You Make the Call: Fawning Article Regarding Candidate Obama, or Serious Expose Revealing Potentially Campaign Changing Health Issue?

(via Michelle Malkin)

From reporter Judith Bonesky of Bild

“My name’s Judith” I reply. "I’m Barack Obama, nice to meet you!” he says, and puts his arm across my shoulder. I put my arm around his hip – wow, he didn’t even sweat! WHAT A MAN!

Now, you might think this is just part and parcel with the insane fawning and hype that accompanied Presumptive Candidate Obama as he toured Asia and Europe.

But what if something else is at play, too?

Anhidrosis is potentially a very serious medical issue, one that shouldn't be taken lightly, and could be the sign of some underlying problem.

Other potential causes are simple dehydration, but given the reporter mentions his bottle of Evian, we can possibly rule that out.

Another possible cause could be prescription (or non-prescription) drugs. Here's a list (PDF) of some drugs that may contribute to anhidrosis. Not listed are the illicit drugs that cause this problem, most notably, MDMA, but it would seem awfully odd if he were taking that stuff.

After all, The Obama has no need to ingest a chemical to get a feeling of warm and fuzzy well being towards everyone he meets and in turn reflected back at him by others. He is The One, so his very presence in a room has the effect of getting everyone to behave as if they've been dosed with several hits of Ecstasy.

Rereading the linked article, and assuming that Ms. Bonesky was tripping balls on X (or at least The Obama related syndrome that strongly mimicks the effects of the drug), it makes, much, much, more sense.

Also, this whole bit about the curls: Part of a balanced workout, or middle aged guy in a gym trying to impress a younger girl with his physical prowess? YOU MAKE THE CALL!!!

(what, I can't use that bit twice in the same post?)

Mr. David Cay Johnston, I Got Yer Response Right HERE!

(read the comments here for the reason behind this post)

1) Some disciplined King-Harbor workers still on the job (the title doesn't match, but it's the same story)
This article focuses on the recent discovery that many health care workers at King-Harbor who had been disciplined, and the folks that run county health services strongly implied that these 'bad apples' would be tossed aside, were still on the job or working elsewhere within the county system. The reporting of the story is mostly straight, but there are a few sins of omission. In my opinion those omissions are reflective of a 'progressive' and 'pro-labor' approach to the problems at King-Harbor.

First, they missed the real story to this story, and the fact that they missed the juicier part of the story, in my opinion, is attributable either to incompetence, or bias. Computer records detailing disciplinary hearings of employees at a troubled facility vanish into thin air making it far harder to track these employees and verify if the promised measures had taken place is a major story, yet that's not the focus of this article. Here's the salient bit

But a Times review of personnel data and disciplinary appeals shows that at least 22 employees with significant disciplinary histories at King either still work at what remains of the facility -- several outpatient clinics -- or have been reassigned to other county hospitals. Exactly how many problem employees from King are on the job remains a mystery.

After receiving an information request from The Times, county officials said they discovered that a computer glitch had destroyed electronic records used to track where disciplined King workers were sent after the hospital's closure.

The loss of the records system is particularly startling in light of the hospital's troubled history. The facility's medical lapses have been blamed, in part, on its failure to keep accurate records on workers' job performance. The result was that some problem employees had personnel files that looked spotless.

Some members of the Board of Supervisors expressed dismay at The Times' findings, saying they showed that the board had failed to make good on its pledge a year ago. "It frankly sticks in my craw that we have not been able to deal with the people who personified the culture that caused King to close," Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said. "We have not fulfilled our promise to clean things up."

Seems to me the first question should be, 'Was the loss of this data intentional?' How could you not pose that question? When you analyze something like this, the thought running around your head should be, 'who has something to gain?, who has something to lose?'. Maybe the reporters did attempt a follow up to how the data disappeared, who was ultimately responsible, and who any likely suspects are if it was an intentional act. Maybe the reporters wanted to comment on how suspicious this data loss appears and the editors tore it out of their original draft. If it had been a CEO who had conveniently discarded possibly damning data, would that not have been pursued a bit more vigorously?

Also, when they went to speak with others about these workers, I find it interesting that John F. Schunhoff, the county's interim director of health services, is paraphrased while SEIU local 721 president Annelle Grajeda is quoted directly. That isn't absolute proof of bias one way or another, but it does suggest a better relationship with Grajeda, and they do print her insinuations about management and the Supervisors without challenge.

Sometimes a little muckraking is called for, instead this article is bland, what's happened within the county health services is appalling, yet rather than really attacking this story, the LA Times just sort of nibbles around the edges of it. Conclusion, this story isn't biased so much as useless, I'd prefer biased.

2)Secret tapes of former Orange County sheriff contain racist and coarse language
When a story fits all the paper's favorite stereotypes about law enforcement officials and Orange County residents, then there's no reason to do anything but just report the story straight as can be. No bias, put possibly (probably) some glee in getting to cover this.

3)McCain again shuffles top campaign aides
The LA Times covers changes in McCain's staff hierarchy, nobody was fired, nobody was really even demoted, just a few responsibilities shifted, yet quite a few column inches were created, anyway. First off the record quote,

"There's a lot of unease," said one Republican strategist who is an occasional advisor to the McCain campaign. "There's the age factor, the past-versus-the-future thing. He's conservative by most measures and people generally like him. But when it comes down to getting excited about the candidate, it just isn't there."

If there's one thing I hate, it's unsourced, unnamed quotes. Said one LAT staffer to me, "I hate working here, it's no fun anymore, it's nothing but old timers waiting for a buyout, incompetents hoping nobody notices they can't do their job, and ideologues hoping to sneak in as much crap as possible before the whole ship goes down in flames". What, you question whether or not someone from the LAT said this to me? (yeah, you probably should, and I also question who this unnamed strategist is, or even if they exist)

Next paragraph has an interesting inclusion

The campaign changes were revealed while McCain, 71, was in the middle of a three-day excursion to Colombia and Mexico to highlight his views on free trade, a trip that fed perceptions that the senator is operating as his own campaign chief, to his detriment

What's McCain's age doing in this sentence? Might it be part of some larger effort to paint McCain as old and out of touch at every opportunity? Also, the sentence itself doesn't follow from the previous sentence, doesn't contribute much of anything, and draws a conclusion that isn't supported by any facts. How does this trip 'feed perceptions' that the Senator is operating as his own campaign chief? I'd like to know, I don't see it, but maybe I'm missing something.

Another questionable sentence follows a bit down in the article

Many in the party feel that having a former lobbyist in the campaign's top spot undermines McCain's reformer image and message that he is the best candidate to change Washington.

Funny, I really don't recall too many within the GOP speaking ill of lobbyist and lobbying (our Governator being a notable exception). "Many in the party" is another one of those phrases like, "one Republican strategist" that raises all sorts of alarm bells, especially when the assertion being made doesn't really match with where most of the party is. Lobbying gets a bad name, they're an easy target, but it's mostly been the DEMs squawking about undue influence. Conclusion, another case where there are some odd choices, but mostly fair reporting, and lots of bad writing. As I said in my original post, it's not the bias that's so bad (but it's still there), it's the fact that what they serve is such thin gruel, to go along with the predictable framing and mindset.

That article is in sharp contrast to the July 5th article on Sen. Obama's decision to wrap himself up in Old Glory and offer up a more "nuanced" definition of patriotism (Obama doesn't use the word, but the article does, and that in of itself says plenty, doesn't it?). No unnamed sources, no 'Democratic strategist', instead many quotes directly from Sen. Obama, along with some framing quotes like this one

Ann Shea, 47, an attorney who lives in Butte, said the nation faces hardships that trump patriotism.

"The issue is, we're paying almost five bucks a gallon in gas, we're in a war we shouldn't be in, and the current administration, which is the one McCain will carry on, is just lying to the American people to get what they want," she said. "Obama's not about that."

So in an article on McCain, nothing really about Obama, but in an article about Obama, let's not forget to take a jab at McCain, sounds like a plan.

Here's the concluding few paragraphs of the piece

This week, Obama visited North Dakota, Montana, Colorado and Missouri, emphasizing family values and patriotism. His campaign understands that he needs to look reassuring and familiar -- like a patriot.

Montana's Democratic governor, Brian Schweitzer, said in an interview Friday that Obama struggled in his early life in ways that Montanans can appreciate. Schweitzer said it was unfair to paint Obama, with his Harvard Law degree and Ivy League pedigree, as elite.

He "grew up being raised by a single mother and grandparents when she didn't have enough resources," the governor said. "This is what happens in politics. You cannot in any way measure Barack Obama's life and call him elite."

Obama likes to say that words matter. But he knows that pictures matter too.

On this Fourth of July, Obama was not merely talking like a patriot. As he watched the parade -- and as a battery of cameras recorded his reactions -- he clutched in his hand a tiny American flag.

Yeah, no bias at all, nope none to be seen. First, get the folksy Democratic Governor of Montana to remind folks that Obama is just folks, but top it off with the reporter somehow knowing in his heart of hearts that The Obama is "not merely talking like a patriot". The reporter could mean that Obama now realizes that he must play the stupid flag waving game and 'look' the part as well as 'talk' the part, or he could mean that deep down Obama really appreciates the 'tiny American flag' he clutches (but not clings, please, no clinging) in his hand and has been as much of a patriot as anyone, he just has trouble expressing it.

In my opinion, the McCain article seems much more accusatory and questioning of the information given, while the Obama article reads like a press release from the Obama campaign (although the campaign might not have dared to release a press release that was quite so glowing and fawning as the actual 'news' article that escaped onto the pages of the LAT).

I'm getting bored of this now, mainly because the LAT A & B sections are very boring to read (not that C & D are all that much better written, but at least they're shorter, usually).

As far as picking three more articles, no way Jose, I concede, I'm wrong, you're right Mr. Johnston, since I couldn't prove that EVERY article contains hints of bias and agenda journalism I guess that proves what?

That I have a habit of overstatement, even if my original point generally remains perfectly valid (nope that's probably not what you were looking for).

That those layers of editors at the LAT suck the life out of every article (nope, that's probably not where you wanted me to go, either).

That neither of us proved anything to the other with this exercise, you'll still think that the LAT, NYT, WaPo and the like are beyond reproach, and that bloggers are just nuts with keyboards, while I'll continue to think that there are way too many fuzzy headed liberals running around these institutions who regurgitate a whole host of outmoded received wisdom and that, along with an outmoded business plan will lead to the near total demise, as its currently configured, of the print news industry within the next decade.

You've made your point Mr. Johnston, I was wrong, you were right to question the absolute nature of my statement (have I mentioned I have a tendency towards overstatement?), but just because you disproved (with my willing participation) that there is an absolute tendency for bias to infect every aspect of every article doesn't mean that my larger point about bias infecting the decision making process, the tone, the writing style, and even who they hire and fire has also been refuted (bias doesn't have to be manifest in every case to be ever present, it's there, it's not always expressed, but it's always there, and it would take some radical changes in staffing and philosophy for things to be different at Spring St.).

It's not like Im the only one who's had thoughts along these lines based on the latest round of firings and buyouts at various papers, Glenn Reynolds has a go at the LAT here, and Ed Driscoll kicks them while they're down as well. On top of that, a few weeks ago Matt Welch commented on other proglems at the LAT, and while he doesn't speak about bias, he does speak about a company with a sickly corporate culture.

How Long Before Slate Notices . . .

This will be a good experiment to see the kind of readers Slate still has.

In her review for Live Free or Die Hard, Dana Stevens writes this

Thus begins a jolly chase in which McClane and Matt, pursued by international villains, airborne cars, and at one point, a Harrier jet, make their way toward the top-secret NSA facility that's become Gabriel's command center.

They even link to a site that shows Harriers. I've seen the trailer, and the hovering jet in the film is clearly not a Harrier. The Harrier is being replaced by the F-35B Lightning II, aka the STOVL version of the JSF. The F-35A has only just begun flying, the F-35B won't be operational until 2012 (according to the linked wiki), but that doesn't stop Hollywood from throwing their CGI'd versions of the machine into the latest action flicks.

Slate's usually pretty good about corrections, plus they include the original information that they corrected, so no memory holes there (unlike at the memory hole filled wire services).

She's letting her military ignorance show, not surprising, easily corrected, but they don't have an editor over her, or a fact checker under her who's aware that the Harrier is no longer the only "jump jet".

It's an easy catch, too. The intakes are trapezoidal on the F-35B, on the Harrier they're rounded, plus the Harrier has a single vertical stabilizing wing, whereas the F-35B has two. It would be like looking at a 05 Viper and describing it as a 68 Charger. Sure, they're both muscle cars, they're both Dodges, but they're worlds apart in design.

I'm not a plane nut, or in the military, but I could still tell from a 2 second shot in a trailer whether or not a hovering plane is a piece of 35+ year old technology or something that is bleeding edge.

Do I suspect that the probable lack of anybody with any interest or history in the military (other than as a target for invective) at Slate has something to do with missing this obvious mistake?

Do I have to answer that?

They Make It Far Too Easy Some Times

The AP article on the death of Saddam closes with a doozy of a paragraph.

While he wielded a heavy hand to maintain control, Saddam also sought to win public support with a personality cult that pervaded Iraqi society. Thousands of portraits, posters, statues and murals were erected in his honor all over Iraq. His face could be seen on the sides of office buildings, schools, airports and shops and on Iraq's currency.

The line, "sought to win public support" is what really gets me. All those dictators with their attempts at producing cults of personality around themselves are really just trying to 'unite' the many people under their control. By plastering his image across the land, he was just doing a public service. Saddam wasn't a brutal, murderous, foul, filthy, megalomaniacal dictator, instead he was merely a person who, "wielded a heavy hand to maintain control".

If Ford Received This Sort of Press While President, There Never Would Have Been a Carter Administration

Gerald Ford died.

I'm amazed how glowing the NYT and AP obits were, and a little suspicious. I bet if I delved into the contemporary accounts of events and actions that they now describe as laudable, back then, not so much.

An interesting 'coincidence' in both the NYTimes and AP articles are the use of the word "imperial" with reference to President Ford (and how he was definitely not that).

The NYT (the NYT piece is nearly as long as the Ford Presidency)

As president, he was quick to assert to Congress, in a play on words that nobody misunderstood, “I am a Ford, not a Lincoln.” If it was true, as was often said, that the Oval Office shaped the occupant, Mr. Ford resisted the temptation of the imperial.

The AP

Even after two women tried separately to kill him, the presidency of Jerry Ford remained open and plain.

Not imperial. Not reclusive. And, of greatest satisfaction to a nation numbed by Watergate, not dishonest.

Even to millions of Americans who had voted two years earlier for Richard Nixon, the transition to Ford's leadership was one of the most welcomed in the history of the democratic process _ despite the fact that it occurred without an election.

This is total revisionist crap. I may have barely entered grade school during Ford's administration, but I know enough of that time to know that this is an absurd remaking of the facts of those times.

President Ford was a good man, a decent administrator, but lousy at being 'presidential'. The figurehead aspect of the position is not to be discounted or ignored. When done right, the President helps shape the national mood and self-perception in a positive way, when done wrong the President can undermine confidence domestically and lessen prestige internationally.

The question is why?

Three letters are my answer, B. D. S.

All occasions are now reasons to create some sort of negative comparison between someone or some event of yesteryear to the Bush Administration and current events, no matter how absurd and tenuous the connection may be.

So instead of Ford being the bumbling, stumbling and unpresidential failure he was depicted as (clearly unfairly) by contemporary accounts, he is now a plain-spoken, simple, and dignified man who brought that midwestern ethic to the White House.

The Reagan remembrances were equally ridiculous in the press' willingness to whitewash the vicious attacks they leveled against him during his administration.

But this time it's a little different, this time there seems to be pointed references to the current administration, and that's really out of bounds, uncalled for, and disgusting.

I doubt the word "imperial" would have showed up in any accounts of his life had he passed six years ago. But now, the dangers of the 'increasingly imperial presidency' are one of those things that 'everybody knows' (at least everybody who has a byline in the NYT or AP and the folks they meet at parties), like the endless 'quagmire' in Iraq, the 'new' wave of anti-americanism 'caused' by President Bush, and the certainty that nothing the current administration has done helped keep the homeland free from a spectacular attack these past five years.

Also why am I not surprised that one of the authors of the NYT piece is Adam Clymer?

UPDATE:

Most of the news articles I've read (more examples, LAT and WaPo) felt compelled to reference the "imperial presidency" in part because of Arthur Schlesinger's account of the Nixon Administration titled "Imperial Presidency" (republished in 1998 with additional material attacking the Reagan and Bush 41 Administrations) and Gerald Ford's stated claim during his first days in office to bring more openness. But I think there's still an undercurrent of reproach for the current administration. And just to show that the fear of an "imperial presidency" isn't just a concern of the left towards right of center presidents, here's a blast from the past from the Cato institute written at the end of the Clinton Administration.

The WaPo memorial/retrospective/obit is the best written. Lou Cannon probably has something to do with that. His biography of Ronald Reagan as Governor (titled "Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power") is especially good, a book that should be read especially if youare a Californian, or even if you're just an American, and even if you're not.