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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Poet who wrote (51284)12/2/2005 12:30:00 PM
From: one_less  Respond to of 361154
 
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world" (Mahatma
Gandhi)

Keep on keepin on.



To: Poet who wrote (51284)12/2/2005 6:57:06 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Respond to of 361154
 
Hey, Poteet; how's you? Long time, you no come see us.

Been writing anything good?

Rat



To: Poet who wrote (51284)12/4/2005 9:43:11 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361154
 
All the President's Flacks
___________________________________________________

By Frank Rich
Columnist
The New York Times
Sunday 04 December 2005

When "all of the facts come out in this case," Bob Woodward told Terry Gross on NPR in July, "it's going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great."

Who's laughing now?

Why Mr. Woodward took more than two years to tell his editor that he had his own personal Deep Throat in the Wilson affair is a mystery best tackled by combatants in the Washington Post newsroom. (Been there, done that here at The Times.) Mr. Woodward says he wanted to avoid a subpoena, but he first learned that Joseph Wilson's wife was in the C.I.A. in mid-June 2003, more than six months before Patrick Fitzgerald or subpoenas entered the picture. Never mind. Far more disturbing is Mr. Woodward's utter failure to recognize the import of the story that fell into his lap so long ago.

The reporter who with Carl Bernstein turned a "third-rate burglary" into a key for unlocking the true character of the Nixon White House still can't quite believe that a Washington leak story unworthy of his attention has somehow become the drip-drip-drip exposing the debacle of Iraq. "I don't know how this is about the buildup to the war, the Valerie Plame Wilson issue," he said on "Larry King Live" on the eve of the Scooter Libby indictment. Everyone else does. Largely because of the revelations prompted by the marathon Fitzgerald investigation, a majority of Americans now believe that the Bush administration deliberately misled the country into war. The case's consequences for journalism have been nearly as traumatic, and not just because of the subpoenas. The Wilson story has ruthlessly exposed the credulousness with which most (though not all) of the press bought and disseminated the White House line that any delay in invading Iraq would bring nuclear Armageddon.

"W.M.D. - I got it totally wrong," Judy Miller said, with no exaggeration, before leaving The Times. The Woodward affair, for all its superficial similarities to the Miller drama, offers an even wider window onto the White House flimflams and the press's role in enabling them. Mr. Woodward knows more about the internal workings of this presidency than any other reporter. He has been granted access to all its top officials, including lengthy interviews with the president himself, to produce two Bush best sellers since 9/11. But he was gamed anyway by the White House, which exploited his special stature to the fullest for its own propagandistic ends.

Mr. Woodward, to his credit, is not guilty of hyping Saddam's W.M.D.'s. And his books did contain valuable news: of the Wolfowitz axis' early push to take on Iraq, of the president's messianic view of himself as God's chosen warrior, of the Powell-Rumsfeld conflicts that led to the war's catastrophic execution. Yet to reread these Woodward books today, especially the second, the 2004 "Plan of Attack," is to understand just how slickly his lofty sources deflected him from the big picture, of which the Wilson case is just one small, if illuminating, piece.

In her famous takedown of Mr. Woodward for The New York Review of Books in 1996, Joan Didion wrote that what he "chooses to leave unrecorded, or what he apparently does not think to elicit, is in many ways more instructive than what he commits to paper." She was referring to his account of Hillary Clinton's health care fiasco in his book "The Agenda," but her words also fit his account of the path to war in Iraq. This time, however, there is much more at stake than there was in Hillarycare.

What remains unrecorded in "Plan of Attack" is any inkling of the disinformation campaign built to gin up this war. While Mr. Woodward tells us about the controversial posturing of Douglas Feith, the former under secretary of defense for policy, there's only an incidental, even dismissive allusion to Mr. Feith's Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group. That was the secret intelligence unit established at the Pentagon to "prove" Iraq-Qaeda connections, which Vice President Dick Cheney then would trumpet in arenas like "Meet the Press." Mr. Woodward mentions in passing the White House Iraq Group, convened to market the war, but ignores the direct correlation between WHIG's inception and the accelerating hysteria in the Bush-Cheney-Rice warnings about Saddam's impending mushroom clouds in the late summer and fall of 2002. This story was broken by Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus in Mr. Woodward's own paper eight months before "Plan of Attack" was published.

Near the book's end, Mr. Woodward writes of some "troubling" tips from three sources "that the intelligence on W.M.D. was not as conclusive as the C.I.A. and the administration had suggested" and of how he helped push a Pincus story saying much the same into print just before the invasion. (It appeared on Page 17.) But Mr. Woodward never seriously investigates others' suspicions that the White House might have deliberately suppressed or ignored evidence that would contradict George Tenet's "slam-dunk" case for Saddam's W.M.D.'s. "Plan of Attack" gives greatest weight instead to the White House spin that any hyped intelligence was an innocent error or solely the result of the ineptitude of Mr. Tenet and the C.I.A.

Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby are omnipresent in the narrative, and Mr. Woodward says now that his notes show he had questions for them back then about "yellowcake" uranium and "Joe Wilson's wife." But the leak case - indeed Valerie Wilson herself - is never mentioned in the 400-plus pages, even though it had exploded more than six months before he completed the book. That's the most damning omission of all and suggests the real motive for his failure to share what he did know about this case with either his editor or his readers. If you assume, as Mr. Woodward apparently did against mounting evidence to the contrary, that the White House acted in good faith when purveying its claims of imminent doomsday and pre-9/11 Qaeda-Saddam collaborations, then there's no White House wrongdoing that needs to be covered up. So why would anyone in the administration try to do something nasty to silence a whistle-blower like Joseph Wilson? The West Wing was merely gossiping idly about the guy, Mr. Woodward now says, in perhaps an unconscious echo of the Karl Rove defense strategy.

Joan Didion was among the first to point out that Mr. Woodward's passive notion of journalistic neutrality is easily manipulated by his sources. He flatters those who give him the most access by upholding their version of events. Hence Mary Matalin, the former Cheney flack who helped shape WHIG's war propaganda, rushed to defend Mr. Woodward last week. Asked by Howard Kurtz of The Post why "an administration not known for being fond of the press put so much effort into cooperating with Woodward," Ms. Matalin responded that he does "an extraordinary job" and that "it's in the White House's interest to have a neutral source writing the history of the way Bush makes decisions." You bet it is. Sounds as if she's read Didion as well as Machiavelli.

In an analysis of Mr. Woodward written for The Huffington Post, Nora Ephron likens him to Theodore H. White, who invented the modern "inside" Washington book with "The Making of the President 1960." White eventually became such an insider himself that in "The Making of the President 1972," he missed Watergate, the story broken under his (and much of the press's) nose by Woodward and Bernstein. "They were outsiders," Ms. Ephron writes of those then-lowly beat reporters, "and their lack of top-level access was probably their greatest asset."

INDEED it's reporters who didn't have top-level access to the likes of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney who have gotten the Iraq story right. In the new book "Feet to the Fire: The Media After 9/11," Kristina Borjesson interviews some of them, including Jonathan Landay of Knight Ridder, who heard early on from a low-level source that "the vice president is lying" and produced a story headlined "Lack of Hard Evidence of Iraqi Weapons Worries Top U.S. Officials" on Sept. 6, 2002. That was two days before administration officials fanned out on the Sunday-morning talk shows to point ominously at the now-discredited front-page Times story about Saddam's aluminum tubes. Warren Strobel, a frequent reportorial collaborator with Mr. Landay at Knight Ridder, tells Ms. Borjesson, "The most surprising thing to us was we had the field to ourselves for so long in terms of writing stuff that was critical or questioning the administration's case for war."

Such critical stories - including those at The Post and The Times that were too often relegated to Page 17 - did not get traction until the failure to find W.M.D.'s and the Wilson affair made America take a second look. Now that the country has awakened to that history, it will take more to shock it than the latest revelation that the Defense Department has been paying Iraqi newspapers to print its propaganda. Thanks in large part to the case Mr. Woodward found so inconsequential, everyone knows that much of the American press did just the same before the war - and, unlike those Iraqi newspapers or, say, Armstrong Williams, did so gratis.

-------

truthout.org



To: Poet who wrote (51284)12/4/2005 9:58:21 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361154
 
White House Snow Globe
_________________________________________________________

by Gayle Brandeis*

Published on Friday, December 2, 2005 by CommonDreams.org

Now that the holiday season has started in earnest, Bing Crosby sings of a White Christmas from speakers across the land. It is unlikely Bing was dreaming of a White Phosphorous Christmas, but that is what our military gave Fallujah last November. Maybe they considered it an early holiday gift. White phosphorous and torture; gifts that keep on giving—giving pain and suffering, not to mention giving a grossly hypocritical face to the world.

When Congresswoman Barbara Lee offered the lone vote against giving President Bush authority to use force after 9/11, she said "Let us not become the evil we deplore." It is clear our administration has not heeded this warning. We justified war by accusing Saddam of using chemical weapons on the Iraqi people; now we have used chemical weapons on the Iraqi people. We accused Saddam of torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib; now we have done the same, there, and elsewhere. And yet our government continues to wear a righteous face, calling Iraqi torture of Iraqi prisoners "totally unacceptable" when we are guilty of the same grievous acts.

There is a common psychological principle known as projection. Projection is a defensive mechanism by which people attribute their own undesirable traits and impulses to other people; they perceive motives in others that they deny having themselves. The liar, for example, is sure everyone else is lying. The aggressive person accuses others of being belligerent. When Cheney recently called anti-war voices "dishonest," "irresponsible," "corrupt," "shameless" and "dangerous," it sounded like a classic case of projection at work. Our administration appears to suffer from mass-projection—they attribute countless evils not only to Saddam and terrorists (who are of course guilty of heinous acts) but to the peace movement and anyone else who dares to question their motives. All the while, they are unwilling and unable to look at themselves in the same mirror.

It has often been said that Bush lives inside a bubble—surrounded by Yes men and women who keep telling him he's doing a heck of a job, despite his crumbling poll numbers and disastrous policies. In keeping with the season, we can think of Bush's bubble as a snow globe; when we try to shake things up, it only reinforces the administration's delusional and insular world view. "Look at the lovely snow falling," they say, while the world seethes just outside their thin plastic dome.

As long as Bush and Cheney remain in office, the pathological lies and abuse will continue. Many Republicans, like Libby and Cunningham, have started to see the consequences of their unethical behavior. Let's hope the walls of the snow globe will shatter and Bush and Cheney will brought to similar justice soon. A White House Evicting Christmas—now that is worthy of a dream.
__________________________________________________

*Gayle Brandeis is the author of Fruitflesh: Seeds of Inspiration for Women Who Write and The Book of Dead Birds: A Novel, which won Barbara Kingsolver's Bellwether Prize for Fiction in Support of a Literature of Social Change.

commondreams.org



To: Poet who wrote (51284)1/12/2006 11:53:16 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361154
 
Any thoughts on James Frey and his situation...?

Here's the latest from Slate...

slate.com



To: Poet who wrote (51284)1/13/2006 1:04:49 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 361154
 
The truth about memoirs
_____________________________________________________________

Uproar over James Frey's bestseller "A Million Little Pieces" unearths a literary minefield.

By Susan Salter Reynolds
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 13, 2006

It used to be so simple. There was fiction and there was nonfiction. Then, with the publication of Mary Karr's memoir "The Liars' Club" and Frank McCourt's "Angela's Ashes" in the mid-1990s, nonfiction burst at the seams. So began the parsing, the long division of nonfiction into memoir, creative nonfiction and personal essay. Nonfiction, tethered to reality, bore the burden of proof. Fiction, footloose, unaccountable, all but withered away. In the age of reality TV, publishers wanted memoirs, not novels. Now, with the controversey over James Frey and his memoir of addiction and rehabilitation, "A Million Little Pieces," the issue has exploded with the fervor of revolution, especially when it comes to what seems a whole new category, often called the recovery memoir, that publishers don't seem to know how to vet or sell.

"The New York Times bestseller list only has four categories," says a highly amused Tom Wolfe from his home in New York. "There ought to be a fifth category for autobiography. Or perhaps we should call it handicapped nonfiction." Wolfe's half-century of writing journalism, nonfiction and fiction has helped to define but also blur these categories. "This hearkens back to something George Orwell said, that autobiography is the most outrageous form of fiction."

More than 3 1/2 million copies of "A Million Little Pieces" have been sold since the book was published in 2003, many after Oprah Winfrey chose it for her book club last fall. Yet since last Friday, when the Smoking Gun.com posted "The Man Who Conned Oprah" — alleging factual errors in Frey's depiction of his criminal record and his role in the deaths of two teenage girls — almost every fact in the memoir has become suspect, sparking conversation and controversy. Journalists, novelists and memoirists agree that there is no such thing as objective reality. So what do these categories — fiction, nonfiction, memoir — mean? Where do we draw the line between them? Is the fact, that smallest particle of literature, in danger of becoming irrelevant?

"If it were my choice," Frey said in April 2003, " 'A Million Little Pieces' would be listed as literature. It doesn't really matter though. What matters is how many people read it and how it affects them." He did not, however, want his book to be publicized as a "recovery memoir." But ironically, such a label may be what saves the book in the face of accusations of inaccuracy. "Although some of the facts have been questioned," said Winfrey in a dramatic call to TV host Larry King at the end of his televised interview with Frey on Wednesday night, "the underlying message of redemption still resonates for me." The facts, Winfrey implied, are pretty much irrelevant. What matters is something Frey and others are calling "emotional truth."

Bill Bastone, editor of the Smoking Gun.com, disagrees. The former Village Voice reporter feels strongly that since "A Million Little Pieces" is being sold as nonfiction, Frey is "dishonest and unethical." The Smoking Gun.com did not, as Bastone tells it, set out to get Frey. "We were trying to look for a mug shot.," Bastone says. "If we'd had any luck, we would have posted it and that would have been it," Bastone says. According to him, examination of the book revealed an untraceable paper trail.

"I think he crafted it in a way that made it hard for people to figure out," Bastone suggests. "There were no surnames, for example; all of the details had been washed away." Bastone believes that if Winfrey weren't in the mix, the book never would have sold as many copies. But he is surprised by the wagon-circle tight lipped response of the author, his agent and his publishers. "These are powerful people who are keeping their mouths zipped while Frey's getting hammered."

Publisher's accountability

Perhaps the reason for this silence is that many people close to "A Million Little Pieces" seemed flummoxed by recent events. "When I read the book," says Nan A. Talese, who published the book in hardcover at Doubleday, "it was completely nonfiction." Talese, like many New York publishers, seems weary and wary of the whole subject. "We are not talking about weapons of mass destruction," she says. As for allegations in the Smoking Gun's article, Talese says, "memoir writing is not like mathematics. I am not at all dismayed. The truth is that the book has helped people enormously.... There might be some facts missing...." When asked if she thinks Frey was pressured to call the book a memoir because it would sell better, the veteran publisher draws herself up. "This is not about sales. We accepted the book," she says, "because it was an authentic story. Who knew that it would sell? I can't tell you what was in James' mind, but to us, it was always nonfiction." It's an impassioned defense, but in some way, it sidesteps the larger question: Is a publisher accountable? Should Doubleday have checked the facts?

Such a question gets at a deep and dirty secret of the publishing industry: There is little vetting of the facts. "Publishers in general will check only for libel," says Wolfe. "For the rest they accept the author's version." Pulitzer Prize finalist Tim O'Brien, author of many books, including the 1973 memoir "If I Die in a Combat Zone Box Me Up and Ship Me Home" (one of the earliest books to be labeled "creative nonfiction") says that when his memoir was published, "I wondered if anybody would vet it, to see if I had been in the Army. But nobody ever did. I could've just made it up."

"Publishers," argues Michael Hoyt, editor of the Columbia Journalism Review, "have abandoned their role as gatekeepers. A publisher who says it doesn't matter, well...." He trails off in disbelief.

Yet this attitude, it seems, is far from common, raising questions about just what, exactly, memoir is. "The work did not have the strength I felt was going to be needed," Frey confessed in an essay written just after publication of "A Million Little Pieces," "it was not as simple as I wanted it to be, it was not able to carry the emotions I needed to express to tell the story." Finally, he writes, he gave in to a kind of expository writing: "I didn't think or analyze or struggle or try, it just came from me, just came to the page, came from my mind and from my heart."

"For most people in the regular reading world," says Jayson Blair, the former New York Times reporter who was fired in 2003 for faking quotes, interviews and even expense accounts, and later wrote his own memoir, "Burning Down My Master's House: My Life at the New York Times," " 'memoir' implies that what's on the pages of the book will be true. But what I have found as I've spent more time in the publishing industry, the reality is far from that. There are a number of books, like [those] by Augusten Burroughs, which have put disclaimers in very small type that mention changed names, changed chronologies. What you realize is that even though the public will tell you they want truth in memoirs, what the publishing industry's research tells them is that they want something they can believe is true — yet is first an interesting story."

Shifting lines

Of course, it's publishers who make the labels, not authors, and these days, memoirs sell. But a new breed of book, part memoir, part nonfiction, seems to be evolving, or so the critics say. Vivian Gornick, author of a book on the subject, "The Situation and the Story," believes that the novel has reached "a point of stasis." Modernism has left us without story, and that, Gornick claims, "has become wearisome." It has also paved the way for what she calls "The Age of Testament," in which memoirists turn out compelling stories with more energy and voice than the stripped down modernist novel. "People are so much more willing to come clean," says Lee Gutkind, editor of the literary journal Creative Nonfiction. "A quarter-century ago, in order to tell the truth, you'd have to make up characters and write a novel."

"I do believe it's becoming a hybrid form," says Gornick of recent memoirs, citing luminary author W.G. Sebald, whose books, a mix of memory and history and observation and image, strike many critics as the wave of the future.

Samuel Freedman, professor of journalism at Columbia University, disagrees. "To me, the memoir should mean nonfiction. To say that a memoir written in the first person has a subjective point of view is perfectly all right, but that's a million miles away from what Doubleday is saying. Frey gets to invent things that never happened and pass them off as truth. Memoir has become in publishing circles widely accepted as a synonym for 'Make it up if you want to, we don't care as long as it sells.' "

Freedman refers to the famous example of Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood." "When the book came out, people assumed that Capote had this fabulous ability to recall, could assemble themes without a note.... In time, we've discovered that parts were fictionalized." This hasn't, it hardly needs to be said, affected sales of the book. And it probably won't hurt "A Million Little Pieces" either.

Freedman is not the only one who takes issue with the notion of playing fast and loose with the facts. (He believes that nothing short of "Saudi justice, in which you could cut off [the writer's hands], will do.") "Memoirs," says Mary Karr, also offer a kind of "survival testimony" that novels cannot. Karr, who has been teaching creative nonfiction for 20 years, is angry about how writers like Frey call into question the credibility of all nonfiction writers. "This is outrageous," she says. "I think he's reprehensible. In fiction you make up events to support interpretation. In memoir you inherit the events and make up the interpretation." For Karr, it's a matter of the erosion of authority in memoir writing as well as the erosion of objective truth. "The reader understands that memoir is a corrupt form, but that doesn't mean you can make [it] up," she says. "This damages writers who don't break the ethical code," Freedman argues, "because it means that if you try to write a book of this sort, within the venerable standards of journalism and history, your book may suffer a presumption of fabrication."

Many believe that publishers need to be more sophisticated in the way they market their books, offering full disclosure right up front.

Categories matter, says Lee Gutkind, because they help persuade people to pay for the book. Gutkind believes that publishers should explain the author's intention more clearly to the reader. If Doubleday had done that, he says, "they might not have sold 3 million copies but their integrity would be intact."

Just the facts

In the end, it all gets back to facts, which have become the substance of an us-and-them dynamic: Are you for them or against them? Freedman and others blame deconstructionist literary critics who claim there is no such thing as fact, creating what he calls "a weird insidious marriage of deconstructionism and marketplace value."

"You can't put out false things," says Michael Hoyt. "Am I old-fashioned? You work hard for veracity. I don't think facts are fungible." "It's fiction if you make stuff up," Gutkind adds. "It's nonfiction if you don't. I know that fact checking is very difficult, but the writer has an obligation to the reader. The publisher also has an obligation to the reader. So does Harpo Productions [Winfrey's company]."

For many, it boils down to a question of faith: A writer should work hard to get the facts right, even though, in the end, they may be elusive at best. "There is no objective reality," says New Yorker writer Lawrence Weschler, "but that is no excuse for knowingly obfuscating and confabulating."

Weschler, who refers to the Frey controversy as a "thumb suck fest," is amazed by the regularity with which such issues continue to come up.

He feels the market is saturated with memoirs, too much of what essayist and author Scott Russell Sanders calls "loose and self-indulgent autobiographical reverie." "The planet is 100 years from being over," Weschler comments. "It's just narcissism."

Like Karr, he has taught creative nonfiction for decades. (He is currently teaching a course called "The Fiction of Nonfiction" at NYU.) "I tell my students," he says, " 'I don't want your memoirs. I want to read wine, not grape juice.' The most interesting thing about memoir is the fallibility of memoir." What's important, Weschler believes, is the personal voice, "not out of megalomania, but out of modesty." We have, he says, "a crack at getting it right. The notion of aspiring to accuracy is very important. The notion that we can achieve it is a fantasy."

"It does get blurry," says Tim O'Brien, echoing Weschler. "But it's a matter of intent.... Intentionality is something that's really critical."

And yet, memoir has always been uncontrollable, which makes it subversive. It preserves, writes Michael Steinberg, editor of the journal Fourth Genre: Explorations in Nonfiction, "the messier side of history."

"So-called fictional techniques in memoir are neither lies nor embellishments," Jocelyn Bartkevicius, professor of English at the University of Central Florida, has written in the same journal. She quotes Proust: "Reality takes shape in the memory alone."

In conversations about "A Million Little Pieces," many writers and editors excuse Frey, claiming he has helped so many readers. Does the label "recovery memoir," therefore, exempt a writer from the laws of nonfiction by implying therapeutic use? These are books that motivate, inspire and make readers feel less alone: stronger, supported. "I don't think it's so terrible," says Gornick, referring to Frey. "After all, he has compelled all these people to come along with him." Karr has a different view: "I don't think he saved anyone," she says. "Oprah did."

As for Frey, he claims to be finished writing about himself. His current publisher, Riverhead, recently announced that his next book, "a multi-voiced, multi-threaded story of contemporary Los Angeles," will be published in the fall of 2007. "It is," says publicist David Zimmer, "definitely fiction."

The villain in the Frey story, at least in media circles, is the publishing industry. Winfrey has taken Frey back into the fold, saying she believes in him and in "A Million Little Pieces," but blames the publishers, on whom she depends "to identify the category."

"The categories should be more sophisticated," agrees Lawrence Weschler. "Readers should be more educated. Truth is not absolute. Scrupulousness is a category we look for."
______________________________

Times staff writer Steven Barrie-Anthony contributed to this story.

calendarlive.com



To: Poet who wrote (51284)5/16/2006 9:57:49 PM
From: goldworldnet  Respond to of 361154
 
Hi Poet,

I hope life is treating you well.

My Best,
Josh