JOURNALISTS AND SOURCE-GREASERS. I had not seen in discussions of journalistic ethics any acknowledgment of the conflict of interest inherent in the use of anonymous sources. It certainly does not seem to be a major worry for journalists. But the leaker may leak selectively. Worse, the quid pro quo for the leak is often that the story will be spun to favor the leaker. The reader has no way of knowing that the story has been slanted and cannot evaluate the sources of the story. The leak is also building up favors in the journalist’s favor bank. Now I see in Mickey Kaus’s blog Kausfiles a name for a story which is slanted toward an anonymous source. It’s a “source-greaser.” I don’t know whether this is a term of art for journalists or if Kaus coined the phrase. Either way, more power to him.
Archive for November, 2006
JOURNALISTS AND SOURCE-GREASERS
Thursday, November 30th, 2006THE STARS AFFECT US IN THEIR BIRTHS
Wednesday, November 29th, 2006THE STARS AFFECT US IN THEIR BIRTHS. I began this blog with a remarkable article which pointed out that the radiation from the Big Bang still affects our radio reception. Now this study says that life on Earth has been affected by cosmic rays arising from star formation in the Milky Way. The Milky Way is a long way away and so the events that are affecting Earth took place a long time ago.
UNFASHIONABLE VIEWS ON DRUG PRICES AND THE PUBLIC GOOD
Tuesday, November 28th, 2006UNFASHIONABLE VIEWS ON DRUG PRICES AND THE PUBLIC GOOD. My first postings have taken strong stands against corruption and political assassination. Now I reveal some unfashionable views. I am for personal reasons very much in favor of the traditional patent system to encourage new drugs, and therefore I am in favor of high and monopolistic prices for new drugs. I also believe that somebody who chooses employment to make the most money is in fact doing what other people in society want done as expressed in market prices and is therefore serving the public interest. Thomas Sowell and other economists have pointed this out. I make these confessions now in response to this article in the NEW YORK TIMES. The leading figure in the story apologizes, and the article implicitly criticizes him for, his choice of his current job, in which he is evidently making a lot of money. His job is to evaluate drugs that startup companies are developing. I cannot think of a more important job in our society, and I am glad that such people are highly compensated. And I am a little frightened that there are those who take it for granted that it is a bad thing that very talented people are being drawn to these jobs.
CONTEMPT FOR THE BOURGEOIS
Monday, November 27th, 2006CONTEMPT FOR THE BOURGEOIS. When I was first retired, I asked a friend who had been retired—and therefore reading—for several years to recommend one book. He very enthusiastically said, “THE SPORTSWRITER. Read THE SPORTSWRITER.” I loved THE SPORTSWRITER. Richard Ford’s title character in THE SPORTSWRITER, Frank Bascombe, became a real estate agent in the sequel INDEPENDENCE DAY and evidently remains a real estate agent in the third volume of what is now a trilogy, THE LAY OF THE LAND. Real estate agents appear seldom in literature and when they do appear, they are usually scorned, as Babbitt is. However, I was unprepared for this sentence in a review by Joseph O’Neill in the current ATLANTIC (December 2006): “And it’s in this way that one eventually comes to question the very basics of Frank Bascombe: how it could be (in a novel steeped in psychological actuality) that a chronically rarefied, left-leaning, discriminating person such as he might in all seriousness and for decades and without self-acknowledged anguish and self-medication elect the dumbed-down gratifications offered by a realty job, corny leisure activities, and a circle of dimwitted and/or Republican friends and neighbors who don’t bat an eye whenever he comes out with one of his gnomic pronouncements.” (page 134). Babbitt got off easy.
WHAT IS A DIPLOMATIC INCIDENT?
Sunday, November 26th, 2006WHAT IS A DIPLOMATIC INCIDENT? An attempt at linking. Yesterday’s New York Times carried an article on the poisoning of the Russian dissident which contained the sentence: “All the while, diplomats scurried to prevent the case from becoming an international incident.”
Why would you want to avoid a diplomatic incident when there is evidence of a murder in your country by a foreign country? I asked my wife Mary Jane, “What are diplomats good for?” She answered, “You just said it. To scurry.” Perhaps the Russian government will be exonerated, but until then it is a major issue. There are some things that can’t be ignored without making a statement about what is permissible.
HOT STOVE LEAGUE–FREE AGENTS
Saturday, November 25th, 2006HOT STOVE LEAGUE—FREE AGENTS. I should note that after I said yesterday that the Bulls were unusually unbalanced toward defense, they went out and lost to Philadelphia, 123 to 108. Well, Charles Barkley also thinks they’re unbalanced toward defense. The subject of this post is that Carlos Lee signed a contract for $100 million years over six years. Carlos Lee is a favorite former White Sox so I smile at the news. There have been huge contracts for others as well—Soriano, Gary Matthews, Jr. The new Collective Bargaining Agreement seems to leave the small market teams like Kansas City in just as difficult a spot as ever. Because of arbitration, a wealthy team, by spending more money, can raise the costs of all its rivals. If Carlos Lee’s salary increases, so does Emil Brown’s. I think the smaller market teams are going to have to adopt the Marlins’ approach and go young. They should also not bring up their young talent until the players have dominated in triple A so as to optimize the benefit from the time in the majors before arbitration.
BASKETBALL–HOW IMPORTANT IS DEFENSE?
Friday, November 24th, 2006BASKETBALL—HOW IMPORTANT IS DEFENSE?. The Bulls are running an experiment this year which should provide data on what for me is one of the great questions in basketball. The question is: Why don’t basketball journalists and fans give equal weight to offense and defense? A player spends half his time on defense so it should be equally important. To take some rough approximations, Eric Snow should be as highly regarded as Alan Iverson; Bruce Bowen should be as valuable as Michael Redd. The Bulls this year are considered to be as unbalanced a team as any in recent memory—unbalanced in terms of emphasizing defense rather than offense. Charles Barkley has compared the Bulls to a team with a good pitching staff and no hitters. There will be a test of another proposition. I have compared Ben Wallace for several years to Bill Russell. Not as good, but close. The experiment hasn’t begun yet because the Bulls are still on their long annual Circus road trip, but we will see. Of course, I should have a criterion for interpreting the results of the experiment. I think people generally agree that the Bulls do not have overwhelming talent. Perhaps it is the level of talent that matters rather than how it is divided between defense and offense. The last two years the Bulls’ wins have been in the 40’s. If the Bulls do much better than expected, perhaps win 50 games, that would indicate that good defensive players are underrated. A season in the 40’s would indicate that the defense/offense balance doesn’t make much difference. In the 30’s would mean that you’ve got to have shooters.
THANKSGIVING
Thursday, November 23rd, 2006THANKSGIVING. I had the good fortune to know retired General John Lawlor. Years ago, after a local Memorial Day celebration, celebrated on the village green, I asked him what book I should read to find out more about World War II, in which he had fought. He recommended a novel, WAR AND REMEMBRANCE, by Herman Wouk. In the book, Wouk has a fictional enemy German historian describing the Battle of Midway say, “The United States of America has been a lucky nation, and this luck held remarkably on June 4, 1942. How long it will hold in the future, only the dark gods know who bestowed on this crass mercantile nation of mongrelized blood and cowboy culture a virgin continent with almost infinite natural resources.” Wouk describes the five minutes in the Battle of Midway in which three Japanese aircraft carriers were destroyed and the war in the Pacific was won. At that point in the narrative, Wouk does an unusual and wonderful thing. He lists the names of the young men of the three torpedo plane squadrons who brought about the turning point in the war in the Pacific. I am going to list them again here:
John C. Waldron, James C. Owens, Jr., Raymond A. Moore, Jefferson D. Woodson, George M. Campbell, William W. Abercrombie, Ulvert M. Moore, William W. Creamer, John P. Gray, Harold J. Ellison, Henry R. Kenyon, Jr., William R. Evans, Jr., Grant W. Teats, Robert B. Miles, Horace F. Dobbs, Amelio Maffei, Tom H. Pettry, Otway D. Creasey, Jr., Ronald J. Fisher, Bernard P. Phelps, William F. Sawhill, Francis S. Polston, Max A. Calkins, George A. Field, Darwin L. Clark, Ross E. Bibb, Jr., Hollis Martin, Ashwell L. Picou, Robert K. Huntington, George H. Gay, Jr., Lance E. Massey, Richard W. Suesens, Wesley F. Osmus, David J. Roche, Patrick H.Hart, John W. Haas, Oswald A. Powers, Leonard L. Smith, Curtis W. Howard, Carl A. Osberg, Leo E. Perry, Harold C. Lundy, Jr., Benjamin R. Dodson, Jr., Richard M. Hansen, John R. Cole, Raymond J. Darce, Joseph E. Mandeville, William A. Phillips, Charles L. Moore, Troy C. Barkely, Robert B. Brazier, Harry L. Corl, William G. Esders, Lloyd F. Childers, Eugene E. Lindsey, Severin L. Rombach, John T. Eversole, Randolph M. Holder, Arthur V. Ely, Flourenoy G. Hodges, Paul J. Riley, John W. Brock, Lloyd Thomas, Charles T. Grenat, Wilburn F. Glenn, John U. Lane, Gregory J. Durawa, Arthur R. Lindgren, John H. Bates, Edwin J. Mushinski, John M. Blundell, Harold F. Littlefield, Albert W. Winchell, Robert E. Laub, Edward Heck, Jr., Irvin H. McPherson, Stephen B. Smith, Douglas M. Cossitt, William C. Humphrey, Jr., Doyle L. Ritchey, William D. Horton, and Wilfred N. McCoy.
Of the 82 young men, 68 were killed. Let us give thanks for all that the Americans who have gone before us have given us.
RESTAURANT CRITICS AND THEATER CRITICS
Wednesday, November 22nd, 2006RESTAURANT CRITICS AND THEATER CRITICS. Yesterday, I quoted a theater critic criticizing LES MISERABLES because he got bored with the turntable that was changing the scenery. He also proudly announced that he had never gone to see the show in the sixteen years of its first run in New York, and then gave it a short negative review. I see that another critic gave LES MIZ a negative review because it lacks irony. I am not giving names here because I want to generalize about all theater critics. The speculation: Years from now people will look back on New York (and American?) culture at the beginning of this century and conclude that this was the golden age of restaurants. Eating was important. Theater was not. Restaurant reviews are usually raves. Restaurant critics like to eat. They love to describe their meals in glowing terms. Theater reviews are usually negative. Theater critics are long suffering types who find only one or two plays a year that are worthy of their attention.
THEATER CRITICS
Tuesday, November 21st, 2006THEATER CRITICS. One of my hobby horses is that theater critics, especially in New York, too often fail to allow for the imagination that a theater audience must use. Thus, John Simon always insisted that if the script said that a character was beautiful, the actress playing her had to be beautiful. Special effects became very important. An example turned up last Friday just in time for beginning this blog. Terry Teachout announces in the Wall Street Journal that he had never seen LES MISERABLES during its original sixteen year run. He has gone to see the revival, and has two paragraphs on the show, including the following sentence, which shows how important special effects have become: “John Napier’s sets are impressive, but his use of a turntable to shift the scenes soon grows visually tiresome.”
