Robert Scheer, Muckraker, on Ramparts' Warren Hinckle

I was privileged to meet Robert Scheer from USC Annenberg's School of Communications and Journalism in Berkeley, California on April 29, 2018. 

Scheer, along with William Hinckle, was one of America's original muckrakers. Some of his work influenced MLK's opposition to the Vietnam War, which eventually led to Daniel Ellsberg's whistleblowing. At Berkeley's Book Fest, Scheer discussed working with Warren Hinckle, lesser known than Hunter S. Thompson but arguably a much better writer.

On motivation: "What drove Warren [Hinckle] was journalism." "His success was a rebuke of mainstream journalism... [he was] forging a connection with the anti-war movement and the civil rights movement. We were the start of whistleblower journalism."

On mainstream media: Even the New York Times condemned Martin Luther King. Every single mainstream newspaper has [initially] supported every one of America's wars. In fact, "Martin Luther King's condemnation of the Vietnam War was [itself] condemned by the New York Times."

On whether Warren would have been more famous among New York's hoi polloi: "If we'd been on the East Coast, we'd have been unpublished!" [i.e., too much competition and too many existing outlets and power players]

On David Horowitz's criticism of Ramparts: "Fred Mitchell saved Ramparts... [you can criticize how we spent money but] we didn't pay most or our bills because we declared Chapter 11 [bankruptcy]... [In all seriousness] we lost money [not because of mismanagement] but because of the positions we took. We reported on the Six Day War [and then had pro-Israel Martin Peretz and Dick Russell, two of the magazine's shareholders, withdraw their money, 1 million USD, from Ramparts]. We reported on Malcolm X [when no one else was doing so]." 

Bonus: Steve Wasserman on Warren Hinckle: "Every story he told was true, even the unbelievable ones." "Warren was on the side of the little people... He couldn't bear hypocrisy." 

Justice Hugo Black on State Secrets

Justice Hugo Black, concurring opinion, joined by Justice William Douglas, New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) 403 U.S. 713, 717:

The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic... [P]aramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die...

More here.

Gov Employee Pensions Bankrupting New York

MARY WILLIAMS WALSH and AMY SCHOENFELD discuss public sector pensions in the NYT. See HERE for more:

In fact, the cost of public pensions has been systemically underestimated nationwide for more than two decades, say some analysts. By these estimates, state and local officials have promised $5 trillion worth of benefits while thinking they were committing taxpayers to roughly half that amount.

As they say, a trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon, we're talking about real money. Sigh.

Bonus: "Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want and their kids pay for it." -- Richard Lamm

Economy is Linked in Strange Ways

Until this year, I had been a loyal Wall Street Journal subscriber. I usually paid less than $200 for an annual subscription, but last year, the WSJ decided to increase the price to over $300/yr. I balked. For a while, I received only the local paper. The WSJ would call me once a month--usually very early in the morning--to try to get me to renew, but the sales rep wouldn't budge on the price.

After a few months, I grew tired of the local paper and signed with the New York Times, but just its Sunday edition. Some time thereafter, the WSJ sent me a renewal request with a price I was willing to pay. Apparently, if you wait 180 days between WSJ subscriptions, the WSJ finally offers you its "old" or "original" price, which--last time I checked--is less than $200. By this time, however, I thoroughly enjoyed the New York Times, especially its "Modern Love" Sunday pieces, and was unwilling to go back to the WSJ.

Why should anyone care about my newspaper habits? Because even small consumer habits, in the aggregate, create ripple effects. When I was receiving the weekday WSJ, I would go to Panera Bread (PNRA) for coffee and a cobblestone pastry every weekday. But once I stopped receiving the weekday paper, I skipped my Panera Bread morning outing. That eliminates over a thousand dollars from Panera's annual revenue, and they did nothing to lose my business--the Dow Jones & Company (NWSA), owner of the WSJ, caused me to change my morning habits with its strange marketing strategies. Now, with a much longer and more informative Sunday paper, I spend more time on the weekend at my local coffeeshop, which is usually Peet's Coffee (PEET). Dow Jones & Company basically transferred some of my money from Panera Bread to Peet's Coffee and Tea. Yet, no one at the WSJ intended Panera to lose my business and Peet's Coffee to gain it.

What is the point of this story? Basically, the economy is extremely difficult to manage because of the potential for unintended results. When the government tries to fix the economy, it, too, creates unintended consequences. Right now, we don't know the exact nature of those consequences, but at some point, we will be able to study how the stimulus package created unintended winners and losers. I agree that Congress should limit leverage on Wall Street. At the same time, Americans are losing sight of the big picture when it comes to federal spending. For example, the portion of the federal budget dedicated to defense spending continues to increase. It is now 23% of the entire federal budget. TARP, which many Americans bitterly protested, was only 4% of the 2009 federal budget. The ever-increasing defense budget has more than just financial consequences. Over 4,200 American soldiers have died in Iraq. Over 30,000 American soldiers have been injured in Iraq. Yet, many Americans, encouraged by mass media, pay more attention to "tea parties," golfer Tiger Woods' personal life, sports, and reality television. And so it goes.

Gender Gap

From NYT, April 18, 2010, Sunday Business, page 8:

Women account for just 6 percent of the chief executives of the top 100 tech companies, and 22 percent of the software engineers at tech companies over all, according to the National Center for Women and Information Technology. And among venture capitalists, the population of financiers who control the purse strings for a majority of tech start-ups, just 14 percent are women.

Interesting.

O' Canada: a Cheat Sheet

Courtesy of the NYT and Bruce Headlam, HERE is a hilarious "cheat sheet" on Canada. Below is my favorite part:

Canada has two national symbols, the Maple Leaf, a symbol of nature and growth, and the Beaver, which represents industry and loyalty.

According to Roman legend, the beaver, when cornered, will chew off its testicles and offer them up to the attacker. Modern biologists have dismissed this as myth. Beaver will only chew off their testicles if you ask nicely. But that’s our point: you have to ask.

Like I said, it's hilarious.

NY Predicts 47 Billion Dollar Deficit

NY forecasts a budget deficit of 47 billion dollars over the next four years:

LA Times Article

Over the next four years, New York must confront a budget gap of $47 billion...Projected state budget deficits nationwide are expected to total at least $100 billion by fiscal 2010.

Almost sounds small when compared to 700 billion...almost.

New York Times v. Sullivan: Should the NYT Go Private?

The New York Times reports earnings on July 23, 2008. Its stock price has declined as younger readers eschew newspapers for the internet. The NYT's reporting itself is still stellar--its recent reports on the economy have been fantastic, and its charts and easy-to-read graphs showing various economic statistics are unparalleled. Many outlets use the NYT's links or re-publish their articles and statistics, so demand isn't the NYT's problem. The real issue is monetization: "How does the NYT maintain its dual roles as a pillar of news reporting, which requires wide distribution, and as a public corporation, which requires more cash flow to please shareholders?" Both aims are not necessarily synonymous, because free content is more widely distributed, while paid content reaches a smaller audience. These conflicting aims render the NYT heavily dependent on advertising dollars, which are being shifted more to Google and other internet outlets. If Google's recent earnings results are any indication, the NYT may have a difficult future. Still, cash flow is not everything, and the NYT's reputation is still gold in terms of goodwill.

It is vitally important to remember that the NYT is directly responsible for one of the defining legal principles of our country--free speech. Every American should read Justice Brennan's opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964):

The First Amendment, said Judge Learned Hand, "presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many this is, and always will be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all." United States v. Associated Press, 52 F. Supp. 362, 372 (D.C. S. D. N. Y. 1943). Mr. Justice Brandeis, in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375 -376, gave the principle its classic formulation:

"Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law - the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed."

Thus we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.

To summarize the decision, American libel law after the NYT case made it very difficult for a public figure to sue someone for criticism. Europeans and Singaporeans, in contrast, sacrifice free speech for more civility. This remarkable difference would not exist had the New York Times not chosen to fight a libel judgment all the way to the Supreme Court. Today, one wonders if the NYT would have authorized such legal fees for the sake of principle. Would shareholders today agree to receive fewer dividends if it meant spending money to establish a long-term legal principle? The more I think about it, the more I believe the New York Times and newspapers should go back to being privately held so they can focus on long-term trends rather than short-term shareholder whims. Perhaps the earnings release on July 23, 2008 will force that result if it is bad enough. If earnings are good, we win because NYT's stock goes up; and if earnings are poor, we win, because we might get a newspaper more focused on reporting, not pleasing shareholders.

Indeed, America's Founders--as much as they hated their newspapers (just ask Alexander Hamilton, whose affair was exposed by the media, making him the original Bill Clinton)--intended media outlets to be the "fourth pillar" of government, keeping it in check. But as media have consolidated operations and focused on profit, it is hard to see any real criticism of government policies. Having hundreds of channels and outlets competing for our attention has fractured the public and its ability to engage in deliberative democracy. Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart aside, where are our modern-day Edward R. Murrows? It is a sad and telling commentary on today's media that the most critical pundits of government policies are a former sports newscaster (Olbermann) and a comedian (Stewart). As good as they are, we deserve better.

Here are some excerpts from the Supreme Court's decision:

Justice Black:

[S]tate libel laws threaten the very existence of an American press virile enough to publish unpopular views on public affairs and bold enough to criticize the conduct of public officials...We would, I think, more faithfully interpret the First Amendment by holding that at the very least it leaves the people and the press free to criticize officials and discuss public affairs with impunity...I doubt that a country can live in freedom where its people can be made to suffer physically or financially for criticizing their government, its actions, or its officials...An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment.

Justice Goldberg is even better:

In my view, the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution afford to the citizen and to the press an absolute, unconditional privilege to criticize official conduct despite the harm which may flow from excesses and abuses...The theory of our Constitution is that every citizen may speak his mind and every newspaper express its view on matters of public concern and may not be barred from speaking or publishing because those in control of government think that what is said or written is unwise, unfair, false, or malicious. In a democratic society, one who assumes to act for the citizens in an executive, legislative, or judicial capacity must expect that his official acts will be commented upon and criticized...Our national experience teaches that repressions breed hate and "that hate menaces stable government."

Justice Brandeis from WHITNEY v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) (a Bay Area/Alameda County trial case):

Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.