READERS MOURN DEATH OF MICHAEL KELLY
A unique voice in American journalism was stilled Thursday when Atlantic Monthly editor Michael Kelly was killed in an accident in Iraq. Kelly was "embedded" with the Third Infantry Division and apparently died when the vehicle in which he was riding plunged into a canal.
Kelly brought a conservative voice to his commentary and editing while respecting the need for a diversity of viewpoints. Under his editorship, the venerable Atlantic was on the way to being one of the country's intellectually most important magazines. He was also a columnist for the Washington Post.
There are many conservative columnists out there, but few could match Kelly as a writer. He had honed his skills at the New York Times. National Journal, and New Republic, among other outlets, before taking over the Atlantic. He will be very hard to replace.
Friday, April 04, 2003
Thursday, April 03, 2003
CAN ANTIWAR PROTESTORS READ MINDS?
The deeply moronic nature of way too many people on the Left was on display today as antiwar protesters in San Francisco insisted that police officers should not be allowed to wear red-white-and-blue bandanas under their riot helmets.
According to Bonnie Weinstein, a spokesperson for Bay Area United Against War, the fact that cops at a recent protest wore the bandanas showed that they were in favor of the war and were trying to intimidate the antiwar protestors.
Yet she also said that many antiwar folks also displayed the flag. So how does she know that the cops are in favor of the war based on their headgear? Police regulations allow officers to wear bandanas under their helmets, and the choice of bandanas is up to them. Ms. Weinsein evidently did not actually ask the officers their opinions, so, if she knows what they think, she has a rare gift of mind-reading.
On the other side of the political spectrum, we have Kentucky Republican Senator Jim Bunning, who said Peter Arnett ought to be prosecuted for treason on the basis of his notorious remarks that the U.S. war plan had failed and that his broadcasts from Baghdad were strengthening the antiwar movement. Mr. Arnett's remarks may have been stupid (he judged the war plan a failure a few days before the Third Infantry seized the Baghdad airport), but they were not treasonable. Fortunately the Constitution defines treason very narrowly, precisely to avoid these types of prosecutions. (Arnett is a native of New Zealand, and unless he became a U.S. citizen, he is not subject to a treason charge anyway.)
Let's hope the war is won soon, before the Left and the Right can find more ways to narrow our freedoms.
The deeply moronic nature of way too many people on the Left was on display today as antiwar protesters in San Francisco insisted that police officers should not be allowed to wear red-white-and-blue bandanas under their riot helmets.
According to Bonnie Weinstein, a spokesperson for Bay Area United Against War, the fact that cops at a recent protest wore the bandanas showed that they were in favor of the war and were trying to intimidate the antiwar protestors.
Yet she also said that many antiwar folks also displayed the flag. So how does she know that the cops are in favor of the war based on their headgear? Police regulations allow officers to wear bandanas under their helmets, and the choice of bandanas is up to them. Ms. Weinsein evidently did not actually ask the officers their opinions, so, if she knows what they think, she has a rare gift of mind-reading.
On the other side of the political spectrum, we have Kentucky Republican Senator Jim Bunning, who said Peter Arnett ought to be prosecuted for treason on the basis of his notorious remarks that the U.S. war plan had failed and that his broadcasts from Baghdad were strengthening the antiwar movement. Mr. Arnett's remarks may have been stupid (he judged the war plan a failure a few days before the Third Infantry seized the Baghdad airport), but they were not treasonable. Fortunately the Constitution defines treason very narrowly, precisely to avoid these types of prosecutions. (Arnett is a native of New Zealand, and unless he became a U.S. citizen, he is not subject to a treason charge anyway.)
Let's hope the war is won soon, before the Left and the Right can find more ways to narrow our freedoms.
Wednesday, April 02, 2003
DO REALLY SMART KIDS NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM FREE SPEECH?
Students at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, a nationally known magnet school in Fairfax County, Virginia, are having their egos protected by the principal, Dr. Elizabeth Lodal, who is concerned that some might be offended by the author of a law-review article questioning the school's affirmative-action policies.
Admission to Jefferson is highly prized among Northern Virginia's overachievers, since the school regularly places graduates at MIT and many other top colleges. A pool of 800 qualified applicants is selected every year on the basis of test scores, and faculty committees choose 400 lucky admittees. It is widely believed in the county that the faculty select more female, black and Hispanic students than would be admitted on the basis of test scores alone.
Lloyd Cohen, a professor at the nearby George Mason University law school (which is well known for a distinctly conservative faculty), conducted a study using test scores obtained under Virginia's Freedom of Information Act and concluded that at least some of the ten blacks admitted to this year's freshman class had lower test scores than some of the whites who were rejected. Cohen wrote an article on his study in an upcoming issue of the Albany Law Review. Presumably it follows the lines of a presentation to gave at a symposium in November 2002 in which he described Jefferson's policies as "invidious discrimination."
The student council president, Matt Wansley, invited Cohen to speak to a student assembly but was promptly overruled by Dr. Lodal.
"How could any educator approve of allowing a situation where a group of their students would be publicly demeaned?" Dr. Lodal said. "These are very worthy kids. They passed the test. They passed 15 screeners. This is a place that is enriched by our diversity."
Students are not unaware of the controversy, however, since the student newspaper carried a lengthy, front-page article on the furor. (See it here.)
Parents had the opportunity to hear Dr. Cohen when he turned up at a meeting for parents of black students called by the school administration. The student newspaper was not permitted to attend the meeting, but participants said "heated words" were exchanged.
Cohen is no stranger to controversy. He has also published an article suggesting that a "futures maket" in human organs would help ensure a steady supply of organs for transplantation.
Students at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, a nationally known magnet school in Fairfax County, Virginia, are having their egos protected by the principal, Dr. Elizabeth Lodal, who is concerned that some might be offended by the author of a law-review article questioning the school's affirmative-action policies.
Admission to Jefferson is highly prized among Northern Virginia's overachievers, since the school regularly places graduates at MIT and many other top colleges. A pool of 800 qualified applicants is selected every year on the basis of test scores, and faculty committees choose 400 lucky admittees. It is widely believed in the county that the faculty select more female, black and Hispanic students than would be admitted on the basis of test scores alone.
Lloyd Cohen, a professor at the nearby George Mason University law school (which is well known for a distinctly conservative faculty), conducted a study using test scores obtained under Virginia's Freedom of Information Act and concluded that at least some of the ten blacks admitted to this year's freshman class had lower test scores than some of the whites who were rejected. Cohen wrote an article on his study in an upcoming issue of the Albany Law Review. Presumably it follows the lines of a presentation to gave at a symposium in November 2002 in which he described Jefferson's policies as "invidious discrimination."
The student council president, Matt Wansley, invited Cohen to speak to a student assembly but was promptly overruled by Dr. Lodal.
"How could any educator approve of allowing a situation where a group of their students would be publicly demeaned?" Dr. Lodal said. "These are very worthy kids. They passed the test. They passed 15 screeners. This is a place that is enriched by our diversity."
Students are not unaware of the controversy, however, since the student newspaper carried a lengthy, front-page article on the furor. (See it here.)
Parents had the opportunity to hear Dr. Cohen when he turned up at a meeting for parents of black students called by the school administration. The student newspaper was not permitted to attend the meeting, but participants said "heated words" were exchanged.
Cohen is no stranger to controversy. He has also published an article suggesting that a "futures maket" in human organs would help ensure a steady supply of organs for transplantation.
Tuesday, April 01, 2003
GERALDO STILL STANDING AFTER MAP FLAP
Geraldo Rivera appeared live on Fox TV from Iraq this morning to deny reports that he had been expelled from the country for disclosing the location of the 101st Airborne Division. Rivera said the divisional commander had decided that a map Rivera drew in the sand during a broadcast contained nothing new and was not a threat to the division.
Pentagon spokesperson Bryan Whitman said Monday that Rivera would get the booot, but then backed off after Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes complained. Rivera is not "embedded" with the 101st, but gave the impession this morning that he had been virtually adopted by the unit.
Geraldo sketched out what he said was a plan for the junction of coalition forces in the vicinity of An Najaf.
If Pentagon officials were annoyed by Rivera's sand-sketching, however, they must have been aghast at a story on the front page of Monday's Washington Post which, in its second paragraph, gave the location of the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infanty Division as "a stretch of Highway 9 about 14 miles west of the town of Hilla and 20 miles southwest of the ruins of Babylon . . . six miles from the Euphrates River . . ." So far there has been no official notice of the article by William Branigin.
NBC's motives in firing Peter Arnett became clearer when Erik Sorensen, president of MSNBC, said the reporter clearly had "pro-Iraqi or anti-Ameircan viewpoints."
Geraldo Rivera appeared live on Fox TV from Iraq this morning to deny reports that he had been expelled from the country for disclosing the location of the 101st Airborne Division. Rivera said the divisional commander had decided that a map Rivera drew in the sand during a broadcast contained nothing new and was not a threat to the division.
Pentagon spokesperson Bryan Whitman said Monday that Rivera would get the booot, but then backed off after Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes complained. Rivera is not "embedded" with the 101st, but gave the impession this morning that he had been virtually adopted by the unit.
Geraldo sketched out what he said was a plan for the junction of coalition forces in the vicinity of An Najaf.
If Pentagon officials were annoyed by Rivera's sand-sketching, however, they must have been aghast at a story on the front page of Monday's Washington Post which, in its second paragraph, gave the location of the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infanty Division as "a stretch of Highway 9 about 14 miles west of the town of Hilla and 20 miles southwest of the ruins of Babylon . . . six miles from the Euphrates River . . ." So far there has been no official notice of the article by William Branigin.
NBC's motives in firing Peter Arnett became clearer when Erik Sorensen, president of MSNBC, said the reporter clearly had "pro-Iraqi or anti-Ameircan viewpoints."
Monday, March 31, 2003
LIMITS OF FREE SPEECH IN MEDIA ARE DEMONSTRATED
Journalists who speak their minds about the war or about politics are in danger of getting the boot, as three recent incidents make clear:
-- Peter Arnett, one of the few Western correspondents left in Baghdad, was fired by NBC-TV after giving an interview to Iraqi TV in which he said the original US war plan had failed due to Iraqi resistance. NBC tried to stand by him at first, saying his remarks were "analytical," but folded after sharp criticism by politicians.
-- Henry Norr, who writes about technology for the San Francisco Chronicle, was suspended after getting arrested at an anti-war demonstration. Norr apparently claimed he was taking a sick day to go to the demonstration. The paper said its issue was "avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest."
-- Steve McLinden, a real estate writer for a suburban edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, was fired after he described a group of conservative activists as "fascists" and used other unflattering terms. McLinden expressed himself in an e-mail to the group rather than in the newspaper. The paper had no comment on the firing.
The incidents remind us that freedom of speech is highly situational -- it depends on who one is, who one works for, what one is saying, and where one is saying it. There is no generalized right of free expression in society, only legal protections against government coercion to some extent. Expansion of the zone of free expression is a constant battle.
The incidents also demonstrate that working journalists are frequently more left-wing than their bosses, who are more attuned to business and social realities and are quick to protect their investment in publishing and broadcasting properties. Where you stand, as the saying goes, often depends on where you sit.
Journalists who speak their minds about the war or about politics are in danger of getting the boot, as three recent incidents make clear:
-- Peter Arnett, one of the few Western correspondents left in Baghdad, was fired by NBC-TV after giving an interview to Iraqi TV in which he said the original US war plan had failed due to Iraqi resistance. NBC tried to stand by him at first, saying his remarks were "analytical," but folded after sharp criticism by politicians.
-- Henry Norr, who writes about technology for the San Francisco Chronicle, was suspended after getting arrested at an anti-war demonstration. Norr apparently claimed he was taking a sick day to go to the demonstration. The paper said its issue was "avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest."
-- Steve McLinden, a real estate writer for a suburban edition of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, was fired after he described a group of conservative activists as "fascists" and used other unflattering terms. McLinden expressed himself in an e-mail to the group rather than in the newspaper. The paper had no comment on the firing.
The incidents remind us that freedom of speech is highly situational -- it depends on who one is, who one works for, what one is saying, and where one is saying it. There is no generalized right of free expression in society, only legal protections against government coercion to some extent. Expansion of the zone of free expression is a constant battle.
The incidents also demonstrate that working journalists are frequently more left-wing than their bosses, who are more attuned to business and social realities and are quick to protect their investment in publishing and broadcasting properties. Where you stand, as the saying goes, often depends on where you sit.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)