This weekend the White House has signaled agreement to submit the controversial so-called "Ports Deal" to a new and fuller review. This was the business deal whereby a United Arab Emirates company based in Dubai, was to take over significant operations at six leading American ports. The reconsideration is the result of an obliging offer by the Dubai company to submit the planned transaction to a second and broader U.S. review of potential security risks. This comes with fortuitous timing, rescuing the administration from a public relations gaffee with its own party that defies easy understanding.
Key Republican congress members, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, had been planning legislation in a roughly bipartisan intent to block or delay the deal until more was known. This was to take place at the end of the current week-long Congressional break. Moreover, it was to be in defiance to White House opposition - for when the predictable objections and concerns to a Mideast nation taking over some of our ports were raised, President Bush inexplicably responded in an obtuse manner, saying the deal would proceed regardless, and threatening a veto of any delaying actions. The administration went as far as to imply that even Republican lawmakers which had long supported many of its other initiatives (like the recent nomination Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court) were in fact engaging in a form of racial profiling by voicing what should have been obvious: After 9/11, people would be predictably jittery in at the appearance of turning over port control to Mideast authorities.
Stung and insulted, many Republicans have righly responded with indignation, and in an interesting testimony to the continuing Public Relations carelessness, even ineptitude, of the administration, the "Ports Deal" has momentarily brought feuding Republican and Democrat leaders into rough consensus and unity. Its been somewhat a minor spectacle, an abject lesson in how not to conduct political relations. At the moment, Republican congressmen seem to be showing more mindfulness of security matters, or certainly the perception of them.
On closer examination, the scheme for the ports likely poses little threat to national security, and may even be called semi-routine. What makes the matter important is rather what it revealed about how out-of-touch in the PR sense the executive branch is with the legislative branch at present. For the President to ask (paraphrasing) `what's the difference between a Great British company and a Mideast one?' is to boggle the mind. One is a staunch ally, has been, since the War of 1812. The other is in a nation that had definite links, however indirect, to the 9/11 attack itself. This is Public Relations 101, or should have been. Its especially so, when one considers the periodic segments on Fox that warn of various points of vulnerability, and speak in concerned volume about them. To not think that control of harbors or docks, or anything at all related to them, would not raise some hackles in this time of war with Islamofascism, is beyond astonishing.
The clash does have the ironic effect of making one wonder about some of the more long standing opposition, which claims the admin goes on the offensive with attacks whenever questioned. It sure looks that way --- Senator Frist and Representative King of NY were among those clearly smarting under the casual disregard for their concerns and what they termed the `playing of the race [profiling] card' against them. It was even enough to bring key pundits like Ann Coulter and Rep King to talking on MSNBC this week about their ire and simple point of what the real issue was: the `Ports Deal' may well be harmless, and not in any way put in jeopardy national security. But the executive branch should have realized that it had to make that case first, and not expect something of that magnitude to be taken `on faith' given other clear oversights in security matters, such as the continuing loose hand on the border.
For now, in speech Sunday, Senate Majority Leader stated that he will suggest that the Senate wait for results of fresh review that World DP (the Dubai firm) has obligingly offered. So any legislation to delay or block the deal is tabled for now. Senator Frist did say that he oversight hearings to continue to examine the agreement and its implications on the port and dockyard security of the nation. With this, the affair will now blow over for now. With this coming so soon on the heels of the `Cheney gun accident' affair with its lag in reporting, what remains is the vital needed for the administration to wake up to its mulish handling of PR and start speaking up more beforehand, rather than after, to prevent misunderstandings. One could wish Ari Fleischer could be enticed by a large sum to come out of retirement till '08. Experienced and/or new voices are clearly needed. If as has been claimed, this was another case of the right-hand not talking to the left, or of the State Department failing to inform the POTUS and Bush was truly surprised, then it is all the more reason for admin to demand better work of its go-betweens.
- Anthony
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Friday, February 17, 2006
Cheney incident highlights press rumor-mongering
The vastly overblown incident of Vice President Cheney's accidental injuring of fellow hunter Harry Whittington with his gun the past weekend unleashed a truly startling display of folly. This writer has been rather critical toward press behavior and emphasis in the past, but even so, was still surprised by the sheer tomfoolery and descent into condescending hysteria by members of the White House Press Corps this week. With unctuous tones and innuendo, and even apparent partisanship, some of the press members fixated upon a botched PR move on the part of the White House (and don't mistake me, the White House PR has been, and remains, bafflingly abysmal in most matters) to leap to filing the most negative and hysterical spins on a straightforward story.
After all, under all the glare -- a true case of all heat and no illumination -- this week saw most of the news sources going ape about the sluggish response in informing them in detail or speedily about a very straightforward accident. With amusing indignation and self-righteous bombast, the White House Press corps was seen grilling Scott McClellan about the shooting as if a dire conspiracy had been concealed from them. It looked partisan, certainly at the very least, juvenile and hysterical. Given the tone they took, its useful to note the following basic facts:
1) The VP accidentally shot a Friend, in fact his Host, on a private hunting excursion. Fine.
2) The one shot was not a Democrat, or somesuch political rival, but the tone taken by questions seemed accusatory and angry. To even hint of foul play or misconduct was beyond absurd. Though this was not directly done, the very tone and heat of the coverage suggested it, and one feels, was intentional to make a big story out of a modest one.
3) There was a delay in the national press being informed, true.
4) This delay was then taken with the utmost offense by the White House Press Corps, who began to carry on and make angry statements, and let insinuations build where calls for Cheney's resignation were even being made. As if something more deliberate then a goof while hunting had taken place or been intended.
5) In all this, there was little concern for Mr. Whittington's own reaction to all this, how he felt about his FRIEND being accused, and especially there was NO concern at all for VP Cheney's feelings about injuring his friend in said incident.
6) The incident became the (understandable) butt of jokes in its immediate aftermath, and then after a lull when Mr. Whittington's health was in question, again once he was known to be alright. The incident is now fading rapidly.
What makes it important is that the White House Press Corps, and the mainstream media it tends to represent in the public's eyes, boldly and disappointingly displayed themselves as little more than rumor-mongers. A few even gave the impression of being schills for the opposition party -- or more precisely, its most conspiracy-minded fringe, the moveon.org crowd. This impression comes from their haste to make a straight-forward incident into a "black helicopter" scenario. As I said above, the press behaved AS IF Cheney had tried to take out an opposition member, not a friend. Indeed, given the basic character of the incident, they seemed determine to give it a `layered meaning' or `ominous nuance' for sensationalistic purposes, where there was none.
But that's just the point. From the very start, the circumstances of the shooting were too clear-cut --- VP Cheney wounding a friend on a private hunt -- to admit to all this black-helicopter think, or indignant affront on the part of the press. It is in fact arguable whether they even had this presumed "right to know" instantly about the incident before local press.
One thing is clear. The White House Press corps and the mainstream media has descended into the role of schills for their own significance and import. They come across as eager to make mountains out of the proverbial moehill, in their haste to create a `sensation' or `headline blaring' story. No attempt is made to use their power of investigation for `rumor control' but rather the opposite. This incident had none of the semi-opaque murkiness of the Iraq War or Abu Ghraib, yet they behaved with the same accusatory tone. They have completely forsaken the still needful and once embraced role of `watchdog' for and against BOTH political parties and big government in general. This neglect of stern inquiry in favor of overheated quizzing and innuendo just obscures the real issues. It also operates in the failure to seek out to cover and expose genuine malfeasance in domestic government, and in the frauds in various programs, both Republican and Democrat. Instead, over and over again, they go to the noiseist of demagogues for "story" and by so doing, as this week, seek to generate only the heat of sensationalism and hyperbole, and none of the illumination of inquiry and fact-checking.
This constant magnifying of all events out of all proportiona and coverage is counter-productive. Every disappearance becomes a national incident, every incident becomes a "a blank- gate" and bad occurrence "a crisis". This is just hyping for hype's sake, and clouds up all the issues more than anything else. The nation needs the true watch-dog role of the press restored, the current brand of journalism retired, and needs it now. A true bipartisan press, skeptical and slow to trust either party, but putting America's interests foremost, is what is called for. In many ways, such did indeed once exist, especially prior to the 1960's. But unfortunately, it seems all but extinct now. However, since history cycles, one can hope for a resurrection of such. Its long overdue.
- Anthony
After all, under all the glare -- a true case of all heat and no illumination -- this week saw most of the news sources going ape about the sluggish response in informing them in detail or speedily about a very straightforward accident. With amusing indignation and self-righteous bombast, the White House Press corps was seen grilling Scott McClellan about the shooting as if a dire conspiracy had been concealed from them. It looked partisan, certainly at the very least, juvenile and hysterical. Given the tone they took, its useful to note the following basic facts:
1) The VP accidentally shot a Friend, in fact his Host, on a private hunting excursion. Fine.
2) The one shot was not a Democrat, or somesuch political rival, but the tone taken by questions seemed accusatory and angry. To even hint of foul play or misconduct was beyond absurd. Though this was not directly done, the very tone and heat of the coverage suggested it, and one feels, was intentional to make a big story out of a modest one.
3) There was a delay in the national press being informed, true.
4) This delay was then taken with the utmost offense by the White House Press Corps, who began to carry on and make angry statements, and let insinuations build where calls for Cheney's resignation were even being made. As if something more deliberate then a goof while hunting had taken place or been intended.
5) In all this, there was little concern for Mr. Whittington's own reaction to all this, how he felt about his FRIEND being accused, and especially there was NO concern at all for VP Cheney's feelings about injuring his friend in said incident.
6) The incident became the (understandable) butt of jokes in its immediate aftermath, and then after a lull when Mr. Whittington's health was in question, again once he was known to be alright. The incident is now fading rapidly.
What makes it important is that the White House Press Corps, and the mainstream media it tends to represent in the public's eyes, boldly and disappointingly displayed themselves as little more than rumor-mongers. A few even gave the impression of being schills for the opposition party -- or more precisely, its most conspiracy-minded fringe, the moveon.org crowd. This impression comes from their haste to make a straight-forward incident into a "black helicopter" scenario. As I said above, the press behaved AS IF Cheney had tried to take out an opposition member, not a friend. Indeed, given the basic character of the incident, they seemed determine to give it a `layered meaning' or `ominous nuance' for sensationalistic purposes, where there was none.
But that's just the point. From the very start, the circumstances of the shooting were too clear-cut --- VP Cheney wounding a friend on a private hunt -- to admit to all this black-helicopter think, or indignant affront on the part of the press. It is in fact arguable whether they even had this presumed "right to know" instantly about the incident before local press.
One thing is clear. The White House Press corps and the mainstream media has descended into the role of schills for their own significance and import. They come across as eager to make mountains out of the proverbial moehill, in their haste to create a `sensation' or `headline blaring' story. No attempt is made to use their power of investigation for `rumor control' but rather the opposite. This incident had none of the semi-opaque murkiness of the Iraq War or Abu Ghraib, yet they behaved with the same accusatory tone. They have completely forsaken the still needful and once embraced role of `watchdog' for and against BOTH political parties and big government in general. This neglect of stern inquiry in favor of overheated quizzing and innuendo just obscures the real issues. It also operates in the failure to seek out to cover and expose genuine malfeasance in domestic government, and in the frauds in various programs, both Republican and Democrat. Instead, over and over again, they go to the noiseist of demagogues for "story" and by so doing, as this week, seek to generate only the heat of sensationalism and hyperbole, and none of the illumination of inquiry and fact-checking.
This constant magnifying of all events out of all proportiona and coverage is counter-productive. Every disappearance becomes a national incident, every incident becomes a "a blank- gate" and bad occurrence "a crisis". This is just hyping for hype's sake, and clouds up all the issues more than anything else. The nation needs the true watch-dog role of the press restored, the current brand of journalism retired, and needs it now. A true bipartisan press, skeptical and slow to trust either party, but putting America's interests foremost, is what is called for. In many ways, such did indeed once exist, especially prior to the 1960's. But unfortunately, it seems all but extinct now. However, since history cycles, one can hope for a resurrection of such. Its long overdue.
- Anthony
Monday, February 13, 2006
Cartoon debate underlies differences in cultures
In the space of two weeks, the world has seen an uproar raised by the actions and drawings of cartoonists. In the first example, a seemingly insensitive portrayal of a crippled U.S. veteran was used to take jabs at the policies and perceived indifference of Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. It predictably angered and vexed many veterans, conservatives, and myriad Republican supporters. However, despite this, generally the response by such pundits as Sean Hannity and various radio moguls was that the cartoonists had the right to do so, however poor in taste. This was seen as a necessary price and cost of having freedom of speech and expression. Especially regarding the political sphere, which is the arena the Founding Fathers most wanted protected from censorship.
Though many on the `Right' were deeply offended, and did in fact call for retraction or not running the cartoons, these were outnumbered by conservatives equally determined to permit the expression, and remaining content to censure and lament the lack of class involved on the part of the cartoonist. As a result, the affair quickly died down and things moved on.
However, shortly afterward, in an unrelated incident, Dutch cartoonists ran some cartoons that cast the role of the Prophet Muhammad in the role of a terrorist or other such objectionable purveyor of violence. When this provoked an outcry, these cartoons were then picked up and reproduced by various other European papers. In the time since, the world has seen some extraordinary scenes of Muslims demanding reprisal and demonstrating with actual destructive riots and burning of property in response to the perceived offense. The rogue Presidency of Iran has even sponsored a tacky counter-protest of anti-Jewish cartoons related to the Holocaust. The bottom line is a clear fundamental rejection of the concept of the freedom of speech, and serves to remind that in the Mideast, such expression generally takes a back seat, if seat at all, to ideology and religion. There is no doubt, no disputing, that the cartoons were offensive (as political satire often can be) and even stupid to issue, given the possible provocation. However, there is another component to consider.
What makes this remarkable is the comparative lack of a Western response pointing out that it is precisely such violent demonstrations, threats, and burnings that fuel the characterizations the cartoonists portray. It is correct to regret and recant any real offensive literature, but in free countries the governments have little say in such matters and beyond official mollifying statements like Chirac of France chose to make, its not really their place to do so. Especially in the face of such belligerent displays. There really needs to be a general global call by the international community for responsible Muslim leaders to make a clear censure and condemnation of such behavior and to distance themselves from it. The equation of their beliefs with violence and terrorism is becoming too strong and too reflexive. In turn there should be clear recognition that such mocking of a religious founder is not only inviting unrest, but is painting with a broad brush. It is on a different level of trespass altogether from rightful satirizing of a current ruler engaging in demogoguery like the leaders of Iran and North Korea.
Yet in essence the real problem is one of cultural disconnect. Leaving aside those who intend to impose their views by violent terror - which can only be dealt with by like force, at the core of the matter would seem to be a failure to recognize the old maxim, "in Rome, do as the Romans do". Europeans often fail to respect Mideast traditions and habits when in the Mideast, and Muslim immigrants to Europe appear to be failing to respect the free expression and traditions of their hosts. At a glance, though there is much to mull here, it appears that imposition of multiculturalism and failure to assimilate are the true culprits. In many ways, the tendency these days is for opposing or differing cultures to `export' too much one's own set of values and paradigms to a place, without taking effort to avoid disturbing those of the host nation involved. This holds true for an immigrant or representative both.
- Anthony
Though many on the `Right' were deeply offended, and did in fact call for retraction or not running the cartoons, these were outnumbered by conservatives equally determined to permit the expression, and remaining content to censure and lament the lack of class involved on the part of the cartoonist. As a result, the affair quickly died down and things moved on.
However, shortly afterward, in an unrelated incident, Dutch cartoonists ran some cartoons that cast the role of the Prophet Muhammad in the role of a terrorist or other such objectionable purveyor of violence. When this provoked an outcry, these cartoons were then picked up and reproduced by various other European papers. In the time since, the world has seen some extraordinary scenes of Muslims demanding reprisal and demonstrating with actual destructive riots and burning of property in response to the perceived offense. The rogue Presidency of Iran has even sponsored a tacky counter-protest of anti-Jewish cartoons related to the Holocaust. The bottom line is a clear fundamental rejection of the concept of the freedom of speech, and serves to remind that in the Mideast, such expression generally takes a back seat, if seat at all, to ideology and religion. There is no doubt, no disputing, that the cartoons were offensive (as political satire often can be) and even stupid to issue, given the possible provocation. However, there is another component to consider.
What makes this remarkable is the comparative lack of a Western response pointing out that it is precisely such violent demonstrations, threats, and burnings that fuel the characterizations the cartoonists portray. It is correct to regret and recant any real offensive literature, but in free countries the governments have little say in such matters and beyond official mollifying statements like Chirac of France chose to make, its not really their place to do so. Especially in the face of such belligerent displays. There really needs to be a general global call by the international community for responsible Muslim leaders to make a clear censure and condemnation of such behavior and to distance themselves from it. The equation of their beliefs with violence and terrorism is becoming too strong and too reflexive. In turn there should be clear recognition that such mocking of a religious founder is not only inviting unrest, but is painting with a broad brush. It is on a different level of trespass altogether from rightful satirizing of a current ruler engaging in demogoguery like the leaders of Iran and North Korea.
Yet in essence the real problem is one of cultural disconnect. Leaving aside those who intend to impose their views by violent terror - which can only be dealt with by like force, at the core of the matter would seem to be a failure to recognize the old maxim, "in Rome, do as the Romans do". Europeans often fail to respect Mideast traditions and habits when in the Mideast, and Muslim immigrants to Europe appear to be failing to respect the free expression and traditions of their hosts. At a glance, though there is much to mull here, it appears that imposition of multiculturalism and failure to assimilate are the true culprits. In many ways, the tendency these days is for opposing or differing cultures to `export' too much one's own set of values and paradigms to a place, without taking effort to avoid disturbing those of the host nation involved. This holds true for an immigrant or representative both.
- Anthony
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
