Tag Archives: responsibilities

Jumped the Shark?

Posted on by
Reply

In most venues, receiving stolen material is a felony.  Only precious journalists get a pass on that crime.

Yet self-styled media critic Howard Kurtz is worried that that pass might be getting a second look—however tenuously—from the recent arrest of James Wolfe, now ex-Director of Security for the staff of the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence, pursuant to which New York Times reporter Ali Watkins’ email and phone (and Twitter?) records were seized.  (Kurtz also is downplaying the importance of Wolfe, too, referring to him as a “veteran Senate Intelligence Committee staffer.”)

What triggered the arrest is the FBI’s investigation into leaks of material, some of it potentially classified, from that Committee’s deliberations.

[Wolfe]…was indicted for allegedly giving false statements to the FBI about his contacts with three reporters and for lying about giving two reporters non-public information about committee matters.

Watkins was one of those reporters, at the time apparently working for Buzzfeed and/or Politico.

Kurtz said the importance of the case cannot be overstated and could lead to some reporters’ sources “drying up.”

And

“It’s a real classic chilling effect. … It’s a crime to leak classified information. At the same time, journalists rely on these leaks to get what they think is important information,” said the MediaBuzz host, noting that some of the communications with Wolfe were through encrypted messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal.

That encryption is a strong indication that Wolfe knew what he was doing was illegal, and the recipients’ acceptance of those encrypted messages and their ability to decrypt them is a strong indication that those recipients knew they were getting illegally released material—stolen material.

Does Kurtz actually listen to himself?  Journalists rely on leaks of classified information to get their stories?  It’s a short hop from there to journalists actively soliciting leaks of classified information, but that’s a separate story.

Beyond that, I certainly hope these criminal sources get dried up.  It would be a short hop from there—but probably too far a leap for journalists—to instead actively seek out legitimate information from legitimate—and named, not hidden—sources.  It would be a short hop—but too far for journalists, apparently—to cite two on-the-record sources to corroborate “information” supplied by “anonymous” sources, like journalism standards used to require.

But a return to honest journalism would be a Good Thing, however inconvenient journalists might find that.

Another Obamacare Episode

Posted on by
Reply

The Justice Department has declined to defend Obamacare in the suit against it brought by a large number of States in the aftermath of Congress’ repeal of the Individual Mandate penalty tax.  Recall that Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote the law in 2012 to recreate the penalty as a tax in order to preserve the IM as constitutional, and thereby to preserve all of Obamacare as constitutional because of the inseverability of all parts of the law.

With the repeal of the IM’s…tax…that inseverability should doom the rest of Obamacare.

As a result of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ decision not to defend the law,

University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley said three Justice Department attorneys withdrew their names from the brief [wherein DoJ advised the court of its position].

Three Justice Department attorneys also should withdraw their names from the Federal payroll.

A Matter of Integrity

Posted on by
Reply

Elizabeth Bernstein asked—and she was serious—the question of when it’s appropriate to violate a confidence.

A while back, my sister, Rebecca, called with a request: she wanted me to book a flight to come and see her immediately—and not tell anyone.

Rebecca explained that she was having a breast biopsy the next day, was terrified to hear the results, and wanted me there for support. But she didn’t want to worry others in our family.

I jumped on a plane but wrestled with a dilemma. Many members of my family are doctors. Rebecca herself is an internist. Our father is an orthopedic surgeon and another sister is a gynecologist. I knew they would have advice for Rebecca—and would want to know if she were sick. But my sister asked me not to share what she told me. And I didn’t.

How do you decide whether to keep someone’s secret when there are good reasons to tell?

There are no good reasons to tell this sort of secret.  There are no good reasons to tell anyone’s secret of any sort, to violate any confidence, with a single exception.  Either the person being told the secret has honor and integrity, or he doesn’t, and giving up someone else’s secret is a terrible dishonor. There isn’t any middle ground.

Two days later, while I was sitting in Rebecca’s living room, I got a call from my mother. My sister, overwhelmed with worry, had told her about the biopsy she’d asked me to keep secret, and my mom was angry with me for preventing the rest of the family from supporting Rebecca. Then my other sister, the gynecologist, called, hurt that I didn’t seem to value her expertise. Too late, I realized that in keeping Rebecca’s secret, I might have betrayed others.

Not even close.  Those folks were completely out of line on two counts. One is directing their ire at Bernstein: she was keeping a confidence, as integrity demanded.  Their beef was with the sister for insisting they not be told.  That’s the other count: their beef was bogus.  The secret was the sister’s to tell, or not; it most assuredly was not the others’ to demand to hear.  Full stop.

“Essentially, you become a co-owner of the information,” says Sandra G Petronio, a communication professor and director of the Communication Privacy Management Center at Indiana University[.]

No, you don’t.  You become a co-keeper of the information, but ownership in no way, shape, or form, changes hands or gets diluted.

“Just having to think about someone else’s secret makes it harmful to our wellbeing,” says Michael Slepian, an assistant professor at Columbia Business School….

Having integrity, honoring obligations, isn’t all roses and sugar plums.  Doing the right thing isn’t always going to be easy, and rarely will it be comfy-cozy in the short term.

Here is the single reason a confidence can be violated: if the one passing the secret and asking for secrecy is describing her victim status in an abusive relationship. Then, and only then, can a confidence be violated, since the person’s life is in the wind.

Some People

Posted on by
Reply

…would rather find a reason to be offended than see humor, even if that humor isn’t their style.  Such folks are professional victims.  Here’s an advertising sign that one physical fitness gym owner has put up to advertise his business.

Folks actually are up in arms over this.  Is the joke for everyone?  Of course not; no joke is; not even those told by Milton Berle or Bob Hope.

That’s a big so what, though; humor varies from person to person.  Nevertheless, professional victims are calling him out for fat-shaming folks, for bullying folks.

Snowflakes need to get over themselves.  If they don’t want to be fat, then they should take steps to stop being fat.  If they say they’re satisfied with their bodies and don’t want to be called out for their shapes, then they should be satisfied and stop worrying about what strangers say.  After all, the only ones these folks—anyone, come to that—need to please is themselves first, and then their significant others.  And their bosses if they work for a company for which public appearance matters to the business.

On the concern about bullying, one solution—a better solution—is to stop being bullied. Bullies have only the power their victims choose to give them.  Yes, it’s hard to stop being bullied.  “Hard” means “possible.”

Believe a Woman

Posted on by
2

Last weekend, a woman accused a Texas State Trooper of sexually assaulting her during a traffic stop.  Sherita Dixon-Cole

alleged that after she failed a field sobriety test, Hubbard had “suggested she could go home in exchange for sexual favors,” according to [Dixon-Cole’s lawyer Lee] Merritt’s initial press release. Dixon-Cole said that after she refused, she was taken to Hubbard’s police car where she was “forcefully groped, fondled, and vaginally penetrated during a prolonged arrest.”

She went on to say Hubbard continued his sexual advances on the way to the police station, even alleging that he offered to take her to a remote location where she could provide sexual favors in exchange for her release from custody.

Never mind.

Texas’ Department of Public Safety reviewed and released two hours of dashcam video of the incident as soon as they received the woman’s accusation.  After seeing actual evidence,

Lee Merritt issued a statement saying the evidence “directly conflicts with the accounts reported to my office” by Sherita Dixon-Cole.

Then he—not Dixon-Cole—apologized for the false accusation.

It’s instructive that Dixon-Cole has yet to apologize to the officer or to the Texas DPS for her smear.  Instead, lacking integrity (which she’s already shown) and the moral courage to apologize, she’s cowering behind a third party.  Her lawyer apologized, allegedly in her name.  That’s grossly insufficient.

Nevertheless, a woman should be believed whenever she accuses.  Except when she lies.  Or except when it’s inconvenient to believe her, as with Juanita Broaddrick.  #MeToo, indeed.