Tag Archives: responsibilities

Credibility

Posted on by
2

As the journalism guild’s complicity in the General Michael Flynn travesty becomes steadily more apparent, some questions arise—again—about what an honest journalism industry (not guild—that’s beyond redemption) needs to do to have any credibility.

  1. identify at least some the sources, rather than hanging an article’s thesis exclusively on the claims of anonymous sources
  2. if an anonymous source refuses to be identified, show with concrete, measurable evidence the following:
    1. the source actually exists
    2. if the source exists, then
      1. why the source should be believed, given that by speaking publicly, even if anonymously, he’s likely violating his terms of employment if not his oath of office
      2. why the source should be believed, given that by hiding behind anonymity, he’s displaying his cowardice—and cowards will always and only say what they believe will be personally beneficial
  3. if representing the anonymous source as a whistleblower, provide concrete, measurable evidence that the source has used up all of his employer’s internal whistleblowing channels before he decided to leak

All of this is best done in the opening paragraph(s) of an article, ahead even of the Who, What, Where, When that used to form the lede of quality journalism. That unavoidably will make for a clumsy opening to what’s being represented as a factual news article (rather than an opinion piece), but that’s the cost incurred of a guild’s prolonged, insistent dishonesty.

Even more importantly, though, the press used to have a standard that required two on-the-record sources to corroborate the claims of a journalist’s anonymous sources. The industry’s Editors-in-Chief—every single one of them—must explain:

  1. why they have chosen to walk away from that standard of integrity
  2. what standard of integrity they’re using in its stead

Federal Aid to States

Posted on by
Reply

Dead equine pounding time.

Brian Blase, ex- of President Donald Trump’s National Economic Council, had a thought on this. While generally skeptical of expanding Federal aid to the States qua States during the present Wuhan Virus situation, he did suggest guidelines within which Congress should act in the event it does decide to provide any Federal dollars to the States.

If it must incur additional debt to help states, Congress should abide by four principles. usw.

No, there’s only one principle by which Congress should abide here.

The States don’t need help; it’s the many (even most in the present Wuhan Virus situation) citizens of, and businesses in, those States who need help. Any Federal dollars should go directly to those citizens and businesses, bypassing the States’ governments entirely.

The only State government involvement that might be useful here would be to make available to the Federal government the State unemployment insurance data bases and the identification of those small businesses applying for loans under the Feds’ various Wuhan Virus situation relief programs.

One bonus principle: once the current situation is reasonably under control, the Feds’ copies of those data should be certifiably and verifiably destroyed.

Personal Responsibility and Black Americans

Posted on by
Reply

Surgeon General Jerome Adams, among too few others, has pointed out that part of the reason the Wuhan Virus is hitting minorities so much harder than others—with blacks getting the bulk of the ink on this—is because of their inaction on factors under their control.  Leave aside factors like the pre-existence of health conditions like obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, medical conditions that are generally beyond their control. Leave aside, further, that individual life-style choices can nevertheless significantly affect, if not eliminate, those conditions.

In addition to suggesting that blacks should put more of their personal attention toward those medical conditions, Adams was so rude as to suggest that blacks should exercise an additional measure of personal responsibility and do better about complying with CDC guidelines regarding preemptive measures: frequent hand washing, shelter in place except for essential tasks, and use face coverings/keep safe distances from others when in public (especially the former when the latter isn’t possible).

Of course, the Left, with its race-baiters at the fore, objected, vehemently and in their own racist way.

To assert that blacks have the power to affect their own destiny was deemed racist, heartless, and outrageous.

Well, of course it was. No less a light than that icon of the Progressive movement, Woodrow Wilson, insisted to blacks that they should be grateful for the protections of segregation.

Blacks, in the eyes of the Left, simply aren’t capable of personal responsibility.

Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton’s Emails

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez can see no daylight between Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s documents and ex-Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s emails.

This is like the Hillary emails because there was nothing there.

Perez is right that the two are alike. Clinton, with the help of her allies in and out of government, covered up her government-business emails that she had on her personal, unsecured server. Biden, with the help of his allies in and out of government, at Party headquarters, and at the University of Delaware, is covering up a significant fraction of his documents during the present Tara Reade case.

[W]hen you ask the University of Delaware to take a look at something, you’re asking them to look for something that doesn’t exist.

That’s easy enough to show. Allow those UD documents to be searched for materials related to Reade. Let those documents then be perused carefully for information related to her charge and Biden’s claim to the contrary.

This could be settled in a couple of days.  If there’s nothing there, there’ll be nothing found.

We know what frightens Clinton so much. Of what are Biden, Perez, and Party so afraid?

Another Clue

Posted on by
Reply

…into the machinations of the “liberal” wing of the Supreme Court.

The Court is going to hear oral arguments on 10 cases that the Wuhan Virus situation had previously forced the Court to postpone. The arguments will be done by teleconference. The structure of the oral arguments will be…structured…during the teleconferances.

The court is also jettisoning its unstructured process for questioning the lawyers before them. Instead of jumping in at will, the justices will speak in order by seniority, beginning with Chief Justice John Roberts, moving on to Justice Clarence Thomas—a moment that may hold some suspense, as he can go years without speaking at oral argument—and so on to the newest justice, Brett Kavanaugh.

Here’s the kicker from that more formalized structure:

The format could pose challenges for Justice Elena Kagan and other junior members who sometimes seek to shape the debate by posing questions early.

Shape the debate.  Because Kagan and her fellows aren’t interested in dispassionately hearing argument on the case before them and then, with equal dispassion, ruling on the matter before them. No, they’re at war with one or the other side and must shape the battlefield in order to achieve their…victory.

What a shameful thing for a Justice, who’s supposed to be objective and unbiased—sworn, in fact, to faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent—to do.