Tag Archives: culture

Why the AP Can’t be Trusted

Posted on by
Reply

Julie Pace, the Executive Editor of the AP gave us a clear lesson in the distortionate nature of the AP‘s “news” writing and commentary. In her WSJop-ed last Wednesday, she wrote this with an entirely straight face:

On Thursday Judge Trevor N McFadden of the US District Court for the District of Columbia hears arguments on whether the government can bar AP reporters from covering presidential events. The White House has locked us out simply because we refer to the Gulf of Mexico by the name it has carried for more than 400 years, while acknowledging that Mr Trump has chosen to call it the Gulf of America.

This is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. While it’s true that President Donald Trump (R) is openly and loudly disgruntled with the AP‘s decision to continue referring to the Gulf of America by its prior name, no AP reporter is barred from covering presidential events. What has happened is that access to severely limited spaces—the Oval Office, air transport—has been released from a long-standing fixed set of reporters. Instead, those limited spaces have been opened to a rotating list (though still limited) of reporters, now including those representing news organizations that heretofore had never had access to such spaces.

That AP representation in this limited pool was the first to be replaced in the rotation is nothing more than whine-bait for the AP. This change to give other news organizations access also is entirely consistent with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s move to open the noon press conferences to previously unrepresented news outlets, a move that comes at the expense, even in this larger but still limited space, of other news outlets that heretofore had enjoyed their privileged permanent status. Now those privileged outlets must wait their turn among the madding crowd of “lesser” outlets.

And this:

The White House claims this is simply a matter of changing which news organizations have access to the president.

What she so carefully omitted here is that changing which news organizations have access to the president is not that at all, but a change to the way news organizations get access to the President. What the change actually does, is grant that access, in those severely limited spaces, to news organizations on a rotating basis. All news organizations, large and small, now have access. The change, as it applies to the AP, is that all of a sudden they’re required to take their turn among the crowd that heretofore had been so far beneath their august selves.

Pace also wrote this:

[N]o president—including Mr Trump during his first term—has ever tried to blacklist us because he didn’t like what we wrote.

And no President, still, has ever tried to blacklist the AP: AP‘s news writers and commenters still have complete and open access to the President in all areas and at all events, including taking their turn in those severely limited spaces. Pace is openly lying here, and her lie here flows from her toddler’s temper tantrum at being denied her privileged status—a status that, in her childishness, she has come to believe is her God-given right.

And this:

The White House is shutting out an independent global news agency….

This is just a repetition of the immediately foregoing. No AP writer or commenter is barred from anything; they just have to take their turn now, instead of being ensconced at the head of the line, at the expense of other outlets’ writers and commenters.

Pace can repeat her lie to her heart’s content; the repetition makes it true only in her fetid imagination, and it demonstrates the intrinsic unreliability of her organization’s output.

“Pinned”

Posted on by
Reply

Pinned? Really? As universities start to pay lip service to acting concretely against the bigotries and ideological indoctrination rampant on their campuses, there’s this comment by a news writer that lies at the core of the universities’ problem.

University leaders, pinned between liberal faculty and the Trump administration, are quietly trying to make friends in Washington amid widespread concerns about research budgets, student aid, and the White House’s quest to push academia to the right.

How is it possible that university leaders can be pinned between faculty—liberal or otherwise—and the Trump—or any other—administration?

The long and short of it is that it isn’t possible for such pinning to occur. Unfortunately, the “pinning” does exist, but it’s university managers who feel pinned; there are no to almost none actual leaders in today’s university administrations.

Faculty has no business being involved in the administration of a college or university; they’re employees of the institution, nothing more—and nothing less—than that. University managers who choose not to act as if they’re in charge, which they should be enforcing, are self-selecting for termination. That includes members of the institution’s “governing” board. Faculty members who won’t act like the employees that they are also are self-selecting for termination.

Only when incumbents act within their roles can colleges and universities go back to being institutions of learning, teaching, and research instead of the institutions of limited speech, limited academic “freedom,” indoctrination, and bigotry that they are currently.

A Real Progressive-Democratic Party Problem

Posted on by
Reply

It’s not Party’s only problem, but it is a Critical Item problem, and it’s illustrated by an exchange between a constituent and Senator Michael Bennet (D, CO) at his recent town hall and by a Wall Street Journal newswriter’s assessment of the exchange. The constituent’s call:

A man who identified himself as Colin from Denver asked Bennet to consider the “dire times” facing the nation. “Schumer had no plan in the Democrats’ only moment of leverage against Trump,” he said. “When will you be calling for him to be replaced as minority leader?”

Bennett essentially responded with words to the effect that Schumer needed to go.

The writer’s assessment:

House and Senate members have publicly criticized Schumer’s handling of the matter in a remarkable public show of disunity at a time when they hoped to be unified against Trump.

Leverage against Trump. Unified against Trump. No plan for what Party thinks is good for our nation. No plan for how to achieve those Good Things. Not even any nascent ideas.

It’s No to Trump/Never Trump turtles all the way down.

That’s not good for our nation. Not good at all. All Party has, all Party seems interested in, is its toddler temper tantrum over not getting its own way.

University Dependence on Federal Funds

Posted on by
Reply

And one other matter. Against the backdrop of President Donald Trump’s withholding/canceling of $400 million worth of grants and contracts for Columbia University, there are a couple of things that stand out.

One is this:

[S]ome board members deeply concerned the university is trading away its moral authority and academic independence for federal funds.

Columbia has already shed any pretense of moral authority—see below. Columbia’s dependence on Federal funding is Columbia’s conscious, deliberately done choice. The school has a $14.8 billion dollar endowment. Even if that were to be frozen—no further donations into it, the endowment’s investments would only break even—that’s enough to fund 37 years of grants and contracts at the rate of those $400 million per year Federal largesse. A lot can happen in those 37 years.

Then there’s this, from Joseph Howley, a classics professor at Columbia:

It is really a red line for the independence of universities, for academic freedom, for shared governance.”

No it isn’t. Requiring a university to shed—to divest itself of—its antisemitic bigotry and (not or) its support for terrorists is not a threat to university independence or of academic freedom. Indeed, as Columbia’s support for that bigotry and that support demonstrates, removing them would produce a sharp increase in academic freedom, especially for the students—an aspect of academic freedom the Precious Ones of Columbia’s faculty carefully ignore.

Beyond that, there should be no “shared governance” at universities. Administrators should govern; professors should teach. Full stop.

Hurt Feelings

Posted on by
Reply

Lots of ex-Federal employees are feeling the pain of being terminated. Many in the private sector think that’s unimportant, and they’re correct to think so.

Catherine Byrd, who owned and ran her own business before she retired:

I don’t feel bad for them a bit. I’ve worked in the private sector all my life[.]

She noted that she’d been fired a number of times in her early working days, and said,

You know what you do? You go out and find another job, and there are plenty of jobs to find.

As indeed there are, even if not in an area that lets the fired bureaucrat follow his bliss.

And so, we get the hurt feelings of government employees who have been terminated. Recently fired Meredith Lopez is upset over the alleged general callousness toward federal workers being fired.

I think people forget that working in public service is not just a job, it can be a calling for many people[.]
For me, it is really about the ability to help people and communities on a personal level[.]

Judy Cameron is upset at the very concept of being fired from her government job.

All I know is I did not appreciate being fired. Let me do something wrong to fire me… It was just “Oh here, let’s kick you out like trash.”

And, of course—because that’s where the clicks and eyeballs are—the press hypes these things while ignoring the fact that none of them incur an obligation on the part of any employer, much less the government, to retain folks just because those folks want a particular job.

No. A government employee needs to be terminated if the job position itself is duplicative, excess to the government’s objective needs, or otherwise unnecessary. Recall, during the Obama Shutdown of 2011, the EPA acknowledged that most of its employees were unnecessary, furloughing 90% of them for the duration of the shutdown.

A government employee needs to be terminated if his performance is subpar as measured objectively, which requires a cessation of inflating annual reports and the even harder step of eliminating union objections to terminating for merit reasons.