Friday, November 27, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
News Corp. Joined by Rivals Weighing Google Block
By Greg Bensinger and Brian Womack
News Corp. is considering blocking Google’s search engine from displaying its news articles and is talking to Microsoft Corp. about displaying stories on its Bing site, people familiar with the situation said yesterday.
MediaNews Group Inc., the Post’s publisher, will block Google News when it starts charging readers in Pennsylvania and California for online content next year, Chief Executive Officer Dean Singleton said in an interview. Morning News owner A.H. Belo Corp. may introduce online subscription fees and also block Google, Executive Vice President James Moroney said.
“The things that go behind pay walls, we will not let Google search to, but the things that are outside the pay wall we probably will, because we want the traffic,” Singleton said.
Newspaper publishers, grappling with a collapse in the print-ad market, are considering Web-site charges and are pushing back against Google, which displays headlines and excerpts from stories on its free news site. News Corp., whose Wall Street Journal already charges for online subscriptions, has also said that it plans more paid content.
While newspapers have complained about Google using their news to attract users and boost revenue, fewer than 1 percent have opted out of the service, Josh Cohen, head of Google’s news division, said in an interview.
Value in Traffic
A significant number of publishers would have to block access to their content to produce a notable impact on Google’s search results, said Greg Sterling, principal at consulting and research firm Sterling Market Intelligence in San Francisco. “It’s a tree-in-the-forest kind of thing,” he said. “I don’t think people would notice” if a lone publisher took the action.
“There’s value in that traffic and I think publishers recognize that value,” Cohen said. “The reason they’re not opting out is they’re getting something from that relationship.”
Google Chief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt said in an interview this month that his company, owner of the most popular Internet search engine, would like to keep news providers on its site.
“We do worry about it, and we think it would be a bad outcome” for newspapers to leave Google, Schmidt said. “We would encourage them to stay in our program.”
Gabriel Stricker, a Google spokesman, declined to comment yesterday on any talks between News Corp. and Microsoft, as well as the other newspapers potentially opting out of Google News.
Paid Models
Murdoch, News Corp.’s chairman and CEO, said in an interview on Sky News Australia this month that he may remove the company’s content from Google searches. The company’s newspapers include the Times of London and the New York Post.
MediaNews, based in Denver, will block Google News from the content it puts behind a so-called pay wall early next year at newspapers in Chico, California, and York, Pennsylvania, Singleton said.
A.H. Belo, based in Dallas, hasn’t decided if it will block Google News and any action isn’t “imminent,” said Moroney, who is also publisher of the Morning News. Blocking Google would be part of a larger strategy, he said.
Belo is considering models for charging for some of its Web content and plans to implement a pay wall within six months at either the Morning News, Rhode Island’s Providence Journal or Riverside Press-Enterprise, published in California, Moroney said. That may require Web readers to go directly to the newspaper’s site to read stories, he said.
‘Not Monetized’
“This is traffic that’s not being monetized to any great degree,” Moroney said. “It’s akin to a person who drops into town, buys one copy of your newspaper and leaves town again and yet you spend a whole bunch of time building your business around that type of customer.”
Google, based in Mountain View, California, added 74 cents to $583.09 at 4 p.m. New York time in Nasdaq Stock Market trading. Belo jumped 36 cents, or 8.2 percent, to $4.76 on the New York Stock Exchange. MediaNews is closely held.
Google News gathers stories from the Web and displays their headlines, photos and the first few lines with links to the full articles on the original publishers’ Web sites.
Google has also faced international criticism from media companies over the service. In 2007, Belgian newspapers won a copyright suit blocking Google from linking to their articles on Google News.
Fewer than 100 publishers have completely blocked their content from Google News search results, Cohen said.
“You can point back to the traffic that we’re sending and the fact that so few of those publishers have opted out as a pretty strong case that there’s value being delivered back to these publishers,” Cohen said.
Moroney said more publishers are “focused on attracting the really engaged consumers who come multiple times and stay for lots of minutes every time” rather than the casual online reader who happens upon a news site by chance.
U.S. newspaper publishers lost 28 percent of their print and online ad revenue in the third quarter from a year earlier, the Newspaper Association of America reported this month.
To contact the reporters on this story: Greg Bensinger in New York at gbensinger1@bloomberg.net; Brian Womack in San Francisco at bwomack1@bloomberg.net
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Lou Dobbs mulls White House bid
- Former CNN host Lou Dobbs fueled already rampant speculation about his political future Monday, sending the clearest signals yet that he's mulling a bid for president — and leaving third-party political operatives salivating over the possibility of a celebrity recruit for the 2012 campaign. Photo: AP
Former CNN host Lou Dobbs fueled already rampant speculation about his political future Monday, sending the clearest signals yet that he's mulling a bid for president — and leaving third-party political operatives salivating over the possibility of a celebrity recruit for the 2012 campaign.
Less than two weeks after announcing his departure from the cable network — and after a series of interviews in which Dobbs encouraged speculation about his political plans — the anchorman known to fans as "Mr. Independent" finally made his presidential ambitions explicit on former Sen. Fred Thompson's radio show Monday.
Asked if he might make a run at the White House in 2012, Dobbs answered flatly: "Yes is the answer."
"I'm going to be talking some more with some folks who want me to listen in the next few weeks," Dobbs told Thompson. "Right now I'm fortunate to have a number of wonderful options."
Dobbs's political future, however, remains shrouded in question marks. He has left open a variety of paths to public office — in addition to toying with a presidential campaign, Dobbs hasn't ruled out a bid for the Senate in 2012 in New Jersey — and also left his party affiliation a mystery.
A representative for Dobbs said his schedule did not permit him to comment for this story by deadline.
Though Dobbs's criticism of the Obama administration and his famously conservative views on illegal immigration have raised the prospect he could run for office as a Republican, he has staked out a rhetorical position that places him outside both parties. In 2007, he penned a book titled, "Independents Day: Awakening the American Spirit," and in his final CNN broadcast, Dobbs took broad aim at a political culture "defined in the public arena by partisanship and ideology rather than by rigorous, empirical thought and forthright analysis and discussion."
And in an appearance on CNBC last week, Dobbs told Larry Kudlow that he "absolutely" planned to remain independent of a political party.
After two consecutive presidential cycles in which independent contenders had virtually no impact at the polls, independent political strategists are delighted at the prospect of a third-party campaign for the White House headlined by a high-profile, TV-friendly candidate with the potential to scramble the national political map.
"I would assume he's going independent, since he's made a very strong case that that's where he is," said Bay Buchanan, who ran Pat Buchanan's 2000 campaign for president as the Reform Party's candidate. "There's enormous movement out there, I think more so than when Pat ran. I think they've really given up on Republicans, they've given up on Democrats; so he would be stepping into something where a path had been laid."
Buchanan added: "I think he can win."
Even independent political operatives less ideologically aligned with Dobbs — Buchanan, like Dobbs, is an immigration hawk — say he represents an enormous opportunity for foes of the two-party system.
"Lou Dobbs, I think, would be a perfect candidate for us," said former Sen. Dean Barkley, the founder of the Minnesota Reform Party (later known as the Minnesota Independence Party) who managed former Gov. Jesse Ventura's successful third-party campaign in 1998. "We were hoping he would have run last time."
The notion of a cable news personality running for high office seems less far-fetched one year after former comedian and liberal talk-radio host Al Franken upset expectations by defeating an incumbent Republican senator in Minnesota, and after television stars such as MSNBC's Chris Matthews explored running for office and Fox's Glenn Beck leaped directly into political activism. Indeed, operatives say, Dobbs's talent for communicating with a national audience could serve him well as an outsider candidate.
"You know he's got a pretty good sensibility with an audience," said media consultant Bill Hillsman, who worked on third-party campaigns for Ventura and gubernatorial candidates Kinky Friedman in Texas and Chris Daggett in New Jersey.
"There aren't too many people who you can say have that particular skill on a national basis, if you're looking at independents," said Hillsman, who said he urged Dobbs in a letter to run as an independent candidate in New Jersey's 2009 gubernatorial election.
Still, even with his star power, there could be serious limits to the appeal of a candidate best known for his opposition to immigration reform and his indulgence of conspiracy theories about President Barack Obama's birth certificate.
While Dobbs's views on immigration might get him a toehold with some constituencies, there's little modern evidence that opposition to immigration can power a national campaign. In order to have a shot at gaining traction nationally, Dobbs would have to tap into populist anger on a broader range of issues, according to Clay Mulford, who managed Ross Perot's presidential campaign in 1992.
"There's a populist streak in the voting public that spans both left and right, and so you've got the combination of this protectionist element and immigration on one hand, on the right. And on the left you've got this anti-bailout, Wall Street, focus-on-Main Street kind of sentiment," Mulford said. "That streak in American politics is something that's often ignored."
But Mulford, whom New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg consulted in 2008 about a possible independent presidential bid of his own, also poured some cold water on the Dobbs-for-President talk, noting that even a charismatic television personality would face a tough adjustment to the campaign trail.
Dobbs would encounter daunting structural obstacles to fundraising and a patchwork of ballot-access laws that tilt the playing field against any third-party contender. On top of that, Mulford said, Dobbs's hard-line views on immigration might restrict his national appeal in "a country of immigrants."
"The Electoral College makes it, unless you're going to really be at the 30 percent level and go from there, it's a hard slog, nationwide," Mulford warned. "Without some really substantive positions, given his lack of experience, a national effort would be difficult."
And for all the talk of a presidential campaign, Dobbs has yet to contact leading third-party operatives such as Buchanan, Hillsman, Mulford or Ed Rollins, the Perot campaign veteran who shared Dobbs's affiliation with CNN until the anchor quit this month, the operatives said.
Given the hurdles Dobbs would have to clear in order to run nationally, Democrats in his home state of New Jersey are responding seriously to Dobbs's hints about a Senate campaign.
"I assume he'd be a formidable candidate in terms of his skills and his ability to raise funds or self-fund," said a Democratic consultant based in New Jersey. "None of us are sitting around going, 'Oh, that's a joke.'"
At the same time, the Democrat said, Dobbs would be hampered from the first day of a Senate campaign by the optics of running as a border security hard-liner against the Senate's lone Hispanic.
"He's probably out of the mainstream on a bulk of issues. He's going to have a particularly delicate time running against the Senate's only Latino member. He certainly has no infrastructure on which to build in New Jersey," the consultant said. "I don't sense that anyone is sitting around going, 'Lou Dobbs is the next big thing.'"
Even as independents look eagerly forward to a possible Dobbs campaign — for president or another office — Republicans have responded much more warily to suggestions that Dobbs, a resident of Sussex County, could run for Senate on the GOP ticket in 2012.
"I don't think people know whether he'd run as a Republican and also don't know where he stands on anything but immigration," said a Republican strategist from New Jersey.
Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told POLITICO: "It's not even on our radar screen. Neither New Jersey senator is up in 2010, and 2010 is where our sole focus is right now."
While Dobbs's views on immigration might get him a toehold with some constituencies, there's little modern evidence that opposition to immigration can power a national campaign. In order to have a shot at gaining traction nationally, Dobbs would have to tap into populist anger on a broader range of issues, according to Clay Mulford, who managed Ross Perot's presidential campaign in 1992.
"There's a populist streak in the voting public that spans both left and right, and so you've got the combination of this protectionist element and immigration on one hand, on the right. And on the left you've got this anti-bailout, Wall Street, focus-on-Main Street kind of sentiment," Mulford said. "That streak in American politics is something that's often ignored."
But Mulford, whom New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg consulted in 2008 about a possible independent presidential bid of his own, also poured some cold water on the Dobbs-for-President talk, noting that even a charismatic television personality would face a tough adjustment to the campaign trail.
Dobbs would encounter daunting structural obstacles to fundraising and a patchwork of ballot-access laws that tilt the playing field against any third-party contender. On top of that, Mulford said, Dobbs's hard-line views on immigration might restrict his national appeal in "a country of immigrants."
"The Electoral College makes it, unless you're going to really be at the 30 percent level and go from there, it's a hard slog, nationwide," Mulford warned. "Without some really substantive positions, given his lack of experience, a national effort would be difficult."
And for all the talk of a presidential campaign, Dobbs has yet to contact leading third-party operatives such as Buchanan, Hillsman, Mulford or Ed Rollins, the Perot campaign veteran who shared Dobbs's affiliation with CNN until the anchor quit this month, the operatives said.
Given the hurdles Dobbs would have to clear in order to run nationally, Democrats in his home state of New Jersey are responding seriously to Dobbs's hints about a Senate campaign.
"I assume he'd be a formidable candidate in terms of his skills and his ability to raise funds or self-fund," said a Democratic consultant based in New Jersey. "None of us are sitting around going, 'Oh, that's a joke.'"
At the same time, the Democrat said, Dobbs would be hampered from the first day of a Senate campaign by the optics of running as a border security hard-liner against the Senate's lone Hispanic.
"He's probably out of the mainstream on a bulk of issues. He's going to have a particularly delicate time running against the Senate's only Latino member. He certainly has no infrastructure on which to build in New Jersey," the consultant said. "I don't sense that anyone is sitting around going, 'Lou Dobbs is the next big thing.'"
Even as independents look eagerly forward to a possible Dobbs campaign — for president or another office — Republicans have responded much more warily to suggestions that Dobbs, a resident of Sussex County, could run for Senate on the GOP ticket in 2012.
"I don't think people know whether he'd run as a Republican and also don't know where he stands on anything but immigration," said a Republican strategist from New Jersey.
Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told POLITICO: "It's not even on our radar screen. Neither New Jersey senator is up in 2010, and 2010 is where our sole focus is right now."
Thanks for Paying Attention Big Journalism
by Andrew Breitbart
In response to the Columbia Journalism Review’s accusing me of “blackmailing” the Attorney General of the United States, I must take notice that the mainstream media as a journalistic establishment IS paying attention to the ongoing ACORN scandal. Good. I thought so.
What the Columbia Journalism Review is doing is very similar to what Media Matters is doing: protecting the Democrat-Media Complex, the natural alliance of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media. This ACORN investigation has been going on for two months and Hannah, James, and I have proven to be truth-tellers every step of the way, while the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now has been proven time and again to be liars.
Yet instead of engaging the real, newsworthy issues of ACORN’s possible corruption, malfeasance and illegal behavior, the CJR, like its more overtly political online counterpart Media Matters, and indeed every other MSM outlet, has been sitting it out on the sidelines, waiting – rooting – for Hannah Giles, James O’Keefe and me to make a mistake. In fact, my appearance Thursday night is the only time in which the media has introduced itself into this ongoing narrative: proof that it’s paying attention and taking sides.
Neither, by the way, has the CJR challenged James Rainey, a reporter at the Los Angeles Times, who has consistently shaded his coverage favorably toward ACORN since we first broke the story back in September, evincing little interest in the truth but instead muttering about the standards of the Society of Professional Journalists (take link, be sure to read the comments). “But the Society of Professional Journalists has set a standard that deception should be used only when every other reporting approach has been exhausted and only then in certain cases, most notably to reveal a severe social problem or to prevent people from being harmed.”
A “severe social problem”? Perhaps that’s exactly what Congress saw when both the Senate and the House de-funded ACORN (at least temporarily), and the group’s tie with the census was abruptly severed in the wake of our reports. So thank you for the clarification, CJR, and thank you to its appropriately named Mr. Marx for showing that hallowed institution’s true colors at a moment when any sentient being can recognize that the credibility of journalism is on the line. It’s a little like the Sarah Palin situation: the media simultaneously dismisses her as an inept idiot and yet hangs on her every word, hoping to entrap her. Why else would MSNBC send Norah O’Donnell, armed with talking points, to “fact-check” a tee shirt being worn by a young woman at one of Sarah’s recent book signings?
And now to address the fever-swamp’s notion that what I said on “Hannity” last night was “blackmail.” Blackmail occurs when one party threatens to reveal an unsavory piece of information about another party, and demands money in exchange for silence. For obvious reasons, it is most often conducted in private. I, on the other hand, went on national television with a challenge to the Attorney General to do his job; unlike this administration and its justice department, what I did was fully open and transparent.
There will be consequences if there isn’t an investigation into ACORN. The videos will be shown and at a particular moment. There is nothing illegal about my proposed response to the continued inaction from this justice department, and there’s nothing I’d like more than to have my day in court and let a jury hear why I have gone to such extraordinary measures to tell a major story that the dying, partisan, leftist media has worked so hard to suppress.
The days of the Democrat-Media Complex controlling the narrative are in their end times. And if the AG wants to turn his focus on me instead of ACORN, then that day will be closer than many of them think.
In response to the Columbia Journalism Review’s accusing me of “blackmailing” the Attorney General of the United States, I must take notice that the mainstream media as a journalistic establishment IS paying attention to the ongoing ACORN scandal. Good. I thought so.
What the Columbia Journalism Review is doing is very similar to what Media Matters is doing: protecting the Democrat-Media Complex, the natural alliance of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media. This ACORN investigation has been going on for two months and Hannah, James, and I have proven to be truth-tellers every step of the way, while the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now has been proven time and again to be liars.
Neither, by the way, has the CJR challenged James Rainey, a reporter at the Los Angeles Times, who has consistently shaded his coverage favorably toward ACORN since we first broke the story back in September, evincing little interest in the truth but instead muttering about the standards of the Society of Professional Journalists (take link, be sure to read the comments). “But the Society of Professional Journalists has set a standard that deception should be used only when every other reporting approach has been exhausted and only then in certain cases, most notably to reveal a severe social problem or to prevent people from being harmed.”
A “severe social problem”? Perhaps that’s exactly what Congress saw when both the Senate and the House de-funded ACORN (at least temporarily), and the group’s tie with the census was abruptly severed in the wake of our reports. So thank you for the clarification, CJR, and thank you to its appropriately named Mr. Marx for showing that hallowed institution’s true colors at a moment when any sentient being can recognize that the credibility of journalism is on the line. It’s a little like the Sarah Palin situation: the media simultaneously dismisses her as an inept idiot and yet hangs on her every word, hoping to entrap her. Why else would MSNBC send Norah O’Donnell, armed with talking points, to “fact-check” a tee shirt being worn by a young woman at one of Sarah’s recent book signings?
And now to address the fever-swamp’s notion that what I said on “Hannity” last night was “blackmail.” Blackmail occurs when one party threatens to reveal an unsavory piece of information about another party, and demands money in exchange for silence. For obvious reasons, it is most often conducted in private. I, on the other hand, went on national television with a challenge to the Attorney General to do his job; unlike this administration and its justice department, what I did was fully open and transparent.
There will be consequences if there isn’t an investigation into ACORN. The videos will be shown and at a particular moment. There is nothing illegal about my proposed response to the continued inaction from this justice department, and there’s nothing I’d like more than to have my day in court and let a jury hear why I have gone to such extraordinary measures to tell a major story that the dying, partisan, leftist media has worked so hard to suppress.
The days of the Democrat-Media Complex controlling the narrative are in their end times. And if the AG wants to turn his focus on me instead of ACORN, then that day will be closer than many of them think.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Newspaper circulation may be worse than it looks
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - While U.S. newspapers are losing subscribers at a staggering rate, a few dailies stand out because their circulation is rising. But they aren't necessarily selling more copies.
Here's why: Since April 1, new auditing rules have made it easier for newspapers to count a reader as a paying customer.
These looser standards are especially helpful to a newspaper if it sells an "electronic edition." That can include a subscriber-only Web site, such as what The Wall Street Journal has, or it can be a digital replica of a newspaper's printed product. Several dozen publications, including USA Today, sell access to these daily "e-editions" that show how the news was laid out in print.
Under the new auditing standards, if a newspaper sells a "bundled" subscription to both the print and electronic editions, the publication is often allowed to count that subscriber twice.
If not for these rules, the industry's numbers would look even worse. Average weekday circulation at 379 U.S. newspapers fell 10.6 percent during the six months ending in September. That was the steepest decline ever recorded by the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the organization that verifies how many people are paying to read publications.
It's not clear what the numbers would have been under the old auditing standards. But the effects of the new rules were widespread. There were 59 newspapers that listed at least 5,000 electronic editions in their weekday circulations, according to an Associated Press review of the figures filed with the ABC for the April-September period. In all but a few instances, the number of electronic subscribers was substantially higher than a year ago.
The decline in newspaper circulation has several causes. Many publications have intentionally reduced the range of their deliveries, cutting out exurbs or distant parts of their states where they sold relatively few copies. Higher prices for home delivery and newsstand copies also have driven some readers away. Publishers are betting they can keep their most loyal readers and are charging them more to help offset their crumbling ad sales - the main source of newspaper revenue.
Nevertheless, many newspapers are still offering discounts to bolster their circulation so they don't risk losing even more advertising revenue. The size of the audience is one factor marketers consider when they buy ads.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal was among the newspapers whose weekday circulation rose from the same time last year. Nevada's largest newspaper saw its average weekday circulation rise 6.6 percent, or nearly 11,000 subscribers, to 175,841. It was a remarkable improvement, given that weekday sales of its print edition fell by 12,000 copies and Las Vegas ranks among the cities hardest hit by the Great Recession.
How did it happen? The Review-Journal's circulation this year included 23,132 electronic editions compared with just 511 at the same time last year.
The big difference didn't occur because that many more people suddenly decided to buy the Review-Journal's digital replica of its print edition.
The change happened because the price the newspaper was charging for the online replica - it costs print customers an extra 50 cents per week - hadn't been high enough to qualify as paid circulation until the ABC's April change. That let newspapers define their paying readers as anyone who spends at least a penny for a copy. Previously, a newspaper copy had to sell for at least 25 percent of the basic price to qualify as paid circulation.
The ABC said it changed the rules to reduce its auditing costs and "provide greater pricing and marketing flexibility" for publishers.
Steve Coffeen, the Review-Journal's circulation director, said it makes sense to count the bundled subscriptions twice, as well as other people buying the electronic edition at a sharp discount, because it provides a complete picture of the newspaper's paying audience. Advertisers generally prize readers who pay for a publication, reasoning they are more likely to peruse it.
"It's important to show advertisers we are fighting the good fight and using other platforms to reach readers," Coffeen said.
That rationale makes sense to Randy Novak, director of newspaper strategy for NSA Media, one of the nation's largest buyers of newspaper ads. He doesn't see much difference between readers who are getting the newspaper at a deep discount or the standard price. He wants to reach people who care enough about the newspaper to be willing to pay for it at all.
However, another big buyer of newspaper ads says the new ABC rules made the reported circulation numbers less credible.
"You really have to do your homework now and ask newspapers about how much double counting is going on," said Allison Howald, U.S. director of print investment at PHD Media.
A surge in digital sales propelled the York Daily Record in Pennsylvania to a 16.5 percent increase in weekday circulation - the highest among dailies selling at least 50,000 copies. The Daily Record listed 10,073 electronic editions in its latest circulation of 55,370. At the same time last year it counted just 42 electronic editions in its circulation of 47,549.
In most cases, the electronic edition is a replica of the printed product, right down to the ads. The technology even makes it possible to simulate the act of turning the pages of a paper edition. Most electronic editions are sold at a small fraction of the price for the printed edition, partly because publishers don't have to pay for newsprint or fuel to deliver the copy.
Web subscriptions were pivotal in The Wall Street Journal's growth over the past decade. The digital sales are the main reason that the Journal surpassed USA Today as the top-selling U.S. newspaper in the April-September period. USA Today, owned by Gannett Co., still holds the edge in print circulation.
The Journal charges its print subscribers an additional 40 cents per week for unrestricted access to its Web site. Journal spokesman Robert Christie wouldn't comment on whether the new rules for counting subscribers contributed to a 14 percent increase in the newspaper's 407,002 digital subscribers. Including the print side, the Journal's total circulation edged up by just 0.6 percent to 2.02 million.
"We followed the ABC's rules and methodology," Christie said.
Some newspapers that posted circulation gains say they are picking up readers who feel abandoned by bigger publications. Cutbacks at newspapers in Atlanta, Charlotte, N.C., and Nashville, Tenn., contributed to most of the 2 percent increase at the 70,000-circulation Chattanooga Times Free Press in Tennessee, said Publisher Tom Griscom. "We are keeping an eye on print and not letting it drift away," Griscom said.
A reduced emphasis on print at The Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press, which now deliver to homes only three days a week, also helped Michigan's Oakland Press increase its weekday circulation 7 percent to 68,067. But electronic sales were the main factor. The newspaper listed 6,500 more electronic editions in its latest circulation numbers than it did a year ago, offsetting a slight decline in print.
Here's why: Since April 1, new auditing rules have made it easier for newspapers to count a reader as a paying customer.
These looser standards are especially helpful to a newspaper if it sells an "electronic edition." That can include a subscriber-only Web site, such as what The Wall Street Journal has, or it can be a digital replica of a newspaper's printed product. Several dozen publications, including USA Today, sell access to these daily "e-editions" that show how the news was laid out in print.
Under the new auditing standards, if a newspaper sells a "bundled" subscription to both the print and electronic editions, the publication is often allowed to count that subscriber twice.
If not for these rules, the industry's numbers would look even worse. Average weekday circulation at 379 U.S. newspapers fell 10.6 percent during the six months ending in September. That was the steepest decline ever recorded by the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the organization that verifies how many people are paying to read publications.
It's not clear what the numbers would have been under the old auditing standards. But the effects of the new rules were widespread. There were 59 newspapers that listed at least 5,000 electronic editions in their weekday circulations, according to an Associated Press review of the figures filed with the ABC for the April-September period. In all but a few instances, the number of electronic subscribers was substantially higher than a year ago.
The decline in newspaper circulation has several causes. Many publications have intentionally reduced the range of their deliveries, cutting out exurbs or distant parts of their states where they sold relatively few copies. Higher prices for home delivery and newsstand copies also have driven some readers away. Publishers are betting they can keep their most loyal readers and are charging them more to help offset their crumbling ad sales - the main source of newspaper revenue.
Nevertheless, many newspapers are still offering discounts to bolster their circulation so they don't risk losing even more advertising revenue. The size of the audience is one factor marketers consider when they buy ads.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal was among the newspapers whose weekday circulation rose from the same time last year. Nevada's largest newspaper saw its average weekday circulation rise 6.6 percent, or nearly 11,000 subscribers, to 175,841. It was a remarkable improvement, given that weekday sales of its print edition fell by 12,000 copies and Las Vegas ranks among the cities hardest hit by the Great Recession.
How did it happen? The Review-Journal's circulation this year included 23,132 electronic editions compared with just 511 at the same time last year.
The big difference didn't occur because that many more people suddenly decided to buy the Review-Journal's digital replica of its print edition.
The change happened because the price the newspaper was charging for the online replica - it costs print customers an extra 50 cents per week - hadn't been high enough to qualify as paid circulation until the ABC's April change. That let newspapers define their paying readers as anyone who spends at least a penny for a copy. Previously, a newspaper copy had to sell for at least 25 percent of the basic price to qualify as paid circulation.
The ABC said it changed the rules to reduce its auditing costs and "provide greater pricing and marketing flexibility" for publishers.
Steve Coffeen, the Review-Journal's circulation director, said it makes sense to count the bundled subscriptions twice, as well as other people buying the electronic edition at a sharp discount, because it provides a complete picture of the newspaper's paying audience. Advertisers generally prize readers who pay for a publication, reasoning they are more likely to peruse it.
"It's important to show advertisers we are fighting the good fight and using other platforms to reach readers," Coffeen said.
That rationale makes sense to Randy Novak, director of newspaper strategy for NSA Media, one of the nation's largest buyers of newspaper ads. He doesn't see much difference between readers who are getting the newspaper at a deep discount or the standard price. He wants to reach people who care enough about the newspaper to be willing to pay for it at all.
However, another big buyer of newspaper ads says the new ABC rules made the reported circulation numbers less credible.
"You really have to do your homework now and ask newspapers about how much double counting is going on," said Allison Howald, U.S. director of print investment at PHD Media.
A surge in digital sales propelled the York Daily Record in Pennsylvania to a 16.5 percent increase in weekday circulation - the highest among dailies selling at least 50,000 copies. The Daily Record listed 10,073 electronic editions in its latest circulation of 55,370. At the same time last year it counted just 42 electronic editions in its circulation of 47,549.
In most cases, the electronic edition is a replica of the printed product, right down to the ads. The technology even makes it possible to simulate the act of turning the pages of a paper edition. Most electronic editions are sold at a small fraction of the price for the printed edition, partly because publishers don't have to pay for newsprint or fuel to deliver the copy.
Web subscriptions were pivotal in The Wall Street Journal's growth over the past decade. The digital sales are the main reason that the Journal surpassed USA Today as the top-selling U.S. newspaper in the April-September period. USA Today, owned by Gannett Co., still holds the edge in print circulation.
The Journal charges its print subscribers an additional 40 cents per week for unrestricted access to its Web site. Journal spokesman Robert Christie wouldn't comment on whether the new rules for counting subscribers contributed to a 14 percent increase in the newspaper's 407,002 digital subscribers. Including the print side, the Journal's total circulation edged up by just 0.6 percent to 2.02 million.
"We followed the ABC's rules and methodology," Christie said.
Some newspapers that posted circulation gains say they are picking up readers who feel abandoned by bigger publications. Cutbacks at newspapers in Atlanta, Charlotte, N.C., and Nashville, Tenn., contributed to most of the 2 percent increase at the 70,000-circulation Chattanooga Times Free Press in Tennessee, said Publisher Tom Griscom. "We are keeping an eye on print and not letting it drift away," Griscom said.
A reduced emphasis on print at The Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press, which now deliver to homes only three days a week, also helped Michigan's Oakland Press increase its weekday circulation 7 percent to 68,067. But electronic sales were the main factor. The newspaper listed 6,500 more electronic editions in its latest circulation numbers than it did a year ago, offsetting a slight decline in print.
Microsoft and News Corp eye web pact
By Matthew Garrahan in Los Angeles, Richard Waters in San Francisco and Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in New York
Published: November 22 2009 23:01 | Last updated: November 22 2009 23:01
Microsoft has had discussions with News Corp over a plan that would involve the media company’s being paid to “de-index” its news websites from Google, setting the scene for a search engine battle that could offer a ray of light to the newspaper industry.
The impetus for the discussions came from News Corp, owner of newspapers ranging from the Wall Street Journal of the US to The Sun of the UK, said a person familiar with the situation, who warned that talks were at an early stage.
However, the Financial Times has learnt that Microsoft has also approached other big online publishers to persuade them to remove their sites from Google’s search engine.
News Corp and Microsoft, which owns the rival Bing search engine, declined to comment.
One website publisher approached by Microsoft said that the plan “puts enormous value on content if search engines are prepared to pay us to index with them”.
Microsoft’s interest is being interpreted as a direct assault on Google because it puts pressure on the search engine to start paying for content.
“This is all about Microsoft hurting Google’s margins,” said the web publisher who is familiar with the plan.
But the biggest beneficiary of the tussle could be the newspaper industry, which has yet to construct a reliable online business model that adequately replaces declining print and advertising revenues.
In a possible sign of negotiations to come, Google last week played down the importance of newspaper content.
Matt Brittin, Google’s UK director, told a Society of Editors conference that Google did not need news content to survive. “Economically it’s not a big part of how we generate revenue,” he said.
News Corp has been exploring online payment models for its newspapers and has taken an increasingly hard line against Google.
Rupert Murdoch, News Corp chairman, has said that he would use legal methods to prevent Google “stealing stories” published in his papers.
Microsoft is desperate to catch Google in search and, after five years and hundreds of millions of dollars of losses, Bing, launched in June, marks its most ambitious attempt yet.
Steve Ballmer, chief executive of Microsoft, has said that the company is prepared to spend heavily for many years to make Bing a serious rival to Google.
Microsoft has sought to differentiate Bing by drawing in material not found elsewhere, though has not demanded exclusivity from content partners. Bing accounted for 9.9 per cent of searches in the US in October, up from 8.4 per cent at its launch, according to ComScore.
James Murdoch, chairman and chief executive of News Corp Europe and Asia, hinted last week that the company was making progress with its online plans. “We think that there’s a very exciting marketplace, potentially a wholesale market place for digital journalism that we’ll be developing,” he said
The impetus for the discussions came from News Corp, owner of newspapers ranging from the Wall Street Journal of the US to The Sun of the UK, said a person familiar with the situation, who warned that talks were at an early stage.
However, the Financial Times has learnt that Microsoft has also approached other big online publishers to persuade them to remove their sites from Google’s search engine.
News Corp and Microsoft, which owns the rival Bing search engine, declined to comment.
One website publisher approached by Microsoft said that the plan “puts enormous value on content if search engines are prepared to pay us to index with them”.
Microsoft’s interest is being interpreted as a direct assault on Google because it puts pressure on the search engine to start paying for content.
“This is all about Microsoft hurting Google’s margins,” said the web publisher who is familiar with the plan.
But the biggest beneficiary of the tussle could be the newspaper industry, which has yet to construct a reliable online business model that adequately replaces declining print and advertising revenues.
In a possible sign of negotiations to come, Google last week played down the importance of newspaper content.
Matt Brittin, Google’s UK director, told a Society of Editors conference that Google did not need news content to survive. “Economically it’s not a big part of how we generate revenue,” he said.
News Corp has been exploring online payment models for its newspapers and has taken an increasingly hard line against Google.
Rupert Murdoch, News Corp chairman, has said that he would use legal methods to prevent Google “stealing stories” published in his papers.
Microsoft is desperate to catch Google in search and, after five years and hundreds of millions of dollars of losses, Bing, launched in June, marks its most ambitious attempt yet.
Steve Ballmer, chief executive of Microsoft, has said that the company is prepared to spend heavily for many years to make Bing a serious rival to Google.
Microsoft has sought to differentiate Bing by drawing in material not found elsewhere, though has not demanded exclusivity from content partners. Bing accounted for 9.9 per cent of searches in the US in October, up from 8.4 per cent at its launch, according to ComScore.
James Murdoch, chairman and chief executive of News Corp Europe and Asia, hinted last week that the company was making progress with its online plans. “We think that there’s a very exciting marketplace, potentially a wholesale market place for digital journalism that we’ll be developing,” he said
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Oprah Winfrey to Leave Talk Show in 2011
Harpo President Announces Oprah Winfrey's Plans to Step Down From Iconic Show
After more than 20 years at the top of the daytime talk show game, Oprah Winfrey's calling it quits.
According to insiders, Winfrey informed her staff of her decision late this afternoon in a company meeting, described as "emotional, supportive and respectful."
This afternoon, Tim Bennett, president of Winfrey's Harpo production house, announced that the media mogul will step off the "Oprah" set in September 2011. He said Winfrey will confirm the news on Friday's edition of her show.
"The Oprah Winfrey Show" will not move on to the cable Oprah Winfrey Network or OWN.
Since "Oprah's" 1986 inception, Winfrey's grown to be far more than a shoulder to cry on for scandal-scarred stars. Her empire -- which includes films, books, magazines and Web sites, in addition to her TV show -- influences people the world over, and her wealth -- at one point, she was the world's only African-American billionaire, according to Forbes magazine -- grants her access to people, places and things few others can conceive.
What's next for Winfrey? Perhaps she'll drop a hint on her show Friday.
Below, read the full text of Bennett's statement to stations across the country that carry Winfrey's show.
Dear Friends:
Over the past several weeks, my team and I have had conversations with many of you to help address your questions about the future of "The Oprah Winfrey Show." Of course, the one question we couldn't answer was the one that only Oprah could. And tomorrow, she will do just that.
But before she speaks to her loyal viewers, we wanted to share her decision first with you -- our valued partners for more than two decades.
Tomorrow, Oprah will announce live on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" that she has decided to end what is arguably one of the most popular, influential and enduring programs in television history. The sun will set on the "Oprah" show as its 25th season draws to a close on September 9, 2011.
We welcome you to share this news this evening with your colleagues and viewers. As we all know, Oprah's personal comments about this on tomorrow's live show will mark an historic television moment that we will all be talking about for years to come.
We want to thank you for the partnership and friendship we have shared over the years. Your invaluable support has helped us to create the phenomenon of the "Oprah Show" that we've all been so proud to be a part of for the last 24 years. My staff and I will be calling all of you directly tonight and tomorrow. We look forward to speaking with you.
And, if you think the last quarter century has been something, then "don't touch that dial" as together we plan to make history in the next 20 months ... and beyond.
Yours sincerely,
Tim Bennett
President, Harpo, Inc.
Oprah's production company Harpo says that while it has projects in development, they are not announcing anything at this time.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Sarah Palin gives Oprah biggest audience in two years
Oprah Winfrey’s interview with former vp candidate Sarah Palin scored the talk show host her highest rating in two years.
Monday's episode of "The Oprah Winfrey Show" drew a 8.7 household rating and 13 share -- the best since Winfrey had the entire Osmond family on the show in 2007.
That means Palin also topped Winfrey's heavily viewed interviews with Whitney Houston at the start of the season.
Palin is making the rounds to promote her new book, "Going Rogue," which came out Tuesday.
Winfrey began the interview by asking Palin if she felt snubbed at not getting an invitation to appear on the show last year. Winfrey said she didn't have any candidates on her Chicago-based show during the campaign because of her support for President Barack Obama.
Palin said she didn't feel snubbed and told Winfrey, "No offense to you, but it wasn't the center of my universe."
Palin said in another interview broadcast Tuesday that a 2012 presidential bid is "not on my radar," but wouldn't rule out playing some role in the next presidential election.
"My ambition, if you will, my desire is to help our country in whatever role that may be, and I cannot predict what that will be, what doors will be open in the year 2012," she told Barbara Walters.
When asked whether she'd play a major role, the former Republican vice presidential candidate replied that "if people will have me, I will."
-- The Associated Press contributed to this report
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Obama 'probably won't' read Palin's book
BEIJING — Sarah Palin's new book may already be a best-seller, but President Barack Obama says he probably won't read it.
The president says he's sure sales of "Going Rogue" will do well without his readership. While he wouldn't say whether he thinks Palin will run for president in 2012, he says she has proved to be a popular figure with a large following in the Republican party.
In an interview promoting her book, Palin rated Obama's performance as president as a 4 out of 10. Obama dismissed the criticism, saying he and the former Republican vice presidential candidate have different political philosophies.
Obama spoke during interviews with CBS News, CNN and Fox News.
The president says he's sure sales of "Going Rogue" will do well without his readership. While he wouldn't say whether he thinks Palin will run for president in 2012, he says she has proved to be a popular figure with a large following in the Republican party.
In an interview promoting her book, Palin rated Obama's performance as president as a 4 out of 10. Obama dismissed the criticism, saying he and the former Republican vice presidential candidate have different political philosophies.
Obama spoke during interviews with CBS News, CNN and Fox News.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Newsweek Photo of Palin Shows Media Bias and Sexism
For all of you who live in a dream world and think the mainstream media isn't biased, get a load of the latest cover of Newsweek below:
You've got to hand it to the folks at Newsweek. They have accomplished being biased and sexist at the same time. Quite a feat. This cover has got to be a new low right? They don't use a photo of Palin on the campaign trail. No instead they take the sexy Runners World photo. Yes she posed for it but don't tell me they didn't purposely use that photo to make a point? I predict this cover will become a bigger story over the next 24-48 hours and let's face it. This isn't JUST about media bias. This cover should be insulting to women politicians. Where's the sexy photo of Mitt Romney? Why not a picture of Tim Pawlenty with an unbuttoned shirt relaxing on a couch in the Twin Cities?
By the way, where's the Newsweek headline that says, "Going Rogue and Going Places?" No instead we get Newsweek covers throughout the years like this one:
Conservative women are portrayed as nuts and dopey. Liberal women are heroes for the next generation.
Oy-vey. Someone get me a sedative.
You've got to hand it to the folks at Newsweek. They have accomplished being biased and sexist at the same time. Quite a feat. This cover has got to be a new low right? They don't use a photo of Palin on the campaign trail. No instead they take the sexy Runners World photo. Yes she posed for it but don't tell me they didn't purposely use that photo to make a point? I predict this cover will become a bigger story over the next 24-48 hours and let's face it. This isn't JUST about media bias. This cover should be insulting to women politicians. Where's the sexy photo of Mitt Romney? Why not a picture of Tim Pawlenty with an unbuttoned shirt relaxing on a couch in the Twin Cities?
By the way, where's the Newsweek headline that says, "Going Rogue and Going Places?" No instead we get Newsweek covers throughout the years like this one:
Conservative women are portrayed as nuts and dopey. Liberal women are heroes for the next generation.
Oy-vey. Someone get me a sedative.
CNN reporter detained in Shanghai over Obama-Mao T-shirt
AFP – A United States flag is hoisted onto a flagpole in front of the emblem of the Chinese Communist Party … WASHINGTON (AFP) – A CNN correspondent said Monday she was detained byChinese security guards in Shanghai for two hours for displaying a T-shirt on camera depicting US President Barack Obama as Mao Zedong.
Emily Chang, a Beijing-based correspondent for the US television network, said in a blog post on CNN.com that she hunted down the shirt after hearing they had been banned amid fears they "may offend the American president."
The shirt shows Obama, who is making his first visit to China as president, in a Red Army uniform staring into the distance in a pose made famous by the former Chinese leader.
The front of the shirt says "Serve the People" in Chinese, Chang said. "Oba-Mao" is written on the back in English.
Chang said she held the shirt up to the camera while filming a story in a Shanghai market.
"Two security guards happened to pass by at the moment I announced to the camera: 'This is the T-shirt everybody is talking about,'" she said.
"And that was it. They scrambled towards us and tried to pry the shirt out of my hands," Chang said. "I didn't give in.
"There was a bit of yelling and quite a scuffle," she said, adding that CNN "had everything on tape."
"We ended up being detained for two hours in the cold, maze of a market," she said. "A crowd gathered round. More security and then police showed up.
"They wanted our press cards, our passports, but most of all, they wanted the shirt," she said. "Finally, they let us go. Phew!"
Chang refused to surrender the offending shirt and joked that a number of jealous White House and CNN colleagues had tried to "bribe" her for it.
Emily Chang, a Beijing-based correspondent for the US television network, said in a blog post on CNN.com that she hunted down the shirt after hearing they had been banned amid fears they "may offend the American president."
The shirt shows Obama, who is making his first visit to China as president, in a Red Army uniform staring into the distance in a pose made famous by the former Chinese leader.
The front of the shirt says "Serve the People" in Chinese, Chang said. "Oba-Mao" is written on the back in English.
Chang said she held the shirt up to the camera while filming a story in a Shanghai market.
"Two security guards happened to pass by at the moment I announced to the camera: 'This is the T-shirt everybody is talking about,'" she said.
"And that was it. They scrambled towards us and tried to pry the shirt out of my hands," Chang said. "I didn't give in.
"There was a bit of yelling and quite a scuffle," she said, adding that CNN "had everything on tape."
"We ended up being detained for two hours in the cold, maze of a market," she said. "A crowd gathered round. More security and then police showed up.
"They wanted our press cards, our passports, but most of all, they wanted the shirt," she said. "Finally, they let us go. Phew!"
Chang refused to surrender the offending shirt and joked that a number of jealous White House and CNN colleagues had tried to "bribe" her for it.
Source: CNN wanted Lou out
CNN 'wanted him out'
Last Updated: 12:41 PM, November 16, 2009
Posted: 3:14 AM, November 16, 2009
CNN was so sick of Lou Dobbs, it gave him an $8 million severance package to leave, The Post has learned.
"They wanted him out," according to a source.
Dobbs, who a source said had a year and a half to go on his $12 million contract, shocked viewers last Wednesday by announcing he was quitting.
CNN boss Jonathan Klein and Dobbs, 64, had been publicly feuding over the kind of reporting Dobbs was doing on his show -- especially stories about illegal immigration and the anti-Obama "birther" movement, which contends the president was not born in Hawaii and is not an American citizen.
But it was not clear until now that CNN was willing to pay Dobbs so much money to leave.
"What they do is their business," Dobbs said yesterday. "I tried to accommodate them as best I could, but I've said for many years now that neutrality is not part of my being."
Klein long believed Dobbs was at odds with CNN's desire to position itself as an opinion-free, middle-of-the-road alternative to its cable news rivals -- conservative Fox News and liberal MSNBC.
Dobbs characterized his split with CNN after 27 years as "pleasant, friendly and professional" in an interview with the Atlanta Constitution-Journal.
But, he added, "I truly believe that it's also a liberating moment for me."
Dobbs said he is free to take a new job at another network, but said it would be "weeks, probably months" before he decides what to do next.
The end came quickly once the exit package had been negotiated, said Robert Dilenschneider, a spokesman for the anchorman.
Originally, plans had been for Dobbs to announce his decision to leave during last Friday night's broadcast.
"But when his assistant asked, 'Lou, do you really want to leave on Friday the 13th?' he decided to make it Wednesday instead," Dilenschneider said.
Dobbs is set to give his first TV interview since then to Fox News' Bill O'Reilly tonight, leading to speculation that he may be headed there. But TV insiders said such a move is highly unlikely.
Talk about a possible political career -- possibly as candidate for the Senate from New Jersey in 2012 -- is also probably overblown, friends said.
"He couldn't stand the scrutiny," said one colleague.
"They wanted him out," according to a source.
Dobbs, who a source said had a year and a half to go on his $12 million contract, shocked viewers last Wednesday by announcing he was quitting.
CNN boss Jonathan Klein and Dobbs, 64, had been publicly feuding over the kind of reporting Dobbs was doing on his show -- especially stories about illegal immigration and the anti-Obama "birther" movement, which contends the president was not born in Hawaii and is not an American citizen.
LOU DOBBS "Liberating moment."
"What they do is their business," Dobbs said yesterday. "I tried to accommodate them as best I could, but I've said for many years now that neutrality is not part of my being."
Klein long believed Dobbs was at odds with CNN's desire to position itself as an opinion-free, middle-of-the-road alternative to its cable news rivals -- conservative Fox News and liberal MSNBC.
Dobbs characterized his split with CNN after 27 years as "pleasant, friendly and professional" in an interview with the Atlanta Constitution-Journal.
But, he added, "I truly believe that it's also a liberating moment for me."
Dobbs said he is free to take a new job at another network, but said it would be "weeks, probably months" before he decides what to do next.
The end came quickly once the exit package had been negotiated, said Robert Dilenschneider, a spokesman for the anchorman.
Originally, plans had been for Dobbs to announce his decision to leave during last Friday night's broadcast.
"But when his assistant asked, 'Lou, do you really want to leave on Friday the 13th?' he decided to make it Wednesday instead," Dilenschneider said.
Dobbs is set to give his first TV interview since then to Fox News' Bill O'Reilly tonight, leading to speculation that he may be headed there. But TV insiders said such a move is highly unlikely.
Talk about a possible political career -- possibly as candidate for the Senate from New Jersey in 2012 -- is also probably overblown, friends said.
"He couldn't stand the scrutiny," said one colleague.
Al Gore's Current TV Calls Sarah Palin a 'Gun-Ho' and a 'TWILF'
Days after announcing another huge layoff, Al Gore's Current TV referred to former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as a "Gun-Ho" and a "TWILF."These disgraceful, sexually-charged epithets were part of an attack on prominent conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and came in the form of a cartoon ironically titled "The Stupid Virus":
When a lab-monkey declares that President Obama wasn't born in America, he becomes Patient Zero for a new brand of fear-based news virus - Fearus Ignoramus. We watch as the virus goes ear-borne, spreading from Rush Limbaugh to CNN to the mainstream-media to the general public. America devolves into panic, convinced its President is an illegal alien anti-Christ.In the end, this was just a lot of conservative bashing in very bad taste, especially the shot of Palin's Twitter page and her astonishingly offensive screen name "Gun-Ho" (video embedded below the fold, vulgarity alert, h/t Breitbart TV):
Did you notice Palin's screen name at Twitter was "Gun-Ho?"
This appears to either be a take on the acronym MILF with the "TW" standing for "Twitterer," or an urban dictionary reference way too disgusting to address.
Regardless, is that what a former Vice President and Nobel Laureate believes is acceptable to call a former Governor and vice presidential candidate? Lest we not forget the vulgar attack on Beck at the end.
And these folks wonder why they're continually having to lay people off!
Screencaps courtesy of Story Balloon.
The KSM Trial Will Be an Intelligence Bonanza for al Qaeda
The government will have to choose between vigorous prosecution and revealing classified sources and methods.
By JOHN YOO
'This is a prosecutorial decision as well as a national security decision," President Barack Obama said last week about the attorney general's announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al Qaeda operatives will be put on trial in New York City federal court.No, it is not. It is a presidential decision—one about the hard, ever-present trade-off between civil liberties and national security.
Trying KSM in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda and the hostile nations that will view the U.S. intelligence methods and sources that such a trial will reveal. The proceedings will tie up judges for years on issues best left to the president and Congress.
Whether a jury ultimately convicts KSM and his fellows, or sentences them to death, is beside the point. The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war.
KSM is the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon—and a "terrorist entrepreneur," according to the 9/11 Commission report. He was the brains behind a succession of operations against the U.S., including the 1996 "Bojinka plot" to crash jetliners into American cities. Together with Osama bin Laden, he selected the 9/11 terrorists, arranged their financing and training, and ran the whole operation from abroad.
After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan KSM eventually became bin Laden's operations chief. American and Pakistani intelligence forces captured him on March 1, 2003, in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Now, however, KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens—including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it.
Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.
This is not hypothetical, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has explained. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the "blind Sheikh"), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators.
In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit.
Bin Laden, who was on the list, could immediately see who was compromised. He also could start figuring out how American intelligence had learned its information and anticipate what our future moves were likely to be.
Even more harmful to our national security will be the effect a civilian trial of KSM will have on the future conduct of intelligence officers and military personnel. Will they have to read al Qaeda terrorists their Miranda rights? Will they have to secure the "crime scene" under battlefield conditions? Will they have to take statements from nearby "witnesses"? Will they have to gather evidence and secure its chain of custody for transport all the way back to New York? All of this while intelligence officers and soldiers operate in a war zone, trying to stay alive, and working to complete their mission and get out without casualties.
The Obama administration has rejected the tool designed to solve this tension between civilian trials and the demands of intelligence and military operations. In 2001, President George W. Bush established military commissions, which have a long history that includes World War II, the Civil War and the Revolutionary War. The lawyers in the Bush administration—I was one—understood that military commissions could guarantee a fair trial while protecting national security secrets from excessive exposure.
The Supreme Court has upheld the use of commissions for war crimes. The procedures for these commissions received the approval of Congress in 2006 and 2009.
Stranger yet, the Obama administration declared last week that it would use these military commissions to try five other al Qaeda operatives held at Guantanamo Bay, including Abu Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged planner of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen. It should make no difference that this second group attacked a military target overseas. If anything, the deliberate attack on purely civilian targets in New York City represents the greater war crime.
For a preview of the KSM trial, look at what happened in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker who was arrested in the U.S. just before 9/11. His trial never made it to a jury. Moussaoui's lawyers tied the court up in knots.
All they had to do was demand that the government hand over all its intelligence on him. The case became a four-year circus, giving Moussaoui a platform to air his anti-American tirades. The only reason the trial ended was because, at the last minute, Moussaoui decided to plead guilty. That plea relieved the government of the choice between allowing a fishing expedition into its intelligence files or dismissing the charges.
KSM's lawyers will not save the government from itself. Instead they will press hard to reveal intelligence secrets in open court. Our intelligence agents and soldiers will be the ones to suffer.
Mr. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He was an official in the Justice Department from 2001-03 and is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
This trial's an error
Take the iconic "I Love New York" poster and plunge a dagger into its heart. That's what the Obama administration is doing by bringing the mastermind of 9/11 and other terror freaks here for trial.
We don't deserve this. Why are we being punished again?
Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to ship Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay prisoners to Manhattan for federal trials is beyond bad judgment.
It is a radical call that puts his leftist legal theories over public safety and common sense. The war on terror is being relabeled as a crime problem, in the very shadow of Ground Zero.
Mohammed and his murderous crew don't belong in civilian courts, where they will get defendant rights designed for ordinary criminal suspects. They declared war on our nation, were captured on foreign battlefields and deserve no presumption of innocence or other constitutional protections.
They'll use our liberties to turn the trial into propaganda for their warped cause. Their images and words will fly around the world as fodder for a new generation of jihadists. The federal courthouse and detention center will become a fortress. The judge, prosecutors, witnesses, federal agents and jury will need protection, some for years. It's madness.
New York already took a big hit for the team. The 9/11 attacks were aimed at America, and it is sacrilege to the dead and the living to bring these defendants back and invite another attack.
Here's an idea: Put the trial in Chicago.
The timing reveals Holder's tin ear, with some of the 13 soldiers massacred by a comrade-turned-terrorist at Fort Hood not yet buried. It's hard to escape the thought he chose the day because Obama was in Asia and could duck blame.
Mayor Bloomberg's instant support is also suspect. Given his cozy relationship with Obama, it's likely Bloomberg's nod was obtained in advance and Holder held the announcement until after last week's election. That way Bloomberg wouldn't have to face voters while backing this outlandish attack on his city.
And where is our congressional team, especially Senators Chuck Schumer and his amanuensis, Kirsten Gillibrand? Oh, I forgot, out fighting for banking rules that will hamstring Wall Street and for a health-care plan that will wreck city and state budgets, hospitals and insurance companies.
Whose team are they on, Obama's or New York's?
We already know about Holder's fishy sense of justice. He OK'd the pardon of fugitive Marc Rich, is now investigating CIA agents who played hardball with terrorists, and wants to give those bloodthirsty maniacs rights they don't deserve.
We don't deserve this. Why are we being punished again?
Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to ship Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay prisoners to Manhattan for federal trials is beyond bad judgment.
It is a radical call that puts his leftist legal theories over public safety and common sense. The war on terror is being relabeled as a crime problem, in the very shadow of Ground Zero.
They'll use our liberties to turn the trial into propaganda for their warped cause. Their images and words will fly around the world as fodder for a new generation of jihadists. The federal courthouse and detention center will become a fortress. The judge, prosecutors, witnesses, federal agents and jury will need protection, some for years. It's madness.
New York already took a big hit for the team. The 9/11 attacks were aimed at America, and it is sacrilege to the dead and the living to bring these defendants back and invite another attack.
Here's an idea: Put the trial in Chicago.
The timing reveals Holder's tin ear, with some of the 13 soldiers massacred by a comrade-turned-terrorist at Fort Hood not yet buried. It's hard to escape the thought he chose the day because Obama was in Asia and could duck blame.
Mayor Bloomberg's instant support is also suspect. Given his cozy relationship with Obama, it's likely Bloomberg's nod was obtained in advance and Holder held the announcement until after last week's election. That way Bloomberg wouldn't have to face voters while backing this outlandish attack on his city.
And where is our congressional team, especially Senators Chuck Schumer and his amanuensis, Kirsten Gillibrand? Oh, I forgot, out fighting for banking rules that will hamstring Wall Street and for a health-care plan that will wreck city and state budgets, hospitals and insurance companies.
Whose team are they on, Obama's or New York's?
We already know about Holder's fishy sense of justice. He OK'd the pardon of fugitive Marc Rich, is now investigating CIA agents who played hardball with terrorists, and wants to give those bloodthirsty maniacs rights they don't deserve.
The worst-case outcome is frightening. The beasts who helped kill nearly 3,000 Americans could walk free, while the brave agents who protected the country get locked up.
And contrary to press reports, Holder didn't commit to seeking the death penalty, saying only he expects to. He also didn't say what the charges would be.
Do you trust him? Neither do I.
There are two better alternatives. Either try the detainees in military courts on secure bases or, best of all, give them death now. Mohammed and some others already acknowledged guilt and said they were ready to die.
And contrary to press reports, Holder didn't commit to seeking the death penalty, saying only he expects to. He also didn't say what the charges would be.
Do you trust him? Neither do I.
There are two better alternatives. Either try the detainees in military courts on secure bases or, best of all, give them death now. Mohammed and some others already acknowledged guilt and said they were ready to die.
I say we take yes for an answer.
Dobbs more correct than 'right'
Years ago I overheard two editors talking about a reporter. "He's a pain in the ass," the first said, to which the second gave an unforgettable response: "He is, but he's worth it. A lot of them aren't."
Lou Dobbs was worth it, and CNN is diminished for losing him.
In the cliché of the day, he was "controversial." He was a lightning rod who wore out his welcome after 30 years.
But before we bury him for his flaws, let's remember Dobbs was right on many issues facing America, and was often first. Even Jon Klein, his former boss at CNN, conceded Dobbs defined the terms of key debates.
"Lou is an original thinker who didn't defer to the herd," Klein told me. "The herd often looked to him."
Take illegal immigration. When more than 600,000 people marched in LA in 2006, shutting schools and stopping commerce, news reports caught the crowds' fever and found nothing objectionable in Democrats urging them on.
Not Dobbs. Why, he wondered, were so many waving Mexican flags? He found demands for "our rights" curious, given many marchers were in the US illegally. Why were politicians supporting them and encouraging students to skip school?
The result was that, along with mostly Republicans, he helped defeat an amnesty bill. At the same time, he championed the status of legal immigrants, a distinction his critics ignored as they accused him of "hate" speech.
I saw his passion firsthand as a proud contributor to his show for two years.
But Klein is right that Dobbs' populist advocacy made him an odd fit at CNN, which calls itself neutral but in truth fits comfortably into media soft-shoe liberalism. Whatever its virtues, audiences are abandoning CNN for its rivals.
Sometimes Dobbs enjoyed fights too much. Calling people "idiots" and "scumbags" undermined his towering talent and embarrassed his colleagues.
Yet his commitment to facts trumped his stridency, as it did in his crusade against a Bush White House plan to let a Dubai firm operate U.S. ports. This time it was Dems jumping on his bandwagon to scuttle the deal.
His books expounded on his themes, their titles reflecting Dobbs' aversion to nuance: "Exporting America: Why Corporate Greed is Shipping American Jobs Oversees."
The second was "War on the Middle Class: How the Government, Big Business, and Special Interest Groups Are Waging War on the American Dream and How to Fight Back."
Last year, it was "Independents Day: Awakening the American Spirit."
For certain, his spirit is awake and independent and, if we are lucky, we have not seen the end of Lou Dobbs.
Grade-A moron
A North Carolina school gets a gold star for the dopiest idea of the month. As the Raleigh News & Observer reported, selling candy didn't raise much money, so the principal decided to sell grades. Before higher-ups slammed on the brakes, test points were a dollar each -- a $20 contribution would yield 10 extra points on two tests of a student's choice. And for $50, the principal gets a brain.
Times that try men's souls
Did you catch the latest exposé in The New York Times? Starting with a front-page box, the Thurs day paper spent nearly two pages proving people like to look out windows. Coming next week, birds like to fly.
Dobbs more correct than 'right'
Years ago I overheard two editors talking about a reporter. "He's a pain in the ass," the first said, to which the second gave an unforgettable response: "He is, but he's worth it. A lot of them aren't."
Lou Dobbs was worth it, and CNN is diminished for losing him.
In the cliché of the day, he was "controversial." He was a lightning rod who wore out his welcome after 30 years.
But before we bury him for his flaws, let's remember Dobbs was right on many issues facing America, and was often first. Even Jon Klein, his former boss at CNN, conceded Dobbs defined the terms of key debates.
"Lou is an original thinker who didn't defer to the herd," Klein told me. "The herd often looked to him."
Take illegal immigration. When more than 600,000 people marched in LA in 2006, shutting schools and stopping commerce, news reports caught the crowds' fever and found nothing objectionable in Democrats urging them on.
Not Dobbs. Why, he wondered, were so many waving Mexican flags? He found demands for "our rights" curious, given many marchers were in the US illegally. Why were politicians supporting them and encouraging students to skip school?
The result was that, along with mostly Republicans, he helped defeat an amnesty bill. At the same time, he championed the status of legal immigrants, a distinction his critics ignored as they accused him of "hate" speech.
I saw his passion firsthand as a proud contributor to his show for two years.
But Klein is right that Dobbs' populist advocacy made him an odd fit at CNN, which calls itself neutral but in truth fits comfortably into media soft-shoe liberalism. Whatever its virtues, audiences are abandoning CNN for its rivals.
Sometimes Dobbs enjoyed fights too much. Calling people "idiots" and "scumbags" undermined his towering talent and embarrassed his colleagues.
Yet his commitment to facts trumped his stridency, as it did in his crusade against a Bush White House plan to let a Dubai firm operate U.S. ports. This time it was Dems jumping on his bandwagon to scuttle the deal.
His books expounded on his themes, their titles reflecting Dobbs' aversion to nuance: "Exporting America: Why Corporate Greed is Shipping American Jobs Oversees."
The second was "War on the Middle Class: How the Government, Big Business, and Special Interest Groups Are Waging War on the American Dream and How to Fight Back."
Last year, it was "Independents Day: Awakening the American Spirit."
For certain, his spirit is awake and independent and, if we are lucky, we have not seen the end of Lou Dobbs.
Grade-A moron
A North Carolina school gets a gold star for the dopiest idea of the month. As the Raleigh News & Observer reported, selling candy didn't raise much money, so the principal decided to sell grades. Before higher-ups slammed on the brakes, test points were a dollar each -- a $20 contribution would yield 10 extra points on two tests of a student's choice. And for $50, the principal gets a brain.
Times that try men's souls
Did you catch the latest exposé in The New York Times? Starting with a front-page box, the Thurs day paper spent nearly two pages proving people like to look out windows. Coming next week, birds like to fly.
Dobbs says his departure from CNN was 'amicable'
By DAVID BAUDER
NEW YORK (AP) - Lou Dobbs says he doesn't feel like he was pushed out of CNN, the news organization where he worked for all but two years of its existence until last Wednesday.
In a weekend interview with The Associated Press, Dobbs says he had "a very amicable parting on the best of terms."
Although the decision to leave was characterized as mutual, Dobbs says he approached CNN President Jon Klein to say the show wasn't working for him anymore.
He plans to take time deciding what he wants to do next, beyond his daily radio show. He has promised to reach out to groups who criticized him, most prominently because he advocated stern measures to halt illegal immigration.
He says a run for public office is one option he's considering.
In a weekend interview with The Associated Press, Dobbs says he had "a very amicable parting on the best of terms."
Although the decision to leave was characterized as mutual, Dobbs says he approached CNN President Jon Klein to say the show wasn't working for him anymore.
He plans to take time deciding what he wants to do next, beyond his daily radio show. He has promised to reach out to groups who criticized him, most prominently because he advocated stern measures to halt illegal immigration.
He says a run for public office is one option he's considering.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Objectively, Ayn Rand Was a Nut
According to Politico.com, Ayn Rand — the subject of two new biographies, one of which is titled Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right — is “having a mainstream moment,” including among conservatives. (Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina wrote a piece in Newsweek on Rand, saying, “This is a very good time for a Rand resurgence. She’s more relevant than ever.”).
I hope the moment passes. Ms. Rand may have been a popular novelist, but her philosophy is deeply problematic and morally indefensible.
Ayn Rand was, of course, the founder of Objectivism – whose ethic, she said in a 1964 interview, holds that “man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself.” She has argued that “friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man’s life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite; whereas, if he places his work first, there is no conflict between his work and his enjoyment of human relationships.” And about Jesus she said:
I do regard the cross as the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. Isn’t that what it does mean? Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.
Many conservatives aren’t aware that it was Whittaker Chambers who, in 1957, reviewed Atlas Shrugged in National Review and read her out of the conservative movement. The most striking feature of the book, Chambers said, was its “dictatorial tone . . . Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal . . . From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: ‘To a gas chamber — go!’”
William F. Buckley Jr. himself wrote about her “desiccated philosophy’s conclusive incompatibility with the conservative’s emphasis on transcendence, intellectual and moral; but also there is the incongruity of tone, that hard, schematic, implacable, unyielding dogmatism that is in itself intrinsically objectionable.”
Yet there are some strands within conservatism that still veer toward Rand and her views of government (“The government should be concerned only with those issues which involve the use of force,” she argued. “This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing else.”), and many conservatives identify with her novelistic hero John Galt, who declared, “I swear — by my life and my love of it — that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
But this attitude has very little to do with authentic conservatism, at least the kind embodied by Edmund Burke, Adam Smith (chair of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow), and James Madison, to name just a few. What Rand was peddling is a brittle, arid, mean, and ultimately hollow philosophy. No society could thrive if its tenets were taken seriously and widely accepted. Ayn Rand may have been an interesting figure and a good (if extremely long-winded) novelist; but her views were pernicious, the antithesis of a humane and proper worldview. And conservatives should say so.
I hope the moment passes. Ms. Rand may have been a popular novelist, but her philosophy is deeply problematic and morally indefensible.
Ayn Rand was, of course, the founder of Objectivism – whose ethic, she said in a 1964 interview, holds that “man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself.” She has argued that “friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man’s life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite; whereas, if he places his work first, there is no conflict between his work and his enjoyment of human relationships.” And about Jesus she said:
I do regard the cross as the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. Isn’t that what it does mean? Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.
Many conservatives aren’t aware that it was Whittaker Chambers who, in 1957, reviewed Atlas Shrugged in National Review and read her out of the conservative movement. The most striking feature of the book, Chambers said, was its “dictatorial tone . . . Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal . . . From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: ‘To a gas chamber — go!’”
William F. Buckley Jr. himself wrote about her “desiccated philosophy’s conclusive incompatibility with the conservative’s emphasis on transcendence, intellectual and moral; but also there is the incongruity of tone, that hard, schematic, implacable, unyielding dogmatism that is in itself intrinsically objectionable.”
Yet there are some strands within conservatism that still veer toward Rand and her views of government (“The government should be concerned only with those issues which involve the use of force,” she argued. “This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing else.”), and many conservatives identify with her novelistic hero John Galt, who declared, “I swear — by my life and my love of it — that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
But this attitude has very little to do with authentic conservatism, at least the kind embodied by Edmund Burke, Adam Smith (chair of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow), and James Madison, to name just a few. What Rand was peddling is a brittle, arid, mean, and ultimately hollow philosophy. No society could thrive if its tenets were taken seriously and widely accepted. Ayn Rand may have been an interesting figure and a good (if extremely long-winded) novelist; but her views were pernicious, the antithesis of a humane and proper worldview. And conservatives should say so.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
A loss for America
Why NYC terror trial is a major mistake
Last Updated: 9:58 AM, November 14, 2009
Posted: 1:11 AM, November 14, 2009
Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees in civilian federal court in New York City is the latest in a long series of missteps in the war against radical Islamist terrorism.
KSM -- the notorious, self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks -- and the other accused terrorists will no longer face trial in military commissions, which the US government has historically used for such cases. The administration's decision is a blatantly political one -- intended to placate the ACLU and the radical Left -- that jeopardizes the interests of the nation.
VIDEO: 9/11 SUSPECTS TO BE TRIED IN NY
The five main problems:
* Military commissions are the appropriate venue for trials of unlawful combatant. The US military seized these terrorists on foreign battlefields -- and so didn't read them Miranda rights. The evidence against them was collected by soldiers under war-fighting conditions -- not with sterile gloves and clear plastic bags. And much of the best evidence against them is classified, because making it public would compromise the sources and methods of US intelligence gathering.
In short, these cases do not fit the mold of a typical murder trial in a civilian court.
Military commissions were designed for this purpose. They provide a secure environment that allows for the introduction of classified evidence without making it public. Yet the accused still enjoys the right to an attorney, the right to make his case in full and all of the fundamental rights of due process.
The commissions are also the ideal forum for trying unlawful combatants-belligerents who make war without following the law of war. One of the central tenets of the law of war is that civilians must never be attacked. Since terrorists shatter this rule completely, they are appropriately tried before military commissions.
These commissions provide a fair forum that takes into account the military context of the terrorists' acts. Just because the government has enough unclassified evidence to win a guilty verdict in civilian court doesn't make the civilian court the right venue.
The last time the United States used military commissions in a comparable context was during the Second World War, for the trial of eight Nazi saboteurs transported here by German submarines under cover of darkness in 1942. They landed on US soil carrying explosives with the intent to engage in acts of sabotage. The Supreme Court ruled that the military commissions were an entirely fair and appropriate forum for their trial. They were "offenders against the law of war, subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals." The same is true of these five terrorists.
* The administration is again blurring the line between ordinary crimes and acts of war. Likening terrorists at war with the United States to common shoplifters is wrongheaded. These are not members of our society who refuse to obey our laws: They are enemies of the United States, engaged in war against America and all that it stands for. KSM -- the notorious, self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks -- and the other accused terrorists will no longer face trial in military commissions, which the US government has historically used for such cases. The administration's decision is a blatantly political one -- intended to placate the ACLU and the radical Left -- that jeopardizes the interests of the nation.
Holder: Has no clear principle of justice.
The five main problems:
* Military commissions are the appropriate venue for trials of unlawful combatant. The US military seized these terrorists on foreign battlefields -- and so didn't read them Miranda rights. The evidence against them was collected by soldiers under war-fighting conditions -- not with sterile gloves and clear plastic bags. And much of the best evidence against them is classified, because making it public would compromise the sources and methods of US intelligence gathering.
In short, these cases do not fit the mold of a typical murder trial in a civilian court.
Military commissions were designed for this purpose. They provide a secure environment that allows for the introduction of classified evidence without making it public. Yet the accused still enjoys the right to an attorney, the right to make his case in full and all of the fundamental rights of due process.
The commissions are also the ideal forum for trying unlawful combatants-belligerents who make war without following the law of war. One of the central tenets of the law of war is that civilians must never be attacked. Since terrorists shatter this rule completely, they are appropriately tried before military commissions.
These commissions provide a fair forum that takes into account the military context of the terrorists' acts. Just because the government has enough unclassified evidence to win a guilty verdict in civilian court doesn't make the civilian court the right venue.
The last time the United States used military commissions in a comparable context was during the Second World War, for the trial of eight Nazi saboteurs transported here by German submarines under cover of darkness in 1942. They landed on US soil carrying explosives with the intent to engage in acts of sabotage. The Supreme Court ruled that the military commissions were an entirely fair and appropriate forum for their trial. They were "offenders against the law of war, subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals." The same is true of these five terrorists.
* The administration has offered no clear criteria for deciding which terrorists will be charged as criminals in federal court and which ones will face military commissions. Attorney General Holder, in announcing the decision, suggested that the five cases were appropriate for civilian trial simply because the evidence against the terrorists is so strong that they'll surely be found guilty.
Choosing which terrorists will get civilian trials on the basis of who you can convict is not a principled way to administer justice. It also fosters the false impression that military commissions are unfair tribunals, where the government can win with a weaker case.
As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, military commissions satisfy the Constitution's due-process requirements. The radical Left refuses to accept this fact -- and now the Obama administration is giving them rhetorical ammunition.
* A very real safety threat exists when a terrorist like KSM is tried in an urban area: The city becomes an enticing target for terrorists around the world.
Holder yesterday claimed that New York City is "hardened" and somehow secured against such terrorism. Yet he seemed to be focused on the courtroom itself. But US marshals' ability to protect the courthouse doesn't mean they can protect the whole city.
During the trial, every building in Manhattan becomes a target for the jihadists. They don't need to specifically hit the courthouse to make their point to the world.
*Finally, the trial will take many years to complete. Indeed it may not even start for five years or more.
Once these terrorists are placed into the civilian justice system, an avalanche of motions from their lawyers will ensue. Military commissions can avoid these delays.
It is often said that justice delayed is justice denied. For many who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks, those words ring painfully true. Obama's actions will only prolong their pain, for no good reason.
Holder insists that the government will win in these civilian trials. I'm sure he's correct. But winning a trial and winning the approval of the ACLU means little when so much more is lost.
Kris W. Kobach is professor of constitutional law at the Univer sity of Missouri (Kansas City). He served as a White House Fel low and as counsel to Attorney General John Ashcroft, 2001-'03.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Explaining Away Mass Murder
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- What a surprise -- that someone who shouts "Allahu Akbar" (the "God is great" jihadist battle cry) as he is shooting up a room of American soldiers might have Islamist motives. It certainly was a surprise to the mainstream media, which spent the weekend after the Fort Hood massacre downplaying Nidal Hasan's religious beliefs.
"I cringe that he's a Muslim. ... I think he's probably just a nut case," said Newsweek's Evan Thomas. Some were more adamant. Time's Joe Klein decried "odious attempts by Jewish extremists ... to argue that the massacre perpetrated by Nidal Hasan was somehow a direct consequence of his Islamic beliefs." While none could match Klein's peculiar cherchez-le-juif motif, the popular story line was of an Army psychiatrist driven over the edge by terrible stories he had heard from soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
They suffered. He listened. He snapped.
Really? What about the doctors and nurses, the counselors and physical therapists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who every day hear and live with the pain and the suffering of returning soldiers? How many of them then picked up a gun and shot 51 innocents?
And what about civilian psychiatrists -- not the Upper West Side therapist treating Woody Allen neurotics, but the thousands of doctors working with hospitalized psychotics -- who every day hear not just tales but cries of the most excruciating anguish, of the most unimaginable torment? How many of those doctors commit mass murder?
It's been decades since I practiced psychiatry. Perhaps I missed the epidemic.
But, of course, if the shooter is named Nidal Hasan, whom National Public Radio reported had been trying to proselytize doctors and patients, then something must be found. Presto! Secondary post-traumatic stress disorder, a handy invention to allow one to ignore the obvious.
And the perfect moral finesse. Medicalizing mass murder not only exonerates. It turns the murderer into a victim, indeed a sympathetic one. After all, secondary PTSD, for those who believe in it (you won't find it in DSM-IV-TR, psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), is known as "compassion fatigue." The poor man -- pushed over the edge by an excess of sensitivity.
Have we totally lost our moral bearings? Nidal Hasan (allegedly) cold-bloodedly killed 13 innocent people. In such cases, political correctness is not just an abomination. It's a danger, clear and present.
Consider the Army's treatment of Hasan's previous behavior. NPR's Daniel Zwerdling interviewed a Hasan colleague at Walter Reed about a hair-raising Grand Rounds that Hasan had apparently given. Grand Rounds are the most serious academic event at a teaching hospital -- attending physicians, residents and students gather for a lecture on an instructive case history or therapeutic finding.
I've been to dozens of these. In fact, I gave one myself on post-traumatic retrograde amnesia -- as you can see, these lectures are fairly technical. Not Hasan's. His was an hour-long disquisition on what he called the Koranic view of military service, jihad and war. It included an allegedly authoritative elaboration of the punishments visited upon nonbelievers -- consignment to hell, decapitation, having hot oil poured down your throat. This "really freaked a lot of doctors out," reported NPR.
Nor was this the only incident. "The psychiatrist," reported Zwerdling, "said that he was the kind of guy who the staff actually stood around in the hallway saying: Do you think he's a terrorist, or is he just weird?"
Was anything done about this potential danger? Of course not. Who wants to be accused of Islamophobia and prejudice against a colleague's religion?
One must not speak of such things. Not even now. Not even after we know that Hasan was in communication with a notorious Yemen-based jihad propagandist. As late as Tuesday, The New York Times was running a story on how returning soldiers at Fort Hood had a high level of violence.
What does such violence have to do with Hasan? He was not a returning soldier. And the soldiers who returned home and shot their wives or fellow soldiers didn't cry "Allahu Akbar" as they squeezed the trigger.
The delicacy about the religion in question -- condescending, politically correct and deadly -- is nothing new. A week after the first (1993) World Trade Center attack, the same New York Times ran the following front-page headline about the arrest of one Mohammed Salameh: "Jersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade Center."
Ah yes, those Jersey men -- so resentful of New York, so prone to violence.
"I cringe that he's a Muslim. ... I think he's probably just a nut case," said Newsweek's Evan Thomas. Some were more adamant. Time's Joe Klein decried "odious attempts by Jewish extremists ... to argue that the massacre perpetrated by Nidal Hasan was somehow a direct consequence of his Islamic beliefs." While none could match Klein's peculiar cherchez-le-juif motif, the popular story line was of an Army psychiatrist driven over the edge by terrible stories he had heard from soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Really? What about the doctors and nurses, the counselors and physical therapists at Walter Reed Army Medical Center who every day hear and live with the pain and the suffering of returning soldiers? How many of them then picked up a gun and shot 51 innocents?
And what about civilian psychiatrists -- not the Upper West Side therapist treating Woody Allen neurotics, but the thousands of doctors working with hospitalized psychotics -- who every day hear not just tales but cries of the most excruciating anguish, of the most unimaginable torment? How many of those doctors commit mass murder?
It's been decades since I practiced psychiatry. Perhaps I missed the epidemic.
But, of course, if the shooter is named Nidal Hasan, whom National Public Radio reported had been trying to proselytize doctors and patients, then something must be found. Presto! Secondary post-traumatic stress disorder, a handy invention to allow one to ignore the obvious.
And the perfect moral finesse. Medicalizing mass murder not only exonerates. It turns the murderer into a victim, indeed a sympathetic one. After all, secondary PTSD, for those who believe in it (you won't find it in DSM-IV-TR, psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), is known as "compassion fatigue." The poor man -- pushed over the edge by an excess of sensitivity.
Have we totally lost our moral bearings? Nidal Hasan (allegedly) cold-bloodedly killed 13 innocent people. In such cases, political correctness is not just an abomination. It's a danger, clear and present.
Consider the Army's treatment of Hasan's previous behavior. NPR's Daniel Zwerdling interviewed a Hasan colleague at Walter Reed about a hair-raising Grand Rounds that Hasan had apparently given. Grand Rounds are the most serious academic event at a teaching hospital -- attending physicians, residents and students gather for a lecture on an instructive case history or therapeutic finding.
I've been to dozens of these. In fact, I gave one myself on post-traumatic retrograde amnesia -- as you can see, these lectures are fairly technical. Not Hasan's. His was an hour-long disquisition on what he called the Koranic view of military service, jihad and war. It included an allegedly authoritative elaboration of the punishments visited upon nonbelievers -- consignment to hell, decapitation, having hot oil poured down your throat. This "really freaked a lot of doctors out," reported NPR.
Nor was this the only incident. "The psychiatrist," reported Zwerdling, "said that he was the kind of guy who the staff actually stood around in the hallway saying: Do you think he's a terrorist, or is he just weird?"
Was anything done about this potential danger? Of course not. Who wants to be accused of Islamophobia and prejudice against a colleague's religion?
One must not speak of such things. Not even now. Not even after we know that Hasan was in communication with a notorious Yemen-based jihad propagandist. As late as Tuesday, The New York Times was running a story on how returning soldiers at Fort Hood had a high level of violence.
What does such violence have to do with Hasan? He was not a returning soldier. And the soldiers who returned home and shot their wives or fellow soldiers didn't cry "Allahu Akbar" as they squeezed the trigger.
The delicacy about the religion in question -- condescending, politically correct and deadly -- is nothing new. A week after the first (1993) World Trade Center attack, the same New York Times ran the following front-page headline about the arrest of one Mohammed Salameh: "Jersey City Man Is Charged in Bombing of Trade Center."
Ah yes, those Jersey men -- so resentful of New York, so prone to violence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
