Posted 1:17 PM by Floyd

Dan Gillmor, technology columnist for the San Jose Mercury News, got all huffy about the Kerry intern scandal in his blog:

How Sleazy Rumors Reach Critical Mass

MediaChannel.org: A Smear's Journey to Page One. At what point does reporting a smear become acceptable? In a news landscape increasingly crowded with competing sources, mainstream news organizations often cross the line to vie with less scrupulous muckrakers for readers' attention.

When someone commented that Kerry scandal was barely mentioned in the media, while barrels of ink have been used to print allegations that Bush dodged National Guard service, Gillmor became a poster child for smug media incuriousness:

Yes, "deserter" was over the top. But I'm not convinced AWOL wasn't an accurate way to describe what Bush did -- and he still hasn't provided persuasive evidence to the contrary.

(It would have taken Gillmor all of 15 minutes to find out that National Guard records are notoriously incomplete, if he had bothered to visit weblogs written by people (Sensing, Cole, Hobbs) whose knowledge of the military is more extensive than that afforded by watching Apocalypse Now. And why does Bush need to prove a negative? Does Kerry need to document where he was sleeping for each night since he married Theresa Heinz?)

Here's another comment:

BTW, the prominence of the sludge-mongers isn't the same thing as journalistic credentials. The Geraldos and Matt Drudges and Rush Limbaughs of the world have their podiums, but little credibility. A friend who used to work for a CBS news organization in the 80's said their standard was "What would Eric [Sevareid] or Walter [Cronkite] do?" Not a bad standard.

Those plucky broadcasters at CBS, trying to maintain media integrity in a sea of sludge! Somebody get me a handkerchief!

Less that 48 hours after this comment was posted, Mickey Kaus reported that "Kerry gets a Mulligan from CBS, whose producer gives him a second chance to nail a too-long sound bite." Was it Cronkite who would have done the same thing, or Savareid?

Posted 9:40 PM by Floyd

I'm still quite busy with my work project, but I not-so-coincidentally have these complaints to make about software:

• If you make a tool that displays data, could you make the data copyable to the clipboard? I'm using a database tracer and there's nothing more annoying than seeing the full text of a stored procedure call and not being allowed to copy it so that I can rerun the call myself. What do I look like, a medieval monk?
  
  
• If you're a monolithic corporation, could you get your various software products to work together? I'll give you a pass on the aforementioned database product not having selectable text, as is normal for your operating system -- I know you bought the whole thing from Sybase. But what about your word processor and your email client? These products have existed for years and have hundreds of millions of users and have had probably man-millenia of effort put into them, so why is it that when I copy text from a Word document and paste it into Outlook it looks as though a grenade went off in the middle of it?!?!
  
  
• Oh, and while you're at it, could you have a talk with the aforementioned word processor, and also your spreadsheet? Could you tell them that when I open a document, or a spreadsheet, and scroll through it, and look at it, I have not changed one bloody thing about the file? Could you tell those tools to leave me the hell alone and stop asking me if I should save my "changes"? Yeah, and while you're at it put the "money" that I "made" in my "bank account."
  

That is all.

Posted 7:48 PM by Floyd

Michael Totten wrote a post that savaged John Kerry's disinterest in foreign policy. Several commenters complained that George Bush acted unilaterally and did not consider world opinion. (One of them quoted Kerry: "President Bush [has] taken America off onto the road of unilateralism and ideological preemption.")

This is a common Democratic talking point. It's also a losing one. For George Bush has built an international coalition of some 60 countries. How can this possibly be construed as unilateral? Totten himself called out one of his commenters on this point:

If you think the US should not act unless we have unanimous approval, then you need to just come out and say that. Also, please explain why this radical and unprecedented policy proposal should be adopted now for the first time ever in history. What has changed, aside from the fact that a Republican is in the White House, that the left is suddenly concerned about this?

Claiming that the US must solicit unanimous approval for its strategies and actions in war is ludicrous on the face of it. In the case of Iraq, would it have been necessary to solicit the opinion of fellow Baath state Syria? Libya? North Korea? Even if you somehow exclude those states -- and it's not clear on what grounds you would -- what of, say, countries in South America or Africa that have plenty of their own problems and don't really give a damn? (When Peru fought the Shining Path, did it have to consider the opinion of Denmark? Of Indonesia?)

When people complain about the Bush administration's "unilateralism," they do not really mean that the US should make every single country in the UN happy. What they object to -- and both of the anti-Bush commenters in Totten's post were clear about this -- is that our alliance does not include France, Germany, or Russia. I have never seen a coherent explanation as to why France, Germany, and Russia are such vital allies that they must be given veto power over American foreign policy. I'm not saying that such an explanation could not exist, but the sanctimony involved in the typical anti-Bush temper tantrum does not lead itself to introspection.

I get the feeling that if events had worked out differently and Bush had obtained the approval of Germany and Russia instead of Spain and Poland, that the anti-Bush crowd would be calling Bush a unilateralist and citing the exclusion of Poland, Spain, and France as evidence. (And similarly, when people complain that Bush should be concentrating on, say, Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq, it's tough to take that criticism seriously either. If Bush had gone after the Saudis and left Iraq alone, how much do you want to bet that they would be complaining that the Iraqis were the true threat?)

Posted 6:27 PM by Floyd

I've been too busy today and yesterday to post. I'm under deadline for a work project, and also my wife Sherry is sick and I've been taking care of her. (Fortunately my work can be done at home.) But I'll try to post something later tonight.

Posted 12:51 PM by Floyd

It's been three days now since Drudge dropped his bomb about a possible intern scandal involving presidential frontrunner John Kerry. Here is what you get if you type "Kerry intern" into the San Jose Mercury News' search for articles in the last week:

1. President facing 'credibility chasm'

By DAVID GOLDSTEIN / Kansas City Star

President Bush's political strength has been his image of honesty. After Sept. 11, polls showed he was trusted by a phenomenal 80 percent of the American people. ... a scandal over his relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, public trust had ... appears likely to be Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, will ebb and flow. They also said ...
Friday, February 13, 2004

i.e., nothing. The Merc, like most American media, is sitting on the story for now.

I should state before going any further that I do not really care whether Kerry porked an intern, or what George Bush was doing in the National Guard thirty years ago. I dislike Kerry because he is an opportunist and a phony, and because of his political beliefs. (Except for his conduct in prosecuting war on radical Muslims, I don't much care for Bush either.)

I can understand how the Mercury News editors do not want to be caught up in rumors and scandalmongering. But I claim that it is nonetheless a mistake for the Merc to suppress this story, for these reasons:

• Whatever policy the Merc uses to judge newsworthiness is not being applied in a consistent way. Here are the results of a search for "Bush deserter" -- not "Bush AWOL" or "Bush National Guard," but Bush deserter:
  
  

  
  1. `Deserter' label is an insult to millions
  
  Richard Cohen (Opinion, Feb. 10) refers to the ridiculous accusation by filmmaker Michael Moore that by serving in the National Guard, President Bush was a ``deserter.''
  Thursday, February 12, 2004 (Mercury News)
  
  2. Payroll records leave gap in Bush's military career
  
  By Ron Hutcheson / Knight Ridder
  President Bush on Tuesday released payroll records and other documents tracking his service in the National Guard during the Vietnam War, but the paper trail didn't close all the gaps in his military record. ... Michael Moore branded the president ``a deserter'' during an appearance with ...
  Wednesday, February 11, 2004 (Mercury News)
  
  3. Everyone knew how to dodge Vietnam War -- including Bush
  
  By Richard Cohen
  During the Vietnam War, I was what filmmaker Michael Moore would call a ``deserter.'' Along with President Bush and countless other young men, I joined the National Guard, did my six months of active duty (basic training, etc.) and then returned to my home unit where I eventually dropped from sight. In the end, just like President Bush, I got an honorable discharge. But unlike President Bush, I have just told the truth about my service and he hasn't.
  Tuesday, February 10, 2004 (Mercury News)
  
  4. White House releases National Guard documents
  
  By RON HUTCHESON / Knight Ridder Newspapers
  President Bush on Tuesday released payroll records and other documents tracking his service in the National Guard, but the paper trail didn't close all the gaps in his military record. ... filmmaker Michael Moore branded the president "a deserter" during an appearance with ...
  Tuesday, February 10, 2004
  

  
  
  You don't even need to follow the links to know that there is a double standard operating. The Merc won't report what Matt Drudge says, but they give a platform to Michael Moore? Please.
  
  There is just as much evidence that Bush did not fulfill his National Guard service (never mind "deserter") as there is that Kerry had relations with an intern. The whole National Guard "scandal" rested on the testimony of one man's negative evidence: A general who said that he did not remember seeing Bush on his base.
  
  
• The Mercury News is setting itself up for considerable awkwardness in the near future. Let's say Kerry does a little worse than expected in the Wisconsin primary. If Kerry gathers 5% fewer percentage points than polled, that's not necessarily due to the intern murmurings. It could be polling error, or just the whim of the electorate. Will the Merc say anything about the intern allegations? What if Kerry is significantly short if expectations? What if he completely tanks?
  
  What if Howard Dean wins the primary and makes a veiled allusion to the scandal? Will the Merc explain it to us? That's kind of Journalism 101, right -- explain references that readers may not be familiar with? What if an AP reporter does the same thing? Will the Merc carry the story? Will it excise the reference?
  
  
• If the Mercury News feels that sex scandals are tawdry and beneath its notice, then the question arises as to whether it will report other unsavory news. Whatever you think of the whole Lewinsky affair -- the recorded phone conversations, the cigar, the semen stain -- surely it was not as uncomfortable to read as, say, the details of the suffering of victims of war, or what happens to this or that high-profile murder victim, or the German cannibal who ate someone who was still alive. Will the Mercury News stop covering Iraq or Israel because the details of what happens in the aftermath of a suicide bombing are gruesome?
  
  Would you trust a doctor who said that he thought pus was "gross," and didn't want to deal with it unless absolutely necessary?
  
  
• Let's say you are a good little California citizen who wants to do your civic duty at the polls in two weeks. So you carefully read the Mercury News, and take note of their information on the candidates. (None of that Internet for you! The Mercury news is respectable and trusted.) The intern scandal bumps along, not really going anywhere -- and suddenly, on the day before voting the scandal explodes. On your way to the polls you see the 72-point headlines in the morning Merc screaming about Kerry's intern scandal. Bemused, you buy a paper and read the article, and you get to this sentence:
  
  The scandal was first reported on the Drudge Report Internet site on February 12. It spread throughout the Internet and was reported in the British press and some American newspapers. On February 13 radio talk show host Don Imus asked John Kerry if there was any truth to the allegations...
  
  How would you feel?
  
  Or let's say that the scandal does not erupt before the California primary. You cast your vote for Kerry because, like millions of other Democrats, you think that he is the best candidate to defeat George Bush ... based on the evidence you read in the Mercury News.
  
  After Kerry has the nomination sewed up, the intern scandal explodes. Kerry goes down in flaming defeat.
  
  How would you feel about that?
  

Update: The Merc cracks:

Searched for 'kerry intern'

(Showing Results 1-2 of 2)

1. Woman denies affair with Kerry

By Steven Thomma / Knight Ridder

A woman linked romantically by Internet and tabloid rumors to Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts denied Monday that she had any personal relationship with the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. ... reports that referred to her as a former Kerry intern. ``I never interned or worked for ...
Tuesday, February 17, 2004 (Mercury News)

Though the story was posted yesterday it doesn't seem to have stayed on the website long. I didn't find a link on the "Nation/World" page.