SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: KLP who wrote (2001)6/9/2003 5:46:59 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793955
 
Howell Raines's Tenure: It Left a Nasty Mark

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer

Good summation by Howie. He would have been up for a Pultzer for his Times coverage in the old days. Nowadays, the Blogs beat him out.

Now, of course, it's easy for some New York Times staffers to unload on Howell Raines.

Jerelle Kraus, a Times art director, told reporters that Raines reminds her of "Caligula" and is "the nastiest editor I've ever worked with." One Times veteran says there is still "venom" in the air toward the departed executive editor.

But since when are newsrooms supposed to be democracies? Or editors supposed to be warm, hand-holding types? Running a huge newspaper is a rough business that sometimes requires knocking heads. Can Raines really have resigned under pressure because much of the staff found him an unpleasant son of a gun?

The answer is yes -- a more popular editor would have ridden out the storm -- but it's more complicated than that. Raines, whose considerable strengths as an editor have been overlooked during the media furor, played an inside game -- writing memos and holding meetings with disaffected staffers. He made little effort to defend the paper publicly, during either the Jayson Blair fallout or the newsroom anger at comments by reporter Rick Bragg, who resigned over his extensive use of stringers.

The Times hates to cover itself, and for a long time the paper's executives tried to ignore the controversies that swirled around it. In 1991, when the Times sparked a furor by naming the accuser in the William Kennedy Smith rape case, prompting an angry staff meeting, the paper waited nine days before publishing a word on the imbroglio. Last year, when conservatives were denouncing the Times for allegedly playing up antiwar views in its Iraq coverage, the paper assigned a story on the flap but Raines killed it, settling for a clarification of the paper's description of Henry Kissinger's position. Raines would not comment at the time.

It was all the more remarkable, then, that after the resignation the Times published a story in which reporter David Barstow -- who worked on the 7,000-word accounting of Blair's fabrications -- was quoted as saying he told Raines, " 'You don't listen, you intimidate, you play favorites,' that is what we were hearing.' " The bottom line: Top executives in a communications company that demands accountability from everyone else seemed to have forgotten how to communicate. Plenty of hard-bitten newspaper editors instill a bit of fear in their subordinates. But at the Times, most people didn't feel part of Raines's team and were more than willing to turn on him.

All this played out in a painfully public way in an era when the explosion of online commentators is helping to hold media big shots accountable. Jim Romenesko's media Web site, for example, was the repository for all kinds of impassioned e-mails and postings by Times reporters that showed the world just how little support Raines had in his own newsroom.

Blair, for his part, is now sounding more contrite after boasting of his deceptions and accusing the Times of racism in a May 21 interview with the New York Observer. He told the newspaper SoHo last week that he owes Raines and deposed managing editor Gerald Boyd "a million apologies in light of what I have done." And he told WCBS-TV that his Observer comments "were cruel and hurtful" and that he should have taken time to reflect before speaking out.

Still, the Blair debacle is hardly the only major media embarrassment of recent years. From fabrication to plagiarism, from horrendous mistakes to awful misjudgments, news organizations largely have themselves to blame for a public image about as positive as Martha Stewart's.

But the very blunders that have given journalists such a collective black eye also demonstrate that the system works -- that is, miscreants are eventually caught and punished, as Blair belatedly was.

The era of sweeping media mishaps under the proverbial rug is long gone, in part because there are so many media outlets now that falsehoods are more likely to be exposed. Consider some recent history:

The Los Angeles Times agreed to share advertising revenue from a Sunday magazine with the Staples Center arena, the subject of the special issue -- an unforgivable outrage that forced the resignations of CEO Mark Willes and Editor Michael Parks. The Chicago Tribune dismissed star columnist Bob Greene after learning that he had once seduced a high school student who had come to interview him. CNN was tarnished when chief news executive Eason Jordan acknowledged that the network had suppressed stories of terrible abuses by Saddam Hussein's regime, which Jordan justified as an attempt to protect its employees and sources. NBC and MSNBC dropped Peter Arnett after the Baghdad correspondent bizarrely bad-mouthed the U.S. war effort on Iraqi state television.

Salt Lake Tribune Editor James Shelledy had to resign for mishandling the case of two reporters who sold information about the Elizabeth Smart case to the National Enquirer for $20,000. The Miami Herald was left red-faced after falsely accusing the jockey who won the Kentucky Derby of wielding an illegal object -- the result of a misleading photograph and a botched interview. Slate magazine fell for a hoax about a practice dubbed "monkeyfishing." Plagiarists have been fired at publications from Business Week to the Hartford Courant. Associated Press reporter Christopher Newton was fired for making up quotes in 39 stories, while the New York Times Magazine disavowed what turned out to be a composite profile by Michael Finkel of a young Ivory Coast laborer.

Go back further in time and you find Janet Cooke's fictional heroin addict at The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal's R. Foster Winans convicted of selling advance stock tips from his column, and NBC's "Dateline" staging a fiery crash.

They all survived, and the New York Times will, too. The Times said in an editorial last week that it may have gotten "too cocky" and that the "forced introspection" triggered by Blair would prove healthy. In today's cluttered media universe, avoiding self-scrutiny and blowing off outside criticism are no longer options. The only question is how long it takes some news executives to realize that the rules have changed.

As for Raines, it's a shame that the editor who led his paper to six Pulitzer Prizes for coverage of 9/11 couldn't win over the journalists who made those prizes, and the superlative daily reporting of the Times, possible.
washingtonpost.com



To: KLP who wrote (2001)6/9/2003 7:23:16 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793955
 
With 6 Days to Go, Budget Talks in Chaos - Republicans have locked themselves into an antitax position while Democrats say they refuse to make more cuts in social programs.
By Evan Halper and Megan Garvey
Times Staff Writers

As a refugee from LA, I have a lot of Schadenfreude about the mess the Calif Dems have gotten themselves into. I am with the Republican leader. If they won't cut the social programs, why help them make it even worse?

SACRAMENTO ? After a week in which California lawmakers seemed to pull away from rather than toward a compromise on the state budget, lawmakers now have six days to consider their fateful choice: whether to cut a deal that would allow the $38-billion budget shortfall to be resolved by the constitutional deadline or to stand by as deepening ideological gridlock lets government stumble toward insolvency.

At this critical time in budget negotiations, with the deadline for the Legislature to approve a spending plan arriving at midnight Sunday, Republicans have firmly locked themselves into an antitax position that has thrown talks into disarray. Democrats, meanwhile, say they refuse to cut more deeply into social programs.

Both parties agree that there probably is no turning back from Senate Republican leader Jim Brulte's threat last week ? a "read my lips" moment ? to end the political careers of any of his fellow party members who join Democrats in voting for a tax hike. A tax increase would require at least eight GOP votes to reach the needed two-thirds majority.

Now Democrats, who have a majority of both houses as well as the governorship, are desperately searching for a way to get out of the budget mess without new taxes. Their ideas include a legally questionable attempt to pass a "revenue-neutral" measure that would raise taxes for a few years and then cut them just as much a few years later. The point: Such a plan theoretically could be approved without Republican votes.

But the larger question in Sacramento is this: Are Republicans trying to force a government shutdown, do they believe Democrats will cave on spending or are they holding fast on taxes because they believe Democrats can find a way to sneak around them to raise an unpopular source of revenue?

Wall Street is searching for the answer, or at least a clear sign, that the state with the largest economy ? which nevertheless bears the worst credit rating ? will snap out of it, balancing revenue and spending in time to avoid running out of cash this summer.

Brulte's threats came just as a bipartisan deal to close the budget gap was beginning to look likely.

At least a few Republicans were saying privately that they would consider voting for a new half-cent sales tax proposed by Gov. Gray Davis in exchange for an easing of government regulations on business. Those same lawmakers now say they've lost their appetite for raising that issue.

Though Brulte's ultimatum threatens to halt government operations, party loyalists say they are confident that is not what he intends.

"Brulte's conservative, though he is not a 'shut down the government for the good of the people' kind of Republican," said a GOP consultant, Dan Schnur. "He has some level of confidence a budget can be adopted without tax increases."

Many in the Capitol expect Brulte and Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, a liberal San Francisco Democrat, to broker the final budget deal. The two senators report being close to reaching a compromise on transportation and local government issues, but say they are nowhere near a deal that closes the budget gap.

Like Brulte, Burton has publicly stated that he will not entertain certain solutions.

"If Republicans follow the line that Brulte put out and they don't vote for any additional revenue, the state will go broke," Burton said.

A growing movement to recall Davis from office also is coming into play. The governor lurched to the left when he revised his budget in May, restoring billions of dollars in spending that pleased labor and school officials. Republicans complained that he was pandering to his political base, and some say Brulte's move was meant to counteract that.

Yet Brulte's threat angered others in his party who had hoped to bring home major victories for their core constituents by using budget votes to push reform of workers' compensation, continue tax credits for manufacturers and rein in what they say are frivolous lawsuits against businesses.

If the threat of challenges from within their own party convinces Republican lawmakers that they must hold the line on taxes, that shifts the questions to the Democratic majority, which then must either agree to spending cuts or find a way to raise revenue without Republican support.

Party leaders already have promised to issue an administrative order that would raise the vehicle license fee charged to every California car owner by an average of $136 in the coming months to generate $4 billion annually. Such fees are intended to protect programs. But Democratic analysts are looking at accounting maneuvers that they believe would allow them to use fee revenue to pay off the deficit.

The tenor of negotiations has discouraged many old Capitol hands. One fiscal staffer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, laments that "budgeting has turned into how sneaky can you be, and how late can you wait to slip something through."

In some respects, that is not a new phenomenon. During the fiscal problems of the early 1990s, Republican Gov. Pete Wilson signed a budget that included illegal borrowing from the Public Employees Retirement System. By the time a court ordered the state to repay the money years later, the economy had rebounded and it wasn't a problem.

Brulte says Democrats, who have refused to cut back spending despite Republican pleas, have only themselves to blame if the budget gets balanced this year through such maneuvers as an end run around his party's antitax stand.

"Democrats will do the same things they always do, which is whatever they want," he said.

An indication of how little progress is being made can be seen at the bipartisan budget conference committee hearings, where Republicans complained that no cuts were being made and no consensus was being reached.

The committee chairwoman, Assemblywoman Jenny Oropeza (D-Long Beach), disputed that. "We have had some important dialogue around some important issues, like uh, uh " she said, then paused, unable to cite examples.

Those involved in budget talks say lawmakers are headed again toward passing a "get out alive" budget, as they did last year. Such a spending plan would rely on accounting "Band-Aids" that would simply push the budget problems into next year. The result: a bigger deficit, more damage to the state's credit rating and hundreds of millions more in borrowing costs to taxpayers.

In the view of some people watching this process closely, that is the worst possible solution.

Wall Street analysts are already weary of California's dependence on short-term fixes. They say compromises that fail to tighten the belt and raise revenues are unacceptable. Though no one is saying banks will refuse to do business with the nation's most populous state, investors have grown impatient.

"We are very concerned," Steven Zimmerman, Standard & Poor's managing director for the western region, said Friday. "If they get themselves into a stalemate situation and do not address revenues and spending, it will get worse."

Bond traders say years of fiscal irresponsibility has forced their industry to tag California, which has the largest economy in the nation, with a bond rating lower than that of any other state.

California's "underlying economics would attest to a higher rating," Zimmerman said, but "they have had little success in making adjustments in a timely manner."

The budget problems are already shaking the confidence of some institutional investors concerned about losing money if they buy bonds that then drop in resale value.

The tone in Sacramento is still "very negative," said David Blair, senior analyst for Nuveen Investments of Chicago. "It's surprising, given the fact this budget gap is so large and we're only a month away."

And financial analysts are warning that worse could come if the state doesn't take concrete steps to bring spending and revenues into balance.

If the state's bond rating falls further, into a category known as junk bonds, many institutional investors will be prohibited from buying securities issued for the state and interest rates will soar.

In that case, there also is a strong possibility that the state would not be able to find enough investors to borrow the money it needs to keep government running. The short-term borrowing that California relies on to even out its cash flow would be unavailable.

In recent days, the major rating agencies downgraded New York state's bond rating ? which remains higher than California's ? to signal displeasure with a state budget passed there that analysts say will fail to generate enough revenue to cover spending.

The warning to California from Wall Street ? seen as nonpartisan in its pursuit of the bottom line ? was viewed by some closely following the state's budget crisis as a possible turning point that might force Democrats and Republicans to get serious about negotiations.

Instead, it has deepened suspicions about the motives of Wall Street investors. Some Republicans have taken to referring to the financial analysts as "Team Gray," suggesting that they are doing the governor's bidding rather than offering impartial analysis.

Others doubt that.

"I strongly suspect that the Wall Street bankers are far more interested in their investments than ideological purity and will make their decisions based on the realities of the financial markets, not the ideology of the free market," said Tim Hodson, director of the Center for California Studies at Cal State Sacramento.

Hodson said the Republican position seems to be a shift away from an ideology holding that government would be better off if it were run more like a business ? which would not expect to borrow money without showing profitability.

It is a position that Hodson said has been taken up by Republican leaders at the national level, most notably President Bush, who pushed for and got a tax cut at the same time he asked for additional money for national defense.

Although the breakdown last week was largely attributed to Brulte's remarks, Democrats have been resistant to compromise as well ? and occasionally have angered Republicans by their willingness to spend money rather than make tough cuts.

Most recently, they used $2.4 billion in federal funds given to the state ? money they had not expected until the Bush administration approved it ? not to patch up the budget hole, but rather to immediately restore spending to programs on the chopping block.

Though political battles are expected, analysts say there is concern that the lines-in-the-sand approach and harsh accusations may foreshadow inaction.

"You never know when rhetoric becomes outcome," said Claire Cohen, vice chairwoman of Fitch Ratings, a Wall Street bond-rating firm. "There has been a kind of deadlock in California since this fiscal crisis has begun to develop. It's just got worse over time."

Indeed, for some the California situation is so bleak that the only comfort in it is that other problems seem to pale by comparison.

"It's mostly like: 'Oh my God, some place is in worst shape than us,' " said Marcia Van Wagner, chief economist for the Citizen Budget Commission, a nonpartisan watchdog group in New York.http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=la-me-budget9jun09&section=/printstory



To: KLP who wrote (2001)6/9/2003 8:39:26 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793955
 
The GOP's Gilligan plan: Thurston Howell III lives!

WASHINGTON WHISPERS - US NEWS & WORLD REPORT

Have you ever found yourself wondering if Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry is really Thurston Howell III, the Gilligan's Island millionaire? Have you ever found yourself wondering if Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry is really Thurston Howell III, the Gilligan's Island millionaire? No? Well, you will soon if Republican strategists follow through with their prankster plans for the 2004 presidential race. "We'll gig 'em whenever and wherever we can," says one source. The idea is simple: Send an "attack mascot" to primary and caucus appearances of leading Democratic White House hopefuls to heckle and unnerve the candidates. Initial plans by GOP strategists focus on Kerry, Rep. Dick Gephardt, Sen. John Edwards, and Sen. Joe Lieberman. Just this weekend, Edwards will be met in his home state with a Welcome Wagon, a dig at how much time he has been away campaigning. The most original is the Kerry gag mascot: somebody dressed as Howell, the lock-jawed dim bulb who inherited his wealth. In his straw hat: a $150 price tag to represent his barber's fee. Suggests Kerry spokesman David Wade, the GOP "should lay off the Gilligan's Island imagery before we cast George W. Bush as gilligan in the remake."
Washington Whispers 06/09/03
By Paul Bedard

M1-A1 Abrams: tough to kill, but not invulnerable

They call them "lessons learned" reports in the Pentagon, and few are getting as much attention as the review of the Army's lumbering M1-A1 Abrams tank's performance in Iraq. Revered by soldiers as the world's best, the report found that lone Iraqis armed with simple rocket-propelled grenades halted a few Abramses in their tracks. Just like those Battle of the Bulge scenes of GIs firing at the bellies of Nazi tanks, a rocket aimed at the armored skirts on the side and back of the Abrams would occasionally disable the tank. That's led some to question the plan to replace some M1s with lighter and thinly skinned "Stryker" vehicles. But then, the report shown to Whispers also found that the heavy Abrams guzzled more gas than expected. And getting parts to busted tanks was a problem. Still, like the Terminator, it didn't die easily. Some completely disabled tanks were abandoned, and airstrikes were called in to keep the gizmos inside from Iraqi spies. It took a grenade detonated in the crew compartment, a massive tank round, and two precision Maverick missiles just to put one down.

Choosy presidents choose Jif

It's no secret that President Bush loves peanut butter. For him, it's not a campaign gag as Big Macs were with former President Clinton or pork rinds for Bush's dad. He's such a fan, we learn, that the White House mess puts PB&J samples on tables in the executive cafeteria and delivers at least one to the Oval Office practically every day--and the prez even recommends them to his lunchtime partners. But what's been impossible to find out, until now, is which brand Bush eats. That's because the White House hates to look like it's endorsing any product. Well, after 2 1/2 years of snooping, the Whispers I-Team has the answer: Jif, normally the creamy kind. Why Jif? It's America's favorite and tastes a little sweeter, we're told, than Skippy and Peter Pan. As for the jelly, we have a hint: Smucker's recently bought Jif. None of this surprises previously unaware Jif execs who coined the motto, "Choosy moms choose Jif." Says spokeswoman Brenda Dempsey, "Obviously, choosy presidents choose Jif."

Cabinet campaign
Much of President Bush's cabinet will get a new chore in the coming year: campaigning for the boss's re-election. Insiders say that all but the four top-tier agency secretaries will hit the trail to promote Bush. Look for them also to speak at fundraising events, all legal moves. Those left out--the secretaries of state, justice, defense, and treasury--have jobs the administration doesn't want to politicize. "You'll see a bunch of us out" campaigning, says one cabinet head.

"I'm not mad."
President Bush, on Paris's refusal to join the war in Iraq

Get her now
Democratic strategists are already bracing for a bruising re-election fight for New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2006. These Democrats, who don't believe President Bush can be beaten in his 2004 re-election bid, predict that the White House will try to knock Clinton out of the 2008 presidential race by recruiting a candidate to beat her in the 2006 re-election bid. One foe being wooed: popular New York Gov. George Pataki.

White House bam!
Emeril Lagasse, the popular TV chef known for yelling "BAM!" when he adds a pinch of spice, turns out to be a regular in the White House kitchen. Executive Chef Walter Scheib revealed in an online chat that "Emeril has visited us several times." But, adds the mild-mannered Scheib, "I do not use his shtick!"

usnews.com