Lieberman Takes on Obama’s Czars

OMG! Obama has advisers!

Please tell me that Joe isn’t trying to position himself as McCain’s running mate in 2012. Butt Boy I’ll believe. Running mate, no.

Joe Lieberman is still a senator? Who knew?

What a surprise, liberals on the wrong side of a debate from the American people.

And his constituents in Israel are very happy with him.

If we’re going to complain about czars, can we complain about BS Congressional committees such as Homeland Security and Government Relations?

I wonder when he’ll get to those hearings on government malfeasance during Hurricane Katrina that he promised when he was running against Ned Lamont and trying to trick Connecticut into thinking he was a Democrat?

Let’s include the Drug Czar too. How to keep the prison industry growing when everything else is shrinking.

Seriously there is a committee on “Aging”: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/committees.tt?commid=ssage

Thanks for doing the work of the people Congress…

Hey folks, congratulations you have just taken a conservative view of government. With every committee, subcommittee the taxpayers outlay for office space, salaries, HC, retirement, computers, office supplies etc grows.

Cut the committees and their salaries and perks and have legislators meet for one month in the fall and one month in the spring to deal with budget business and for emergency reasons of security.

You might be surprised how efficient citizen legislators might be

“There aren’t many Democrats that would be willing to take on their own White House on the sensitive topic of czars”
.
JNS,
.
Joseph Lieberman is not a Democrat, he is an Independent. It seems you should be able to get at least the most basic details of these things right.
.
On the substance of the “issue,” this is beyond ridiculous. If these pompous, preening morons like Lieberman really thought there was a Constitutional issue with “czars” (a word that merely means “advisors”), why did this only come up now and not during the Bush Administration who also had a bevy of “czars” for every problem that ailed them?

Do you mean like the conservative view of government from January 2001 through January 2007 when conservatives had the White House, Senate and House of Representatives and government expanded more than at any time since FDR’s New Deal? Maybe that isn’t a good idea to take the conservative view.

‘If these pompous, preening morons like Lieberman really thought there was a Constitutional issue with “czars” (a word that merely means “advisors”), why did this only come up now and not during the Bush Administration who also had a bevy of “czars” for every problem that ailed them?’
.
Because IOKIYAR

“…the sensitive topic of czars…”
.
Uh, that’s sarcasm, right?
.
Please tell me that’s sarcasm.

Wait, this is an actual thing? I thought it was just the idiots at Fox news that didn’t like the word czar. People are actually upset?

Those of us that are going to start the midnight shift won’t be able to sleep because they’re called czars.

First this-

. White House Counsel Greg Craig. “It is simply false to suggest that any of these (or other similar) positions are newly created ‘czars’ that lack accountability to Congress,” Craig wrote in the letter obtained by TIME. “Under this definition, the Bush Administration reportedly had 36 czar positions filled by 46 different people – more than the highest estimated current number.

And then-

“There’s been a real proliferation of czars under this administration,” Collins says. ”

Which is accurate? TIME’s story doesn’t say.

Maybe we’re trying to make Russia our sworn enemy again.

sacredh

Not at all. Bush’s entire focus after 9/11 and Iraq. He spent the rest of his time trying to appease other factions at the expense of a smaller more efficient government

Hmm maybe those idiots at FOX News have a better handle on the American people than say oh CNN, MSNBC, NPR, Time.com. Actually its not a maybe. Since the MSM has taken the guided tour of Obama administration they re clueless about what the American people want or feel.

“Not at all. Bush’s entire focus after 9/11 and Iraq. He spent the rest of his time trying to appease other factions at the expense of a smaller more efficient government.”

Bwahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dude, you should be writing comedy. This is the funniest thing I ever read!!

Who did Bush try to appease? The gods of the volcano?

Makes me mad that Sore Loserman snuck in thru the back door. Most honorable peole would just accept that they got beat.

slowp

For me to write comedy I would have to play with the home lobotomy kit but wait that would make me a liberal–no chance of that.

Bush worked with Kennedy to pass the Medicare drug plan which Kennedy decried as being too cheap and now Dumos cry about how expensive it is. The norm liberal schizophrenia.

piper1: If you’d care to read to the bottom of the one-paragraph post you’ll see I note that Lieberman is an Independent. Are you always so premature in your… um, opinions?
JNS

PNTTO:
I presented both sides of the story. I’ll leave it to columnists and readers to draw their own conclusions on who had the best case.
JNS

Uh, no. In your lead you refer to JL as a “Democrat” who is “willing to take on [his] own White House…”. Lieberman backed McCain. He ran against a Democrat for his seat.
.
The whole point of the story is wrong.

sacredh- you nailed it. Republicans had such a huge opportunity in 2000-2007 (particularly in 2005 and 2006) to install small, conservative, principled government. They had healthy majorities and adequate political capital. They have no one to blame but themselves.
.
This is something that I relent daily. What a missed opportunity.

…since the mere mention of the word by virtually any elected official sends Fox News in paroxysms…”
.
…and lying partisans and dumbsh*t “journalists” respond predictably…

…Should have been a reply to 7.3. [Sighs]

In matters of opinion that’s fine, I suppose, but if you are writing about “czars” you must have a definition of what one is.
.
It appears Craig is using a specific meaning and either he or Collins is wrong.
.
Either there are fewer or there has been a proliferation under this administration.

You may not consider him a Democrat but he was forgiven by both Reid and Obama and welcomed back into the fold. He is the MAJORITY chairman of the Homeland Security committee and caucuses with Democrats. His criticism is considered as much friendly fire as Feingold’s — and Lieberman has much more to risk, ie his chairmanship.
JNS

apollyon07

You are correct in that conservatives blew the opportunity. Instead of kow-towing to the bipartisan blather that the MSM spewed they should have just pushed forth their agenda just as they did in 1994.

Also, it’s the power invested in Lieberman as a majority chairman that even allows him to hold this hearing. Minority members don’t have the power to convene hearings on their own.
JNS

And I am quite sure Craig is using a specifically defined definition that is most favorable to the Administration

meaning CNN MSNBC and NPR?

“Lieberman has much more to risk, ie his chairmanship.
JNS”
.
From your keyboard to God’s ears JNS.
.
Also-thanks for engaging today.

“I presented both sides of the story. I’ll leave it to columnists and readers to draw their own conclusions on who had the best case.”
.
My word. And you have no earthy idea how you condemn yourself professionally by that statement, do you?
.
Perhaps we’ll just increase our amusement factor and save ourselves considerable cost and heartache and replace your entire industry with well-trained African parrots. In addition to repeating what they’re told without any understanding of what they’re saying, they do tricks.

freep – Do you honestly believe that anybody in this country outside of FoxNews/Beck-land gives a shiite about this made up “czar” non-issue? You need to leave the echo chamber every once in a while. There are plenty of other reasons why people are somewhat down on Obama…and the biggest reason is the jobs situation. But outside of the relatively small universe of FoxNews viewers, “ohs noes….there are 32 bazillion czars!” falls way down the list of top concerns for most American voters…if it even makes the list. You and Lieberman can go on believing that focusing on this silliness will bring victory in 2010 and/or 2012. And you can go on believing it after Obama wins re-election, the Dems don’t lose Congress, and Joe Lieberman is no longer the “Independent Democratic” Senator from Connecticut after being voted out by CT in voters in favor of a real Democrat.

PNTTO:
I do believe that is why I included this paragraph:
Every Administration has defined its czars differently, but generally speaking, they are appointees, not confirmed by the Senate, who help coordinate issues across agencies, says James Pfiffner, a presidential historian at George Mason University. These advisers cannot make decisions themselves; instead, they whittle down the options to present to the President. For example, the National Security Adviser — a position created by John F. Kennedy to navigate disputes between the Departments of State and Defense after the Bay of Pigs — falls under Pfiffner’s definition of a czar. Yet these days the title of czar has varied wildly. Conservative political commentator Glenn Beck, for example, has a list of 32 “princelings” on his website; he has claimed the scalp of one of them, green-jobs czar Van Jones. Jones was widely criticized by conservatives for past associations with the radical left and was forced to resign. Pfiffner, however, did not define Jones as a czar, since he reported to a department head who answered directly to the President and Congress.

shepherdwong:
Actually, I believe quite firmly that the proliferation of Huffington Posts, Matt Drudges and other slanted news is what’s killing our profession. If you are looking for news with an opinion, that’s great. But I think news should be about representing both sides; striving for balance and fairness. Unfortunately, reliably unbiased news is harder and harder to come by these days because news agencies are trying to cater to people like you: people who prefer to view the world through one lens or another but rarely both.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/24/AR2008102402757.html

JNS

I read that JNS, but your story has Craig citing a definition in the letter that TIME has.
.
Have you read the letter and does he say what the defintion is? It reads as if it is Collins definition.
.
If all that is so then either this administration has fewer or more by the Senator’s own definition.
.

And I could say that Collins is using a definition that best suits her and her party’s purposes.

PNTTO:
I presented both sides of the story. I’ll leave it to columnists and readers to draw their own conclusions on who had the best case.
JNS

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/10/22/lieberman-takes-on-obamas-czars/#ixzz0Ugf99uMU

From the article:

There has been a lot of talk — and some hyperbole — in recent weeks surrounding the Obama Administration’s growing stable of imperial “czars.” But is there anything to all this chatter?

If you’re attempting to determine whether or not there is anything to all this chatter wouldn’t it be worthwhile to determine if there is any merit to what people are saying?

-MBirchmeier

But I think news should be about representing both sides; striving for balance and fairness.

I think news should be about accurately describing reality to the best of the journalist’s ability.

Shorter JNS: “Shape of Earth: Views Differ.”
-
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/shape-of-planet-blogging/
-
JNS, please consider the possibility that the MSM’s failure to unequivocally inform readers about facts is part of the reason for its unpopularity.
-
20% of this country identifies as Republicans. Every single one of them is over 60 and white (yep, it’s a fact). You have no rational reason to dumb down your reporting to please those people, who will be on a jihad against you no matter what you do anyway.
-
Thanks for being so engaged on this thread.

Jay N-S:

I believe if someone takes an objective view of the business of journalism you will find that the ship of unbiased journalism sailed around the time of the Vietnam War. To believe that newspapers and MSM outlets were unbiased since then gives a clear answer as to why outlets like Drudge, Huffington et al have flourished.

The fantasy that most journalists are unbiased is belied by the fact today’s journalists where their beliefs on their sleeves.

So it should not be a surprise that newspapers of old are now circling the drain while other outfits flourish.

‘You may not consider him a Democrat… ‘
.
Oh, come on Jay. You’re making rationalizations now. NOBODY considers Lieberman a Democrat, including Lieberman.
.
‘His criticism is considered as much friendly fire as Feingold’s’
.
Considered by who? You?
.
Lieberman campaigns for republicans. Is that ‘friendly fire’? He has been an active critic and obstructionist on virtually all of the Democrat’s key issues this year. He is currently as much a Democrat as Spector is currently a republican. The fact that Lieberman is allowed to keep his chairmanship is more indicative of Reid’s poor leadership than of Lieberman’s loyalty to the Democrats.

PNTTO:
In the interest of transparency, I’m working with our tech folks to upload a pdf of the letter. I’ll let you know when there’s a link to it.
JNS

Joe Lieberman will hold the first full committee hearing on the topic (okay, Lieberman’s not a Democrat, but he still caucuses with them)

caucus: a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause.
*
Fail.

Well, Jay, I believe quite firmly that the fact that you can read an article and TIME magazine and not know which side is lying is what’s killing your profession. Objectivity isn’t the same as neutrality.
-
Aasif Mandvi thinks CNN is the most professional news outlet, while John Oliver claims it’s an organization that only wants to seduce goats. A useful news report will inform viewers as to the merits of the issue, not merely provide an equal forum for rival sides.
-
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-12-2009/cnn-leaves-it-there
-
The real story here is that the right wing can bark its head off about any false inanity, such as the czar issue, and you will treat it as news, put it in the magazine, because all too often, reporters seek controversy, instead of reporting relevant facts.
-
It’s the “Around the Horn”/”Pardon the Interruption” approach to journalism, which generates heat but not light, and doesn’t attract viewers and readers because it doesn’t inform them.

For example, what would be the problem with saying this:

“Every Administration has defined its czars differently, but generally speaking, they are appointees, not confirmed by the Senate, who help coordinate issues across agencies, says James Pfiffner, a presidential historian at George Mason University. Using that definition, the Obama Administration employs X czars, compared to X czars employed by Bush and X czars employed by Clinton. White House defenders and conservative commentators define the term differently, which leads to wildly varying estimates in the number of czars. Conservative political commentator Glenn Beck, for example, has a list of 32 “princelings” on his website; …”

What would be the journalistic problem with saying something like that?

JNS – Drudge is a right wing site while Huffpost is a left leaning, celebrity heavy site. Neither makes any claim to be non-partisan or “fair and balanced”. The problem is that too many members of the “news” industry take their queues directly from these partisan sites, especially Drudge. My problem isn’t with Drudge, it with your colleagues who treat his red alert headlines like the journalists of old treated breaking news coming in over the wire services. Drudge and HuffPo aren’t killing your profession, you are killing it yourselves. I’m not blaming you, personally (I’d have to scour your past posts/stories, which I’m not going to do – my unresearched impression is that you are one of the better ones out there)…but the “news” industry is largely to blame here.
..
There should be a place for both partisan news sources like Drudge and non-partisan sources like the traditional media. Here’s a hint for members of your “profession” – don’t let Drudge or Arianna rule your world. You can have your niche and they can have theirs. Nobody is forcing y’all to cater to people like us. I, for one, would love for both sides of an issue to be present in a non-partisan fashion…that’s news, that’s journalism…I can gey my punditry and opinion elsewhere. HOWEVER, “he said, she said” garbage without context and without calling out people when what they say is wrong (or a lie) is not journalism – it’s stenography…and it’s lazy.
..
All that said, I think your story here is just fine and good example of how this non-issue should be reported now that Beck and Drudge have forced your profession and publicity seeking members of Congress to waste their time looking into mid-to-low level non-policy setting presidential advisers who have existed in the administrations of both parties going way back. (as your story correctly notes)

That would be great JNS.
.
Thanks for the effort.

Had to tag JNS on her belief in the false equivalence doctrine.

JNS, another point that has not been made is that by merely writing about the czar “controversy,” you are basically agreeing to be a mouthpiece for the right wing. No one in the mainstream thinks there is a czar controversy — it is 100% dreamed up by the loonies on the right. It is then repeated over and over again until the MSM picks it up as a “story.” Just by running a story about it, however unbiased you think the story itself is, is biased, because the topic has been chosen by the rightwing. A journalist should be able to either dismiss these talking points as unworthy of consideration *or* turn it around and debunk the talking point by digging into the real story. As in, right wing operative Mr. X started the “czar” talking point, despite the fact that czars started under Reagan and there is no objective proof of an increase in the number or power of czars under the Obama administration. But instead of referring to it by its true name (a talking point) and calling it a “story”, the MSM has already tilted the playing field toward the right.

Elvis, at least Pardon the Interruption has a segment at the end of each broadcast dedicated to correcting all the factual errors made during the show. Imagine if we got that from the other cable news shows?

@David – I still think JNS’ piece here is OK but I do agree that the bit of factual background information that you suggested would definitely help re: context. But those are exactly the type of “boring” facts that I would expect would fall victim to an editor’s redline, both to save space and to keep the story sexy. If you include hard numbers that show that all three adminstrations had about the same number of these so-called czars – and my guess is that would be the case – then you no longer have an issue…or at least not a partisan or new issue. JNS does a good job of explaining what these so called czars are or aren’t, but she relies on partisan sources – a White House adviser and Glenn Beck – to provide the numbers. Perhaps getting Pfiffner – and maybe another historian well-versed in the subject, so you have two sources – to provide his estimate based on what he believes a czar to be would have helped here. But again, it’s a good bet that the numbers would be pretty much the same whether it be the Obama or Bush II or Clinton or Bush I or Reagan WH. And an editor (I’m giving JNS the benefit of the doubt here) would rather exclude those estimates because including them would make the story less controversial/partisan. (and might also lead to the death of this non-issue, forcing the news profession to focus on real issues…and that’s hard work and boring)

I just have to note again how masterful of a move it was for President Obama and Harry Reid to let LIEberman keep his gavel earlier this year without even a hint of remorsefulness on his part. I mean really ninja, juijitsu, chessmaster stuff there!
.
/snark

Seriously, JNS, your sanctimony is comical.

“I presented both sides of the story. I’ll leave it to columnists and readers to draw their own conclusions on who had the best case.”

I’ll say it slowly:

You.
Didn’t.
Present.
Either
“Case.”

You presented two competing claims but gave us absolutely no data upon which to evaluate these claims. With what facts are we poor readers supposed to draw conclusions that allow you to stay under your invisibility cloak of objectivity?

Person A says the sky is green. Person B says the sky is orange. I’ll leave it to you to decide who has the best case.

Go ahead, present both claims. But give us more evidence and less self-righteousness.

Lieberman ran for Senate, and was elected, as a member of the “Connecticut For Lieberman Party“. Not as an Independent (e.g. Bernie Sanders), not as a member of the Independence Party (e.g. Dean Barkley) , and not as an “Independent Democrat” (?). The fact that he caucuses with the Democratic caucus, and that he calls himself an “Independent Democrat” means exactly nothing in terms of his actual party affiliation — there is NO “Independent Democratic” party, is there? He could call himself a Martian, but that wouldn’t change the fact that he’s not.
.
“…news should be about representing both sides; striving for balance and fairness. “ Umm, no. Is there some obligation to present both sides, or all sides, of an argument, when one is clearly false? You honestly believe that in the debate over whether the earth is round or flat, the best approach to report on that is to “present both sides, striving for balance”? Really? You feel NO obligation as a member of the media elite to inject any sense of context? To point out when someone is just flat out lying? So you subscribe to David Gregory’s take on the role of journalists?
.
“I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up and say this is bogus, and you’re a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn’t do our job. I respectfully disagree. It’s not our role.”
.
“reliably unbiased news is harder and harder to come by these days because news agencies are trying to cater to people like you” Touched a nerve, eh? No, reliably unbiased news is harder and harder to come by because of hacks like you who are too lazy to do the hard work that actual journalism entails, and instead chase the “sexy controversial” story at the expense of reporting boring old ‘facts’, which we all know have a liberal bias anyway, right?

Jay Newton-Small,
.
Thank you for responding, though I’m not at all surprised by your beliefs. I, on the other hand, believe quite firmly that it is the very conventions of your corporate journalism: he-said-she-said over thoughtful and factual analysis, civility over decency, politics over substance, non-expert over expert, the embargo of liberal opinion and empirical truth, etc., is what’s killing your profession. If you think that reciting two opposing political viewpoints without analyzing the respective truth of them is the formula for balance and fairness, it provides no surprise that you should rationalize that lazy and stupid belief with the false conceit of being “unbiased” (here’s a little ugly truth you might want to take into account: sometimes people lie to advance their political interests). Again, I don’t hold you individually responsible, it’s an industry convention you and your peers are forced to adopt to survive professionally.
.
For instance, here are some facts that might bring some actual fairness and balance to a story about a partisan hack and serial liar such as Lieberman holding hearings on Obama Administration czars: 1) The term “czars” is actually shorthand for much longer and technical titles and is mostly a journalistic convention and 2) many if not most of these positions existed in the previous administration without controversy because until this partisan attack was contrived, no one on the left or the right considered them controversial. The “lens” is important and informative truth. It’s a national tragedy that you and your cohorts no longer recognize what that is or why it’s loss renders you worse than unnecessary.
.
BTW, unlike your colleagues whose world Drudge rules, I read other people, opinions [*gasp*] included, where I learn more important truth about what’s happening in public policy in one column than I typically learn in a week’s worth of Time columns.

The Limbotomy appears to have been successful…if that’s the right word for it.

What “risk” is there for Lieberman as long as Reid is majority leader??
.
Seriously, what risk?
.
There is a greater risk that the Nutmeg state will break off and fall into the Atlantic.

You know I might buy this balance business of reporting both sides if the tradmed made a habit of doing so. But we didn’t get both sides on the Iraq war rolllup, We are not getting both sides on Afghanistan only the warmongering side. We didn’t see the gay rights march treated the same way the teabaggers were.

These are the news decisions that reallly matter–which stories with which slant–and those are made out of sight by the Stengels and the Kellers of this world.

19 is mine

I have been away for three days and have spent a lot of time catching up with posts and comments – certainly glad I did it and didn’t miss the big melt down – but had to say I think your post would have been helped had you noted another part of the story. One of the claims is that none of the czars (press term) have not been confirmed. Not so.

Of the 32 “czars” on Beck’s list, nine were confirmed by the Senate:

Deputy Interior Secretary David J. Hayes (“California Water Czar”)
Director of National Drug Control Policy Gil Kerlikowske (“Drug Czar”)
OMB Deputy Director Jeff Zients (“Government Performance Czar”)
Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair (“Intelligence Czar”)
OMB Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Cass Sunstein (“Regulatory Czar”)
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and OSTP Director John Holdren (“Science Czar”)
Treasury Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability Herb Allison (“TARP Czar”)
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Ashton Carter (“Weapons Czar”)
OSTP Associate Director Aneesh Chopra (“Technology Czar”)

Many of the same critics who are decrying these roles have applauded or even pushed for them in the past. Sen. Robert Bennett has criticized czars as “undermining the Constitution,” but reportedly prodded President Clinton to appoint a Y2K Czar. In a 1999 CNN appearance, Sen. Bennett said “I think John Koskinen has been superb. I wrote the president six months before John was appointed, recommending that he appoint a Y2K czar.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-Truth-About-Czars/

19 ADMIN

Narc.

“Under this definition, the Bush Administration reportedly had 36 czar positions filled by 46 different people — more than the highest estimated current number.”

This quote from the WH makes the comments by Collins almost laughable. If this review is not partisan from her perspective, then what is it?

All politics these days in Washington seems to be strictly stratified along political party lines so pardon me for not buying her non partisan remarks. They just do not ring true.

On the other hand, this questioning of the status quo is what a democracy is about–”checks and balances”. If the Czars are truly wielding so much power, and their access to the President is encroaching on the authority and effectiveness of congress, then it is worth a review.

However, Lieberman?? Now that is odd. Is this not the other “Mavericky” dude who changes with any “wind” which would guarantee his re-election? What is really driving his involvement here? Hmm… This should be interesting.

http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/armed-robbers-use-technology-to-stalk-and-kill/

“If you are looking for news with an opinion, that’s great. But I think news should be about representing both sides; striving for balance and fairness.”

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/10/22/lieberman-takes-on-obamas-czars/?replytocom=104270#respond#ixzz0Uh3yH7Q6

JNS-I was going to let all this just pass as a waste of time but your comment above is simply absurd.

This isn’t a situation where one side says the Colts are the best football team and the other said the Jets are the better football team. Lieberman made a specific verifible claim that the Obama administration has more czars than previous administrations. Craig says it has fewer. One of those things must be true, and one must be false. These are not opinions they are verifible facts you can check with a little research.
.
If you don’t feel its your job to check facts and tell us which is true, and which is false what is the point of you writing the article in the first place? There has to be in that case, some other motivation for you taking the time to write this article that you are specifically not sharing with us.

I’m reminded of Francis Bacon — the philosopher, not the artist — who complained about the pollution of knowledge by people who quibble over definitions and not things.

Seriously, Jay, if the term “czar” is basically a nebulous hindrance to the reader (which is the case here) then why hang the piece on it? You have a decent definition provided to you of the kinds of appointments that might cause Congressional ire — ones with no Senate confirmation, that report directly to the president — so why not use it, instead of diving back in to the czar-czar ga-boring quotes from pols?

This story could just as easily have been reported:

After eight years of no oversight from his committee regarding homeland security or any other issue under Senator Lieberman’s purview, he has decided the time has now come, apparently responding to conservative complaints about “czars” in the Obama administration.

Of course, “czar” is an informal characterization referring to an appointee who advises the president, and helps in inter agency coordination.a coinage apparently made during the Wilson Administration

Lieberman’s decision to raise this issue now is a curious one, as there was no shortage of such positions in the Bush administration. in face, one could argue that the head of Homeland Security is himself a czar, a particularly powerful version created by George Bush.

And then you ask Lieberman to explain what has changed.

WTF & HFS!

Remember when this blog didn’t suck? Back when sgwhite and 53_3 were regulars? Now it’s just, “I am SO a professional reporter-girl!” — “Are not.” — “Am too!”

Spooge sounds almost sane in this company. Time to GTFO.

And when Media Matters calls you out, face it — you suck.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910220020

hellslittle…

sgw couldn’t let a LIEberman post slither by! He commented above at 3.3. (Highlighting another of my irritations with this format – it’s hard to spot new comments made via the Reply to this comment function.)

Well, how ’bout that.
And yes, the format does catapult the suckiness.
You know, I even miss AMC. She’s not this damn dumb.

Quite a while ago, I read an obit in the Economist of a journalist who did most of his work in radio. He was quoted as saying that you should distrust adjectives in news stories, that they were usually editorial rather than news content.

See “imperial czar.”

But I think news should be about representing both sides; striving for balance and fairness.

Any deviation from the usual MSM dichotomy hurts my brain parts real bad. Thanks for understanding, JNS.

Don’t worry, piper, Jay’s botched a few things in here, like her view that the rest of the world is governed by the Kyoto Treaty.
.
In any event, Jay, one thing you missed, your shot at Fox News notwithstanding, is that Obama himself played up the czars. And when you call a guy a “czar”, you are basically saying that there’s gonna be some real power there. Czars ain’t supposed to be advisers.
.
How long before this twit has to resign:
.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-philbin/2009/10/22/safe-schools-czar-funded-anti-christian-gay-porn-art-exhibit

I never knew you cared.

Here’s something from a long time ago:
.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/244/story/62850.html

Apparently, Robert Byrd had a problem with it too.

Here’s what the WH said when Van Jones was appointed. Clearly, his main role is that of an adviser, so “czar” may be overblown. However, it does appear that he was going to have some implementation duties as well.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/press_releases/march_10_2009/

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/03/10/10greenwire-obamas-green-jobs-handyman-ready-to-serve-10075.html
.
Some more. Looks like Van Jones was going to have a little more than adviser status. Did that make him a czar? Who knows?

So what is a “czar”? Maybe we could get a working definition?

Both sides? If you covered an issue involving NASA would you allow moon hoax conspiracy theorists “equal time”. I believe that about 25% of americans believe that is a hoax, while 20% identify as Republicans.
.
I am not picking on you in particular JNS but this “both sides” thing is the death of the media. There are many assumptions you make without presenting both sides.
.
Motherhood and apple pie are good. The flag is nice. Hitler was evil, the Holocaust was one of history’s greatest horrors.
.
Most people would not disagree with those “givens”. What I think many of us disagree with is that there are many things that should be givens that the Republicans have learned to make “open for debate” that journalists have acquiesced too, in order to present “both sides”. 99% of climate scientists believe in global climate change. Yet 1%, many of whom are funded by people like Exxon “disagree”. We need to present “both sides” for balance.
.
Well, why? If a journalist would ever discuss why things are given, unopen for debate, and others have “two sides”, and how that determination gets made, it would be raining purple unicorns because there is no logical consistency in how this is done, and that is where our cognitive dissonance comes from. If each of the last several presidents had czars, but now one side decides that it is the worst horror ever, a journalist should be under no obligation to do he said/she said reporting on it.

It is in the piece. A czar is an appointee who advises the president, and who plays a role in coordinating policy across agencies. When Ford appointed an energy czar, he was trying to have a single point of contact for energy policy that would work across agencies. this is nothing new, not newsworthy.

I presented both sides of the story. I’ll leave it to columnists and readers to draw their own conclusions on who had the best case.

Amazing. A creationist couldn’t have a better ally in “teaching the controversy.” Sometimes there really is true and false, and it’s the job of a journalist to present objective reality when it can be determined.

“I even miss AMC. She’s not this damn dumb”
.
I see someone hasn’t been reading Ana’s weekly on-line chats with Tucker Carlson.
.
They bring inane and shallow to a level no one thought possible.

That “working definition” really doesn’t get it done, though, right? I think there is an issue here, namely whether the traditional agency chain of command is being undone by the real power in the Administration. Some guy who advises the president and coordinates action doesn’t seem to be that big of an issue, but where the real power is with that guy, there’s the issue. If, to borrow something from history, the czars become the mayors of the palace, then there’s a problem. (Jay should get the reference, given her French connections.)

Okay, admittedly I’m a little late to the pile on, but am I missing something here?

Isn’t this whole “czar” flap is just another juvenile attempt by Republican leaders to get their halfwit supporters foaming at the mouth — “Obama has czars, the soviets had tsars, don’t you see Obama is a closet soviet out to COLLECTIVIZE THE COUNTRY!!!” — and does it take any kind of special knowledge to understand that?

But, they don’t. The “czars” have no policy making authority. They didn’t under Bush. They don’t under Obama. There is no story here.

Wow … it’s strange that a “journalist” is now someone who just quotes two people and puts it into print/onto the Web/on film.

Strange because, when I was in J-school (admittedly some 15 years ago), we were told that our jobs were to TELL THE TRUTH. In fact, that was the entire foundation upon which we were supposed to act as journalists.

This meant that if two people made exactly opposite claims, it was OUR JOB to look up the truth and report it. If that meant pointing out that one side was lying, well, so be it. They were lying and, as a journalist, it was my job to inform the public of the truth. No worries about access. No ideology before reality. Just the truth. Period.

The lack of this foundation is what’s killing your (and my former) profession, Jay. It’s not opinion journalism, not bloggers, not the Internet.

It’s the failure of journalists to report basic, undeniable facts, only to have that failure exposed by others. At that point, consumers realize they’re not getting the full story and stop trusting the industry as a whole. And once you’ve lost that trust, you may as well look for a new job.

So if you want to help not just yourself, but your industry as a whole (and get less rightfully-deserved criticism), try spending more time doing your job, and less time being a glorified Dictaphone.

The best part of that mediamatters post is that they keep updating it every time JNS makes a comment. And as MM points out contra JNS the reason why she won’t have a job long because Time won’t survive is precisely because she doesn’t have either the skill or the courage or both to actually do some f*cking RESEARCH and present the reader with who is right and who is wrong when it comes of matters of fact not opinion. As long as she continues to think that being a stenographer for both sides instead a truth seeker is what her job requires, she and any platform she writes for will continue to go down in flames.
.
Oh and nice try hiding behind the false equivalency of HuffPo and Drudge though. LOL Honestly I only come to this blog to laugh at most of the writers at this point. Yall are setting a record for mediocrity on a mainstream blog. I get 10 times more actual content from TPM or Greg Sargent’s blog every single day.
.
One last thing. Since sites like HuffPo are the future good luck with trying to get a job there after putting them down LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I wouldn’t quite go so far as to say conservatives had the White House the last eight years. Very few conservative principles were espoused during the Bush Admin. Just because someone calls themselves conservative does not make it so. Actions, not rhetoric, illustrate one’s true ideological positions. I’m not sure what you would label the Bush Administration. Certainly not conservative, nor liberal obviously. Perhaps, Federalist.

In my opinion, for most people the issue is not the term “czars,” but the growing expansion of the federal government whereby we have agencies, committees, and appointed leadership over nearly all facets of society. The number of czars is what is troubling. Whether it be under the Bush Admin or Obama’s, it matters not.

Just curious then why there was no uproar about this during the past eight years.
.
In the administration before that, why was Al Gore’s initiative to decrease the size of government (which actually did succeed to a degree) not widely applauded?

Or we can ask why this is not a big story

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=28578

Congressional Bill HR121 comes before congress to ban child prostitution. That’s all the bill does. Party A is sponsoring the Bill. A Party A rep says “This bill will stop this horrific practice dead in its tracks and protect children.” Party B Rep says, “This bill will undermine the rights of private business owners to do business as they see fit, and also will allow members of Party A to promote their socialist agenda. Also it will make hunting snipe illegal.”

Jay Newton-Small/Beltway School of Journalism 101:

“Bill HR121 came before congress today. Party A representative said that the bill will stop a horrific practice, and ban child prostitution. Party B rep said that the bill goes to far, will take away gun owners rights and is socialist. Some say party A is right. Many also agree with party B.”

Real Journalism 101:
“Bill HR121 came before congress today. Party A Rep explained that the bill would stop a horiffic practice and ban child prostitution. Members of Party B incorrectly stated that the bill would take away gun and private business owners rights. After five minutes of investigation, this reporter discovered that in actuality, the bill only bans child prostitution and would have no affect on gun owners or legal private businesses. Party A rep was correct. When asked to respond about making false claims, Party B Rep grew angry and claimed this reporter to be biased.”

Every time I hear the word Lieberman, I want to shriek, but I then calmly remember why he’s caucusing with the dems and want to weep.

And I’m with Shep at 2:38.

I think there is an issue here, namely whether or not the Obama advisors have created anti-gravity machines which they will use to enslave non-whites.
-
Sure, there may not be any evidence for this, and I guess people in Republican administrations have been flying on airplanes routinely for decades, but hey, there might be an issue there. We know because Glenn Beck says so. From his lips to the pages of Time magazine. That’s what journalism is. Facts don’t matter; right wingers’ emotions do.

Phase I: Glenn Beck gins up a fake “controversy”/conspiracy theory

Phase II: Republican leaders and/or Joe Lieberman take up the non-story.

Phase III: MSM reports both sides of the non-story. “Does Glenn Beck have a point? Who can tell? Maybe!”

Phase IV: Reporters chastise blog commenters.

[repeat]

btw, I’m glad the Senate isn’t dealing with any other pressing issues right now.

JNS,
You’re to be congratulated — sort of. You’ve managed to unite the Swamp commenters at both ends of the political spectrum. Virtually everyone finds your article lacking.

Before falling back on the ‘if everyone hates it then I must be doing something right’ cliche, please remember that everyone hates cancer too. And ‘he-said she-said’ reporting is a cancer in modern journalism.

Please take a moment to consider the response your article has received. The people here are telling you how you could be a better, more effective, more successful journalist — if you’re willing to listen. If not, then don’t blame others for ‘killing our profession’.

Wow. I thought I had lost the ability to be shocked. My jaw dropped.
.
Bad enough there was no post on the original Franken amendment, but this should really be news. Of course there isn’t really “another” side.

jay, I tend to disagree on whether it’s an issue. Feingold and Byrd are Dems and they’ve shown an interest. This is probably more of a Congressional rights issue than anything else.

Duplicity. Hypocrisy. Politicking. Who knows? I would add, though, that a large portion of Bush’s expansions dealt with law enforcement, military, intelligence, etc. While these expansions are potentially more dangerous to the sovereignty of the people, I think many people looked past the growing federal government and just saw war. War necessitates such measures. “Silent enim leges inter arma.”
~
However, in the current state of affairs, people are witnessing a expanded role of government in ordinary societal affairs. This expansion, these czars, hit closer to home. Perhaps. This is just off the top of my head, though.

Yeah, thanks for bring this up. Partly because the name of the site makes me laugh, but also because that’s some serious f’d up backroom dealing there and should be mainstream news.

‘Just because someone calls themselves conservative does not make it so’
.
I agree completely. But it’s fair to call the Bush administration a typical REPUBLICAN administration. They pursued corporate friendly policies while ignoring the ‘small government’ mantra — just like all republican administrations have done since St. Reagan.
.
The only recent administration that actually made reductions in the size and cost of government (rather than expanding it) was Clinton — implementing polices developed by Gore.

Please repeat that last bit into your cell phone a little louder…the NSA didn’t catch it. (FISA notwithstanding in this “Time of War(tm)” )
.
Which, actually, brings up a good point: we’re still “warring” in Iraq and Afghanistan….
.
So, where is Obama’s “Get Out of Sh!t Free” card?
.
Didn’t W leave it in the top right drawer like he was supposed to?

I know that it’s cathartic and this is one fine example of journalistic FAIL (especially the explanations/defenses) but it is useless to blame JNS for her approach. These conventions, which (somehow) always wind up elevating corporatist lies and eliminating and/or marginalizing real, liberal viewpoints, are industry wide – from the NY Times to NBC. The tragedy that she and her peers simply cannot confront is that that’s exactly how we’ve arrived at our disastrous, unnecessary wars, reckless deregulation of industry and debilitating tax policies, all promoted by professional liars while the mostly truthful voices opposed to those policies are ignored, even when they reflect the opinions and feelings of the majority of the public. The entire industry is corrupted by these conventions, where empirical truth, objective morality and, apparently, shame, do not exist (in fact, our entire elite establishment and, in turn, our entire society is corrupted by them). That’s why I see no problem with the dissolution of the entire enterprise almost no matter what comes from the ashes – corporatist journalism is simply irredeemable in any model.

I doubt the written equivalency of screaming in Jay’s face, wishing her to be fired, telling her she sucks, etc. etc. etc. will make her change …or the other swamp reporters …or anyone else, even those here, but I digress.

can someone please tell me why it is so damn difficult for reporters to decide if something is true or not. someone in this post lying, but for some reason, news people now find convenient to just present both sides and walk away and tell the public, “hey, you guys figure it out”. if this is the way you do your job, you are unnecessary. just get the talking points from both sides and publish them. see, it will be very easy, no muss, no fuss, no thought. please tell your editors that i have figured a way to save money, just eliminate your position, let an intern pick up the materials and post them.

“I presented both sides of the story. I’ll leave it to columnists and readers to draw their own conclusions on who had the best case.”

Pathetic. You and David “It’s not our role” Gregory should get together on a show called Who Cares What The Truth Is?

I try to maintain a fairly civil tone when discussing the various articles submitted for our consideration. It’s not because I necessarily agree with the views presented, it’s because I WANT a f’ing “1000 Words” on a regular basis! I want one we can rip to shreds. Where are the Bachman, Sharpton, Beck, Limbaugh or O’Donnel photos?
.
Don’t make me get down on my knees and beg. I don’t enjoy being humilated. Unless of course I’m paying for it and she has a riding crop.

It’s a shame I don’t do blog comments while at work anymore. All I wanted was to get in here with the rest of the rabble and yell at JNS for being so lousy at her job.

decon, I do appreciate your positive tone, but I don’t think that telling JNS that she’s doing a fine job will get her to change, either.
.
As others have pointed out here, she’s an exemplar of the problem with modern mainstream journalism, and there’s nothing we anonymous commenters can do that will change that.

Sacred: In leau of a 1000 words, I found this picture on the time.com/politics page:
.
(link) http://www.time.com/time/politics
.
My captions would read:
“Obama: The Man who Stares at Goats”,
or
“Obama: The Man who Stares at Dolts”,
or
“Must…Stop…Fist…of…Death….”
.
yours?

Is that what this fuss is all about? The use of the word “czar”?
.
Is this more important than the fact that the first historical record of a fart was in King Clovis’s court in France in the 10th century?

sgw: Nice to see you back. Back for good or just a drive-by?

kbang:
.
One hand on each side of his neck, a quick twist and I get another Nobel Peace Prize

Idi Amin said they taste like chicken.

His Indian name is Dances with Wingnuts.

I’ll bet he’s wearing McCain’s underwear.

OT, but I think I’m coming down with the flu. Don’t anybody touch my posts and if you read them aloud, gargle. Off to work to infect everybody.

That’s right…fall asleep during my meeting…jus’ see if you wake up!

First time poster, longtime Swampland reader here with some observations. Every Swampland article goes pretty much like this-

(1) one of the blog authors post something.

(2) If its a subject the commentariat is not interested in or dislikes as a whole (see: Amy Sullivan, religion) they screech and screech and screech about “why is this news” and “why did you post this.” Author derided as slave to corporate MSM.

(3) If its a subject the commentariat is interested in, but the article was not written the way any individual commentor wants (down to the last comma and semicolon) said commentator screeches and screeches and screeches about “why didn’t you write it exactly taking the viewpoint of [insert my specific idiosyncratic variant of leftist opinion]. Author derided as slave to corporate MSM.

(4) Commentors continue to hurl insults at the post author for not meeting their journalist ideal of British partisan journalism, circa 1900.

(5) Once a thread, someone comments on the substantive point of the post without mentioning the lack of journalism skills of the author.

…is it any wonder the authors consider you commentors as blazing crazies?

Jay Newton-Small:

Thanks so much for responding to commentary.

Commenters:
.
Thanks so much for criticizing Jay Newton-Small when she tries to take refuge from criticism by use of the He Said/She Said convention.
.
When news users’ criticisms near the weight of idiot editors’ criticisms, journalists will begin to lose He Said/She Said.

Awesome:
.
“The entire industry is corrupted by these conventions, where empirical truth, objective morality and, apparently, shame, do not exist (in fact, our entire elite establishment and, in turn, our entire society is corrupted by them). That’s why I see no problem with the dissolution of the entire enterprise almost no matter what comes from the ashes – corporatist journalism is simply irredeemable in any model.”
.
I’ve swung by twice today, had vague ideas about what I’d like to express, and then found you’ve beaten me to it, and in kick-arse form no less.

I’m with Decon & Cliff–neither “you suck” nor “you rock” has much impacted Swamp coverage over the years. When it gets particularly hostile they may not comment, but even when all parties are kissy-pooh, CW is still thick as spit.
.
Their institution cratering, they’ve clearly decided to double down on the same failed practices, hoping to miraculously achieve diff results. The fact that the audience is displeased is, from their skewed perspective, a reflection about us as opposed to the caliber of their work, and how utterly irrelevant and banal it seems in a changed world. They’re still writing at a pre-info age audience.

I have been reading Swampland for a while now, and find most contributors intelligent and provocative. Except for those who preface their comments with name-calling and who post irrelevant material just for the sake of posting it, who are a real turn-off, I learn a lot from the rest of the posters.
.
On this particular article, here is my take:
.
I agree with those who conclude that JNS SHOULD HAVE GIVEN US THE FACTS INSTEAD OF LEAVING US OUT TO DRY. Unfortunately, this is what we see in the media nowadays. All the confusion about health care reform (today’s hot topic, just to name one), could be put to rest if the media would give us facts instead of run-arounds. I don’t want to hear the media regurgitate what Glenn, or Rush, or Rachel, or Keith have to say. I want to hear or read how they misconstrued the facts (if they have at all – wink wink), and THEN give us the truth. The problem with this, of course, is that the majority of us are so accustomed by now to hearing slanted “news” that we would mistrust anyone who would even try to give straight forward facts. Because we don’t trust them, we then think it should be up to us to find out the truth, and use our own resources. Those resources could be slanted too. We form our opinions based on what we read, and our own beliefs. But, if the source is biased, our opinion is tainted. Journalists should guide us by giving us facts and only facts, with no opinion. Once opinion is injected, it is called “commentary”, not news. Nothing wrong with that, but opinions are swayed this way. If no facts are given, reporting is empty, it is just a story, with no use to us as citizens.
.
I also agree with the fact that the probe and scrutiny of Obama’s czars is suspicious and malicious. And, asking for a report on their progress and activities? Treating them like school children? This lack of respect was not shown to the previous administrations. What is different? Please don’t tell me there is controversy with one or two of these czars. If there is, this should be dealt on a one-on-one basis, without meriting a Senate Committee hearing. Glenn Beck should not be dictating what our government should or should not be doing. Where have we gone if this is the case?

Well, me and decon fall on different sides of the line.
He defaults to niceness and encouragement, I default to insults and demands for the end of JNS’ job.

That was the J-school principle forty years ago too. It remained pretty much constant until boardroom weasels decided it was more important to consider the marketing consequences of the Right’s “liberal media” anti-information campaign.

That was the J-school principle forty years ago too. It remained pretty much constant until boardroom weasels decided it was more important to consider the marketing consequences of the Right’s “liberal media” anti-information campaign.

(Please disregard duplicate posting below at #52 – it’s a case of old dog-vs.-new media)

“Well, me and decon fall on different sides of the line.
He defaults to niceness and encouragement, I default to insults and demands for the end of JNS’ job.”
.
No, I got that Cliff. But IMO, you’re both right. Insults don’t work and neither do roses. Any of us here trying to impact MSM coverage, create meaningful dialogue, or craft some utopian collaborative approach, well, let’s just say we’d be as delusional as a certain commenter who cannot be named.

I’ve tried in the past to give JNS the benefit of the doubt but holy Sheep-sh!T!!!
.
Unfortunately, reliably unbiased news is harder and harder to come by these days because news agencies are trying to cater to people like you: people who prefer to view the world through one lens or another but rarely both.
.
I blame post-modernism. A world where there is no truth and even science is a cultural activity may appeal to a certain generation. But it doesn’t comport to reality.
.
So sad…….

These media problems have been around a looooong time …think yellow journalism, Hearst vs. Pulitzer, etc. Hearst probably did NOT say, “You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war” (Spanish-American War, not Iraq), but the corporate media 100 years ago may have been as bad as today. Remember that even Walter Cronkite fought CBS management a lot. So why dump all of the blame for media demise on Jay, or Amy, or…? I do have a mild disagreement with Jay (*gasp*) about partisan news vs. neutral (#14.1). Given success from Marcy Wheeler and others, there can be room for both. Cenk Uygur says this better than I can –
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-the-white-house-is-10_b_325986.html

That’s why I love it here. It’s like having another dysfunctional family with the added bonus that I can leave when I want too and I don’t have to feed them.

I’ll confess to continue tossing flowers now and then – esp. to KT, Jay, and Amy – but maybe all is not totally lost. Individually we might feed crickets but collectively our pressure may change things. Slowly. Really slowly. Just by clicking online for news instead of buying papers we’re changing the biz model. For the public option debate, perhaps enough squawking has kept this alive – Nate Silver opened this piece by pondering this…
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/why-less-pure-public-option-is-possibly.html

Historical ledes, as written by Jay Newton-Small:

“Anonymous sources tie Nixon administration to Watergate break in; Nixon denies knowledge, cover-up. You decide who is right.”

“America celebrates first steps on Moon while some skeptics say the event was fabricated. You decide who is right.”

“Pearl Harbor attacked in massive strike; Axis diplomats express suprise and deny involvement. You decide who is right.”

Time Magazine. Obama buttsniffin’ liberal rag. Nuff said.

PNTTO:
As you probably have noticed by now, the pdf of the letter was posted yesterday.
JNS

[...] when pressed on this little problem in the comments, the article’s author, Jay Newton-Small replied: “I presented both sides of the story. I’ll leave it to columnists and readers to draw [...]

[...] Lieberman Takes on Obama’s Czars There aren’t many Democrats that would be willing to take on their own White House on the sensitive topic of czars [...] [...]

[...] Newton-Small, responding to criticism of her Time Magazine article on White House [...]