The Debate Link

No doubt you've heard about the CNN-hosted Trump "town hall" (in a "town" that only includes Republicans and Republican-leaners, naturally). You know, the one where CNN set the ground rule that only applause, but not booing, was permitted?

Many people argue that Trump, given his egregious lies, should not be given this sort of prime media platform. And a common defense to that charge is that it's better to give Trump a platform and subject him to "tough questions" than it is to let him roam the earth unchallenged. Isn't that what journalism is? Here's CNN chairman Chris Licht, for example:

“I absolutely, unequivocally believe America was served very well by what we did last night,” Mr. Licht added. “People woke up, and they know what the stakes are in this election in a way that they didn’t the day before. And if someone was going to ask tough questions and have that messy conversation, it damn well should be on CNN.”

As it happens, I was perusing my archives the other day and came across this oldie shot/chaser, involving Jerusalem Post editor Jacob Katz defending his decision to host Sebastian Gorka at a conference while Gorka was under a cloud of controversy for his ties to neo-Nazis. Here's the shot:

[Katz said that] "We decided that ... he would be interviewed by me on stage while knowing that I will confront him with tough questions, including about the various allegations that have been reported in the press."

And here's the chaser:

Sitting on stage in an interview setting, Gorka was not pressed by Jerusalem Post editor Jacob Katz to provide any substantive explanation of his involvement with Vitezi Rend order in Hungary. Although he has denied being a formal member of the group, Gorka has repeatedly expressed support for the far right wing organization that the U.S. government says was under the control of the Nazis during World War II.

Katz allowed him to change the subject to his preferred topic of the threat of radical Islam.

This is the thing. It's one thing to defend platforming bigots and liars by saying "when these people are in the public eye, it's our job as journalists to ask the tough questions and hold their feet to the fire." But then you actually have to, you know, do it. What we seem to get more often is the conceptual promise of "asking tough questions" used to defend an actual practice of creampuffing.

Alejandrina Cabrera, s city council candidate in heavily-Spanish-speaking San Luis, Arizona has been removed from the ballot after a judge ruled her English ability wasn't good enough to qualify. This was in accordance with Arizona's state law establishing English as the official language.

I have to think that, particularly as applied to this case, the law has to be unconstitutional. The hook would be the Equal Protection Clause (though it is times like this when my hostility to Luther v. Borden shines brightest), but in general it is fundamentally undemocratic for the state to impose substantive barriers to keep certain types of candidates off the ballot. The whole principle of a democracy is that the people get to decide what sort of person represents them, and if the people want to elect someone whose primary language is Spanish but whose English fluency is (in the candidate's own words), about a 5 out of 10, that's their prerogative.

When you compare that to the view of the City Attorney, who said that the decision was correct because a vote for Cabrera "would have been wasted, because [voters]c could have voted for someone better prepared to be an elected official," and the fundamentally authoritarian nature of the law becomes clear. The state is preventing a candidate from running for office because -- regardless of what the voters might think -- the state thinks that other people would be a better elected official. This is, more or less, how Iran conducts its "democracy", and it remains a sham even when it makes its way to one of the fifty states.

Now, to be sure, some set of neutrally-applied procedural hurdles -- such as attaining a set number of signatures, may be okay. But notably, such laws only effect persons who by virtue of their failure have already demonstrated themselves unlikely to obtain substantial, much less majority, support. Here, by contrast, the target of the law seems to be someone who could plausibly be elected -- and the insistence on trying to force Cabrera off the ballot seems to imply that she poses a real threat to her political opponents in San Luis. Well, that's democracy -- sometimes the voters vote for someone other than you. The solution is to be more appealing to the electorate, not rig the system so your opponents can't get on the ballot.

(And we won't even get into the nauseating nature of the comments on CNN's piece. I have to remind myself that internet commenters are not a representative cross-sample of America lest I despair of this whole national project altogether).

Reporting on the decision of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) to drop out of the GOP presidential primary after getting thrashed in the Iowa Caucuses, CNN feels compelled to resort to one of my least favorite journalistic constructions:

Bachmann's withdrawal is a blow to many die-hard tea party conservatives. The congresswoman, a leading populist conservative in the House of Representatives, has often led the GOP's rhetorical charge against President Barack Obama's agenda.

Critics, however, have often accused her of playing loose with facts and making irresponsible accusations. (Emphasis added)

The problem here is that it isn't a matter of "critics" saying that Bachmann plays fast and loose with the facts. It is verifiably true that Bachmann has lied on several, high-profile occasions. Indeed, CNN details these lies in the next several paragraphs, from accusing Democrats of being responsible for the Swine Flu, to claiming an Obama trip to India cost $200 million/day (and the HPV vaccine debacle could and should have been added).

But of course, it would be partisan to simply say that a politician known to lie and toss out wild, irresponsible speculations lies and tosses out wild irresponsible speculations. So they have to hide behind "critics", so they can keep themselves safely within he said/she said land.

In class yesterday, we discussed "the race card" and its counterpart, "the 'race card' card". To say that someone played "the race card" is to say they made an accusation that something or someone is racist maliciously, in bad faith, or (perhaps) with insufficient evidence. "The 'race card' card", then, is complaining that a statement which allegedly makes an accusation of racism is illegitimate or out-of-bounds as a tool for shunting the discussion away from the merits of the claim.

We talked in class about how the fears which undergird the race card were legitimate. Given (a) the widespread belief that racism is deeply, gravely wrong, and (b) the lack of widespread agreement on what racism is, being tagged with the charge of "racist" has the twin properties of being potentially career-ending and extremely unpredictable. I analogized it to how the death penalty was described in Furman v. Georgia -- akin to being struck by lightning. It is no wonder that people are very anxious around the subject. "The 'race card' card" is an attempt to defuse this seemingly dangerous power.

On the other hand, the attempt to silence "the race card" via "the 'race card' card" is severely problematic on its own. Most obviously, questions about whether something is racist or supports racial inequality are really important, and it is a discussion that needs to be had. We can't say we're trying to build the best, most just country America can be while effectively exiling a huge area of moral dispute from critical inquiry. And while there are legitimate reasons why people are wary of that conversations (see above), there are also illegitimate ones -- namely, people content with the status quo who would rather not see it challenged, rightly or not. The potency of "the 'race card' cad" allows them the ability to permanently defer and thus suppress that discussion.

One bit of evidence for the latter effect is that "the 'race card' card" is deployed exceptionally broadly, even in situations where nobody is being called a racist, even in situations where the prospect of racial injustice isn't on the table. I thought of this while reading this analysis of President Obama's recent polling. The poll notes that Obama's approval ratings are quite low amongst Whites (36/61), while still being relatively high amongst non-Whites (67/32). The piece doesn't say "thus, Whites are racist." It doesn't even really say anything about racial justice issues at all. The only normative conclusion it draws is that, in a country that has a lot of White people, losing Whites badly is not a good sign for one's re-election prospect.

And yet, what was the first response that got broadcast on CNN?

Well, Jack, it’s nice to see CNN is still a valued member of the president’s re-election campaign. Let’s just further divide an already divided country by trying to make this about race. The president is in over his head and people are beginning to realize this administration has only made a bad economy worse.

In effect, this is accusing CNN of playing the "race card" for Obama, simply by virtue of the article making note of a demographic split. That is less indicative of someone genuinely worried about being "hit by lightning", and more someone who wants to shut down a discussion before it starts.

My own views on this topic are close to those expressed by Professor Hirsch, encouraging a default towards discussion and a presumption of good faith. That cuts both ways -- we should assume that a person advocating a policy we believe to have racially unjust effects does not consciously harbor malicious thoughts towards the group in question, but we should also assume that the person making the accusation of potential racial problems is doing so honestly and because the legitimately believe there is a problem that needs addressing.

Jesus, this wasn't a one-off? CNN's Erick Erickson gets in on the "it's the ladies fault" action for why the U.S. is in Libya:

ERICKSON: By the way, it's the women's fault. … It's, apparently, the women in the Obama administration who have decided we needed to go to war in Libya. … This is typical. This is so typ-- i'm mean, I'm going to bring my inner sexist out I'm afraid tonight, some of you are going to be very upset with me. But this is like women drivers. We're going to war in Libya, we have no plan, we have no map, even if we have a map of war, um, it wasn't going to get read, they were going to pull over and ask the French apparently for help, or at least make the guy pull over and ask the French for help. This is crazy.
[...]
This is just silly. I mean, back-seat driving by the women, and they're gonna get Barack Obama lost. What is it with Barack Obama caving to the women? I mean, now we know who rules his personal life. I guess Michelle is firmly in charge as well, if Barack Obama is going to cave that easy to three women in his administration over what to do with Libya.
[...]
It took the women to get him involved, and the women apparently went in without a clear plan. No shopping list.

Unbelievable.

The latest James O'Keefe scandal -- where he tried to trick a CNN reporter into boarding a boat loaded with sex props in order to "seduce her" on camera and then embarrass her publicly -- is, in addition to being frankly bizarre, creepy as all get out.

According to the document, O'Keefe was to record a video of the following script before Boudreau arrived: "My name is James. I work in video activism and journalism. I've been approached by CNN for an interview where I know what their angle is: they want to portray me and my friends as crazies, as non-journalists, as unprofessional and likely as homophobes, racists or bigots of some sort....

"Instead, I've decided to have a little fun. Instead of giving her a serious interview, I'm going to punk CNN. Abbie has been trying to seduce me to use me, in order to spin a lie about me. So, I'm going to seduce her, on camera, to use her for a video. This bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five will get a taste of her own medicine, she'll get seduced on camera and you'll get to see the awkwardness and the aftermath.
[...]
"If they pursue this as you are a creep, you should play it up with them initially only to reveal that the tape was made beforehand confirming this was a gag," the document states. "If they [CNN] admit it was a gag, you should release the footage and focus on the fact they got punked, and make sure to emphasize Abbie's name and overall status to help burden her career with this video, incident and her bad judgment in pursuing you so aggressively."

Finally, "if they go on the attack, you should point out the hypocrisy in CNN using the inherent sexuality of these women to sell viewers and for ratings, passing up more esteemed and respectable journalists who aren't bubble-headed bleach blondes and keep the focus on CNN."

Oh, and sexist too.

I'm so glad that he was the assignments editor for the much of the media on the ACORN faux-scandal.

CNN has an interesting story about a group of two American Muslims (plus a CNN reporter and photographer) who are trying to visit 30 mosques in 30 states in 30 days. Worth a read.

CNN's Senior Editor on Mideast Affairs, Octavia Nasr, has stepped down after writing about her "respect" for Sayyed Fadlallah, a top Hezbollah spiritual leader.

Ms. Nasr explained that her respect did not mean a whole-hearted endorsement of everything Mr. Fadlallah stood for -- including his claims that the Holocaust was exaggerated and his desire to exterminate the Jewish state. Rather, she believed that Mr. Fadlallah had, with regards to women's rights, been forwarded a more moderate vision of Shi'ite Islam that condemned "honor killings" and abuse against women. To call him "progressive" on women's rights would be a gross exaggeration, but he was perhaps notably less retrogressive, and grading on a curve I guess that counts for something. And I don't doubt that Ms. Nasr is being totally honest in stating that her feelings of respect stemmed from these issues.

But it doesn't obviate the tiny detail that the organization he was affiliated with, you know, wants Israel to be annihilated (and possibly wants me, personally, dead as well*). As Ms. Nasr admits, Mr. Fadlallah was marginalized in Hezbollah because he was too aggressive in demanding that Hezbollah focus solely on destroying Israel. Given that, I'm frankly stunned by the reaction in some liberal quarters to the news -- essentially alleging that this was kowtowing to a requirement in the media that all figures by biased in favor of Israel. "Bias", here, means a requirement that one not praise folks actively wishing for Israel to be obliterated. That alone demonstrates just how far the plaintive whine about how "the Israel Lobby" suppresses all dissent has extended itself. Why, you can't even praise folks who want to see Israel completely destroyed, and who think its completely okay to murder Israeli civilians (and possibly Jews worldwide), without facing their wrath. Oh, the muzzling! Oh, spare me.

Hezbollah generally, and Sayyed Fadlallah particularly, promote a radical anti-Semitic and anti-Israel agenda which is quite well-known. It is not whitewashed just because Fadlallah supports some progressive less retrogressive reforms inside Shi'ite Islam. I'm reminded of Naomi Klein's hideous reaction to the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Durban II speech, which conceded that it was anti-Semitic, but nonetheless that Jews dared protest it because it distracted from other progressive goals of the conference. Progressivism, here, simply means Jews have to take it in the teeth, because paying attention to our concerns might distract from those of real human beings.

And yes, it's pretty clear that CNN (and other media giants) have a bevvy of rather appalling figures on their payrolls. It's obviously a blot on CNN that it hired someone who referred to a Supreme Court Justice as a "goat f@$king child molester", but I hardly think a universal reduction in standards is the way to solve the issue. I likewise think anyone who thinks Palestine should not exist does not deserve a place on CNN, and certainly not in a senior position in CNN's Mideast desk. If such people are currently working in such a position at CNN, they should step down as well (make me a list -- I'll sign a petition). But it isn't right to ask Jews to play the sacrificial pawn in your media wars. If your progressivism means ignoring equal Jewish rights, it ain't progressivism to me.

* From the New Yorker article:

On the killing of Israeli civilians, Fadlallah said, "In a state of war, it is permissible for Palestinians to kill Jews. When there is peace, this is not permissible." He does not believe in a peaceful settlement between two states, one Palestinian, the other Israeli; rather, he favors the disappearance of Israel.
[...]
"We are against the killing of Jews outside Palestine," Fadlallah said. "Unless they transfer the war outside Palestine." When I asked if they had, Fadlallah raised an eyebrow, and let the question go unanswered.

Every year I promise not to watch the State of the Union. Some years I keep the promise, some years I don't. This year, I got curious about the reported call to overturn DADT. If you want to drink, here are your rules.

Also, CNN's focus group looks like they were kidnapped off the street and are being locked in the studio.

Jesus, CNN, what have you done to your webpage?

CNN has an article up on Saskatchewan's status as a jobs "hot spot".

Normally, "hot spot" isn't the first phrase that comes to mind when talking about Saskatchewan. But with most of Canada suffering from devastating job losses, this cold province is becoming exactly that. Premier Brad Wall encourages people not to count out a move to the area based on stereotypes that it is "only winter here," and "all of the land is just rolling hills." full story

If Mr. Wall is hoping the stereotype that his province is an isolated arctic outpost would be dispelled by this article, he probably was hoping for a different picture to go along with it:

Fun? Yes. Height of civilization? Not quite.

CNN: You may be more racist than you think. A new study out of York University indicates that non-Black persons are liable to seriously over-estimate the degree to which they are disturbed by racist behavior. When one group was asked how they would react to a described racist incident, most people claimed they would be very upset. But when another group was actually exposed to the racist act, they generally were not particularly distressed at all.

CNN: "Study: Teens on MySpace mention sex, violence".

*GASP*

The article seems to be saying that teens mention their own (often false or exaggerated) exploits with sex, drugs, or violence, which I guess is problematic. Though the Orwellian measures the researchers recommend to parents as a response are more than a bit creepy as well.

This is the picture CNN has been using as its stock "Norm Coleman/Al Franken" piece. I like it, because it's spectacularly unflattering to both, yet entirely accurate. Coleman comes off as a slick loud-mouth jerk, which he essentially is. And Franken comes off as a know-it-all nerd with poor social skills, which is likewise pretty much true.

Score one for journalistic accuracy.

Once again, CNN goes off and carries John McCain's water:

The remark comes days after McCain faced criticism from Obama over a weekend remark at Pastor Rick Warren's faith forum, where the Arizona senator joked that someone would need to earn $5 million a year in the United States to be defined as rich.

Umm...no. McCain did not "joke" that $5 million is the threshold for rich in America. He said it. It might have been a gaffe, he might have walked it back or changed his mind later, but it wasn't a joke. That implies a degree of intentionality that McCain clearly did not possess when he said it. It was a slip-up, but it wasn't a joke.

CNN has a very good piece up on the continuing segregation in America's churches. It is surprisingly good about noting that the pressure comes from both sides -- while Whites do tend to flee congregations where there is any substantial Black population (particularly if they start wielding power), Blacks also like their churches to be a "refuge" from the slings and arrows of racism they face daily in America.

It's worth a read.

OH MY F&%@#ing GOD AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN 2008 IS NOT A QUOTA SYSTEM!

Could you find it in you to mention that once in your story?

Racial quotas have not been allowed since Bakke. The myth that they still are a relevant part of the debate is a huge barrier to actual public deliberation on the subject.

So DO YOUR F*@#%ING JOB, and let your readers know that.

Thanks,

David

From a CNN.com article on the potential boycott of the Beijing Olympics opening ceremonies:

Japan's Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda also said he would attend the opening ceremony despite concerns about human rights in China that prompted some other European leaders to boycott the event.

Some other European leaders? I know Japan is industrialized and rich and prosperous, but it remains quite comfortably in Asia as far as I'm aware of.

(The previous paragraphs were talking about the United States -- also not in Europe).

There's a minor controversy from the latest CNN/YouTube debate, stemming from a question posed by retired Brig. General Keith Kerr. Kerr, who came out as gay after leaving the US Armed Forces, pointedly asked the Republican candidates about the military's policy of excluding openly gay members, specifically why they thought "American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians." Unsurprisingly, though many were uncomfortable, none responded by repudiating Don't Ask Don't Tell.

But that's not the controversy. Immediately after the debate, it came out that Kerr had links to Hillary Clinton's campaign, where he is an adviser for her on LGBT issues. Kerr is also a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, but it appears that in recent years (undoubtedly due in no small part to this issue) he has been voting Democratic.

I agree that CNN should have done a better job checking Kerr's credentials. It is relevant that he is affiliated with a Democratic campaign, and folks watching the debate have a right to know it. I do not, however, believe that this means Kerr's question should have been excluded. I have no problem with Democrats and Republicans having to answer pointed questions from the other side of the aisle. That strikes me as a feature, not a bug. The goal of these debates isn't to make the candidates comfortable. It's to get them to engage with real Americans which (though I know the partisans have trouble believing it) include folks from both sides. I'd be very interested in hearing the Democrats respond to a pointed query from an anti-gay American, or someone who feels that religion is being chased out of the public square.

So, failures of disclosure notwithstanding, the question and questioner should have stayed. Even conservative blogger James Joyner concedes it was a poignant and appropriate question, source notwithstanding. What bothers me is that it would have been so easy to include Kerr's Democratic conversion into the question and make it better, not worse. Here was his original question:

My name's Keith Kerr, from Santa Rosa, California. I'm a retired brigadier general with 43 years of service. I'm a graduate of the Special Forces Officer Course, the Commanding General Staff Course and the Army War College. And I'm an openly gay man. I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.

What if it were asked this way?

My name's Keith Kerr, from Santa Rosa, California. I'm a retired brigadier general with 43 years of service. I'm a graduate of the Special Forces Officer Course, the Commanding General Staff Course and the Army War College. Though I have long been Republican, in recent elections I have been compelled to support Democrats for one simple reason. I'm an openly gay man, and I want to know why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians.

Just as powerful, and up-front.

Before we leave this topic, I just want to cast a spot-light on Rep. Duncan Hunter's answer to this question:

Rep. Duncan Hunter of California said: "General, thanks for your service, but I believe in what Colin Powell said when he said that having openly homosexual people serving in the ranks would be bad for unit cohesion.

"The reason for that, even though people point to the Israelis and point to the Brits and point to other people as having homosexuals serve, is that most Americans, most kids who leave that breakfast table and go out and serve in the military and make that corporate decision with their family, most of them are conservatives,'' Hunter said.

"They have conservative values, and they have Judeo-Christian values. To force those people to work in a small tight unit with somebody who is openly homosexual goes against what they believe to be their principles, and it is their principles, is I think a disservice to them. I agree with Colin Powell that it would be bad for unit cohesion.''

I may be wildly off base here, but I think Israelis would know something about Judeo-Christian values -- at least, if the "Judeo" part has any meaning whatsoever. If ever there was proof that the term has absolutely no Jewish component at all, Hunter just provided it.

The doyen of the Virginia political establishment, Senator John Warner (R-VA) is set to announce his re-election plans on Friday.

The picture along with the article makes him look like the thinnest-headed man I've ever seen. In fact, I thought it might be distorted--but I assumed I was just being paranoid. But if you actually look at the original picture...I was right! It was cropped to make him look ridiculous! The liberal media strikes again, making Republicans look ugly and alien! Somebody, quick, write 22,000 words on it! That'll show CNN what's what!