Commentary Magazine


Topic: the Chicago Tribune

Challenge to the New York Times: Publish Your Internal Correspondence

Reading the New York Times’s “Note to Readers” explaining why it has decided once again to act as a journalistic enabler of WikiLeaks, I wondered why, if the Times believes that openness is so important to the operations of the U.S. government, that same logic doesn’t apply to the newspaper itself. The Times, after all, is still, despite its loss of influence in the Internet age, the leading newspaper in the U.S. and indeed the world. It still shakes governments, shapes opinions, and moves markets, even if it doesn’t do so as often or as much as it used to.

Imagine if the stentorian language employed by the Times were turned on itself. The editors write that

the more important reason to publish these articles is that the cables tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money. They shed light on the motivations — and, in some cases, duplicity — of allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid. They illuminate the diplomacy surrounding two current wars and several countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where American military involvement is growing. As daunting as it is to publish such material over official objections, it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name.

Isn’t it presumptuous to assume that readers of the New York Times have no right to know what is being done in their name by the editors of the New York Times? Isn’t it important for us to learn “the unvarnished story” of how the Times makes its editorial decisions — such as the decision to publish the WikiLeaks documents? Sure, we know the official explanation — it’s in the newspaper. But what happened behind the scenes? Maybe there were embarrassing squabbles that will make for juicy reading? Therefore, I humbly suggest that in the interest of the greater public good (as determined by me), Bill Keller, the editor, and Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher, should release to the world all their private e-mails and memos concerning WikiLeaks. Read More

Reading the New York Times’s “Note to Readers” explaining why it has decided once again to act as a journalistic enabler of WikiLeaks, I wondered why, if the Times believes that openness is so important to the operations of the U.S. government, that same logic doesn’t apply to the newspaper itself. The Times, after all, is still, despite its loss of influence in the Internet age, the leading newspaper in the U.S. and indeed the world. It still shakes governments, shapes opinions, and moves markets, even if it doesn’t do so as often or as much as it used to.

Imagine if the stentorian language employed by the Times were turned on itself. The editors write that

the more important reason to publish these articles is that the cables tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money. They shed light on the motivations — and, in some cases, duplicity — of allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid. They illuminate the diplomacy surrounding two current wars and several countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where American military involvement is growing. As daunting as it is to publish such material over official objections, it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name.

Isn’t it presumptuous to assume that readers of the New York Times have no right to know what is being done in their name by the editors of the New York Times? Isn’t it important for us to learn “the unvarnished story” of how the Times makes its editorial decisions — such as the decision to publish the WikiLeaks documents? Sure, we know the official explanation — it’s in the newspaper. But what happened behind the scenes? Maybe there were embarrassing squabbles that will make for juicy reading? Therefore, I humbly suggest that in the interest of the greater public good (as determined by me), Bill Keller, the editor, and Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher, should release to the world all their private e-mails and memos concerning WikiLeaks.

Actually, let’s make our document request broader: the Times should share with the world all its internal correspondence going back years. That would include, of course, memos that disclose the identity of anonymous sources, including sources who may have risked their lives to reveal information to Times reporters. Of course, just as it does with government documents, we would give the Times the privilege of redacting a few names and facts — at least in a few of the versions that are published on the Internet.

My suspicion — call it a hunch — is that the Times won’t accept my modest suggestion. Their position, in effect, is “secrecy for me but not for thee.” But why? Can the Times editors possibly argue with a straight face that their deliberations are more important and more privileged than the work of our soldiers and diplomats? No doubt the editors can see all the damage that releasing their own documents would do — it would have a chilling effect on internal discourse and on the willingness of sources to share information with Times reporters. But they seem blind to the fact that precisely the same damage is being done to the United States government with consequences potentially far more momentous.

The most persuasive argument the Times has made is that “most of these documents will be made public regardless of what The Times decides.” That’s true, but that doesn’t eradicate the Times’s responsibility for choosing to act as a press agent and megaphone for WikiLeaks. When in 1942 the Chicago Tribune published an article making clear that the U.S. had broken Japanese codes before the Battle of Midway, other newspapers did not rush to hype the scoop. They let it pass with virtually no notice, and the Japanese may never have become aware of the disclosure. Imagine if a similar attitude were shown today by so-called responsible media organs. How many people would really go to the WikiLeaks website to trawl through hundreds of thousands of memoranda? Some harm would undoubtedly still result from WikiLeaks’s action, but it would be far less than when mainstream media organs amplify Wikileaks’s irresponsible disclosures.

Read Less

Don’t Let the Door Hit You, Rahm

Rahm Emanuel is leaving, and American Jewish leaders couldn’t care less. In this regard, they have figured out who is running the U.S.-Israel policy (and hence, where the problem is):

“A lot of people like to think this Israeli-Palestinian policy has been Rahm Emanuel’s and it’s not. It’s Barack Obama’s,” said Steve Rabinowitz, a Democratic strategist and former Clinton administration aide. …

Noted William Daroff, the Jewish Federations of North America’s vice president for public policy and director of its Washington Office: “The buck stops at the desk of the president of the United States, so any staff change shouldn’t impact the relationship [Obama] has with the state of Israel or the Jewish community.”

The savviest remark comes from a “Jewish community professional” who observes:

“In some ways,” that professional added, Emanuel’s belief that he could effortlessly handle the Jewish community due to his deep connections has “been a detriment to the White House [because Emanuel's] saying, ‘Oh, I’ve got that,’ but then he doesn’t.”

Well, he didn’t. And there’s a smidgen of candor — well, what passes for candor in Washington (a blind quote, in other words):

“That hasn’t always been of a great benefit to Israel,” noted one of the Jewish leaders previously quoted on background. “In an American government, a friend of Israel is more important a factor than whether they’re Jewish.”

Emanuel’s religion, in fact, already seems to be having a negative net impact on his bid to become Chicago’s next mayor.

According to the Chicago Tribune, some politically conservative Jews tend to blame Emanuel, the son of an Israeli doctor, for some of the Obama administration’s tensions with Israel, while Orthodox Jews quibbled with his decision to announce his resignation on Friday of last week, Simchat Torah.

Alas, that’s Rahm’s problem now. As for American Jewish leaders and pro-Israel pundits, it’s about time they wised up. They have learned the hard way that the president’s naming a Jew as chief of staff doesn’t mean that his heart is in the right place on Israel. The departure of one adviser out of many selected by a president convinced of his own wisdom on the Middle East is virtually meaningless. What matters is that a president was elected who lacks empathy toward and understanding of the nature of the Zionist enterprise, who imagines kicking a democratic ally will impress its despotic foes, who is convinced he can engage the mullahs and then contain them after they rebuff his entreaties, and who fails to grasp that serial weakness by the U.S. places both the U.S. and Israel at risk.

That such an overwhelming majority of American Jewish leaders cheered, vouched and raised money for candidate Obama explains, in large part, their reluctance to come to terms with what a disaster he has been for U.S.-Israel relations and for the West’s security in the face of an Islamic revolutionary state bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Let’s see if they can now work strenuously — as strenuously as they did to elect him – to limit the damage their chosen candidate will inflict on both American and Israeli security, which the president seems not to fully comprehend are inextricably linked. And then the real test will come in 2012, when they will have the opportunity to shed their “sick addiction” to the president and his party. Or will “a woman’s right to choose,” government-run health care, and the supposed scourge of global warming once more take precedence over the fate of the Jewish state?

Rahm Emanuel is leaving, and American Jewish leaders couldn’t care less. In this regard, they have figured out who is running the U.S.-Israel policy (and hence, where the problem is):

“A lot of people like to think this Israeli-Palestinian policy has been Rahm Emanuel’s and it’s not. It’s Barack Obama’s,” said Steve Rabinowitz, a Democratic strategist and former Clinton administration aide. …

Noted William Daroff, the Jewish Federations of North America’s vice president for public policy and director of its Washington Office: “The buck stops at the desk of the president of the United States, so any staff change shouldn’t impact the relationship [Obama] has with the state of Israel or the Jewish community.”

The savviest remark comes from a “Jewish community professional” who observes:

“In some ways,” that professional added, Emanuel’s belief that he could effortlessly handle the Jewish community due to his deep connections has “been a detriment to the White House [because Emanuel's] saying, ‘Oh, I’ve got that,’ but then he doesn’t.”

Well, he didn’t. And there’s a smidgen of candor — well, what passes for candor in Washington (a blind quote, in other words):

“That hasn’t always been of a great benefit to Israel,” noted one of the Jewish leaders previously quoted on background. “In an American government, a friend of Israel is more important a factor than whether they’re Jewish.”

Emanuel’s religion, in fact, already seems to be having a negative net impact on his bid to become Chicago’s next mayor.

According to the Chicago Tribune, some politically conservative Jews tend to blame Emanuel, the son of an Israeli doctor, for some of the Obama administration’s tensions with Israel, while Orthodox Jews quibbled with his decision to announce his resignation on Friday of last week, Simchat Torah.

Alas, that’s Rahm’s problem now. As for American Jewish leaders and pro-Israel pundits, it’s about time they wised up. They have learned the hard way that the president’s naming a Jew as chief of staff doesn’t mean that his heart is in the right place on Israel. The departure of one adviser out of many selected by a president convinced of his own wisdom on the Middle East is virtually meaningless. What matters is that a president was elected who lacks empathy toward and understanding of the nature of the Zionist enterprise, who imagines kicking a democratic ally will impress its despotic foes, who is convinced he can engage the mullahs and then contain them after they rebuff his entreaties, and who fails to grasp that serial weakness by the U.S. places both the U.S. and Israel at risk.

That such an overwhelming majority of American Jewish leaders cheered, vouched and raised money for candidate Obama explains, in large part, their reluctance to come to terms with what a disaster he has been for U.S.-Israel relations and for the West’s security in the face of an Islamic revolutionary state bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. Let’s see if they can now work strenuously — as strenuously as they did to elect him – to limit the damage their chosen candidate will inflict on both American and Israeli security, which the president seems not to fully comprehend are inextricably linked. And then the real test will come in 2012, when they will have the opportunity to shed their “sick addiction” to the president and his party. Or will “a woman’s right to choose,” government-run health care, and the supposed scourge of global warming once more take precedence over the fate of the Jewish state?

Read Less

Never Really Left Chicago

There is a stray “rumor” (more like a reasonable prediction) that Rahm Emanuel may resign in six to eight months. (Sort of like saying there is a rumor Democrats will lose seats in the fall election.) Then there is this report:

President Barack Obama’s chief of staff, then a congressman in Illinois, apparently attempted to trade favors with embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich while he was in office, according to newly disclosed e-mails obtained by The Associated Press. Emanuel agreed to sign a letter to the Chicago Tribune supporting Blagojevich in the face of a scathing editorial by the newspaper that ridiculed the governor for self-promotion. Within hours, Emanuel’s own staff asked for a favor of its own: The release of a delayed $2 million grant to a school in his district. … Phone records show Emanuel called Blagojevich on four successive days in late summer 2006. One message indicated the subject was the school. Repeated phone calls between Emanuel’s and Blagojevich’s staff followed the next week. Shortly thereafter, the money started flowing, and the $2 million was paid by December.

Well, it’s not exactly shocking that Emanuel was horsetrading with Blago. But it sure does put the Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff job offers in perspective. This is how these people do business. The only surprise is that so many bought the hooey that Obama was a different sort of politician, immune to the backroom deals and secrecy in which he operated for his entire pre-presidential political career.

There is a stray “rumor” (more like a reasonable prediction) that Rahm Emanuel may resign in six to eight months. (Sort of like saying there is a rumor Democrats will lose seats in the fall election.) Then there is this report:

President Barack Obama’s chief of staff, then a congressman in Illinois, apparently attempted to trade favors with embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich while he was in office, according to newly disclosed e-mails obtained by The Associated Press. Emanuel agreed to sign a letter to the Chicago Tribune supporting Blagojevich in the face of a scathing editorial by the newspaper that ridiculed the governor for self-promotion. Within hours, Emanuel’s own staff asked for a favor of its own: The release of a delayed $2 million grant to a school in his district. … Phone records show Emanuel called Blagojevich on four successive days in late summer 2006. One message indicated the subject was the school. Repeated phone calls between Emanuel’s and Blagojevich’s staff followed the next week. Shortly thereafter, the money started flowing, and the $2 million was paid by December.

Well, it’s not exactly shocking that Emanuel was horsetrading with Blago. But it sure does put the Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff job offers in perspective. This is how these people do business. The only surprise is that so many bought the hooey that Obama was a different sort of politician, immune to the backroom deals and secrecy in which he operated for his entire pre-presidential political career.

Read Less

Obama Strikes Out

John Kass of the Chicago Tribune has a wickedly good column on Barack Obama’s perfectly awful interview with Washington National announcer Rob Dibble.

For starters, when asked to name just one player he liked while growing up, Obama drew a blank. “You know … uh … I thought that … you know … the truth is, that a lot of the Cubs I liked too.”

“Ouch,” Kass writes. “The silence between the stammers was excruciating. America’s No. 1 Sox fan couldn’t name one Sox player.”

It gets worse.

“When I moved to Chicago,” Obama told Dibble, “I was living close to what was then Cominskey Park and went to a couple of games and just fell in love with it.”

Here’s the problem, though: “Cominskey” Park was actually Comiskey Park. This isn’t the first time Mr. Obama has been tripped up on “Cominskey” Park or tried his blue collar v. wine sipping shtick. It’s not only getting old; it’s getting embarrassing.

After this interview — which seemed to last a lot longer than it actually did — one better understands why Obama is so reliant on his teleprompter.

Do you ever get the feeling that Obama is making it all up as he goes along?

John Kass of the Chicago Tribune has a wickedly good column on Barack Obama’s perfectly awful interview with Washington National announcer Rob Dibble.

For starters, when asked to name just one player he liked while growing up, Obama drew a blank. “You know … uh … I thought that … you know … the truth is, that a lot of the Cubs I liked too.”

“Ouch,” Kass writes. “The silence between the stammers was excruciating. America’s No. 1 Sox fan couldn’t name one Sox player.”

It gets worse.

“When I moved to Chicago,” Obama told Dibble, “I was living close to what was then Cominskey Park and went to a couple of games and just fell in love with it.”

Here’s the problem, though: “Cominskey” Park was actually Comiskey Park. This isn’t the first time Mr. Obama has been tripped up on “Cominskey” Park or tried his blue collar v. wine sipping shtick. It’s not only getting old; it’s getting embarrassing.

After this interview — which seemed to last a lot longer than it actually did — one better understands why Obama is so reliant on his teleprompter.

Do you ever get the feeling that Obama is making it all up as he goes along?

Read Less

Tony Rezko’s Banker Highlights the Democrats’ Problems

When Illinois Democrats nominated Tony Rezko’s banker, Alexi Giannoulias, for the senate seat once held by Barack Obama, some thought they might have made a mistake. It seems to have, at the very least, complicated the Democrats’ efforts to hold what in normal years would be a safe Blue seat. The Chicago Tribune reports:

The clock is ticking, and the real estate deals gone south are piling up, at Broadway Bank, the lending institution owned by the family of U.S. Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias. . . . Broadway’s struggles have put Giannoulias on the defensive as Republicans eyeing Barack Obama’s old Senate seat question what role he played in the bank’s problems. Giannoulias, a friend of Obama’s who is facing U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk, the GOP nominee, in the November race, has repeatedly said he hasn’t worked at the bank in four years.

Still, the situation could become more politically harmful and provide more ammunition for the GOP if the family-owned bank is taken over by the federal government before Election Day.

Broadway’s chief executive, Demetris Giannoulias, Alexi Giannoulias’ older brother, told the Tribune the family must raise at least $85 million by the end of April to stave off government seizure.

Giannoulias has already taken heat for the banks’ mob-connected clients. And the Tribune reminds voters:

Since 2007, Broadway Bank has filed dozens of foreclosures on various properties, including several to Michael Giorango, a convicted bookmaker and prostitution ring promoter who has become a political albatross in Alexi Giannoulias’ campaigns.During Alexi Giannoulias’ tenure at Broadway, the bank approved loans to Giorango for various real estate deals. Alexi Giannoulias has acknowledged he serviced some Giorango loans and went to Miami to inspect Giorango property the bank financed.

If the themes for many Republicans are going to be “the culture of corruption” and the Democrats’ fiscal mismanagement, they must be licking their chops over this race. At the very least, Democrats will have to spend considerable time and money defending the seat, in a year in which they’d probably not have Giannoulias as one of the poster boys for what’s wrong with the Democratic machine-style politics.

When Illinois Democrats nominated Tony Rezko’s banker, Alexi Giannoulias, for the senate seat once held by Barack Obama, some thought they might have made a mistake. It seems to have, at the very least, complicated the Democrats’ efforts to hold what in normal years would be a safe Blue seat. The Chicago Tribune reports:

The clock is ticking, and the real estate deals gone south are piling up, at Broadway Bank, the lending institution owned by the family of U.S. Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias. . . . Broadway’s struggles have put Giannoulias on the defensive as Republicans eyeing Barack Obama’s old Senate seat question what role he played in the bank’s problems. Giannoulias, a friend of Obama’s who is facing U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk, the GOP nominee, in the November race, has repeatedly said he hasn’t worked at the bank in four years.

Still, the situation could become more politically harmful and provide more ammunition for the GOP if the family-owned bank is taken over by the federal government before Election Day.

Broadway’s chief executive, Demetris Giannoulias, Alexi Giannoulias’ older brother, told the Tribune the family must raise at least $85 million by the end of April to stave off government seizure.

Giannoulias has already taken heat for the banks’ mob-connected clients. And the Tribune reminds voters:

Since 2007, Broadway Bank has filed dozens of foreclosures on various properties, including several to Michael Giorango, a convicted bookmaker and prostitution ring promoter who has become a political albatross in Alexi Giannoulias’ campaigns.During Alexi Giannoulias’ tenure at Broadway, the bank approved loans to Giorango for various real estate deals. Alexi Giannoulias has acknowledged he serviced some Giorango loans and went to Miami to inspect Giorango property the bank financed.

If the themes for many Republicans are going to be “the culture of corruption” and the Democrats’ fiscal mismanagement, they must be licking their chops over this race. At the very least, Democrats will have to spend considerable time and money defending the seat, in a year in which they’d probably not have Giannoulias as one of the poster boys for what’s wrong with the Democratic machine-style politics.

Read Less

Democrats Select Tony Rezko’s Banker for Illinois Senate

You almost wonder whether Karl Rove has infiltrated the Democratic Party. How else to explain how the Democrats could nominate to replace Roland Burris, the senator from Blagojevich, the banker for Tony Rezko? As the Chicago Tribune explained, state treasurer Alexi Giannoulias beat back a feisty challenger who made hay out of Giannoulias’s “handling of the state’s college loan program, which lost $150 million; and of loans Giannoulias gave to controversial recipients while working as vice-president of his family’s now-struggling Broadway Bank.” Those controversial recipients include Rezko and some figures of organized crime. The Chicago Sun Times explained:

Among the loans Giannoulias has gotten heat for:

* More than $10 million from 2001 to 2005 to alleged Father & Son Russian mobster team Lev and Boris Stratievsky. Father Lev has passed away. Son Boris is in jail facing money-laundering charges. Broadway funded development projects some on the South Side — that tenants and city attorneys complained were roach motels. Broadway has been unable to collect on the loans.

* About $12.9 million to convicted bookmaker Michael Giorango for a Miami Beach hotel and a Hollywood, Fla., restaurant, among other ventures, according to Crain’s Chicago Business. Broadway has sued Giorango and his partner, Demitri Stavropoulos, convicted of running a betting operation in Chicago, seeking to get the money back. Giannoulias initially downplayed his relationship with Giorango, noting the loans to him started before he joined the bank. Later he said he went to Miami to meet Giorango and inspect the property, and that another $3 million loan to Giorango was for a South Carolina casino.

It’s hard to believe this is the candidate whom the Democrats wanted as their nominee. As Ben Smith dryly noted, Giannoulias “is about as un-changey as you get.” The Republicans are obviously delighted to have such a target-rich opponent. I suspect this will be another seat added to the political gurus’ “leans Republican” lists.

And if all that weren’t enough to worry the Democrats, Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling notes:

Based on the current numbers 885,268 voters were cast in the Democratic primary for Senate compared to 736,137 on the Republican side. Those numbers are awfully close to each other for a state that’s overwhelmingly Democratic.

For sake of comparison the last time there were competitive Senate primaries on both sides in Illinois, in 2004 when Barack Obama was nominated, there were nearly twice as many votes cast in the Democratic primary as the Republican one. 1,242,996 voted in the Democratic race to 661, 804 for the Republicans. Last night’s turnout is yet another data point on the enthusiasm gap, showing that Republicans are much more excited about this year’s elections than Democrats, even in a deep blue state.

It’s a long way to November, but Republicans will soon seize on this as a highly gettable seat with symbolic value. Had it not been for Massachusetts, one could say that the flip in the Illinois seat previously held by the president would be a political tsunami. But it seems as though in this election season, it might simply be par for the course.

You almost wonder whether Karl Rove has infiltrated the Democratic Party. How else to explain how the Democrats could nominate to replace Roland Burris, the senator from Blagojevich, the banker for Tony Rezko? As the Chicago Tribune explained, state treasurer Alexi Giannoulias beat back a feisty challenger who made hay out of Giannoulias’s “handling of the state’s college loan program, which lost $150 million; and of loans Giannoulias gave to controversial recipients while working as vice-president of his family’s now-struggling Broadway Bank.” Those controversial recipients include Rezko and some figures of organized crime. The Chicago Sun Times explained:

Among the loans Giannoulias has gotten heat for:

* More than $10 million from 2001 to 2005 to alleged Father & Son Russian mobster team Lev and Boris Stratievsky. Father Lev has passed away. Son Boris is in jail facing money-laundering charges. Broadway funded development projects some on the South Side — that tenants and city attorneys complained were roach motels. Broadway has been unable to collect on the loans.

* About $12.9 million to convicted bookmaker Michael Giorango for a Miami Beach hotel and a Hollywood, Fla., restaurant, among other ventures, according to Crain’s Chicago Business. Broadway has sued Giorango and his partner, Demitri Stavropoulos, convicted of running a betting operation in Chicago, seeking to get the money back. Giannoulias initially downplayed his relationship with Giorango, noting the loans to him started before he joined the bank. Later he said he went to Miami to meet Giorango and inspect the property, and that another $3 million loan to Giorango was for a South Carolina casino.

It’s hard to believe this is the candidate whom the Democrats wanted as their nominee. As Ben Smith dryly noted, Giannoulias “is about as un-changey as you get.” The Republicans are obviously delighted to have such a target-rich opponent. I suspect this will be another seat added to the political gurus’ “leans Republican” lists.

And if all that weren’t enough to worry the Democrats, Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling notes:

Based on the current numbers 885,268 voters were cast in the Democratic primary for Senate compared to 736,137 on the Republican side. Those numbers are awfully close to each other for a state that’s overwhelmingly Democratic.

For sake of comparison the last time there were competitive Senate primaries on both sides in Illinois, in 2004 when Barack Obama was nominated, there were nearly twice as many votes cast in the Democratic primary as the Republican one. 1,242,996 voted in the Democratic race to 661, 804 for the Republicans. Last night’s turnout is yet another data point on the enthusiasm gap, showing that Republicans are much more excited about this year’s elections than Democrats, even in a deep blue state.

It’s a long way to November, but Republicans will soon seize on this as a highly gettable seat with symbolic value. Had it not been for Massachusetts, one could say that the flip in the Illinois seat previously held by the president would be a political tsunami. But it seems as though in this election season, it might simply be par for the course.

Read Less

Announcing JAPSL

Is it illegal or unethical to establish an organization and list members who have not chosen to join? I don’t know the answer but intend to find out. Today I am announcing the formation of JAPSL, Journalists Against Press Shield Laws.

JAPSL is badly outnumbered. Almost every media corporation in the country is backing the establishment of a shield law. So too are numerous lobbying organizations that purport to defend the First Amendment. The House of Representatives has already passed a shield-law bill by a bipartisan landslide margin of 398 to 21. The Senate may act on the matter at some point soon.

I am the founding executive director of JAPSL and my arguments against a shield law can be found in Commentary and the Weekly Standard.

According to JAPSL’s bylaws, there are two categories of members: those whom I induct (regular members), and those whom I induct who then object to being inducted (objecting members).

The roster of regular members of JAPSL spans the political spectrum and includes a number of distinguished writers from leading publications. So far, these include:

Jack Shafer of Slate, author of We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Shield Law.

Steven Chapman of the Chicago Tribune, author of The News Media vs. the Innocent.

Anthony Lewis, formerly of the New York Times, author of Freedom For the Thought We Hate.

Walter Pincus, of the Washington Post, who has challenged the idea of a shield law in the Nieman Watchdog.

As of yet, JAPSL has no objecting members. To become a regular or an objecting member, simply post a comment below indicating either your desire to join or your wish to object to being inducted into this vital organization.

Is it illegal or unethical to establish an organization and list members who have not chosen to join? I don’t know the answer but intend to find out. Today I am announcing the formation of JAPSL, Journalists Against Press Shield Laws.

JAPSL is badly outnumbered. Almost every media corporation in the country is backing the establishment of a shield law. So too are numerous lobbying organizations that purport to defend the First Amendment. The House of Representatives has already passed a shield-law bill by a bipartisan landslide margin of 398 to 21. The Senate may act on the matter at some point soon.

I am the founding executive director of JAPSL and my arguments against a shield law can be found in Commentary and the Weekly Standard.

According to JAPSL’s bylaws, there are two categories of members: those whom I induct (regular members), and those whom I induct who then object to being inducted (objecting members).

The roster of regular members of JAPSL spans the political spectrum and includes a number of distinguished writers from leading publications. So far, these include:

Jack Shafer of Slate, author of We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Shield Law.

Steven Chapman of the Chicago Tribune, author of The News Media vs. the Innocent.

Anthony Lewis, formerly of the New York Times, author of Freedom For the Thought We Hate.

Walter Pincus, of the Washington Post, who has challenged the idea of a shield law in the Nieman Watchdog.

As of yet, JAPSL has no objecting members. To become a regular or an objecting member, simply post a comment below indicating either your desire to join or your wish to object to being inducted into this vital organization.

Read Less

Who Is This Man?

In an interview with Major Garrett Friday night on Fox News, a clearly uncomfortable Barack Obama acknowledges that he regularly attended and contributed to Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity Church of Christ. Garrett gets him to acknowledge that at the start of his presidential campaign he was aware of “one or two” of the objectionable comments (it would be nice to know which ones, and why those were insufficient to alert him to Rev. Wright’s noxious views), yet still put Wright on his religious leadership committee. Obama admits after a follow up question that if he heard the statements “repeated” at the time he would have left the church. (Again, he would have needed lots of these comments to convince him that something was askew?) Indeed, it is becoming increasingly obvious that Obama was aware of Wright’s controversial views.

Some may think this is all a right-wing feeding frenzy, but it is worth noting that ABC news started the news cycle with the clips of the Wright sermons and that Obama spent his Friday night on no less than three cable news network shows. It is foolish to think this is a story that won’t live on for awhile. If you think liberals are concerned, you are right, as the comment sections on a number of blogs confirm.

All of this leaves one wondering. Was Obama really clueless about the septic nature of the man he knew, his mentor, for thirty years? (If so, you have to wonder about those touted people skills.) Or, more likely, was this someone trying to have it both ways- ingratiating himself with Chicago’s African American community and now squeamish about being tagged with the views of one of its most famous preachers?

As if that were not enough, part of Obama’s Friday night “bad news dump” included an extensive interview with the Chicago Tribune in which he revealed that Tony Rezko has raised a quarter of a million dollars for him during his political career. Once again he pleads a mistake in judgment. He says, “The mistake, by the way, was not just engaging in a transaction with Tony because he was having legal problems. The mistake was because he was a contributor and somebody who was involved in politics.”As for the land deal (in which Rezko bought an adjoining lot next to the home Obama purchased), Obama denies in the interview that there was a connection between the two transactions, but then allows “perhaps [Rezko] thought this would strengthen our relationship, that he was doing me a favor.” Yeah, perhaps. (Obama also concedes there was yet another lapse in judgment when he wanted a fence to be erected between his house and the lot, and Rezko paid the cost.)

If nothing else, all of this confirms the Clinton team line: maybe we don’t know Obama so well after all. Is he really the racial healer he makes himself out to be? (As Rod Dreher put it, “Obama’s deep personal connection to the Rev. Wright challenges that assumption, and makes people wonder who Obama really is, and what he really believes in — and whether or not he can stand up to racialist demagogues and special-pleaders.”) Or, maybe the real issue is that he is hopelessly naïve and cannot assess the character and motives of even those closest to him.

In an interview with Major Garrett Friday night on Fox News, a clearly uncomfortable Barack Obama acknowledges that he regularly attended and contributed to Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity Church of Christ. Garrett gets him to acknowledge that at the start of his presidential campaign he was aware of “one or two” of the objectionable comments (it would be nice to know which ones, and why those were insufficient to alert him to Rev. Wright’s noxious views), yet still put Wright on his religious leadership committee. Obama admits after a follow up question that if he heard the statements “repeated” at the time he would have left the church. (Again, he would have needed lots of these comments to convince him that something was askew?) Indeed, it is becoming increasingly obvious that Obama was aware of Wright’s controversial views.

Some may think this is all a right-wing feeding frenzy, but it is worth noting that ABC news started the news cycle with the clips of the Wright sermons and that Obama spent his Friday night on no less than three cable news network shows. It is foolish to think this is a story that won’t live on for awhile. If you think liberals are concerned, you are right, as the comment sections on a number of blogs confirm.

All of this leaves one wondering. Was Obama really clueless about the septic nature of the man he knew, his mentor, for thirty years? (If so, you have to wonder about those touted people skills.) Or, more likely, was this someone trying to have it both ways- ingratiating himself with Chicago’s African American community and now squeamish about being tagged with the views of one of its most famous preachers?

As if that were not enough, part of Obama’s Friday night “bad news dump” included an extensive interview with the Chicago Tribune in which he revealed that Tony Rezko has raised a quarter of a million dollars for him during his political career. Once again he pleads a mistake in judgment. He says, “The mistake, by the way, was not just engaging in a transaction with Tony because he was having legal problems. The mistake was because he was a contributor and somebody who was involved in politics.”As for the land deal (in which Rezko bought an adjoining lot next to the home Obama purchased), Obama denies in the interview that there was a connection between the two transactions, but then allows “perhaps [Rezko] thought this would strengthen our relationship, that he was doing me a favor.” Yeah, perhaps. (Obama also concedes there was yet another lapse in judgment when he wanted a fence to be erected between his house and the lot, and Rezko paid the cost.)

If nothing else, all of this confirms the Clinton team line: maybe we don’t know Obama so well after all. Is he really the racial healer he makes himself out to be? (As Rod Dreher put it, “Obama’s deep personal connection to the Rev. Wright challenges that assumption, and makes people wonder who Obama really is, and what he really believes in — and whether or not he can stand up to racialist demagogues and special-pleaders.”) Or, maybe the real issue is that he is hopelessly naïve and cannot assess the character and motives of even those closest to him.

Read Less

Blair Kamin, Cheerleader

CORRECTION: Michael J. Lewis, in this post, substantially understates the extent of John Silber’s errors and the breadth of the praise Millennium Park received in the national press, as well as misstating Blair Kamin’s position on Silber.

It did not take long for the bouncers at the flashy and exclusive nightclub that is contemporary architecture to show John Silber the door. Silber, the former president of Boston University, has just published Architecture of the Absurd: How ‘Genius’ Disfigured a Practical Art, a heartfelt essay about the state of architecture today, and the visual mayhem wreaked by the cult of the celebrity architect. Already the first snide response has come in and—predictably—it does not so much engage the book’s ideas as condemn the author’s temerity in writing about architecture in the first place.

The review of Blair Kamin, the architecture critic of the Chicago Tribune, is remarkable for its quality of vitriol. For him, Architecture of the Absurd is “just another rant in the culture wars,” written by someone who “isn’t an architect” and who has not even inspected the buildings he reviles, merely “bloviating from afar.” Nor does Silber’s criticism offer anything new: “architecture critics have said it all before.” In the end, Architecture of the Absurd is written off as “more rant than reason.”

Such is the magisterial disdain reserved for outsiders from whom one expects no retribution and whom one can attack with impunity. But is it true that outsiders—those who bloviate from afar—have nothing to offer? What about those who bloviate from within—like, for example, Kamin?

Kamin makes much of a factual error by Silber concerning Chicago’s Millennium Park (Frank Gehry was not its planner, as Silber stated, although he designed its Pritzker Pavilion). Having found this slip, Kamin acts as if one need pay no attention to anything else that Silber says. In fact, Silber looked at Chicago’s new park, with its thicket of eye-catching public sculptures, critically, something that Kamin himself never did. Throughout the long history of that controversial project, Kamin was a dependable cheerleader, praising the park as “a real public space, not a gated fantasyland.”

It’s something of an occupational hazard for critics at municipal newspapers to be civic boosters. But Kamin’s embrace of local pieties blinded him to one of the most intriguing (and disturbing) developments in contemporary architecture. One of the reasons that Millennium Park was built so swiftly was that its planners divided it into a series of discrete features, giving donors the right to choose their own architects and sculptors. Instead of providing a comprehensive aesthetic vision, in effect the park presented, as I wrote at the time, “a series of detached vignettes—in effect, naming opportunities.” The results may indeed be extraordinarily popular, but their broader ramifications are ominous, especially once other cities relinquish aesthetic control to their fund-raising operations.

So long as there are architecture critics like Kamin, who cannot separate aesthetic judgment from civic boosterism, we have all the more need for the fresh outside perspective of an audacious and delightfully independent critic like Silber.

 

CORRECTION: Michael J. Lewis, in this post, substantially understates the extent of John Silber’s errors and the breadth of the praise Millennium Park received in the national press, as well as misstating Blair Kamin’s position on Silber.

It did not take long for the bouncers at the flashy and exclusive nightclub that is contemporary architecture to show John Silber the door. Silber, the former president of Boston University, has just published Architecture of the Absurd: How ‘Genius’ Disfigured a Practical Art, a heartfelt essay about the state of architecture today, and the visual mayhem wreaked by the cult of the celebrity architect. Already the first snide response has come in and—predictably—it does not so much engage the book’s ideas as condemn the author’s temerity in writing about architecture in the first place.

The review of Blair Kamin, the architecture critic of the Chicago Tribune, is remarkable for its quality of vitriol. For him, Architecture of the Absurd is “just another rant in the culture wars,” written by someone who “isn’t an architect” and who has not even inspected the buildings he reviles, merely “bloviating from afar.” Nor does Silber’s criticism offer anything new: “architecture critics have said it all before.” In the end, Architecture of the Absurd is written off as “more rant than reason.”

Such is the magisterial disdain reserved for outsiders from whom one expects no retribution and whom one can attack with impunity. But is it true that outsiders—those who bloviate from afar—have nothing to offer? What about those who bloviate from within—like, for example, Kamin?

Kamin makes much of a factual error by Silber concerning Chicago’s Millennium Park (Frank Gehry was not its planner, as Silber stated, although he designed its Pritzker Pavilion). Having found this slip, Kamin acts as if one need pay no attention to anything else that Silber says. In fact, Silber looked at Chicago’s new park, with its thicket of eye-catching public sculptures, critically, something that Kamin himself never did. Throughout the long history of that controversial project, Kamin was a dependable cheerleader, praising the park as “a real public space, not a gated fantasyland.”

It’s something of an occupational hazard for critics at municipal newspapers to be civic boosters. But Kamin’s embrace of local pieties blinded him to one of the most intriguing (and disturbing) developments in contemporary architecture. One of the reasons that Millennium Park was built so swiftly was that its planners divided it into a series of discrete features, giving donors the right to choose their own architects and sculptors. Instead of providing a comprehensive aesthetic vision, in effect the park presented, as I wrote at the time, “a series of detached vignettes—in effect, naming opportunities.” The results may indeed be extraordinarily popular, but their broader ramifications are ominous, especially once other cities relinquish aesthetic control to their fund-raising operations.

So long as there are architecture critics like Kamin, who cannot separate aesthetic judgment from civic boosterism, we have all the more need for the fresh outside perspective of an audacious and delightfully independent critic like Silber.

 

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.