Ernie The Attorney

Famous News Anchor bloggers

NBC news anchor Brian Williams has an interesting blog post about reading the Sunday New York Times. That's right: a blog post.

ABC's presidential debate

ABC's recent democratic debate was a festival of morons (the questioners, not the candidates). I didn't watch it because, frankly, I've had enough mindless coverage of the presidential campaign. Apparently, though, ABC seized the opportunity to set a new standard for brainlessness. If you missed the debate (and I hope you did), then enjoy Jon Stewart's skewering recap of Thursday night's lunacy.

And here's a shocker: apparently George Stephanopoulos used questions supplied to him by Sean Hannity. Another reason not to watch TV, especially ABC.

Internet Speed-Reading - How to

The Internet, you may have noticed, is chock full of information. And so gathering information can sometimes be a challenge. There are lots of tricks I've learned, most of which are impossible to explain in a blog post. But here's one that is easy to explain, and it involves the New York Times.

Let's say you want to get a quick idea of all of the stories in the NY Times. Poking around on the NY Times website is not the way to go. Instead, use this link. If you like to read the NY Times online—as I do—then I recommend you bookmark this link for future reference. Here is another version of the same site. Now, go forth and efficiently gather information.

Fired for blogging - what's the legal angle?

There's been much discussion for the past few years about the dangers of blogging, especially the dangers of getting fired for blogging. As more lawyers became familiar with blogging, we've started to see discussions—and lately even some lengthy seminars—about the legal issues related to blogging by employees. Corporations have been advised by these lawyers, many of whom are not bloggers, to create a manual that specifies what is expected and prohibited with respect to blogging.

CNN apparently had an employee manual that may have addressed blogging, although a producer who was recently fired suggests that the manual was not so clear. And he was apparently not given a copy of the manual. But, admittedly, that's his view. We don't know what CNN's position is.

And that brings me to my point.

CNN is in the business of reporting news, which is to say: distributing information. They fired someone who is highly adept at writing and reporting. This former employee has learned how to distribute information on the Internet. And the story that he's now most interested writing about is his own dismissal. I don't know if his account is accurate, but I know this. It's very well-written and seems entirely plausible. He writes about his shortcomings and his rebellious tendencies, which makes his version seem even more plausible.

CNN, of course, is hamstrung. It can write nothing, and is no doubt being advised not to by its lawyers. If it does manage to write its version of events that story will lack any human resonance. It will be nothing more than a press release. Do you see the irony yet?

Even assuming that CNN's employee policy specifically applies to blogging (and therefore provides legal justification for firing the blogger/producer), it still has to deal with the negative fallout from someone who has inside knowledge of how it operates. Rarely do we get to see the inner-workings of a news show. What news company is going to point the cameras at itself?

But now CNN's actions have resulted in precisely that. Except that they have no control over the story. And they have little meaningful control over the response to the story. I think this may be a case of applying the law to exacerbate a problem, rather than to control (which is often impossible) or diminish the problem. I guess what I'm saying is that maybe the legal angle to this story is a big part of CNN's problem.

And perhaps CNN will find that having an employee handbook (which may have been tweaked after consultation with high-priced lawyers) isn't turning out to be the great weapon that they had hoped it would be. But, just as news companies rarely point the camera at themselves, lawyers rarely advise clients to consider the negative fallout from using the law to solve a big problem. Lawyers, like journalists, have self-interests that sometimes override their supposed allegiance to the people they serve.

Shocking, isn't it?

Dr.'s Phil advice for 'media-therapists'? Don't get a license

We all know about Dr. Phil, and his most recent attempt to "help" Britney Spears.  People wonder if he violated an ethical rule or licensing provision by revealing what he did about his visit to Cedars-Sinai to see Ms. Spears.  This NY Times article concludes that he appears to have miraculously avoided violating any of the provisions that would normally apply.  Not being licensed as a therapist turns out to be good for Dr. Phil.

It's wonderfully ironic that none of the normal rules apply to Dr. Phil.  He doesn't need rules, but then neither do we. For example, do we need 'rules' to conclude that what he did was wrong?  Do we need to spend much time figuring out why it was wrong?  Isn't it obvious that he put his own media-mongering interests above those of the person he claims he was trying to help?  Of course, this recent publicity snafu won't keep him from plying his trade.  When people are confused and desperate for help they'll listen to pretty much anybody.  Thank God our ever-vigilant media helps counterbalance this unfortunate tendency.

The New Journalism - blurring the line between journalists and readers

Dan Gillmor's upcoming book is called Making the News. The Introduction and the first four chapters are online , and I highly recommend it. Here is snippet that I find provocative:

This evolution -- from journalism as lecture to journalism as a conversation or seminar -- will oblige the various communities of interest to adapt. Everyone, from journalists to the people we cover to our sources and the former audience, must change their ways. The alternative is just more of the same.

We can't afford more of the same. We can't afford to treat the news solely as a commodity, largely controlled by big institutions. We can't afford, as a society, to limit our choices. We can't even afford it financially, because Wall Street's demands on Big Media are dumbing down the product itself.

Click here to read more.

Matt Drudge vs. K-Street

HBO's groundbreaking political show K-Street may lead to some groundbreaking litigation by Matt Drudge, who is unhappy about the show's use of his name in one of the episodes. At least one legal analyst believes that Drudge's claims may have merit. A cinema-verité show about politics that ends in litigation? Now, that's "Reality TV."

There are limits to Fox's madness

Fox News will sue anyone at the drop of a hat, but it does have some standards. For example, Fox won't sue itself. But that doesn't mean it won't threaten to sue itself.

The Rumsfeld Memo & Press Leaks

Instapundit, as usual, has cogent thoughts about the Rumsfeld memo, followed by lots of good links. Lileks has a great post too. I'm really tired of these leaks, and if the point of the leak was to discredit Rumsfeld it didn't work on me. In fact, it backfired.

I was starting to lose faith in Rumsfeld's acumen until I read the memo; now I have clear proof that he is determined to prod people by asking some tough questions about our efforts to contain terrorism. I'm glad someone high up in the Bush camp is asking these questions. But I'm sure that many people will simply see the memo as an admission of weakness by a high-ranking administration official. Hopefully, most people can agree that these leaks --which the press is obviously complicit in-- are corrosive and harmful. Oh, and let's not forget: illegal.

Update: Praise for Rumsfeld's candor.

Gregg Easterbrook is gone from ESPN, and so are his words

Prior to his summary dismissal, Gregg Easterbrook wrote a column for ESPN entitled "TMQ" which stood for "Tuesday Morning Quarterback." Well, for those of you just now learning about some guy named Easterbrook who wrote a TMQ column for ESPN, and who want to read a few of those old columns to see what those columns were like, I have some bad news: they are gone. ESPN/Disney decided that Easterbrook's recent blog comments were so odious that not only did he deserve to be fired, but also that all of his posts at ESPN's website should be permanently expunged. Even though those prior TMQ articles were in no way offensive.

So they are now gone. Out of here. Hasta la vista, baby.

Boo yeah!

Well, you might say to yourself, so what? Easterbrook has copies of what he wrote; if he wants the world to see those old articles let him publish them himself. On his own weblog. The one that he used to publish the ill-advised comments that got him in trouble to begin with. Yeah, that's right. Let him do that and see if anyone cares to read his stuff.

Only one problem with that, though. Disney, er, ESPN owns the rights to those words that he wrote because he wrote them for them as part of his job. That is, ESPN/Disney owns the "copyright" to those works, and they can not only yank them from their site, but also prevent anyone else, including the author, from publishing those words on any website. Boo yeah!

So we'll not be reading Gregg Easterbrook's TMQ column, even the old ones, anytime soon. Unless ESPN/Disney somehow decides to either publish the columns or to let Easterbrook publish them, which seems highly unlikely. And God forbid that Easterbrook decides to publish new stuff under the name "Tuesday Morning Quarterback" at his website. I'll betcha ESPN has a trademark right to that name. Boo yeah!

So basically ESPN/Disney is saying: Take that Easterbrook! We own you bro! You and your words. So go sit in your corner of the web while we erase all evidence of what you wrote because we are the Content Kings and our job is "controlling content." We harvest content from people that we employ and then we use it as we see fit. If we don't want to make money off of your content because we deem you to be a person unworthy of future employment at ESPN then we aren't going to allow you to exploit your own works either. How long can we keep your works out of circulation? Oh, about 95 years or so.

Man, it's good to be a Content King.

Anybody want to tell ESPN what they think about their decision? Assuming, of course, that you disagree with their decision, and that you have the temerity to voice it to them directly.

Update: Apparently Easterbrook is planning to return. That's good news.

Gregg Easterbrook fired by ESPN - which raises the question: are weblogs unsafe?

For the few people who don't know, Gregg Easterbrook (brother of well-known and well-respected federal judge Frank Easterbrook) was fired by ESPN for the supposedly anti-semitic remarks he made on his New Republic blog. Easterbrook was lamenting the gratuitous violence exhibited by Quentin Tarantino in his recent movie: Kill Bill. Easterbrook took issue with Tarantino's supposed skill as a script writer and movie director, saying that the relentless display of graphic violence is the only skill that Tarantino possesses. He then questioned why Disney, which owns ESPN, would back a violent movie like this, especially since Michael Eisner is Jewish. The implication of Easterbrook's post was that a Jewish person might be less likely to want to glorify gratuitous violence. Why would Eisner and studio executives at Miramax want to give his backing to a violent Tarantino film? It's so obvious that it doesn't merit discussion.

Anyway, most of you already know what Easterbrook said. If you don't then go read Bill Dyer's post which has all of the important links relevant to this story. Incidentally, I agree with Bill Dyer. But I'll add this: Easterbrook is being fired for speaking his mind. He admits that he should have made his point about violence in Hollywood films (which was clearly not anti-semitic) more explicitly. He screwed up, and he apologized for not making his point clearer.

I always find it interesting when a large media congolmorate, which never fails to make full and extensive use of its First Amendment rights (e.g. to make grotesquely violent movies with little artistic merit), fires an employee for exercising their 1st Amendment rights. Rush Limbaugh made some goofy off-the-wall comments recently and had 3 days to pack his bags, and then he resigned. Easterbrook clumsily discussed the connection between profits and violence in movie-making and was gone like a puff of smoke. Gone as in fired, not resigned. And Easterbrook didn't even make his comments in his ESPN column; he made them in his own private space.

Coincidentally, I have been reading William Goldman's book Which Lie Did I Tell? which, while mostly about the craft of script writing, is also an excellent --and depressing-- description of the movie industry. I wonder what William Goldman --whom I have to believe would agree with the claim that Tarantino's skill is completely false-- would think of this flap? He certainly doesn't think highly of most Hollywood moviemakers.

Frankly, I don't either. But the Hollywood elite have a lot of power and it doesn't matter much what I --or even William Goldman-- think. Their power, and arrogance, will reign on. Jim Croce, whom Bill Dyer aptly quoted, said it best: "You don't tug on Superman's cape..."

Lastly, there is another lesson here that I hate to mention. Blogs are dangerous. I didn't used to think that, but now I'm not sure. After all, if professional writers are getting in trouble for what they say on their weblogs, then what are the implications for amatuers?

Are you a young professional, excited that your blog gives you the freedom to speak out to a large audience? Well consider what a smaller and more powerful audience (i.e. your employer) might think about what you say, and how well you say it. And of course remember that while you blogging your innermost thoughts you are also creating the world's most accessible databank of "stuff that can be used against you later." By whom? By your opponent in an election; and --of course-- by the press who will gladly publish anything sensational that your opponent happens to pass on to them. Your weblog will save your opponents so much time when they start doing their "negative research" that they will be giddy with joy.

I don't plan on seeking a federal judgeship or running for political office, but if I thought I might then I wouldn't blog. In fact, I'm not sure it is such a good idea even though I don't plan to do those things. I've seen how words get twisted and used against people. Hell, even E-mail is dangerous. Weblogs? I don't know anymore. Maybe they are --to use Ralph Nader's term-- "unsafe at any speed."

Update: Micky Kaus discusses the Easterbrook matter and the case against editors. And TalkLeft has a worthwhile post with some nice comments.

More Update Easterbrook is going to return. Good news!

The Plame Affair - Why doesn't Novak care more about National Security?

I watched Meet the Press today, which featured Joe Wilson and Robert Novak. I thought that Wilson came across well, and not at all over-the-top in his discussion of the possible harmful effects that might result from his wife's CIA cover being blown. Novak was, of course, in a much less comfortable position since he was the one who exposed her cover.

Novak refused to apologize or say he regretted the publication of her cover. His only regret was that he used the word "operative" (which is now his basic position). So, if I understand his position, he regrets using the word operative in a loose way because by using that word in his original story he opened himself up for criticism that he knowingly exposed a CIA undercover agent. Now he wants to clarify and have us believe that he had no way of knowing that she was undercover.

Novak also strenuously argued that, while it is common for journalists to be used by politicians to plant information, his considerable experience in journalism tells him that his source was not using him to plant information. It simply came up in a casual conversation that Joe Wilson's wife was a CIA agent, and he felt free to use that information. Hmmmm, okay.

According some accounts I've heard, the Wilson-Plame-CIA story angle was shopped around to at least five other news sources (which suggests that the story was an intentional plant). But let's assume that Novak was the only person who heard this story, and that he really thought it was not planted information. Was the conversation so casual that he felt it inappropriate to inquire from his source what sort of cover Ms. Plame had? Novak seems to have an approach to this that borders on cavalier. He says "everyone knew" that she was a CIA agent.

Well, what her status is will be has been documented; she was a NOC agent (i.e. "non-official cover"), which is the most sacrosanct CIA cover. It's possible that she was widely known in certain Washington circles to be a CIA agent, and perhaps Novak knew that when he published the report. However that still doesn't minimize the seriousness of what he did. Did his vast journalistic experience not suggest to him that perhaps he should find out what her status was before he published the story? Was he too eager to publish the story, and, if so, why?

Novak is a jourrnalist and he is swathed in First Amendment protection so even if he doesn't reveal his source he probably isn't going to jail. He said that if he reveals his source his credibility will be harmed so he won't do that. I'm sure conservatives will stand by Novak but I think his credibility as a journalist was harmed by his decision to publicize Ms. Plame's status, and it is harmed further by his refusal to simply admit he made a mistake.

And for the conservatives who support Novak, especially those in the Bush Administration, I have one suggestion. If you don't openly condemn what Novak did then you have no credibility when you suggest that we are living in a time where National Security is of paramount importance. If blowing a CIA agent's cover isn't a serious National Security problem then I don't know what is.

To see the video of Wilson and Novak you can go to the Meet the Press website. The transcript of the interviews of Wilson and Novak is now available here.

Why should the press have special protection?

I lived through the Watergate Era. I idolized Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, and I read All the President's Men before I was old enough to understand much of the political intrigue which was the backbone of that book. I may have been too young to grasp the book's finer points, but I grasped that politicians needed to be closely watched. Especially Nixon. But not just him. All politicians, and all people who gain power, had the capacity to abuse that power. Fortunately, the press was there to watch them. Thank god for Bernstein and Woodward and Ben Bradley.

I carried that thought for many years. I read the Pentagon Papers, and I questioned authority. But I never questioned the Press's right to gather information in whatever way it had to. The public's right to know was paramount. That's what I believed, and that's what --for the most part-- I still believe. The thing I'm not so sure about is whether the mainstream Press should be essentially unaccountable for how it goes about gathering the news.

There are a lot of respectable members of the Press, who work hard to get the story right and who focus on important issues. I admire those people, and I feel fortunate to know a few personally. However, increasingly, there are members of the media business who are --how shall I put it?-- less than assiduous in their approach to important issues. And there are a lot of media types who aren't even covering serious news. The word "infotainment" comes to mind.

In the world of broadcast journalism it is no secret that there has been increased pressure to make money, or at least not lose so much money in the news departments. Running a news organization is a costly enterprise. You have to have expensive equipment and hire talented people to run the equipment. And, of course, you have to hire reporters.

What's a network to do? One thing it can do is to hire younger, less-experienced (and less expensive) reporters. Another thing it can do is to cover sensational topics that attract more viewers and thereby boost ratings, which in turn allows it to command higher rates for advertising. Sensational news is good for boosting ratings, and as 60 Minutes proved, investigative journalism can be pretty sensational. As more "investigative" news shows came on the scene the number of sensational stories were perhaps harder to find. Maybe that's what led NBC Dateline to fake the explosion of a GM truck. Well, NBC wound up having to pay GM for that one.

So, obviously, the press doesn't have blanket immunity for its mistakes. But they get especially strong protection from lawsuits for libel and slander when they cover Public Figures. And who can object to that? After all, the press is our only protection against politicians who abuse power and conceal their corruption. Right?

Yeah, for the most part. But, as I found out when I worked in a couple of political campaigns, politicians routinely use the press to leak information about their opponents. And if the information is sensational or shocking the press is only too glad to publicize it. Assuming that is at least plausibly true.

More recently, we see this concept playing out with the Plame affair where ambassador Joe Wilson's wife was outed by Robert Novak as a CIA agent. Who leaked this information to Novak? Was it someone in the Republican administration who wanted to retaliate against Wilson for having contradicted President Bush's State of the Union statement about Iraq having purchased yellowcake Uranium from Niger?

Well, it's not outside the realm of normal operating procedure, political or journalistic. Except in this case it appears that the person who leaked the information may have violated the law. Does Novak know who the person who leaked the information is? He's not saying, claiming the need to protect his source. I don't have a problem with him protecting his source. I'm all for the press needing their internal sources so that they can ferret out corruption and political misdeed.

But this isn't Watergate, and the press isn't ferreting out political misdeed; it is --from what I can tell-- willingly participating in pure political retribution. And, if that's the case (and I'm not saying it is because I don't know), I wonder why the press should have special protection? Just exactly what sort of behavior are we trying to reward by giving them protection in cases like this?

Update: Glenn Reynolds argues that people aren't going to put up with Novak's claim that he is entitled to keep his sources secret. I hope he's right.

Media generalizations

Instapundit correctly observes: "pigeonholes used by the press include 'Republicans who hate civil liberties' and 'Democrats who are wasteful spenders,' but not the reverse."

Our fact-distorting, ratings-driven media

Since I started blogging I have come to rely less on traditional media reports. It's not that they always lie, but in some areas (especially when they feel like they aren't going to get caught) they do take license with the truth. I call that 'distortion.'

Increasingly, weblogs written by thoughtful people whose bias is minimal (or openly stated) are counterbalancing the press' monopoly on information. The Iraq War is one of those areas where the press figures that they can take license with information. After all, who's in a position to credibly provide an alternate view? The answer is bloggers like Glenn Reynolds who are well respected enough to get hired by traditional media outlets.

Hey if you can't fight 'em, hire 'em.

Update more on Iraq war media distortion from Glenn.