The gutter press

Gawker savages a Sunday Times piece that claims New York City has lost its edge. Gawker’s Foster Kamer gives about a dozen reasons why New York City is superior to London. The ensuing discussion takes place on a pretty elite level, a small coterie of people who’ve lived/worked/studied in both NY and London and can intelligently offer comments on the merits of Beckett on the West End versus Beckett on Broadway, for instance.

One line of Kamer’s critique of London stood out as particularly insightful. Kramer remarks of London,

Your tabloid newspapers make the New York Post look like The Paris Review.

Now, I know American journalism has its problems. Some are just insoluble issues of journalistic ethics writ large, like Okrent’s Law, “The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true.” There are issues around anonymous sourcing, someone commented the New York Times could be renamed “government officials say,” criticizing the practice of uncritically repeating anonymously sourced information. The management of relationships with sources also poses problems, for instance profiles of administration figures that are essentially flattering puff pieces used to curry favor with potentially valuable sources (beat sweeteners) seem like skating pretty close to quid pro quo to me. There’re numerous other issues, the news becoming infotainment, or political journalism covering the horserace aspect of politics rather than the policy issues, or the economic problems of journalism.

But compared to the UK, the US media landscape seems positively healthy. The tabloids’ sensational screams are more consequential in the UK than any tabloid in the US. The largest circulation papers in the US and UK are fundamentally different types of publication. In the US the serious papers beat out the tabloids, in the UK the tabloids beat out the serious papers. The largest circulation papers in the US are the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, and then the Daily News and New York Post (Wikipedia). You get pretty far into the list before you reach a tabloid. In the UK the largest circulation papers are The Sun, the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Star, the Daily Express, then the Times, the Financial Times, and the Guardian (Wikipedia). Serious newspapers pop up here and there in the UK list, but they do not dominate.

More important than circulation figures of top papers, who is capable of driving the news coverage of other media outlets? In the US the New York Times dominates. You can form a pretty accurate forecast of what will be in the network newscasts by reading the New York Times. The Times and papers of its caliber play an important role in steering the journalism community towards the more serious events of the day. Journalists from these upper tier outlets will be the people who appear on Washington Week in Review, Charlie Rose, the Sunday political talk shows, and other US media. In the UK the journalistic landscape is less hierarchical; editors and journalists from the tabloids appear elsewhere in the UK media. It is not that I have something against the tabloid journalists personally, but the whole ethos of the tabloid newspaper is distinct from that of the more staid news organizations.

Tabloids are sensational. They will pay for stories; they will dig through divorces and drug addictions. They will tell you about the sex lives of celebrities, or non-celebrities, whatever sells. The screaming headline need not correspond to the body of the story; oftentimes there are significant nuances that are bulldozed by the headline, or the story itself. The prejudices of the paper are brought to the fore, there isn’t even a gesture towards objectivity or fairness. When you simplify and remove all the caveats, you get a substantially different tenor of news. You get hyperventilating mirroring the worst excesses of bad science journalism, PhD Comics’ excellent skewering here and here.
This outraged coverage overshadows the occasional worthy tabloid story or campaign.

Given the failings of other parts of the British media landscape, I’m thankful for the BBC.

Tear down these walls

Deterritorialization – political science-speak for the decreasing relevance of borders. In discussions of globalization, it is possible to overstate the mobility of goods and people in this new age of connectivity. Living outside the US, I see various barriers impeding progress towards further mobility. Possibly trivial, but outside the US, Hulu, Youtube, and Dailymotion country limitations are a nuisance, while inside the US, no access to BBC iPlayer. Given rights restrictions, the Great Firewall of China is not the only impediment to the free flow of information online. Internet gripes aside, still far more important roadblocks to mobility persist.

Another barrier, the exceptionally silly US proposal for a tourism tax. As a consequence, others nations are likely to impose retaliatory taxes on Americans going abroad (CT, FT). Nicknamed the Mickey Tax due to the advocacy of the Disney Corporation, the proposal would require visitors to the US to pay $15 and register their visit three days prior to departing for the US. Five dollars would go towards security measures, $10 would go towards a $200 million tourism promotion fund. As the EU Ambassador to the US said,

The proposed $10 penalty for entering the United States is being sold as a ‘tourist promotion’ measure, but only in Alice in Wonderland could a penalty be seen as promoting the activity on which it is imposed. (FT)

I would add, random administrative fees are also a nuisance; do we really need a $6 administrative fee for entry into the US via Mexico or Canada? Do we really need to nickel and dime visitors and visa-seekers this way?

A friend from East Asia who’s a PhD student in Europe described the US visa application process to me: Nightmare. She would like to attend a conference in the US, which is fine as long as she applies two dozen years in advance and is willing to give the US her firstborn child, then maybe, just maybe the US will let her in. Of course, the US is not the only offender. A friend from Eastern Europe, an EU member state mind you, got to the final stages of jobs at two Brussels consultancies only to be stymied at the last minute by work permit rules. In one instance, she had already received a job offer. Yet another frustrating nightmare (when accession was negotiated various Western European states decided to phase in the bedrock EU principle of free movement of people as applied to the new Eastern European members). These women have three masters degrees and speak five languages between them. Why all these hurdles?

The US quota for skilled worker visas (H-1B) is as silly as taxing tourists for daring to visit the US. To their discredit, the Tories would like to impose a similar annual cap on UK immigration. In an exchange with Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Bill Gates pointed out that skilled workers are going to be hired; it is just a matter of where. Rohrabacher commented that the goal shouldn’t be to replace American B students with Indian A students, Gates replied,

And what I’ve said here is that when we bring in these world-class engineers, we create jobs around them. …so the B and C students are the ones who get those jobs around these top engineers. And if these top engineers are forced to work, say in India, we will hire the B and C students from India to work around them. (Transcript)

Beyond lifting the quota on skilled worker visas, the US should take affirmative steps to recruit and retain the highly skilled. In an age of connectivity and competing knowledge economies, the government need act as an especially insightful human resources department. As Thomas Friedman suggests, we should be,

stapling green cards to the diplomas of each of these foreign-born PhD’s. …any foreign student who gets a PhD in our country – in any subject – should be offered citizenship. I want them. The idea that we actually make it difficult for them to stay is crazy. (NYT)

I’d go further than Friedman and offer permission to study or work in the US to graduates of top universities – wherever the university. There are numerous rankings of world universities that could be used as guidelines as to which schools should qualify. The US ratifying the Lisbon Convention, recognizing qualifications across borders, would be a good start (the US is already has already signed). Also, I’d want to get rid of visa-related hassles, like fees and limitations of spouses working; eschew red tape, streamline the visa process. Ideally for prospective workers, this systematic dismantling of barriers to labor movement would be a reciprocal enterprise – I’d imagine the OECD (or ILO) working to lower barriers. Even if undertaken unilaterally, breaking down these barriers would exploit – in the best sense of the word – the US comparative advantage of being a fairly tolerant, open society. President Obama, tear down these walls.

(Perhaps more on the unskilled or undocumented later.)

Happy families

“All happy families resemble one another, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” – Leo Tolstoy

Saying Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s film Tokyo Sonata is about a dysfunctional family is like saying King Lear is about a dysfunctional family – an accurate description of sorts, but wholly inadequate. While watching the film I had two visions of the type of film this was, and it declared simple my first vision and upended my second. My first vision was that Tokyo Sonata offered a critique of patriarchy, the resonant feminist refrain that patriarchy devours all, men and women alike. Patriarchy traps both sexes in roles that are ultimately destructive to individuality. It’s as though Tokyo Sonata replied, this is an excavation and you’ve only gotten a few centimeters into a major dig.

My second vision was that Tokyo Sonata was a tragedy, resembling Requiem for a Dream in dismantling every member of the family: these are flawed people and we’re going to show in grim, excruciating detail the consequences of these flaws. I’m really glad that the film did not wholly satisfy either of my visions, the feminist analysis or the object lesson in human frailty. I’m glad because then it would be like car chases and exploding things, which no doubt have their time and place in movie-making, but are easily encapsulated. Tokyo Sonata left things altogether more murky, no tidy boxes with bows. I’ll have to see it again. And of course, I’d highly recommend it.

Lisbon!

With Czech ratification of the Lisbon Treaty the European Union has ended a nearly decade long journey of negotiations, ratifications, referenda, and more negotiations, ratifications and referenda. Intense politicking has taken place across 27 EU members to get to this point (BBC).

Now the hard work begins.

The logic of the EU is simple. This set of nations has much to gain from pooling sovereignty. Separately, various European nations are middling or minor powers; together Europe is a superpower (at least economically on par with the United States). Additionally, binding European nations together tightly promotes peace and prevents future cataclysmic conflagrations (WWI, WWII). European officials promoting Lisbon repeatedly invoke Europe on a world stage, if Europe does not come together Beijing and Washington will run the world. An additional benefit, which I don’t think other international organizations have leveraged, the EU allows European nations an extra opportunity to influence global affairs. In addition to serving as an anteroom for forming European consensus in other forums (e.g. the World Bank), the EU is itself recognized as an actor, the EU is a member of the G20.

For me, this argument in favor the EU is compelling. The argument for the EU is especially compelling to many European political elites. But the pesky public keeps getting in the way of grand designs. No less than three no votes in the path to Lisbon (France, Holland, and Ireland) even though Lisbon falls far short of the federalists’ grandest design for a United States of Europe. Instead, Lisbon aims for the less lofty goal of making a 27-member EU function more coherently. Streamline here, eliminate duplication there, and remove some national vetoes. Euro-enthusiasts, like me, were onboard from the start. What to do about that pesky public though? That is, short of following Bertolt Brecht’s wry suggestion, “dissolve the people and elect another.”

I say “pesky public” to tweak the euro-enthusiasts. Treating the public like unwelcome guests at the state formation party is unsustainable. Europe does not belong to the eurocrats, it belongs to the 400 million European citizens. Surefire, quick-fix methods for conjuring a European polity being in short supply, I can only offer the following two suggestions.

First, don’t be afraid of the heavy hitters, big beasts, the best and the brightest, or goats (governments of all the talents). A mélange of American and British ways of saying, big important people should take big important posts. Not an endorsement of Tony Blair to be president of the European Council, but he definitely has world standing in his favor. A euroskeptic MEP remarked that everyone’s third choice usually gets these jobs, resulting in low profile, non-entities in major posts. I would suggest this is not the way forward. With a presidency whose term is two and a half years (renewable once, five years max), the EU has the opportunity to make its case to the European public. “Credit claiming” is the fairly dry term political scientists ascribe to the practice of crowing about accomplishments. Someone in Europe needs to say proudly, “I did that!” Otherwise national politicians take all the credit for the good things Europe does, while pinning all the painful or difficult decisions on the EU (conveniently omitting their own responsibility in creating European laws). This imbalance of credit claiming means the EU’s image gets affixed to a hodgepodge of unpopular policies – with a number of untruths about European directives floating about as well. Euromyths like the ban on crooked bananas, the renaming of a snack food Bombay Mix (Mumbai Mix), the renaming of sausages (emulsified high-fat offal tube), or the renaming of yoghurt (mild, alternate-culture, heat-treated fermented milk) (BBC).

Second, pursue multilingualism. Mother tongue plus two additional languages (M+2) is the official policy of the EU (EurActiv). Those countries with the most monolingual citizens need to work to catch up to the multilingual nations. Language education from an early age could make a difference. In September Charlemagne’s Notebook commented,

But what jumps out at me is the grim statistic about language learning in Britain. One column reports on upper secondary students in EU countries who do not study foreign languages at all. This line in the table shows a line of tiny numbers: lots of zeroes, a couple of low percentages (eg, 3.9% of Spanish teenagers learn no foreign languages at school, a blip for Ireland (18.8% without language lessons) and then comes Britain, where more than half of all schoolchildren in upper secondary education (51.4%) learn no foreign languages at all. This is, of course, the result of a deliberate government policy. In 2003, foreign languages became voluntary for pupils in England and Wales over 14. And there you have the results. Europe is becoming bilingual, except for Britons, who are becoming monolingual.

Yes, Europe is incredibly rich to have so many languages so close together. But it means educators have to redouble efforts to create a European citizenry that can communicate with each other. Europeans need to have the realistic prospect of moving elsewhere to work or study. A more multilingual Europe opens those possibilities up beyond Erasmus students (formally European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students).

Altogether, the pro-EU elites scorn the masses at their peril. Short term victories could be endangered by backlash and retrenchment. One can only call for do-overs of referenda so many times. The trick of turning the EU Constitution into the Lisbon Treaty also seems like a stunt that can only be pulled the once. Far better to engage the public with an eye toward creating a durable European polity.

Interrogate income inequality

Cato Unbound tackles the meaning and consequences of income inequality this month. Will Wilkinson opens with a further development of his paper, “Thinking Clearly about Economic Inequality” (pdf). Wilkinson presents his three core points as,

1. The level of real economic inequality is lower than popular treatments of the issue have led many of us to think.
2. The level of economic inequality is an unreliable indicator of a society’s justice or injustice.
3. Inequality distracts us from real injustices that are given too little attention.

I think he is wrong on all three counts.*

In order to argue that real economic inequality is lower than the income inequality figures suggest, Wilkinson urges us to shift from a measure of economic inequality based on income to a measure of inequality based on consumption,

Suppose you made a million dollars last year and put all but $50,000 of it in a shoebox Now imagine you lose the box. What good did that $950,000 do you? Maybe it purchased some temporary peace of mind. It’s certainly reassuring to know that you have resources at your disposal. But it likely did rather less for your well-being than did the $50,000 you spent on housing, food, entertainment, health care, transportation, gadgets, toys, and so on. (p. 4)

Wilkinson has gently glossed over the difference in exposure to risk when he remarks, maybe the extra $950,000 has bought you some temporary peace of mind (after all, who goes bankrupt due to health costs?) The difference between fifty thousand and a million is vulnerability. You are exposed to exogenous shocks, like global economic downturns, poor health, natural disasters, etc. It’s difficult to quantify the cost of exposure, but the (multi-billion dollar) insurance industry exists precisely to hedge against these kinds of dangers – that is, if you can afford insurance. Hedging against risk is a valuable thing indeed. (A good lens through which to view this discussion, the Australian Treasury’s Well-being Framework here)

Additionally, the extra income buys opt-outs. Unsatisfactory local schools, you can opt-out of that – move to a better school district or send your kids to private school. Medical care in your city not up to par, you can opt-out – travel to a medical facility that specializes in your illness. Local authorities considering building something loud, smelly, inconvenient, or unsightly near your manicured McMansion or penthouse, lo and behold, money helps with that too; there’s a pretty strong case to be made that NIMBY and income inequality intersect in ways that don’t redound the benefit of the less equitable scenarios. “In Longstanding Plan for Met Expansion, Battle Line is Fifth Avenue” (NYT), or Googling this will bring up a good deal of relevant environmental equity literature: “Commission for Racial Justice United Church of Christ. Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States; A National Report on the Racial and Socio-economic Characteristics of Communities with Hazardous Waste Sites”. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to propose that extensive opt-outs for certain sections of society have invidious consequences for everyone else (witness America’s experience with segregation).

Wilkinson continues, the consumption optic for measuring inequality makes sense because more people have access to more and better stuff, like refrigerators and cars; in the early 20th century, only the rich had access to this quality of life. He adds, the quality of the goods we have access to is pretty high, or at least good enough to get the job done,

The Sub-Zero PRO 48, which the manufacturer calls “a monument to food preservation,” costs about $11,000, compared with a paltry $350 for the IKEA Energisk B18 W. The lived difference, however, is rather smaller than that between having fresh meat and milk and having none. The IKEA model will keep your beer just as cold as the Sub-Zero model. (p. 6)

Here, Wilkinson makes a good point, as far as it goes. When talking about a certain fixed set of material goods that make day-to-day life easier, yes, the serf and the lord of the manor may possess neat stuff; and yes, the distinction between no-frills and all bells and whistles means less. However, there is a class of goods, hinted at in the discussion of opt-outs, that is obscured by focusing on cars and fridges. Here, I’m going to steer clear of a discussion of Rawls’ primary goods and head towards addressing Wilkinson’s second claim, “The level of economic inequality is an unreliable indicator of a society’s justice or injustice.” Next post.

* Some disclosures (read, admissions of ignorance): First, I’m not an economist; the dismal science and I only share passing acquaintance. Second, perhaps relatedly, where I am as a pseudo-possibly future academic/researcher I do a whole lot more qualitative research than quantitative research. Finally, possibly unrelatedly, I’m looking forward to the follow-up discussion at Cato Unbound, hopefully the respondents will present the uncluttered version of what is here cluttered.

Congratulations President Obama

The dignified response to news that Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

Imagine if Bush and Blair won the Nobel Peace Prize. The Weekly Standard wouldn’t stop crowing about it, well, ever; there would certainly be at least as many cheers in their office as for Chicago’s 2016 Olympics bid failing. I’m sure commentators at the Wall Street Journal wouldn’t refer to awarding the accolade as “completely bizarre”. I doubt there would be calls for Bush and Blair to return the prize.

As Demond Tutu said, “It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama’s message of hope.” (BBC). Personally, I’m looking forward to Obama’s Nobel Lecture. Looking over some past Nobel acceptances, Obama will have some tough competition,

Therefore, I must ask why this prize is awarded to a movement which is beleaguered and committed to unrelenting struggle; to a movement which has not won the very peace and brotherhood which is the essence of the Nobel Prize.

After contemplation, I conclude that this award which I receive on behalf of that movement is a profound recognition that nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time – the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression. Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts. Negroes of the United States, following the people of India, have demonstrated that nonviolence is not sterile passivity….

I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the “is-ness” of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal “ought-ness” that forever confronts him. I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsom and jetsom in the river of life, unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.

I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction.
– Nobel Acceptance Speech, Martin Luther King Jr.

The G20 Needs a Home

With the London and Pittsburgh summits the G20 has come of age. The management of the global economic system at the head of state/government level has decisively shifted from the G7/G8 grouping to the more inclusive G20. But like its predecessors, the G20 does not have a secretariat – no headquarters, no secretary general, and no dedicated bureaucratic apparatus to support its work. Instead the G20 is to be managed by rotating the chair’s responsibilities among the members (Guardian). Placing responsibility with this system of rotating leadership is a mistake. Instead the G20 should establish a secretariat.

Rotating G20 leadership suffers from the same competence and coordination problems as the rotating European Union presidency. In terms of competence, rotation means the institutional leadership is exposed to sheer luck of the draw. Every member nation does not have the depth and breadth of expertise and diplomatic skill to successfully lead the G20 for a year. For instance compare the EU’s rotating presidency system’s results. The recent Czech presidency of the European Union was not exactly covered in glory. The Czech prime minister remarked that Obama’s stimulus package was “a way to hell” that will “undermine the stability of the global financial market.” The Times reported that, “The comments were greeted with embarrassment by many Europeans who believe that the Czech leader does not represent a European consensus.” The head of the Socialist group in the European Parliament remarked that the Czech prime minister had “not understood what the task of the E.U. presidency is”. The Lisbon Treaty plans to replace the EU’s rotating presidency to resolve these competence and coordination issues. Another example of rotating chairs gone wrong, Italy’s preparations for the G8 summit this year were strongly criticized as chaotic, with the US intervening in the final weeks before the summit to organize the agenda (Guardian, Independent). Rotating leadership needlessly exposes an institution to instability.

A secretariat places responsibility in a reliable home, secretariats are better able to coordinate because that is their domain of expertise. Furthermore, a secretariat would have longer time horizons. In 2010 South Korea is set to coordinate the G20, in 2011 France will take up the task. One year is not enough time to get a coherent agenda organized and implemented, let alone successfully monitoring or reporting on whether participating nations have lived up to their commitments. Even a weak secretariat is capable of acting as the conscience of the institution. Nations sometimes get into a habit of mutual disarmament with regard to leveling criticism – even a weak secretariat could help nudge G20 members towards implementing the grand gestures of the communiqués. The fact of monitoring by an expert figure alone means agreements have a higher likelihood of being implemented. For instance, guarding against protectionist measures and meeting past foreign aid commitments are two areas ripe for secretariat level nudging. What expert figure could criticize Italy for falling woefully behind its Gleneagles G8 commitments when Italy was hosting the G8 this year? A chair is fairly unlikely to criticize itself, certainly not in the terms Italy deserves for delivering a paltry 3% of aid pledged in at Gleneagles (Guardian, Independent).

A G20 secretariat would also serve a crucial mediating role. Similar to the UN’s role in situations where there is skepticism as to motives, the G20 secretariat can say and propose things individual states cannot say or propose. For instance, South Korea proposing an agenda item on North Korea is different from a G20 Secretary General proposing a discussion of North Korea. With the prospect of the G20 taking up any pressing global issue from the environment to trade, a secretariat could contribute to meeting global problems with global solutions (Brookings).

Finally, a G20 secretariat creates another prestige post in international politics. Basically, there are not enough top jobs to go around. The nationality of the heads of major international institutions is a petty matter, once a post becomes vacant however it’s a big deal. Witness the wrangling over the UN Secretary General post (NPR, VOA). In the economic sphere, the problem was solved by dividing two top posts between Americans and Europeans, with the managing director of the IMF being a European and the president of the World Bank being an American. The G20 has purportedly ended the European-American compromise, with future heads of the IMF being selected without regard to nationality (Reuters). I do not think prestige and symbolic fights such as these are so easily resolved – the rotating G20 chair itself is an attempt to resolve this type of conflict. Unfortunately, too much is sacrificed by way of coordination and stability using the rotating resolution.

Greed is good.

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much.

Gordon Gekko’s encomium to greed undergirded James Murdoch’s MacTaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh International TV Festival. James Murdoch strongly criticized the British media regulator (Ofcom) and the BBC. The son of Rupert Murdoch and heir apparent to leadership of News Corporation concluded his lecture by remarking,

If we are to have that state sponsorship [of the media] at all, then it is fundamental to the health of the creative industries, independent production, and professional journalism that it exists on a far, far smaller scale.

Above all we must have genuine independence in news media. Genuine independence is a rare thing. No amount of governance in the form of committees, regulators, trusts or advisory bodies is truly sufficient as a guarantor of independence. In fact, they curb speech.

On the contrary, independence is characterised by the absence of the apparatus of supervision and dependency.

Independence of faction, industrial or political.

Independence of subsidy, gift and patronage.

Independence is sustained by true accountability – the accountability owed to customers. People who buy the newspapers, open the application, decide to take out the television subscription – people who deliberately and willingly choose a service which they value.

And people value honest, fearless, and above all independent news coverage that challenges the consensus.

There is an inescapable conclusion that we must reach if we are to have a better society.

The only reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit.

How is profit working out as a guarantor of independence in the media industry?

In April 2009 the heads of News Corporation and GE decided the longstanding Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann bust up had gone far enough (NYT). Olbermann repeatedly named O’Reilly in the “Worst Person in the World” segment. O’Reilly wouldn’t refer directly to Olbermann, but had strongly criticized GE for its business dealings in Iran, remarking, “If my child were killed in Iraq, I would blame the likes of [GE Chair] Jeffrey Immelt.” The Times reports the owners of MSNBC and Fox News, “…G.E. and the News Corporation concluded that the fighting ‘wasn’t good for either parent,’ said an NBC employee with direct knowledge of the situation.” Not only was the O’Reilly-Olbermann conflict to quieten, the back and forth criticisms across both cable networks was to quieten.

Shortly after [a meeting between Jeffrey Immelt and Rupert Murdoch], Phil Griffin, the MSNBC president, told producers that he wanted the channel’s other programs to follow Mr. Olbermann’s lead and restrain from criticizing Fox directly, according to two employees. At Fox News, some staff members were told to “be fair” to G.E. The executives at both companies, it appears, were relieved. “For this war to stop, it meant fewer headaches on the corporate side,” one employee said.

Two media conglomerate CEOs essentially dictating where criticism can be directed, doesn’t speak to highly of profit-focused media conglomerates’ independence from each other. (Glenn Greenwald has excellent posts critiquing this Immelt-Murdoch deal, here and here.)

What about media independence from governments? James Murdoch’s lecture frets over the potential for Orwellian mischief due to state sponsorship of a major media player – suggesting profit is the bulwark against such interventions.

In 1998 a News Corporation publisher dropped a book by the last governor of Hong Kong concerned that the book would be critical of China, reportedly Rupert Murdoch personally intervened in the decision to drop the book (BBC). The publisher later apologized to the author for claiming the book was dropped because it was boring (BBC).

In 1995 various media organizations were pressured by China over a Martin Scorsese film. China strongly objected to Kundun, an official remarked “We are resolutely opposed to the making of this movie,” continuing, “It is intended to glorify the Dalai Lama, so is an interference in China’s internal affairs.” China first tried to to stop the filming and then to stop distribution of the film (NYT, Time). Universal Pictures caved to China, which also tried to get other TV studios to not distribute Kundun. Disney ultimately didn’t give in – but reportedly did engage “the employment of the services of arch-diplomat Henry Kissinger to soothe relations” (Independent).

In early 1994 News Corporation dropped the BBC World Service from satellite broadcaster Star TV due to Chinese concerns – the Chinese government concerned over the BBC’s coverage and News Corporation concerned over the loss of potential profits in the Chinese market. Jack Shafer at Slate writes about the Star TV affair and presents clippings from various sources. From the Economist,

Seldom has [Rupert Murdoch] let ideology stand in the way of profits; nor is he especially fond of the BBC. Recently he told The Economist that the BBC caused him “lots of headaches” with a number of Asian governments—especially the one in Beijing—because of its critical news coverage. (March 26, 1994)

Profit as a “reliable, durable, and perpetual guarantor of independence” – in the face of peer media conglomerates or the Chinese government profit hardly stands up as a profile in courage.

Echoing Gordon Gekko’s reference to the evolutionary spirit, James Murdoch has high praise for an evolution-like rough and tumble in the media landscape. In Murdoch’s vision, this landscape goes untrammeled by obtrusive dictates from Ofcom, the European Commission, or an anti-competitive, state-sponsored BBC. Murdoch remarks,

intervention only on the evidence of actual and serious harm to the interests of consumers: not merely because a regulator armed with a set of prejudices and a spreadsheet believes that a bit of tinkering here and there could make the world a better place.

James Murdoch urges us to allow the consumer (and profits) to decide. Foxes and hen houses come to mind. Sure, the BBC is imperfect – but these imperfections are equaled (if not surpassed) in the for-profit media world. James Murdoch’s hope for public broadcasting on “far, far smaller scale” would do violence to the media landscape. Evolution has no conscience. We can do better. The public interest is better served by a large, resilient, high quality public broadcaster that retains a rich normative mix of inputs, as opposed to merely profit-driven corporations willing to adapt to the worlds many geopolitical pressures.

Lost in translation?

A BBC anchor posed this question to the Tripoli correspondent regarding the airport “celebration” upon Megrahi’s return to Libya. The correspondent highlighted the point (made to him by a counselor to Megrahi, so a grain of salt here) that we need to make the comparison in a Libyan context, saying that a state occasion would have had more government officials. The attendants at the airport were mostly extended family and members of Megrahi’s tribe. So what to UK and US eyes appeared like a welcome for a returning hero was in Libyan terms relatively low key. The correspondent added that journalists are essentially being given the runaround with respect to access to Megrahi – with his villa saying go to the media office and the media office saying go to the villa; the implication being, if Libya were really in celebration mode, there would be more interviews, access to Megrahi, and crowing about success. Also, whether Megrahi has any role in the upcoming state commemorations of Gaddafi would reveal more as to whether the Libyan government is feting Megrahi.

I think the mistranslation analogy can be further extended to the Scottish justice system’s practice of compassionate release. Several points became clearer in watching Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill answer questions in the Scottish Parliament today. All applications for compassionate release that met the criteria since 2000 have been granted – a point demonstrated by the 23 out of 30 approvals of compassionate release since 2000, including, MacAskill said, a murderer of a child. Furthermore, MacAskill believed himself to be acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, dealing with an application requiring impartial consideration. As such he was engaged in a prescribed process – if not written, then in terms of norms – where every relevant public authority advised proceeding with compassionate release (if I recall correctly, these public authorities are the parole board, prison authorities, and prison medical service).

In terms of how this translated in the US, the statements of the FBI Director and the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff demonstrate they have a differing understanding of what compassionate release means. Joint Chiefs Chair Mike Mullen commented this was “obviously a political decision.” Robert Mueller’s letter to Scottish Justice Secretary MacAskill led the news yesterday. Mueller makes a number of statements about his reading of the situation,

I do so because I am outraged at your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of “compassion.”

Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law.

Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed by one man’s exercise of “compassion.”

Your action rewards a terrorist even though he never admitted to his role in this act of mass murder and even though neither he nor the government of Libya ever disclosed the names and roles of others who were responsible.

Your action makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the Lockerbie tragedy…

But most importantly, your action makes a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own on December 21, 1988…

You have given the family members of those who died continued grief and frustration. You have given those who sought to assure that the persons responsible would be held accountable the back of your hand.

You have given Megrahi a “jubilant welcome” in Tripoli, according to the reporting. Where, I ask, is the justice?

In their totality, the accusations Mueller makes against MacAskill seem to read compassionate release as a kind of pardon in the US system – as though MacAskill had a range of discretion in making the decision. MacAskill presents the decision as a norm – had he interfered and not granted compassionate release that course of action would be improperly injecting politics into a quasi-judicial, impartial process.

All of this about mistranslation is not to say there is not an underlying, genuine disagreement. What are the legitimate aims of a justice system, vengeance, deterrence, safety, compassion? Those questions were also in evidence during MacAskill’s response to MSPs today – with members pointing out the mace at the Scottish Parliament is inscribed with the words: wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity. The differing readings feed into why the sides are so far apart, and yet convey such moral certitude. For my part, MacAskill’s answering questions at the Scottish Parliament reaffirmed my sense that he had made the right decision.

When mercy seasons justice

The Justice Secretary of the Scottish government, Kenny MacAskill, released the Libyan bomber held responsible for Lockerbie today. Frankly, his explanation at the press conference wasn’t very well constructed or well delivered.

“Mr al-Megrahi did not show his victims any comfort or compassion. They were not allowed to return to the bosom of their families to see out their lives, let alone their dying days,” he said.

“But that alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days.”

Mr MacAskill continued: “Our justice system demands that judgement be imposed, but compassion be available.

“For these reasons and these reasons alone, it is my decision that Mr Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, convicted in 2001 for the Lockerbie bombing, now terminally ill with prostate cancer, be released on compassionate grounds and be allowed to return to Libya to die.” (BBC)

Following the press conference, it seemed like 5000 years was not enough for al-Megrahi, let alone 10; al-Megrahi was convicted of murdering 270 people. In interviews I think MacAskill delivered a slightly more expansive explanation, justice must be tempered by mercy. When others, the PM show on BBC Radio 4, explained more about the process in context MacAskill’s decision made more sense. The gist, those terminally ill with less than three months to live are released from Scottish prisons in the name of mercy and compassion. That is my understanding of how the law and regulations of Scottish prisons work. Since 2000, there have been 30 applications for release under these grounds and 23 have been approved. Three or four of those released were convicted for murder and unlawful killing. I haven’t heard an explanation of the 7 rejections, but one interviewee offered that the medical evidence may not have shown the late stage of terminal illness in those cases.

Al-Megrahi has prostate cancer and his prognosis meets the guidelines for compassionate release. I’ve heard several victims families’ interviews today, some approving of the decision others disapproving. Part of what complicated the picture is some victims’ family members think Al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted, but I have no idea as to the merits of his appeal. While I appreciate the profoundly heartfelt feelings of those victims’ families who disapprove, I do not think MacAskill made a mistake. Vengeance, and even bloodlust, are really nasty features too much in evidence in the American justice system. I could just be overcompensating for my disapproval of those in making judgements about the Scottish system. But both the process and the principles operating in the Scottish system seem sound to me. I would rather live in a world that errs towards the side of compassion – even if I’m wrong and foolhardy.

Throughout the day, really difficult questions have been posed: Does compassion even count if it “easy” to be compassionate? Do we have a duty to forgive? In what circumstances, if ever, is forgiveness owed? An interviewee mentioned the first line of this and it seems appropriate,

The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice.
- Portia, the Merchant of Venice