News Cut: February 4, 2008 Archive

Lonely Lieberman

Posted at 8:37 AM on February 4, 2008 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)

This has already been an election season of intrigue, but a setting this morning in Boston is the poster child for just how strange politics is in 2008. John McCain was giving a speech, and standing behind McCain at Faneuil Hall, was Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Consider this: It was just a little over 7 years ago that Lieberman stood behind VP Al Gore on a riverboat on the Mississippi River in southeast Minnesota, to kick off their campaign for the White House. Lieberman and Gore had locked up the Democratic nomination the night before in Los Angeles at the Democratic National Convention.

Lieberman has gone from VP candidate on the Democratic ticket to former-Democrat-in-chief of the McCain campaign on the Republican side in a breathtakingly short period of time. Lieberman is an independent now; a distinction driven more by political expediency than by philosophy. Connecticut Democrats turned him out in a primary election because of his support for the war in Iraq.

Some have guessed that Lieberman could end up on the Republican ticket. Over the weekend, The Rocky Mountain News reports today, McCain did nothing to diminish the speculation. "I say that after next Tuesday, if we win, there would be that consideration... I would be honored to serve by his side in any capacity," he said.

Lieberman, on the other hand, seemed dismissive of the talk, standard protocol for most would-be VP candidates.

Comment on this post

By the numbers

Posted at 11:58 AM on February 4, 2008 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)

President Bush submitted a $3.1 trillion budget today. You can curl up with it here. It shows a $410 billion deficit in 2008, $407 billion deficit in 2009. In the 2007 budget, the projected deficit was $162 billion. A billion here, a billion there.

So how big is $3 trillion?

* If you counted once per second, it would take you 94, 638 years.
* You could buy 469 million FEMA trailers, give one to every person in the United States, and still have 166 million left.
* The Mets could sign 21,818 Johan Santanas.
* MnDOT could build 19 million sets of wooden stairs at the I-35W bridge site.
* Microsoft could buy 67 Yahoos.

Mr. Bush's first budget proposed spending $1.8 trillion. That's a 67 percent increase in spending.

By contrast, the budget outlay during the Clinton administration increased 21%, the same amount it increased under Mr. Bush's father.

But Bush's rate of spending isn't a record. During the Vietnam War, and the administration of Lyndon Johnson, the proposed spending rose 94 percent.

Comment on this post

Should journalists vote?

Posted at 2:27 PM on February 4, 2008 by Bob Collins (2 Comments)

It's a question that consumes newsrooms at this time of the year.

Today, Rob Karwath, the editor of the Duluth News Tribune, declared in an editorial that journalists should not participate in caucuses:

But a caucus is different from an election. They are organizing meetings for political parties. Participants make a public show of support for a party and a candidate. No secret ballot here.

And there’s the problem. I don’t know any news organization that prohibits its journalists from participating in a traditional election. But when a public display of support is required, that’s different.

... and...

Some of you may find all of this over-wrought or even wrong-headed. But I hope it shows how seriously we take our ethics and credibility. Is it unfair? Perhaps. But when we decided to become journalists, all of us understood that we occasionally would have to refrain from exercising some of our rights as private citizens. In exchange for a “front-row seat on life,” as journalism is sometimes described, we have to stay off the playing field.

The MPR News policy is similarly clear:

The paid professional news people of any company in the APMG group of companies do not endorse, publicly support, or make financial or in-kind contributions to any candidate for political office. They do not actively participate in any partisan activity, including but not limited to, local and national political organizations and their activities (e.g., fundraisers, caucuses, straw votes), social action events, and public demonstrations that create a conflict of interest. All paid professional news people must be free of obligations to news sources and newsmakers that create a conflict of interest.

From a purely ethical point of view, the question of a public vs. a private display of allegiance to a candidate is problematic. It is dealing with the question from a matter of how you perceive it, and what you think of the journalism as a result of that perception. It operates with the assumption that the journalism itself is not affected by a reporter's political bias, just whether you are allowed any evidence that it is.

Two years ago, the CBS News blog picked up the discussion, quoting Mark Halpern, political director of ABC News, in the "don't vote" camp:

I don’t vote, because I think that just opens up the question of how can I say I’m being objective, and fighting for truth, if I’m making a decision about who to vote for in a presidential race.

And Brian Williams, NBC news anchor in the "I do vote" camp:

I've thought long and hard about this. I think it's important to vote. People fought and died for the right to vote, and I don't believe I forfeit my citizenship because I'm a journalist.

His MSNBC colleague, Keith Olbermann, had a retort in 2004:

I'm not political. I don't vote -- I don't believe journalists covering politics should (and I don't think the democracy would suffer if however many of us there are, recused ourselves). I have no more interest in the political outcome of an election than I did in the winner or loser of any ballgame I ever covered. I think transparency is vital; I think it's also, in these super-heated political times, unintentionally inescapable.

Olbermann's policy is more far-reaching than most. In Michigan, for example, some newsrooms were split on the subject when the primary election was held their last month. Some journalists in a Grand Rapids newspaper opted not to vote because doing so would then attach a public label to them, a label that isn't attached by voting in the general election.

Comment on this post

Last Iwo Jima flag-raising soldier dies

Posted at 4:39 PM on February 4, 2008 by Bob Collins (0 Comments)

The last Marine involved in the first photograph of the raising of the American flag on Iwo Jima has died. Raymond Jacobs died in California at 82. He outlived, by about 7 months, Charles W. Lindberg of Richfield, who died last summer at 86.

Both spent much of their lives proving their presence in the photographs, as if their participation in the hell of Iwo Jima wasn't validation enough. Mr. Lindberg worked to educate Americans that it was his patrol, not the one in the famous Joe Rosenthal photo, that raised the first flag.

And Mr. Jacobs spent a generous amount of time convincing people that he was the radio operator photographed looking up at an American flag as it was being raised by other Marines on Mount Suribachi on Feb. 23, 1945.

Lindberg is standing on the far right. Jacobs contended he's the radio operator.

Comment on this post

The death credit

Posted at 8:13 PM on February 4, 2008 by Bob Collins

New research says preventing obesity and smoking, while it saves lives, does not save money.

Dutch researchers today released a paper saying that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

If this sounds at all familiar to you, it may be because this is the defense the tobacco industry tried to put up in the landmark case in Minnesota, won by attorney Mike Ciresi, who now is running for Senate.

The state was trying -- and succeeded, as it turns out -- to recover the cost of treating the the illnesses of smokers. The tobacco industry intended to argue that there weren't extra costs in the long run, because the smokers died. But the judge in the case ruled the industry could not make such an argument.

It was called "the death credit argument," according to a 1998 report from MPR reporter Elizabeth Stawicki.

"That's one of the most absurd rulings in these cases I've ever seen anywhere, that you will keep evidence away from a jury because it's horrendous," said Phillip Morris attorney Peter Bleakley at the time. "There is absolutely no question whatsoever that cigarette smokers do not cost more in health care than nonsmokers. The net cost is less, but we're not allowed to present that evidence because we would be taking advantage of the fact that our product kills people.