News reporting not enough

These are the times that try journalists' souls, to paraphrase Thomas Paine, as newspapers try mightily to survive in an exponentially expanding electronic world. Radio and television were once thought to be the death of newspapers, and now the Internet, with its multiple applications and formats, is greatly feared. This is no phantom. Many afternoon dailies bit the dust in the 1950s when news was broadcast to our television sets at dinner time. Now even morning newspapers are disappearing while the Internet thrives. Kathleen Parker, the sometime conservative columnist with the neat turn of phrase and low tolerance for all lacking that gift, whatever their politics, blames critics of media bias while singing the praises of the underappreciated news reporting function as the foundation of our free republic.

Let's sort out of the salient observations from the nonsense here. There is no denying that years of so-called media bashing have had their effect. Millions of Americans now understand that the major media regularly skewer conservative Republicans and favor liberal Democrats under the guise of "objective news coverage." That means nothing more than utilizing the format of the standard inverted-pyramid news story to engage in selective reporting and quoting. It is an easy task for bright journalists to hide their partisanship while "giving the facts."

Unless the journalist is a god, his point of view will color his accounts, although there is still plenty of room for full and fair summary and explanation. Otherwise, every newspaper editorial or op-ed, and articles in opinion journals, have to be written off as hopelessly biased, which is absurd. Every article should be judged on it merits, regardless of format.

When Thomas Jefferson was President of the United States, he received letters from an aspiring Virginia journalist who asked him his opinion of what standards should govern newspapers. Jefferson wrote a lengthy reply, including a scathing indictment of the press. His most succinct and telling advice was to restrict the newspaper to "true facts and sound principles only." Not only a commitment to factual accuracy but to the principles of a free government were necessary, Jefferson emphasized.

For critics of media critics like Kathleen Parker, the main thing is factual accuracy with sound principles as only an afterthought. She rightly cherishes a free press as necessary to preserving our form of government, but she apparently has given little thought to what principles should govern that press beyond news reporting. As one of those pundits whom she obviously chooses not to deride, she performs the equally important, if not more important, function of contributing argumentation to the nation's deliberations on public policy.

But that is only half the matter. Commitment to factual accuracy is more than a good habit. It arises from minds devoted to finding the truth and doing what is right. Bad reporting, as Walter Lippmann wrote long ago, is akin to false testimony in a courtroom which, if done with knowledge, is perjury. Only a citizenry habituated to some semblance of moral and intellectual virtue practices, and honors, factual accuracy.

But Lippmann wrongly believed that factual accuracy in the media and the government would suffice to refine public opinion and improve public policy, at least he said so early in his career. Doubtless this man who became the premier "pundit" for half a century in this country appreciated the importance of informed commentary as well.

Someone once said that "Figures don't lie but liars can figure." He could have been referring to news reporters. The mere inclusion of multiple facts in a newspaper article is no guarantee of its accuracy, much less its contribution to public deliberation. By the same token, the proliferation of punditry on the Internet is hardly cause for alarm. However much we may cherish newspapers, many trees have to die to maintain that production. The press does not exhaust all media possibilities, and neither does news reporting.

There is much to admire in the news reporter's habit of presenting both sides of an argument, but there are difficulties. For one thing, understanding a point of view requires more than just the ability to gather facts. It means suspending judgment until one has fully understood the position under review. This is even more difficult (though not impossible) if you think the point of view is wrong. Add to this the space or time limitations of all media (not to mention many people's short attention spans), and justice may not be done.

What too often emerges is an oversimplified, truncated, almost child-like version of what someone is saying that effectively trivializes what should be understood as part of a serious debate over public policy.

Fortunately for sports fans, sports sections are often the healthiest in the newspaper, fueled by intense reader interest and largely unambiguous subject matter (somebody wins, somebody loses). But imagine ball games being reported as if they were political. "The Angels defeated the A's today, as umpires permitted more runs by Los Angeles." Or: "The Lakers scored more points than the Rockets last night as the referees maintained the tradition, questioned by some, of restricting the playing time to 48 minutes."

Sure, politics are controversial, but our fundamental political principles and our Constitution provide a standard and impose limits. Sports are also controversial, but true sportsmen would not permit changing the rules to accommodate their desires. In both cases, we must know what is right as well as what is a true fact.

Here's hoping we survive Obama

When Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992, I could see nothing to cheer about. A friend calmly assured me that "The Republic will survive." He was right, but only because enough Americans concluded that Clinton must be opposed. We now face the same challenge with the ascension (if that is the right word) of Barack Obama as the 44^th person to hold the nation’s highest office. In plain words, what made the Clinton Administration endurable was the election of a Republican Congress in 1994, which gave substance to vague talk of fiscal responsibility and even gave us the greatest reform of the welfare system in our history.

Naturally enough, the media are full of sophomoric enthusiasm for the new president, but this is hardly surprising, given the fact that 90 percent of the national media are Democrats. Under the circumstances, Republican criticism is muted, one hopes only until the first Obama policy proposals are put forward in Congress or implemented by executive order.

For make no mistake, this administration will constitute a comprehensive assault on the "flawed" regime which Obama wishes to "transform" into the perfect polity wherein, as he said in front of the Lincoln Memorial Sunday, "anything is possible." The idea that there are limits to what can be accomplished by political action has never occurred to the man raised in the soiled world of Chicago politics.

Our constitutional republic will be subjected to what a close friend has called "the death of a thousand cuts." Because Obama’s liberalism is not endorsed by a majority of Americans, because many voted for him because they were so angry at George Bush, and because his cabinet choices are reassuringly "moderate," i.e., Clinton Administration retreads, public attention is deflected from the seemingly vacuous but actually pernicious utopian rhetoric of the political campaign.

Obama knows how to make the right music that appeals to the hopes of his fellow citizens, but only those who can read music, as it were, can know with precision what the melody is. Lots of rock ‘n roll, country and soul music was played in the joyful celebrations that marked the Inauguration, but perhaps the real strain is Wagnerian tragic opera.

It is hardly a secret that Obama is the most vociferously pro-abortion president ever. For those who think Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics and Mormons–and anyone else who takes seriously the principle that all men are created equal–can safely be ignored as fringe elements, it is almost rude to point out that they understand that our rights are in peril.

More unborn babies are going to die each year during the next four, perhaps eight, than in the history of the country. Obama has pledged to sign a vile piece of legislation dishonestly labeled the "Freedom of Choice Act," which would effectively remove every federal and state limit on the judicially imposed "right" to kill unborn babies.

That is not all. Obama will reverse Ronald Reagan’s policy which forbids funding for abortion overseas, and he will overturn George Bush’s ban on embryonic stem cell "research" that entails the destruction of human embryos. As Abraham Lincoln said about slavery, we must daily "crucify our feelings" about baby killing because it is permitted by law and even hallowed by an alleged constitutional interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The greatest aspect of the current euphoria over Obama arises from his being the first American of any degree of African descent to be elected President. Many words have been written about how this will give peace to our nation in that no legal or other barriers prevented it. All of that is true as far as it goes, but there is no assurance whatever that racial peace will occur.

The Democratic Party has for more than 40 years been the advocate of reverse discrimination, known variously as "affirmative action," "diversity in hiring," remediation of past wrongs, and so on. Even if Obama wanted to end the "temporary" policy purported to be necessary to overcome many years of racial injustice, Congressional Democrats would not hear of it. There are too many people, especially well-connected people, who benefit from the liberal racial plantation for there to be any motivation to close it down.

Our commerce, so damaged by government manipulation of credit and currency, will hardly recover from Obama’s policies of even greater doses of interventionism that brought on the sickness in the first place. There is insufficient space here to discuss the perilous times ahead in the international arena, but for now "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

John Adams remembered again

The much-acclaimed HBO miniseries "John Adams" took a goodly share of awards at the Golden Globes ceremonies last weekend, reminding us of this much-neglected but indispensable founding father of America. John Adams was a real republican, a man who lived his principles as well as professing them. This is not the first such production. On the occasion of our nation’s revolutionary bicentennial, our second President and several generations of his family were recalled in the PBS (more than) miniseries, The Adams Chronicles, in 1976. What the two shows have in common is a fascinating portrayal of a man who was immensely devoted to his country while battling certain character traits which detracted from his popularity and ultimately his lasting fame.

Accounts of Adams’s life both written and visual reveal a man who justly deserved the gratitude of his country but was overshadowed by men like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. This was partly because of bad luck, but partly because Adams did not read the temper of the times as well as his "founding brothers."

The ancient biographer Plutarch wrote "Lives" of famous Greeks and Romans, which included both major events and personal anecdotes. He believed that private glimpses into those lives were as much, if not more, revealing than the more public ones. That is true in spades for John Adams, for he was less adept at the arts of popularity and image making as other great men in the early republic.

The recent TV series was divided into seven parts, the first of which introduced Adams as the young lawyer who, contrary to current opinions of barristers, was a thoroughly honest man. When the so-called Boston Massacre occurred in 1770, there was considerable public indignation when British soldiers fired on some agitated colonists. It would have been easy for Adams to exploit the incident, as it was by his cousin Samuel Adams, as an instance of British brutality and grist for the mill of American independence.

But Adams determined that the young and frightened British troops had been deliberately provoked by hotheads who were throwing projectiles for the very purpose of causing a violent incident. He took much grief for preferring truth over propaganda, a characteristic which marked him his entire life.

It would have been good for Adams and for the country if he had been able to let time and events vindicate him. But it was difficult for him to do so, although in this first incidence he has been more than vindicated. For, as later episodes show, he was also felt slighted for his prodigious contributions to the Continental Congress, which declared independence from Great Britain; for his diplomatic efforts in France, Holland and Britain to obtain loans and settle all claims; for upholding, in his extensive writings, stable and energetic government against anarchy and faction; and as President, for bringing peace in an unwanted war with France.

As I was recently reminded by a close friend, an Adams scholar, Adams was defeated for re-election in 1800 at least partly because he did not grasp the importance of political parties to the effective working of our elective national government. He did not counter the arguments, not to mention the scurrilous charges, being circulated by the supporters of his successful rival, Thomas Jefferson, nor the scathing broadsides against Adams by Alexander Hamilton in his own name.

Perhaps the most galling insult to Adams was the brute fact that he and his wife, Abigail, actually worked on their Braintree and Quincy, Massachusetts farms, while being pilloried by his adversaries as an aristocrat, monarchist or worse. By contrast, the more successful Virginia aristocracy depended upon slave labor, which contradicted republican principles.

The musical "1776" about the Continental Congress (and especially about John and Abigail Adams), also called attention to Adams’s life-long struggle for recognition, particularly his support of Jefferson’s draft of the Declaration of Independence, which included condemnation of the foreign slave trade. Both men had to bow to the political necessity to subordinate a critical policy decision to the requirements of winning independence, particularly unity among the colonies, southern as well as northern.

Adams’s dedication to republican principles needed to be combined with an appreciation of the requirements of public opinion. This great man’s unwillingness to bend was harmful to his career, but fortunately his real accomplishments are undeniable. That is why efforts are now going forward to erect a memorial to the farmer, lawyer, politician, diplomat and statesman worthy of his service.

Laura Bush: Grace and strength

"All of us now in America have a chance to show our resilience and our courage." Shortly after 9/11, Laura Bush spoke those calming and uplifting words during a visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Mrs. Bush had visited three military personnel hospitalized for injuries received at the Pentagon. "An opportunity has opened to do what we can for our fellow Americans," she added, "to think how we can help each other and to reassure our young children. Let them know they are safe and are loved." Heartfelt expressions such as these epitomize Laura Bush in my mind. From the first day she assumed her position as First Lady of the United States of America, she did so with uncommon humility and genuineness. Mrs. Bush brought back dignity and grace to the White House. Like her mother-in-law, she did not seek to be "co-President". She understood her role to be a supporter of her husband, and while it has been reported that she frequently has advised the President and offered opinion, she has done so in that quiet, thoughtful manner that we have come to know.

Laura Bush, like her husband, has been maligned by the MSM on many occasions. I would submit the ridicule and insult have often bordered on abuse. This woman of great courage and personal strength has not failed to maintain her composure even in the face of the most vicious accusations directed toward her family. When the Bush's moved to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the country had just witnessed the devastating outcome of a First Family embroiled in personal problems, and specifically, a First Marriage that was in tatters. The Clinton's, Johnson's, and Kennedy's were all First Couples that apparently had underlying marital problems that may or may not have impacted decisions coming from the Oval Office. Whatever problems faced George W. Bush as President, the world has knew his wife stood beside him, supported him, protected her family and their privacy, and she never wavered in her love and support of her country.

During the '04 campaign, I heard a panel on CNN talking about the possibility of a Kerry White House. The pundits were giddy in anticipation of having Teresa Heinz Kerry take over. They were confident that there would be no more early bedtimes for the president and his wife. Instead, the Kerry's would entertain frequently and lavishly, inviting media and socialites to share in the grandeur. It was very disturbing to hear this group insult Mrs. Bush's entertaining style and frequency. At a time of war and unrest on many fronts, I believe the Bush's held true to their convictions that their family should be respectful of sobering events of the day, and that it was their duty to maintain a more simple and less flamboyant lifestyle than perhaps prior administrations had undertaken. In spite of media criticism, the Bush's never compromised their true sense of self or their personal preferences.

Mrs. Bush has accomplished much as First Lady, but in keeping with her personality and desire to deter attention away from herself, her work has often gone unrecognized. She isn't the type that the women on The View love to entertain. She doesn't participate in petty gossip; she does not show disrespect to former presidents or criticize policies they may have initiated. An example of her true character and belief there is good in everyone was on display during this campaign. When asked her opinion regarding Michelle Obama's comment about being proud of America for the first time in her adult life, Mrs. Bush extended a verbal hand of friendship and understanding. Always the kind ambassador, she responded that Mrs. Obama likely meant instead that now she is more proud of her country. Mrs. Bush graciously helped to cover a potentially damaging statement, something the press would never have done for her.

I will miss Laura Bush every year at Christmas time. Each year, I've enjoyed the HGTV White House Christmas décor' program that featured Mrs. Bush walking viewers through the steps involved in decorating America's House each year. This year was especially poignant because Mrs. Bush chose the Christmas decorating theme of America and red, white and blue. A true American patriot, Mrs. Bush could not have selected a more appropriate way to end her career as First Lady.

As hope and change move the country forward in 2009, and a new family occupies the living quarters of this great home, one thing remains certain for me. Laura Bush has left her mark on this country, the world and the White House in so many significant and important ways. I will miss her pleasant, engaging smile, her dedication to this country, her concern and love for children and her commitment to her husband and her family. The next First Lady comes onto the scene touted as being the next Jackie Kennedy and someone of great fashion sense and style, not to mention being blessed with shapely bare arms. I wish Mrs. Obama well and at a time in our country's history when we most assuredly need a seamless transfer of strong leadership and vision, we also need the reassurance that the White House traditions be maintained and preserved. As with the family of George and Laura Bush, the closeness and affection the Obama family displays toward each other will be important to the country's morale.

As Laura Bush accompanies her husband into their retirement years in Crawford, I wish this remarkable woman, our First Lady, God's speed. She has served us well and is entirely deserving of peace and calm---both qualities she shared with us.

The defaming of the President, 2008

No one expects political campaigns to be as calm, rational and genteel as academic seminars (although even those aren’t what they used to be), and certainly not as illuminating as the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, but the 2008 election was marked by defamation on as grand a scale as any in our nation’s history. George W. Bush may not be one of our great presidents, but he is not evil or insane. Yet the left wingers in our country, aided by a few right wingers, managed to craft an image of an administration that showed reckless disregard of the Constitution, the rights of both our citizens and foreigners, the requirements of diplomacy and our standing in the world.

Routinely, Bush was likened to Hitler, because he “invaded” Iraq, even though he was saving a people from tyranny, not imposing it. Government surveillance of enemy communications was misconstrued as “spying” on American citizens. Holding enemy combatants was confused with denying them due process rights. Indirect negotiations with Iran and six-party talks with North Korea were treated as nonexistent. These lies are only the tip of the iceberg.

This is defamation, which is “the utterance of a false statement that harms the reputation of another.” There is nothing wrong, of course, with uttering true statements that harm a person’s reputation (unless it is a privileged communication), but the distinction has been lost of late amidst the passion of self expression that has gripped our nation since the turbulent 1960s.

The turning point came with New York Times v. Sullivan (1965), a United States Supreme Court decision which held that even false statements are protected by the First Amendment if the writer or speaker did not know the statements were false at the time they were made. This constitutes malice. But, alas, the climate of allegedly “wide-open, robust debate” credits any statement agreeable to the passions of the media that publicize it.

Of course, it’s fair to say, as old pols have, that “politics ain’t beanbag,” and certainly Bush understands that, as he has been gracious under the verbal assaults and has filed no libel suits. He accepts Harry Truman’s admonition, viz., “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

It would incorrect to rank the recent campaign as the worst in history, for others come to mind, such as what the supporters of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson said about the opposing candidate in 1800, calling the former a tyrant and the latter a libertine. Or the campaign of Andrew Jackson’s supporters against incumbent John Quincy Adams in 1828, smearing that most virtuous of all presidents as immoral. Remember the nuclear blast commercial castigating Barry Goldwater in 1964?

What makes this year’s political defamation particularly galling is that it was uttered and disseminated by people in both party and media politics who make grandiose claims for their superior wisdom and virtue that are not warranted by the facts. No one has captured this pretentiousness better than Thomas Sowell, who has dubbed the advocates of the nanny state at home and appeasement abroad as “the anointed.”

Like the progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century, today’s incarnations see themselves as the better sort of people, whose job it is to lead the unenlightened masses to a promised land of harmony and plenty which is about as likely to arrive as the forever postponed utopia in the old Soviet Union. Neither the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt nor the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson managed to raise the standard of living or bring people out of poverty. Only a free market has shown that it can do that.

Coming from what are purported to be the best colleges and universities in the country, liberal politicians and journalists believe they alone are “objective” in their analysis of the nation’s and the world’s ills. They speak a peculiar language characterized by moral neutrality regarding matters of morals and moral outrage about facts that displease them.

By the evidence of this last campaign, the anointed ones feel no compunction about uttering all manner of lies about those whose offices they covet, for their pie-in-the-sky ends justify any means. There is a far-left organization aptly named By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) that defames all those seeking to end racial preference in public policy.

Many Americans, including me, were disappointed that President Bush did not succeed in Iraq sooner than he did, or that he resorted to government bailouts to deal with an economic crisis. But they have elected a faction that will use our government to ensure defeat abroad and real economic depression at home. For that we can thank, at least in part, a campaign of defamation that reduces the complexity of political issues to a matter of the elite’s personal preferences.