surveillance activities, deserves more than a passing reaction, from any journalist, no matter the venue. Every fact, and pseudo-fact, in this investigation, deserves vigilant scrutiny.

A nationally published journalist, saying something as quotable as "probably means that Gonzales did not commit perjury", based on a secondhand report of anonymous "leaking" administration officials, given the import of the issue, is very irresponsible. Publish enough of these obliviously-accepting reactions, and you have a successful propaganda campaign. It doesn't matter if her part is intentional or just neglectful, the result is the same. It worked for WMD, and it'll work for Attorneygate and the Wiretap crimes as well, if voices like Tumulty's keep echoing the GOP talking points without stopping to think before they speak.

"...since we're the only ones talking..."

My apologies, Diogenes (you also echo my rationale, as well, btw).

I think Karen and the rest of the gang do a great job in promoting our progressive objectives as per our agreements with the members of the MSM to do so.

Bravo Karen!
Bravo Joe!
Bravo Ana!
Bravo Jay!

It also should be noted that this latest story has been contradicted by Mueller's testimony, whe he supported the Acting AG's testimony and said that the topic of discussion in the hospital was the program being currently discussed at the time, i.e., warrantless wiretapping.

And again, p_lukasik can't bear to compliment a journalist without sticking a knife in simultaneously. Can't waste that malcontent cred.

p_luk is not a malcontent. He is a seeker of the TRUTH and will educate many on the illegalities of this illegal administration. I hope he is a KOSSACK like me. If he isn't he should be!

"However, that is a risky strategy if the report is not accurate, given that it can be challenged by the other people who were in the room. And further, it raises new questions, and potential new political problems, about the data mining program. Specifically, WHY were Justice Department officials objecting to it?"

Because lord knows, they've certainly never been caught in baldfaced lies readily contradicted by eyewitnesses in the past!

Apparently, John Conyers also has some suspicions about the timing of this information.

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=639

منتديات
الرياض

كول

 بنات كول

 شباب كول

 كول كول

 قياس
سرعة الاتصال

منتدى الرياض

جنس ثقافه
جنسية

بنات كول شباب كول

الطب
بالاعشاب
منتديات عامة

وظائف

التوظيف

وظائف حكوميه

وظائف شركات

وظائف
بالسعودية

حوادث

جرائم



الاسره والطفل

العنايه
بالاطفال

ازياء

ميك اب

فساتين

العناية بالشعر

مكياج



ثقافه جنسيه

سكس

اداب الجماع

ليلة الدخله



وصفات للاكل

اكلات مغربيه

اكلات سعوديه

وصفات عربيه لبنانيه سوريه خليجيه

طريقة اعداد الطعام



منتدى الصحة

الحفاظ على الصحه

صحة الاطفال

الامراض والوقايه منها



منتدى الشعر

خواطر

قصص



صور حصرية

صور

مقاطع صوتيه style="text-decoration: underline;">



بلوتوث

فيديو

مقاطع



صور سياحية

معل�