Transcript of president Obama’s conversation with General Stanley McChrystal (June 22, 2010):

Transcript of president Obama’s conversation with General Stanley McChrystal (June 22, 2010):

General Stanley McChrystal: Obama?
President Obama: Yes, Stan?
General Stan McChrystal: Have you ever seen an Afghan drink a glass of water?
President Obama: Well, I can't say I have.
General Stan McChrystal: Vodka, that's what they drink, isn't it? Never water?
President Obama: Well, I-I believe that's what they drink, Stan, yes.
General Stan McChrystal: On no account will an Afghan ever drink water, and not without good reason.
President Obama: Oh, eh, yes. I, hmm, can't quite see what you're getting at, Stan.
General Stan McChrystal: Water, that's what I'm getting at, water. Obama, water is the source of all life. Seven-tenths of this earth's surface is water. Why, do you realize that seventy percent of you is water?
President Obama: Uh, uh, Good Lord!
General Stan McChrystal: And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids.
President Obama: Yes. (He begins to chuckle nervously)
General Stan McChrystal: Are you beginning to understand?
President Obama: Yes. (More laughter)
General Stan McChrystal: Obama. Obama, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater, and only pure-grain alcohol?
President Obama: Well, it did occur to me, Stan, yes.
General Stan McChrystal: Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation. Fluoridation of water?
President Obama: Uh? Yes, II have heard of that, Stan, yes. Yes.
General Stan McChrystal: Well, do you know what it is?
President Obama: No, no I don't know what it is, no.
General Stan McChrystal: Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Afghani plot we have ever had to face?
General Stan McChrystal: Obama, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Obama, children's ice cream.
President Obama: Lord, Stan.
General Stan McChrystal: You know when fluoridation first began?
President Obama: I-- no, no. I don't, Stan.
General Stan McChrystal: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Obama. How does that coincide with your post-war Afghan conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Afghan works.
President Obama: Uh, Stan, Stan, listen, tell me, tell me, Stan. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?
General Stan McChrystal: Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Obama, during the physical act of love.
President Obama: Hmm.
General Stan McChrystal: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
President Obama: Hmm.
General Stan McChrystal: I can assure you it has not recurred, Obama. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Obama.
President Obama: No.
General Stan McChrystal: But I... I do deny them my essence.

In the 1990's, the Los Angeles Times, specifically a writer named Michael Haederle wrote what has since become a case study of Native Americans and the news media. He called it "When Worlds Collide: Navajos and the News Media." It began when journalists descended upon a Navajo reservation in New Mexico to cover what was called at the time "a mysterious respiratory illness." From the start, the reporters proceeded to interview tribal members about their lost loved one, without a clear understanding of Navajo cultural beliefs about death (including the custom that Navajos refrain from talking about a dead person for four days; to do otherwise is considered getting in the way of the deceased's transition to the afterlife). It led one tribal leader to remark that instances like this one suggest a clash of cultures between reporters and Native Americans. Navajos responded with large signs reading : NO NEWS MEDIA ALLOWED. One could argue that the journalists were just doing their jobs, but, on the other hand, what can this case study suggest about the very different cultural values that exist between the reservation and the newsroom, if not the larger mainstream American culture in general. As a foundation for your discussion, you may want to begin by first looking at the website of the Native American Journalists Association (www.naja.com).

This is a case proving that good writers should know about what they are writing.  The foundation of good journalism is to have a clear understanding of the subject. How could a reporter write about an issue that they themselves do not have a grasp?

The study of anthropology faced a similar dilemma at the turn of the last century.  Researchers looked at “other” cultures from a Western ethnocentric viewpoint, making it difficult to have a true understanding of different peoples.  It was when anthropologists took the time to live with the divergent cultures, they began to better understand and explain how humans could face hardships in areas far removed from their own.  It was through this underlying respect for “other” cultures they began to appreciate the common humanity of all people.

Some of my favorite interview questions are the simplest.  Ask “why?” in a way that invites to “help me understand the context of the situation, not just offer a sound bite or quote.”

Journalists can learn from the lessons and techniques of the anthropologist, especially when reporting on other cultures such as the Native American.  I am not suggesting journalists must immerse themselves in the different cultures on which they report, but any degree of understanding can only help to tell a better story.  When a writer comes off their ethnocentric pedestal, taking a sometimes-difficult route to relate to other groups, the effort will pay off.  It makes them better prepared to offer thoughtful stories to a wider audience. 

This is the goal of diversity.  It is not only in bringing other cultures to the table, but in understanding that people have their individual stories to tell; stories that can be told in their own manner.  It is the job of the enlightened journalist to act as a bridge between divergent peoples and to identify the universal themes in humanity. 

Imus and the meaning of words

The key concept in Imus’ unceremonious removal from radio and television is in how words and concepts constantly change with social norms.  What was acceptable a generation ago becomes offensive today.  Where Imus failed was in recognizing the social changes and the shrinking audience for his outdated views. His situation reflects an important part of journalism, as Jean Gaddy Wilson wrote, “Language changes to get in step with power shifts, and in a world that is globalizing, power shifts constantly.” 

Wilson wrote of the task of the journalist, as it is with anyone who makes his or her living on a public forum.  It is to recognize and reflect our changing times.  Imus’ comments reflected an outdated outlook that was out of step with the increased power and respect of people traditionally kept “out of the loop,” most notably women and people of color.

Imus made his reputation as a ‘shock jock’ decades ago.  He refused to realize his act was not playing well to a changing world, and he paid the price.  He was forced out because Imus represented a sense of power that has become outdated and anachronistic. 

The key is in the individual interpretation of words and the values that society places on them.  As Wilson wrote, “Journalists struggle to craft intelligent work that reflects current reality, not stereotypes and labels from an out-of-date time frame.”

Even though Imus established himself as a political commentator, with many high-profile interviews as well espousing what he believed was a “grass-roots” viewpoint representing the “common man.”  Imus put too much emphasis on his own limited view, and not enough on the social realities of the day.

Bertrand Russell said, “Although the dictionary or the encyclopedia gives what may be called the official and socially sanctioned meaning of a word, no two people who use the same word have just the same thought in their minds.”  Imus’ fatal flaw was that he did not recognize that the meaning of his words would have a significance different from his own.  What he demonstrated was stubbornness for his own values, which in reality was clinging to a past that most now saw as morally wrong.

However, I would not go as far as labeling Imus’ words “hate speech.”  In America, to dismiss categorically any level of speech is to run the risk of controlling thought and concepts.  To begin prohibiting certain concepts runs the risk of violating free expression, something that is the foundation of the First Amendment.  Imus’ words may have been insensitive and in poor taste, but not seen as “fighting words;” the current standard of “hate speech.”

Joseph Hemmer saw the problems in codifying hate speech when he wrote, “If a code banned such words, numerous respected pieces of literature--Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Henry Miller's Tropic of Capricorn, and Harvey Fierstein's Torch Song Trilogy--could not have been written.  Second, content-based expression should likewise be protected. Clearly, the expression of any hate-based theory, ideology, philosophy, subject matter, or message content enjoys constitutional protection.”  As in everything, context is the key in understanding (or decrying) any word or deed.  Nothing humans do occurs in a vacuum.

To keep in mind is this: Imus’ speech may have been constitutionally protected; however, there is nothing in the constitution saying business must broadcast unappealing words and concepts.  Radio and television are businesses—as with any business practice, what is offensive or demeaning to any group does not have to be broadcast.  

CBS radio had every right to take Imus off the air.

Some notes about diversity

I think before we focus on anything else in this class (Race and Gender in the Media), we should answer some questions: 

As journalists, do we emphasize diversity to be inclusive, or are we concerned that we will have the appearance of being exclusive (whether in reality we are or not), therefore losing credibility--the currency of journalism? 

Do we write about other cultures/races/peoples because we sincerely feel they have something to contribute, or is there the need to be inclusive to ward off allegations of racism/sexism/religious intolerance to keep our reputations intact?

That is what the Henry Louis Gates episode demonstrated to me; there is a climate in racial relations that emphasizes the fear of being branded a "racist," thereby damaging reputations and business.  

I see this as the inverse relationship between Black Power and White Guilt.  It still focuses on something given to one by the other, and not by any value of the individual.  The problem is that this relationship dispenses with true equality for retroactive acts of contrition.  True value from achievement and contribution to the public discourse is sacrificed by worship at the altar of "fairness."  But is it truly fair?  With a level playing field, shouldn't excellence prevail?

I act a certain way so I am not seen as racially biased. 

Is that right? The right thing to do? 

The Gates Episode

As a single parent of two teenagers, aged only thirteen months apart, I had (over many years) found myself embroiled in seemingly intractable situations.  Arguments over the slightest infractions by one or the other were often met with inflexibility. 

When one child would say “white”—spoken with  a sense of moral righteousness conferred by the Almighty himself (or herself—must always be mindful of our class), the default exclamation of the other would be “black!”  Knee-jerk reactions, indeed!

Of course, as moderator (or referee, to be more accurate), my task was to try to convince them of a concept that surely seemed foreign to both—“GREY!”

The issue brought up by the Henry Louis Gates arrest reminds me of those frazzled days.  Whenever I read two divergent stories, such as in this scenario, the first word that pops into mind is “context.” 

A jammed door forced Gates to break into his own house, as neighbor Lucia Whalen related to police.  However, it was not just Gates at his front door.  According to the police report (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF), there were two men reported at the front door.  It turned out to be Gates and the cab driver who brought him home.  My experience with cab drivers (which is somewhat extensive—spending several years driving a cab) is they have a tendency to look a little shady (myself humbly excluded).  Was the “good” neighbor responding to the cab driver and not professor Gates?  It raises another question: “why would a cab driver help a person break into his own house?”  I would hope Harvard professors are very good tippers. 

The point becomes that context is the key in this situation. To recap, two men appear to “break into” the home, at least one “with a backpack.” As a point of fact, there was no attempted break-in. By Gates own admission, the door was jammed and he, in fact, had to break into his own house. 

Sounds suspicious? Two men… one dressed like a “cab driver” (read ‘shady’)…with backpacks… seemingly breaking into a neighboring home. 

I would certainly hope, in those circumstances, a neighbor would call the police.  Let the police come!   If anybody looks out their window and observed a situation such as that one (regardless of skin color), would you fault them for being apprehensive?

However, that is not the crux of the issue.  From the onset, Professor Gates angrily denounced Officer Crowley as racist for what the officer saw as responding to a suspicious situation. Was Crowley as calm as the police report suggests? Perhaps not. (A police report as an unimpeachable account of the truth? Say it aint so, Joe!) 

Crowley, no doubt, was thinking, “What did I just step into?”  Initially responding to a burglary call, now confronting an angry man (rightfully so?) who is screaming bloody murder, as well as being very uncooperative.  What alternatives was Crowley given? Should he have asked, “How may I help you sir?” The police report said Crowley never had the chance.  It is possible that pride also prevented Crowley from “turning the other cheek” and leaving the scene.

Gates, as a Harvard professor who devoted his entire career to the examination of race relations, firmly believed the officer was predisposed with a worldview of everyday racism, institutionalized over many years through contending with crime and criminals, no doubt many of them people of color.  However, what else motivated Gates?  Gates insisted he had the moral high ground, and was betting on an overall climate of “white guilt” to shame Crowley into realizing his error in suspecting a “black man in America.”

Gates demonstrated a fallacy that is the heart of modern race relations, both in black power and white guilt. The fallacy comes from faulty logic: Whites suspect all black men. I am a black man. Therefore, I will be suspected. Black power after the mid-sixties reflected the doubt instilled in white America by the realization of that fallacy, leading to a loss of moral authority.

When both blacks and whites are truly comfortable with the notion that “not all blacks are suspects” then we can move forward.  However, for some, that means a loss of power. The power deriving solely from the color of one’s skin will diminish. For whites, it is losing power from generations of racial preference.  For blacks after the civil rights era, it is losing a moral high ground that comes from a worldview of continuous victimization.

Maybe the power of someone who devoted his entire career examining race relations as a professor at Harvard?

In his defense, if I were Gates, I would still be pissed off that I had to break into my own house (talk about a bad day!) Nevertheless, Gates’ gambit did not work. He was arrested for disorderly conduct.

The issue is in seeing a difficult position through the context of the other participants. Instead of working towards a peaceful resolution, possibly seeing the “grey” in a “black and white” situation, both Gates and Crowley stood adamant in their positions, much like insolent teenagers.

Moreover, the Gates episode goes to show one thing.  When a disagreement opens with a racially fueled shouting match—one participant holding a gun and the right to arrest—it has no choice but to end badly.

Credibility and Corrections

The currency of journalists is “credibility.”  It is something hard won and not automatically acquired.  When lost, credibility is difficult (if not impossible) to get back. 

Journalists are always defending themselves against charges of bias, favoritism and preference.  The most aggressive defense against those charges is an environment of transparency. Readership must be comfortable with the idea that the motives of a news gathering operation are pure and its priorities are up front.

 However, reporting is a human endeavor. There are bound to be mistakes. It is not in the mistake that one would find fault, but in how they respond to the error.  Richard Nixon learned it the hard way; it is not the act itself, but the cover-up that is the killer.

A recent study found malpractice claims would drop substantially if the doctor simply sat with the patient and apologized for his (or her) mistakes. The power of two words: “I’m sorry.” It goes to diffuse the situation, leaving all parties to come to terms with the humanity of the other.

The practice of published corrections goes hand-in-hand with a philosophy of openness.  It is the foundation of credibility.  Without responding with timely, sincere corrections, or a direct plan to correct violations of accuracy, transparency of the entire process is compromised.  The reader loses faith in the practice, sensing a journalist’s ego is more important than the truth.  The entire structure of newsgathering suffers as a result.

Andrew Alexander, Ombudsman for the Washington Post, writes a blog examining the value of timely corrections. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ombudsman-blog/2010/05/posts_corrections_problem_is_b.html?wprss=ombudsman-blog.  An Ombudsman (person?)  is an advocate for the reader, giving  voice to issues such as accuracy and timeliness in corrections.  He understands the importance of accuracy, and is active in protecting both the Post’s readership and the paper’s most valuable asset—credibility.

Citizens United—Corporate Influence and a Free Press

 

The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

–Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., (1886).

It was with this simple statement, from the syllabus of the 1886 United States Supreme Court decision in Santa Clara County, the rise of corporate power in America began in earnest.   The constitutionality of corporate personhood—legal fictions having equal First Amendment rights as natural persons—is affecting our country in ways few expected 125 years ago. 

At the heart of the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) is “that prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence.”  

The advent of corporations and their influence on the American landscape poses a challenge to a basic principle given to us by our founding fathers—freedom of the press.  The First Amendment, in distinguishing between freedoms of the press and speech, recognized the importance of reasoned thought in society.  By separating the rights to a free press from a right to free speech, the Constitution values not only the ability to express ideas but also the ability to contemplate those ideas and concepts.

Thomas Jefferson said, "The art of printing secures us against the retro gradation of reason and information."  It is contemplation through “the art of printing” that free press is an essential power afforded to the people by the First Amendment.

The foundation of a free press is in the examination of issues as a watchdog over the power of government.  Publication is a process in evaluating voices developed through freedom of speech, separating narrowly defined opinions from issues of the greater good. 

In the dissent in the 5-4 decision in Citizens United, Justice John Paul Stevens expressed concern over the rise of corporate power.  

The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process… Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races. (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010).

 

“Under the majority’s view,” Stevens added, “I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.” 

A combination of resources and constitutional protection afforded by the First Amendment allows what amounts to an unfettered flood of corporate money, threatening to tip the balance in the marketplace of ideas. With the lifting of many of the restrictions on corporate spending, a resulting prevalence of challenging ideas will test the public to sift through competing voices.  Amplifying those voices will be by the amount of money spent.

However, as of this writing the FEC rules continue to prohibit corporations and labor unions to give directly to candidates.  What Citizens United accomplishes is allowing corporations and unions to directly advocate (or decry) political candidates and issues.  In the world of modern media, the larger pocketbook equates to an amplified voice.

Concerns over the encroaching influence of corporations in the political arena are not new.  Abraham Lincoln wrote:

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

--Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864   

In the early 20^th century, Congress addressed the power corporations would have over the political process.  In 1907, with the passage of the Tillman Act, Congress “prohibited corporations and national banks from making ‘money contribution[s] in connection with any election to any political office.’ ” The Federal Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 later incorporated the Tillman Act. 

The mid 20th century also brought an anti-corporate sentiment with further attempts to limit growing monopolies.  In 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt requested $500,000 from Congress to study the growth of corporate power in the United States. 

“The liberty of a democracy,” Roosevelt wrote to Congress, “is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself.”

Attempts to reign in corporate influences continued with the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971creating the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the Michigan Campaign Finance Act of 1976 and into the 21^st century with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act).  The Supreme Court had upheld each as constitutional, through Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, in the case of the Michigan law and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission in the case of the BCRA.

In a bout of judicial activism, Citizens United overturned most of McConnell and all of Austin. In the ideological mix of the Supreme Court under John Roberts, stare decisis was downplayed. Recent activist decisions of the Roberts court included a Second Amendment protection of individual gun ownership by individuals outside of a militia [District of Columbia v. Heller].  It was the first time the Court applied the Second Amendment to restrictions on individual gun ownership.

After Citizens United, an increasing financial disparity in the political process coupled with a changing economic and social landscape will leave traditional forms of media struggling to survive and educate the public. 

Availability of information through newer technology has become pervasive, but some feel what is lost in the rush is thoughtful reflection.  Thoughtful analysis supported by facts is one of the foundations of effective journalism, as well as the cornerstone of a free press.

During a speech in 2000, science journalist Laurie Garrett talked of what is missing in the flood of information through the modern media. Writing about health issues, Garrett has won Peabody and Polk awards, as well as the 1996 Pulitzer Prize in Explanatory Journalism.

 “What suffers in this atmosphere of immediacy is analysis,” Garrett says.  “What suffers in this search for speed is depth. The wealthy world media is becoming increasingly simplistic, superficial and celebrity focused.”

The importance of the press is in the ability to discover and articulate issues important to the workings of democracy. With the Citizens United decision in place, the question remains—what happens now?

Citizens United came at a difficult time for the newspaper industry.  Increased political chatter needs a greater diligence from the press.  A 2009 study conducted by the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism shows that the news habits of most people follow a mix of multiple sources.

Asked specifically about their news habits on ‘a typical day,’ the results are striking: 99% of American adults say that on a typical day, they get news from at least one of these media platforms: a local or national print newspaper, a local or national television news broadcast, radio, or the internet. 

Eric Deggans, media critic for the St. Petersburg Times, views print journalism as the foundation of the way we get our news. 

“Forty-eight percent of the top 200 news websites are sponsored by newspapers,” Deggans says.  “When CNN did a five-part report on Scientology, it used the St. Petersburg Times as a source.”

“They (newspapers) are trying to get out and find out what isn’t known,” he added.  “Who else is going to take the time to develop stories?”

“Newspapers form the bedrock for a mix of information. It is important as a social institution.”

Newspapers are essential to the overall news process.  However, traditional news organizations have been shrinking, cutting back staff and operations.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, per capita daily newspaper circulation has dropped 47 percent since 1970. In addition, the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism reports newspapers have lost 16.9 percent circulation in the past three years and 25.6 percent since 2000.

            To remain viable in the information marketplace, newspapers compete with forms of more instantaneous media as well as the 24-hour cable news cycle. 

Lucy Morgan, Pulitzer Prize winning political reporter for the St. Petersburg Times, has covered Tallahassee since 1986.  She has been witness to the effects of a progressively smaller newspaper presence.

“(Citizens United), unfortunately, is coming at a time when there are fewer of us,” Morgan says. “The Times and the Miami Herald have been working together to get stories in the paper—one combined bureau—to use more manpower than individually.”

“In Tallahassee, there is not much else,” Morgan says.  “TV does not exist in the capital and public broadcasting sheds little light.  They are restrained, just broadcasting what is on the floor.”

A recent trend in politics has been for special interests organizations to fund organizations that offer information that imitates traditional print news.  They present a narrow agenda under the guise of news.  It makes the discerning voices of legitimate journalism more valuable.

In an article for the St. Petersburg Times, Morgan talked about the creation of the Sunshine State News Holding LLC.  Sunshine State is a privately held organization focusing on news relating to business and politics.  Transparency in reporting concerns many; Sunshine representatives declined to name its owners.

“More and more, there are ‘pretend-to-be’ press sponsored by corporations and think-tanks that are more conservative than liberal,” Morgan says.

     “Removal of the corporate ban is flooding a process that is already flooded,” she added. “I don’t think there will be an improvement in the quality of people governing until we get money out of the process.”

     It has become important that in the changing of the media landscape priorities of good journalism remain, with the ever-increasing number of voices in the political arena bolstered by the First Amendment status of corporations through Citizens United.  Survival of print journalism can ensure a level of discourse that comes with the process of responsible newsgathering.

     Justice Louis D. Brandeis, in his concurrence to the 1924 Supreme Court decision in Whitney v. California, wrote the most eloquent defense of freedom of speech.  Those same words can also be applied to a potent, discerning free press in the shadow of Citizens United.

     “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”