The Importance of Being Second (Choice)

Horse Race news,why?

Please address the FISA issue

Stenography Intervention Alert

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/11/hbc-90001785

I have been following the blog-battle between Time’s Joe Klein and Salon’s Glenn Greenwald through the weekend. It was launched with Time’s publication of a Klein column in which he discussed recent legislative initiatives surrounding the amendment of FISA, a complex federal statute that establishes the procedures for surveillance of domestic communications. Here is the core of Klein’s column in the current Time, entitled “Tone-Deaf Democrats”:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi quashed the House Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan effort and supported a Democratic bill that — Limbaugh is salivating — would require the surveillance of every foreign-terrorist target’s calls to be approved by the FISA court, an institution founded to protect the rights of U.S. citizens only. In the lethal shorthand of political advertising, it would give terrorists the same legal protections as Americans. That is well beyond stupid.

I am a compulsive Klein-reader, and I read this when it went up at the Time website. I winced immediately. Not only was the substance of this description factually inaccurate in almost every respect, it was the very core of the piece. Moreover, what Time ran was a shameless mouthing of talking points that had been circulating on Capitol Hill by Republican spinmeisters through the prior week.

Now when Joe’s good, he’s very, very good. He masters an Old Testament Prophet voice when it comes to the foolishness in Washington that has no equal. He is, after all, the author of Primary Colors, and the man who had thoroughly diagnosed Bill Clinton as the rest of us were learning his name for the first time. But when Joe’s bad, he’s awful. And this was the worst thing I’ve seen emerge from the Klein pen in quite sometime. And the worst thing about it—the unforgivable sin, and the one to which all writers-facing-imminent-deadline are vulnerable, is its lack of originality. It’s always so tempting to take some pre-packaged product from the partisan PR masters of Washington and print it. And that’s just what Joe did, to the great chagrin of his faithful readers.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon leapt on the Klein piece immediately and I have lost track of the number of posts he’s put up. The phrase “pit bull” is a bit shopworn, and often inappropriately used, but Greenwald is exactly that. He has an eagle eye for legal policy issues, and he’s been on top of the FISA policy issues like few others. The truth is that FISA is extremely technical and complex, and few people have devoted the time and care to master it—most of them are lawyers. Most journalists are not, and indeed, many lack the patience and attention necessary. And the Bush Administration’s FISA apologists work feverishly to exploit the intellectually lazy. I am very surprised and very disappointed to see Joe Klein in that crowd.

And disappointing as that discovery was, what followed was even worse. Time’s follow-up to the well-deserved criticism has been defensive and its concessions of factual error grudging. And all of this reflects not so much an error on the part of Klein as the Time editors.

This has been an extremely bad week for Joe Klein. But it doesn’t change my positive opinion of him and his abilities. And if he’ll just give us another work of the quality of Primary Colors, I’ll forgive him entirely.

Where's Jokeline? Why can't he (or Time) just admit that they got it wrong. I don't trust anyone who work for Time anymore. You're all a bunch of GOP operatives working to convince Americans that we would be better off with Republicans.

Come on Jay comment on the big issue of they day - are you part of the GOP steno pool? What do you think of the lies your magazine printed?

Anyone looking for some new Hillary video from an SC stop and an interesting commentary on how race is impacting that primary should try: http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/27/hillary_and_the_black_men_of_god

Jay, let Joe out of his cage! C'mon. Please? Oh wait, he's busy with Congressman Hoekstra again? Nevermind.

1) Hillary is our next President and if Obama behaves he will be her VP if he knows what is best for him and America.

2) Joke Line's apology to all Democrats and real Americans is still to be heard and that is the most important thing right now.

Hillary will be fine.

Jay, well it looks like WaPo is doing its best to stop Obama from surging (check out the Perry Bacon hit piece on the front page today).

Sy, thanks for the Horton piece on Klein's "well beyond stupid" piece.

Don't you have anything better to write about?

If you understood the caucus system, you'd realize that we're talking about, at most, 22% of caucus-goers, because the second choice of the other 78% won't matter since their candidate will achieve "viability".

So, making the (completely insupportable) assumption that your 2nd choice numbers reflect the choices of that 22%, after the supporters of the non-viable candidates redistribute themselves, Edwards goes up by 6.2%, Obama goes up by 4%, and Hillary goes up by 3.5% making the total percentages Clinton 30.5%, Obama 29%, and Edwards 30.2%

In other words, the margin of error is a more powerful factor than "second choice" in the race...and when you add the margin of error to the "second choice" to the margin of error for the first choice (which you have to do), "second choice" becomes even less significant.

But I suppose you have to write about SOMETHING to avoid confronting your lack of professional ethics and pride.

Because face it, it doesn't matter if it was Priscilla "Spelcheker" Painton that proof-read Joe's piece (no professional editor for a national news magazine would let Joes lies slip by them, so I have to assume that Painton exists solely as a redunancy in case the computer based grammar and spelling checker misses stuff).

Joe writes about Washington DC., and your the Time DC Editor. In other words, this is YOUR BEAT... and Klein abject intellectual corruption and complete lack of professional ethics reduces your personal credibility, and the credibility of everyone assigned to the DC bureau.

If it was me, I'd be screaming bloody murder -- and insisting that a real correction be issued (see the Chicago Tribune for how its done), and that the magazine apologize to Democrats, and especially to Nancy Pelosi, for its scurrilous characterizations of them based entirely on the lies that come from Joes cocktail party fueled hallucinations.

But then again, I have principles, and I've quit jobs based on those principles when it was necessary. You've never demonstrated that you even know what a "principle" is, let alone exhibit any.... so I don't expect much.

But feel free to prove me wrong.

Think Progress on Joe Klein's quality source, Hoekstra, here. I actually think they're a little unfair complaining about Hoekstra's language (‘Paranoid,’ ‘Self-Absorbed’ ‘Far-Left Critics’). After all, Joe Klein himself called the House Dems "beyond stupid".

Hopefully, Time will at least follow the example of the Chicago Tribune and issue a decent correction. Third time's the charm?

Journalists have a really boring worldview. And they describe it in cliche's.

Just saying.

GG has posted what will apparently be JK's correction:

I took the liberty of editing it for truthfulness. The result is below:

Correction: I was wrong to write last week that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would require a court approval of individual foreign surveillance targets. The bill does not even approach saying that. A certain dishonest Republican believe(s) it can be interpreted that way, but sane people don't. To read about the disputed section of the bill, go to The Huffington Post to read what the bill's author has to say.

Jay, your buddy Josh Marshall of TPM weighs in:

Whack-job GOP congressman (Hoekstra) was Joe Klein's source for error-filled column.
Heckuva job ...

Comparing Joe Klein to Michael Brown and Time to FEMA? And I suppose Priscilla Painton to Chertoff and Rick Stengel to George Bush? My my.

I can't imagine what Time is thinking of here. Sure, they can ignore this forever, and eventually it *will* go away. But do they think that it will be forgotten? That they can go back to their GOP talking points, Dem hit pieces and shoddy reporting and their readers (like me) will just lap it up unquestioningly?

Don't they care about their brand? Hmmm. Maybe someone should organize an outreach to Time advertisers. Maybe then they'd listen.

Clintons slide is no fluke, her over-confidence and narcissism is really starting to show.

A 3 way race won't last long, and based off the number of articles playing up the importance of Iowa you'd think this was the final vote, do you forget there are 49 other states? It's still anybody's game, may the best man win.

Jay,

What do you think about Joe Klein reporting the ravings of a guy like Hoekstra as fact? Surely you have an opinion on the matter.

Marcy Wheeler on Joe Klein's formerly anonymous source:

But here's the thing. Crazy Pete is, well, crazy. He's one of the guys who still believes that Iraq had WMDs. He's the guy who thought it'd be a good idea to put a bunch of Iraqi documents (and Al Qaeda documents dumped in just for fun) online, regardless of the fact that the documents included plans from Iraq's pre-1991 nuke program. He's the guy who hired Fred Fleitz to write propaganda on Iran for the HPSCI.

In short, he's nuts, and very much in the business of creating propaganda. And that's the guy that Joe Klein finds so credible that he's unwilling to refute, even if the plain language of the document in question proves he is wrong.

I'd always thought the reason reporters granted anonymity was because the source wanted it, so they can speak freely without risking their own reputation. It never really occurred to me before now that another reason can be that the reporter wanted it so as not to undermine the reporter's reputation.

Josh @ TPM points out another reason Joe Klein may have preferred Hoekstra to stay anonymous:

"Remember, Hoekstra was the guy claiming that there were elements in the CIA in league with al Qaeda."

"If they find the stuff I write isn't true, then they can kick the shit out of me...I don't care."
-Joke Line, interview w/ AMC.

"People like me who favor this [NSA wiretapping] program don’t yet know enough about it yet. Those opposed to it know even less — and certainly less than I do."
-Joke Line

"To my mind, being a "serious person" means the following: you study the facts on the ground, you study the history, you take into account opinions on all sides--not just your side--and then you come to a conclusion"
-Joke Line

"I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who’s right…"
-Joke Line, responding to critics of his FISA piece.

“That assumes that there are errors,”
-Priscilla Painton,editor of Joke Line's FISA piece, respoding to questioning from Jane Hamsher.

"Greenwald's larger criticism of the arrogance of the mainstream media, especially those who opine without reporting, has value...but too often he finds great significance in the insignificant, mistaking a twig for a forest."
-Joke Line responding to criticism from Greenwald.

Jay: Let Joke Line out of the bathroom already!

We want him!

Apparently no one at Time is willing to do the right thing. It's gone beyond Klein's dishonesty and now reflects poorly on your entire organization.

"He said/she said" is not a correction: the facts are beyond dispute. Is Klein really the guy you want to attach your reputations to? All these readers are clamoring for accountability and you're just hoping it will all blow over without any further comment on your part. Pathetic. Your contempt for your readers is apparently equal to our contempt for you.

You wanna know what a complete WHACKJOB Klein's source is?

He voted AGAINST holding Blackwater employees accountable for murder. Basically, he wanted to give Blackwater a license to kill...anybody in Iraq.

This bill had such widespread support that the vast majority (5/6) of REPUBLICANS (in additional to all the Democrats) voted for it.

Yet, this is the guy that Joe relies on for opinions about the RESTORE Act?

Klein isn't that stupid. He knows exactly what he's getting when he uses Hoekstra as an "anonymous" source --- an absolute nutball. In other words, Joe's smear of the Democrats was intentional, because NO LEGITIMATE JOURNALIST WOULD RELY ON THE WORD OF A COMPLETE LUNATIC LIKE PETE HOEKSTRA.

....and still, Carney maintains his silence....

"More frequently than what we would like, we find out that the intelligence community has been penetrated, not necessarily by al Qaeda, but by other nations or organizations. I don't have any evidence. But from my perspective, when you have information that is leaked that is clearly helpful to our enemy, you cannot discount that possibility."
-Rep. Pete Hoekstra(R)

Nice compilation of quotes, Titus Pullo.

I don't remember what was the specifics underlying that last quote, but we're definitely not talking about a twig in this case. (Not saying that you're saying that BTW.) Klein used falsehoods to insult the House Democrats ("beyond stupid") and help push his favored telco amnesty. Klein really has a thing for leniency for people who break laws to help the Bush administration (telco amnesty for sure, but also think of his oh-so-thoughtful views on Scooter Libby).

From an interview with NY Times columnist Paul Krugman:

We have a situation right now in which there are several major parts of the news media that are for all practical purposes part of "movement conservatism" -- Fox News, the New York Post, the Washington Times -- and in which other news organizations are intimidated, at least to some extent. I sometimes talk about what I call "asymmetrical intimidation." If you say a true but unflattering thing about Bush or in fact about any other prominent conservative, oh, boy! People are going to go after you. I mean, I've got people working full-time going after me, right? But if you say a false, unflattering thing about a Democrat or a progressive, no risk ... And that shapes coverage, no question about it.

Jay wrote:

"...the Democrat with momentum at the moment"

Jay:
...just a request for clarification here:

What is "momentum"?
How does it work?

Does "momentum" mean obtaining increasingly more positive media attention?

If so, how would a campaign engineer that to happen?

Thank you.

Posted by Titus Pullo | November 29, 2007 5:16 PM

"More frequently than what we would like, we find out that the intelligence community has been penetrated, not necessarily by al Qaeda, but by other nations or organizations. I don't have any evidence. But from my perspective, when you have information that is leaked that is clearly helpful to our enemy, you cannot discount that possibility."
-Rep. Pete Hoekstra(R)

Titus Pullo: please provide a link for this quote.

I've found a source here, but its link is dead.

Crust, that last quote is just an example of Joke's blanket dismissal of criticism of him by Greenwald et al. There are better ones but I have a life and even skimming Joke's posts makes me vomit in mouth a little.

Fire!
Fire!
Fire!

We must avenge Nancy Pelosi and her good name!

Independent sources have confirmed to Time Magazine that all Democrats are terrorist supporters.

These independent, non-partisan, yet secret sources have also told Time Magazine that Osama bin Laden fears the wrath of Mike Huckabee.