The NYT has an article on "invoking Secrets Privilege Becomes a More Popular Legal Tactic by U.S." Bush has matched the previous leader, President Reagan. [Corrected.] Clearly, with troubles in the Middle East, much controversy in Latin America, the Cold War going on and so forth, that is in no way comparable to these days. [Sarcasm.]
As usual, we have to add the various other wrongs of this administration. The fact that the modern case that defined turned out to have been based on false information. Various suits do not just block the use of certain materials, but the chance to carry forth the claim at all, even though often public material is present to allow this path. This perhaps is most troubling/aggravating:
One frustration of the plaintiffs in such cases is that so much information about the ostensible state secrets is already public. Mr. Arar's case has been examined in months of public hearings by a Canadian government commission, and Mr. Masri's story has been confirmed by American and German officials and blamed on a mix-up of similar names. The N.S.A. program has been described and defended in numerous public statements by Mr. Bush and other top officials and in a 42-page Justice Department legal analysis.
In the A.C.L.U. lawsuit charging that the security agency's eavesdropping is illegal, Ann Beeson, the group's associate legal director, acknowledged that some facts might need to remain secret. "But you don't need those facts to hear this case," she said. "All the facts needed to try this case are already public."
Meanwhile, the NYT Public Editor defended [with telling caveats] the much criticized deeply sourced story on the state of the Clinton marriage as a responsible reflection on "a relationship too political to be ignored." This is on some level true. No First Lady (though a possible one -- Elizabeth Dole -- did) has later become a senator. They are clearly a "power couple," one of many, but still somewhat unique at the end of the day. For instance, I once did a report on Susan Molinari, formerly a legislator representing part of Staten Island in Congress. She married a rising man (the rise eventually was curtailed, I think in the Gingrich mess) in the party, who also was in Congress at a time -- you know how it's one big mixer down there.
Not quite Clinton level, even if the attention is in significant part a media creation. You have a bit of a chicken and an egg problem there, but he is after all a previous President of the United States. And, has always used media attention for his own ends -- he got hurt by such attention, true enough, but he was in no way blameless. Nonetheless, though some focused on the tabloid nature of the story (allegedly arising -- a point not addressed by the editor but implicitly rejected* -- from a tabloid piece, while one on Bush did not equally merit such treatment), they also noted it was one-sided. In other words, what about other public figures? You know Republicans, but also, others in their situation. In fact, why weren't even some of her fellow congress members quoted as well?
[And Also: Not only did the paper just cover the relationship of this political couple in a deeply sourced article, it was front page/above the fold. Clearly "newsworthy."]
Byron Calame, the Public Editor, does not reference this complaint in his piece. This is patently sloppy and led me to one of those bursts of aggravation (the Mets game didn't help) ... he has rightly reached "wanker" status. Interestingly, the back-up blog post to this label unfortunately does not bring the unfairness point up. It does argue that the personal focus is largely on a media created controversy. I think this is true up to a point -- as noted, surely, the relationship is newsworthy on some level. But, the more nuanced criticism is the selective nature of this personal focus. For instance, yes, the relationship has a political aspect. No duh. You think the Bush wives don't have core political roles, roles that the couple manipulate in some fashion for "political calculations." Obviously.
The piece however implies somehow the Clintons are especially unique this regard. Again, consider the impeachment mess. In various cases, the fact he cheated on his wife in some tawdry was deemed unspeakable as if any number of leaders in the Republican Party did not also have some tawdry relations -- one of which in fact led to a new congressional leader to be forced to step down immediately during the mess. The "this couple is so much different from others" tone (in this "understated" article) starts from the very beginning:
Bill and Hillary Clinton flew to Chicago together last month to deliver speeches a few hours and a few miles apart. And like any couple, they thought about having dinner at day's end. But life is not so simple when you are married to a Clinton.
Calame starts off noting that responses to the case were uniformly "partisan reactions" Given the tone of the word, it is interesting he only focused on Democratic responses. Were Republican responses uniformly positive? Also, what about the solitary target of such a piece? Is this too not quite "partisan?" After all, "at least half the paragraphs contained references to political considerations."
The implication -- akin to one piece in Slate on Clinton's comments on what is in her iPod -- is that somewhat they are uniquely political. There is unique, and there is unique -- a baseball player is unique in many ways, but they have the usual human/celebrity aspects of lots of others. A false one of a kind theme taints the piece, one suggested by this comment: "Mrs. Clinton may be the only Democrat in America who cannot look at Bill Clinton as an unalloyed political asset." Ha!
The wanker link suggests the piece did not prove its premise. But, if the premise is that the Clintons acted with some sort of political calculation, why not also have a fifty source piece on the color of the sky? I guess if the link is correct that the story did not prove the premise, it is worthy of dismissal -- for being totally pathetic. BC also responds to criticism that the piece was too tawdry.
This is a bit of a strawman, since the stronger argument was that the Clintons' private lives should not be targeted at all. Yes, the piece (on first reading -- I didn't care to read the thing, underlining the media creation argument) is not really too exploitative in that respect. But, it is to the degree the area is covered in a one-sided fashion as if the times the two spend together at home and so forth should uniquely be our concerned as compared to any other power couple, especially any other political couple.
And, the personal intimacies of these people have been selectively invaded over the years ... so (again unmentioned) there is rightly additional concern (references to Ken Starr pops up in the blog commentary etc.). BC does reference "tabloid gossip" being newsworthy if it "triggers genuine action by serious players," which seems to me an opening for abuse. It surely sounds circular. But, overall, the problem with his response is that the article is in no way ultimately "evenhanded." The claim, I guess, is that once we focus particularly on one political power couple as if they are uniquely worthy of our concern, if it is done fairly respectively, it passes the smell test.
Not quite. Anyway, the NYT Magazine cover on "Hollywood Elementary" is a bit pornographic, isn't it? It has sort of a child porn look with its nubile young blonde preteen girl with baby fat face on the cover. This sounds a bit off, but I think it is telling if one compare it with the pics inside. It surely has a "beware Internet Predators" PSA feel to it, or something. The mom (hazy background image) is even brunnette.
Somewhat interesting piece on organics -- even in Wal-Mart -- inside as well. "Organic" references use of pesticides and the like, it isn't the same thing as family friendly etc. Still, this might invite corner cutting ... but, like if let's say big market stores had anti-discrimination policies and the like, it can be a good sign. Enough out there to still hate Wal-Mart, don't worry!
---
* Though not referencing the allegation, Calame noted:
When it comes to deciding whether to report on political figures' private lives, "few cases are as clear as the Clinton marriage," Mr. Keller [the executive editor] wrote to me in an e-mail last week. "It would be irresponsible NOT to take a hard look at how these two people relate and operate as a couple." Joseph Sexton, the metro editor, whose reporters are involved in covering the senator from New York, said the story "grew out of a meeting of editors weeks ago aimed at developing lines of reporting for covering Hillary's re-election campaign and potential bid for the presidency."
btw the piece also speaks of "Mrs. Clinton." This is not a unique deprival of status -- the paper in various instances also speaks of Mr. [George W.] Bush.