No bailout for journalism

By Jennifer J. Foster

If you’ve been reading this blog and my columns over the past two months, you know that I’ve talked a lot about the various bailouts and all the money that’s being poured into different segments of the economy.

I’m not a pure disbeliever in government intervention in the market. I just come down on the capitalist side of the fence. I believe in reasonable regulation, but I also believe in personal responsibility and assumption of risk.

When word started trickling out that the Big Three domestic automakers were after Congress for a $25 billion bailout, you may remember my examination of their argument vis-à-vis the dim financial realities constraining some other major industries:

I’m curious: Do the Big Three and the UAW chief also support a bailout for the newspaper industry? Journalism is the only constitutionally protected profession in this country. How about the construction industry? The contractors, their subs and suppliers comprise many more jobs than the Big Three. What about real estate professionals? They are completely at the mercy of the market.

These are national industries. The Big Three is mostly a regional industry.

But there is no bailout talk for journalism, construction or real estate.

I’m not hearing any discussion about a big bailout program for construction or real estate.

Well, I take that back. I guess you could make an argument that Barack Obama’s stimulus-package-in-progress is a construction industry bailout. After all, it sounds like it’s going to focus a lot of federal money on retrofitting government buildings with environmentally efficient technology, getting shovels turning on hundreds of infrastructure projects throughout the states and building new schools, among other things. And I guess you could make an argument that the Fed can’t do much more to bail out the real estate industry than cutting its lending rate to between zero and a quarter-point, as it did today.

But although newspaper companies are hemorrhaging cash, their staffs are shriveling up and their deliveries are going part-time, there is no talk about a journalism industry bailout.

There won’t be—and there shouldn’t be.

I have often used my platform to opine about journalism’s privileged place among all over pursuits in America. It is our country’s lone constitutionally protected profession, shielded from government intervention by the First Amendment because of the power and the importance of what journalists do.

Journalists must ask questions. They have to read between the lines in the answers they get. They have to pore through reams of government documents to see whether things match up. And if they don’t get any answers, they have to keep asking. And keep asking ... and keep asking.

You may, at times, find their existence annoying or even downright regrettable. Most likely, if you don’t work in the industry or in a related one, you’ve had the luxury of not even consciously considering the work they do. But regardless of your feelings about them, journalists are your eyes and ears on your government. They are trained and taught to see what you probably can’t; they commit themselves to the laborious and, too often, thankless job of being your watchdog.

They don’t do it for the money. Lord knows, they don’t do it for the money. Teachers? Police officers? Firefighters? Journalists are public servants, too, and their paychecks prove it.

So why do they struggle through in an industry that is in transition? Why do they tail elected officials who would rather perform “Castaway”-type dentistry on themselves than defend their records to a reporter? Why do they doggedly file their beat reports, cultivate their sources, pursue every lead and never, never stop asking questions?

For the same reason teachers take home hours of paperwork every night. For the same reason police officers chase dangerous, gun-wielding criminals. For the same reason firefighters run in to burning buildings.

Because they are public servants.

Reporters can do their jobs and newspapers can print their stories because they are an independent check on the state, in all its many forms. Sure, you can argue personal leanings in individual reporters all day long; there’s always an example or two that stands out because of the volume with which it screams, “BIAS.“ Reporters are human beings; their life experiences don’t get checked at the door, and you wouldn’t want that, anyway. It would make for a pitiful reporter.

As I’ve said before, the difference between a biased reporter and an effective one lies not in whether each one has opinions. They both do. The difference lies in the commitment and determination each one has to professionalism and excellence in his craft. And, in this venue, too, capitalism works: Reporters who can’t meet the lofty standard of fairness quickly lose their credibility with their reading or viewing public.

But as in so many other things in life, perception is reality. If the government was to hand over a few billion bucks to the newspaper industry bigwigs—even as one of those much-ballyhooed “bridge loans”—newspapers’ credibility on reporting on the bailout, and all the other bailouts, would be destroyed.

Sure, it’s a long way, geographically speaking, from the corporate boardroom to an individual reporter’s desk.

But the public knows that we all have phones.

Other industries have sought and still seek government bailouts amid a furious, desperate clamor that if they don’t get the money, they may not survive.

But for the American journalism industry, it is the procurement, not the denial, of government funds that would seal its demise.

See also:

The column by Frank Harris III in the Hartford Courant that sparked this post.

Poll question

By Jennifer J. Foster

Fran Drescher explains her candidacy

By Jennifer J. Foster

OK, folks; you know I’m in Caroline Kennedy’s corner when it comes to replacing Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate.

I talked last week about ridiculous the idea of “Sen. Fran Drescher” is.

Well, “The Nanny” appeared on “Larry King Live” last night, presumably in reaction to news that Caroline Kennedy will, in fact, pursue the seat.

Drescher didn’t do herself any favors.

King asked her why she wants to be a senator. Here’s what she said:

You know, Larry, ever since I became a cancer survivor, I feel like I got famous, I got cancer and I lived to help people. And I’ve kind of made this my life mission. I’ve been very active in Washington for years now. And I—I just feel like I would represent the New York people really well.

Have you thought of running for political office before? King asked.

Well, you know, I’m a U.S. diplomat now. I was appointed by the State Department. Hillary Clinton is going to be my new boss. I just returned from a four country Eastern European tour of duty. I was very instrumental in getting an initiative passed by unanimous consent, which is more than a lot of elected officials can say. And that was the Gynecologic Cancer and Awareness Act—the first of its kind in U.S. history. So, you know, I am really in the mix. I’m the president and visionary of the Cancer Schmancer Movement. I’ve been very vocal about speaking about civil liberties and education…

Asked whether she’s ready for the rigors of being a senator, Drescher explained that it’s already old hat to her. And then she threw in another “qualification” for good measure:

I’ve been a pretty regular staple in Washington for years now. And I know the way it works. I spoke at Senate hearings and during Black Caucus Week, I was on the panel and cancer, you know, hearings.

And I—and, you know, don’t forget, I was the creative and executive producer of “The Nanny.“ I mean, I have been a successful businesswoman for many years.

And I like talking to people. And I like dealing with problems and solving problems.

King asked her about her opponents for the seat, Kennedy and New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

You know, I have the utmost respect for both of them. And I’m sure that they offer good things for the state, as well. I just think that I grew up in New York. I went through the New York public school system. My dad worked two jobs when I was growing up. You know I was the victim of a violent crime, so I’m very outspoken on violence against women and children and animals and, you know, gay rights and pro-choice.

I don’t know, you know, I mean, can only speak for myself. And I think that I’m pretty authentic. And I love the State of New York.

You can see what Drescher is insinuating here. If not, she made it clear later on, when she was asked whether she thinks Caroline Kennedy is qualified to be in the Senate.

Well, it depends. If you’re—you know, I—I can’t really answer that question. I think that she has a lot going for her and she certainly has the Kennedy name. And I’m very close with many of the Kennedys. And I’ve had dinner with her. And, you know, I mean, if it—if we’re going to be judged on our families, I think she’s got it hands down. (LAUGHTER) But my dad was working two jobs when I was growing up—one for Sears and Roebuck and one for the U.S. Post Office ...

Drescher wouldn’t be engaging in class warfare here, would she? NOOooo!!!

Later, Caroline Kennedy’s cousin, Kerry Kennedy, appeared on the show to plug her cousin’s candidacy and her new book, “Being Catholic Now.“ Remember that Kerry Kennedy is Robert Kennedy’s daughter, and Robert Kennedy was serving in this Senate seat when he was assassinated in June 1968. You can read Kerry’s remarks (and Drescher’s position on the Big Three bailout, if you’re interested) in the transcript. For her part, Kerry steered clear of Drescher and declined to address Drescher’s supposed qualifications when asked.

Drescher said during her interview that she has “actually been encouraged by senior senators on both sides of the party lines to pursue this—that I would make an excellent senator.“

My first thought was, SUUUUUre, you have been! And my second thought was, who are the GOP idiots encouraging her to do this?

But wait.

Whomever New York Gov. David Paterson appoints to this vacancy will have to run for the seat in 2010. Remember, if Rudy Giuliani hadn’t been diagnosed with prostate cancer, Hillary Clinton may never have served in the Senate. It probably wouldn’t take much for him to undertake a senatorial candidacy again. And if he’s considering another run for the presidency in 2012, the Senate sure would be a nice platform from which to do it.

Anyway, don’t think for a minute that the National Republican Senatorial Committee wouldn’t be chomping at the bit to get at an appointed Sen. Drescher—with Giuliani or anyone else—and don’t think for a minute that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is going to be willing to waste the power of incumbency on someone who would almost surely be steamrolled within two years.

So it’s understandable why Republicans would encourage a non-viable candidate to pursue an appointment. The real question is, who are the Democrats encouraging her to seek the Senate post—and why?

Bush and Iraqi shoes

By Jennifer J. Foster

You’ve probably seen by now the video of President Bush dodging a pair of shoes hurled at him by an angry Iraqi journalist. (If not, click here.)

A lot has been made about how this is the first real test of Iraqi democracy—how the government will deal with a citizen who chose to display his political anger in a way that embarrassed the state.

And that’s a critical issue, not only for journalists and what it says about the treatment they can expect from the Iraqi government, but also for the Iraqi people, who are watching to see whether dissent—even graphic, inappropriate dissent—will be tolerated.

I heard one pundit say yesterday that had this journalist chosen to react this way when Saddam Hussein was in power, he probably would have found himself suffering unimaginable torture in a dark prison cell like at Abu Ghraib. And that’s if he had lived through the day at all.

With that said, of course, what this journalist did was wrong. He chose to allow his personal political feelings to trump the professional responsibilities he has to himself and his viewers. It was a choice he made, and it’s a choice he’s going to have to live with: For all the clamor to release him, it will be a long time before anyone can take him seriously as a journalist.

But the shoe incident has serious implications for Americans, too, for what it says about the protection of our president.

How is it that a 29-year-old journalist (not a trained terrorist) was able to sling a shoe at the president, reach down, grab the other shoe, and sling it at Bush, as well, before being driven to the ground?

And when he was finally taken down, it was by other journalists, not Secret Service agents.

McClatchy reporters describe the backstory and why Secret Service wasn’t in a position to immediately react:

Video of the event at the prime minister’s palace shows a tightly packed room in which most security personnel were forced to the sides, and 20 video cameras lined the back of the room. The cluster of cameras cut the room in half.

Iraqi reporters had waited inside the prime minister’s palace for about three hours for the ceremony to start. They hadn’t been told that Bush would be in attendance, only that Maliki was giving a news conference they wouldn’t want to miss.

About an hour before the news conference, a Secret Service agent arrived and gave waiting Iraqi journalists a fourth and final search.

The room was so crowded that Iraqi journalists added an extra chair in the front row, then crammed in two extra bodies. Two rows of dignitaries, including the U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. Ray Odierno, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, sat in chairs to the right of President Bush. There was no room for their security details, either.

It’s important to note here that the U.S. Secret Service has, without a doubt, one of the hardest jobs in the world. They have to anticipate attacks, everyday and everywhere. They have to be able to spot potential trouble. And they have to be able to react in a split second. Failure on any of these counts can mean the difference between an attempt that simply makes headlines and an attack that changes the world.

And by all measures, the Secret Service has a solid record. It hasn’t lost a president since that day in Dallas in 1963, and it’s been 27 years since a president was injured in an assassination attempt.

But yesterday’s incident is cause for serious concern. Watching that tape, it isn’t a big leap to see how the American president could have been seriously injured or even killed. Remember Richard Reid? It isn’t out of the realm of possibility that that reporter’s shoes could have been rigged with some sort of explosive, maybe connected to a timer that the attacker set off at, say, 10 seconds. Imagine that he started that timer, waited eight seconds, and then threw the shoe.

Yes, the reporters were searched—four times—before the president came into the room. We assume that these searches included reporters’ shoes.

As difficult as the job already is, protecting the president is going to become much harder in coming years, as biological and chemical weapons replace—or are used in conjunction with—guns and bombs.

This is why the U.S. Secret Service is conducting a thorough review of the shoe incident. And you can be sure that in future briefings, the Secret Service is going to exercise a lot more authority when it comes to overcrowded rooms.

‘FTR’ and column links

By Jennifer J. Foster

As promised, you can see Friday’s episode of “For the Record” here. Segments include:

A discussion of the Blagojevich scandal and how it compares and contrasts with former Gov. Don Siegelman’s case (0:30);

The failure of the Big Three bailout and the movement to boycott Alabama (7:38);

The dueling appointment “suggestion” lists of the Alabama Democratic Party and U.S. Rep. Artur Davis (14:23);

A sports discussion examining the departure of former Auburn head football coach Tommy Tuberville from the Plains and an admittedly blown call that changed the outcome of the Tuskegee-Alabama State game, breaking Tuskegee’s 25-game winning streak (19:01); and

“FTR’s” famed wild card segment (23:44). I discussed Alabama Citizens for Constitutional Reform (ACCR) and plugged the mock constitutional convention process; my counterpart, Mobile Press-Register Capitol bureau reporter Brian Lyman, highlighted looming proration of the state’s education budget (which Gov. Bob Riley made official today).

(Note: I had my ACCR dates confused on the show. Today is the deadline to notify ACCR if you wish to participate as part of the delegate selection process; Dec. 31 is the deadline to submit an application to participate as a delegate. The mock constitutional convention itself will convene throughout the spring and summer of 2009, and the the mock constitution itself will be unveiled on Aug. 27, 2009.)

Finally, if you’re interested and you didn’t see it in the print version on Saturday, you can read my most recent column—“For Blagojevich, governing is all about No. 1”—here.