about "The Facility" by Simon Lelic

Check in with libertarian journalist Tom Clarke as he investigates the disappearance of several people supposedly arrested under new antiterror legislation in England. The disappeared are rumored to be stashed at a government facility. Turns out they are suspected of carrying a rapidly spreading virulent Aids-like disease that the reactionary government wants to contain (understandably). In this short novel, author Simon Lelic loosely explores the plight of the press and the questionably condemned in a democratic system under duress. Draconian antiterror legislation is the villain. Everything else is imperfect but forgivable when posed against the background of a scared, expedience-minded government susceptible to ethical denial.

Stuff about an article on Newt Gingrich

Plodding further along the media-worn path of horse race campaign coverage, the Time magazine article "Gingrich Could Draw GOP Ire on Immigration" hones in on Gingrich and how his stance on immigration may affect his ranking:

The firebrand former House speaker broke with what has become a reflexive Republican hard line on immigration, calling for "humane" treatment for otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants who have been in the United States for decades, establishing deep family and community ties.

"Firebrand" qualifies as an odd characterization given that Gingrich is thoroughly establishment, old guard, and a while out of the game. Nevertheless, the article never explains how Gingrich's position contrasts with his opponents and their "hard line". The closest comparison comes more than halfway throughout the piece:

But Romney has been tough on illegal immigration while running for president. He said Tuesday night that what Gingrich was proposing would act as a magnet for foreigners to enter the country illegally.

"Tougher" goes undefined. Also undefined are the immigrants. But this quote from a Gingrich supporter holds a clue:

"With me, personally, I fall right in line with him," said Columbia, S.C., Gingrich supporter Allen Olson, a former tea party official. "It's utterly impossible to round up 12 million people and ship them off.

Yep. Mexicans. When Conservatives and media discuss immigration, usually they mean Mexicans. This is understood, but rarely if ever said. The Conservative stance on Mexican immigrants goes unexamined here in this piece as it does elsewhere. The Conservative response to Gingrich, however, does not:

The response was swift. Some conservatives asserted he had wounded his candidacy, perhaps fatally.

That Gingrich's "humane" position should so offend a large segment of voters merits some examination here. The reporter might ask, Why? What are the reasons? Are those reasons valid? Instead of diving into the meaning and merits of this debated issue, the piece cynically treats the position as mere political maneuvering:

And far from a stumble, Tuesday night's remarks seemed a calculated tactic to draw a contrast with Romney, whom he now sees as his chief rival to the party nomination and who has had his own trouble with conservatives ...

This article also includes the obligatory nod to Gingrich's presupposed intelligence in this quote, courtesy of Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss:

"He's one of the smartest politicians out there, and don't think he hasn't thought this through."

Gingrich's intellect has long been an object of admiration in his media coverage.

A good piece on Herman Cain asks, Why isn't he even more on the ropes?

Let's examine one of the author's conclusions in the enjoyable article "On the Ropes with Herman Cain" which appears this month in The New York Times Magazine.

The piece profiles the candidate with a critical eye, leaving the general impression that (1) this politician is flawed--seriously lacking, even, and (2) his campaign is unusually resilient. The resiliency point is well made except for this one high-profile example: "And in the first two national polls that were conducted after the sexual-harassment scandal broke, Cain was still looking strong, running right up at the top with Romney." This phenomenon isn't remarkable. While a scandal might pervade a campaign's coverage, it needn't necessarily hurt a candidate's approval. Just a recent example: Obama's numbers held steady through all the Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright talk that followed him in 2007.

A candidate's approval rating is damaged when the nature of his scandal threatens or challenges his base. For example: Democrats sick of George W. and the GOP in 2007 did not worry about Obama associating with mostly irrelevant Leftists. Likewise, today's Republicans, many of whom are suspicious of litigation and dismissive of feminists, don't care about old sexual harassment charges.

An event is only a scandal if it offends the values of your peers, and a speech act is only a gaffe if it draws their derision, thereby embarrassing you.

A separate point: I've read speculation that Cain intends not so much to win to the election, but rather to make himself a celebrity. This jibes with my old theory that elections would soon evolve into popularity contests between game show host-like candidates. But, should this happen, it would only be a temporary phase in the history of US electioneering. And, moreover, that campaigns and candidates are the essential form of PR isn't news.

The revolution that surprised the world, and then was quickly forgotten

Just a few weeks ago a pro-Democracy revolution in Egypt successfully ousted dictator Hosni Mubarak. The military then assumed power and its leaders who before served faithfully under the autocrat have since ruled the population heavy-handed, jailing the same protesters the press and government so recently and so reluctantly supported. I struggled to find an article about this in the mainstream press, but eventually stumbled on an April 14 article in The New York Times headlined "Egyptian Military to Review Cases of Jailed Protesters".

The treatment in this article is representative of mainstream coverage. First, the story is buried. Second, it includes portions of each side's statements, but doesn't bother looking into either. Third, the title serves the ends of the favored party in the dispute--in this case, the bought-and-paid-for Egyptian military, whose statement is treated as fact. The meat of the story is this line, however, which lies hidden in the article's waistband: "More than 200 protesters have been detained, tortured or put on trial before military courts in the past several weeks, rights advocates said." This statement is not given the same benefit of the doubt.

The article discussed: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/middleeast/15egypt.html

Extra! Extra!

A number of voices call for the legal prosecution of Julian Assange. The permissibility of prosecution on the charge of Espionage hinges at least in part on the question, Is he a journalist? The answer matters because journalistic status summons the Freedom of the Press argument--possibly in addition to other professional protections--and it heightens the claim to Freedom of Speech. Of course, even if he is a journalist, these protections could be turned away in the name of national security or some other interest.

The matter of whether Assange is a journalist of course denotes the larger question, What is journalism? New media and what's called Citizen Journalism force us to re-evaluate the word. We have taken the definition for granted because our immediate, albeit vague, assumptions seemed to provide us clues, if not the answer: Journalism involves print written by reporters employed by businesses whose job it is to sell news and advertising; furthermore, to state slightly less explicit assumptions, reporters are professionals employed by institutions with the authority to confer job titles, thereby defining a class of people with privileges and protections beyond those of Citizen X. To many minds, no longer are these assumptions clear.

But without a traditional institution behind Assange, his status as a journalist is immediately cast in to doubt in other minds; I would image that to these people, his claim to be a journalist is as legitimate a one as a woman’s to be a homemaker. Which is to say, it isn’t, really.