Don’t be surprised if this is introduced in the next GA session.

Is new CPB Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson really looking for objectivity? Not if you consider who taught him about journalism.

Politically, I think Tim Kaine’s rapid response to Kilgore’s charge that he’s a tax and spend liberal is smart. But the execution of the ad can do him more harm than good.

Calling your opponent a liar, as Kilgore’s GOP front group did and Kaine’s similar response also did, is a well-worn political tactic. Yes, some people will be swayed by Kilgore’s charge; after all, a lot of people bought the Swift Boat charges even though they were soundly refuted. Even if they knew the charge was bogus, it gave some a rationale for voting against Kerry. They didn’t so much believe the charges against Kerry as they were still angry at anti-war protesters in general. So in a sense, lying works.

Kaine’s ad is OK as it starts, accusing Kilgore of distorting his record. By Kilgore’s reasoning if a politician cut sales taxes one cent but somebody bought 10 times as much stuff, then their taxes went up. It’s silly arguing whether a tax rate cut is or isn’t a real tax “cut.”

But then Kaine wastes the last seconds of the ad saying as governor he’ll cut taxes “for all Virginians.” One, let’s forget that he hasn’t offered anything that would accomplish that. His property tax plan would be dependent on local jurisdictions and a constitutional amendment. If enacted, most localities would probably offer tax relief based on income, age or assets.

But he also sounds like he could be saying, “Oh yes, I would cut taxes, you liar, liar, pants on fire!”

Why not say something like, “The fact is I did cut property tax rates as mayor of Richmond, but more importantly, my policies resulted in a prolonged rebirth of the city based on reasonable taxes and sound investments, just like Gov. Warner and I have done the past four years for the Commonwealth. Unlike what you’ll hear from my opponent, you’ll get no irresponsible assertions that I’ll fix transportation, education and health care but cut all your taxes at the same time. That’s not leadership, that’s pandering.”

But alas, Kaine tries to out-pander Kilgore. Moderate Republicans want desperately to back someone who’ll continue Warner’s approach. I don’t see how Kaine’s approach accomplishes that.

You think Newsweek’s Periscope item on the Koran in the toilet was badly source? Consider what Ben Bradlee, former editor of The Washington Post remembers about his days on the Newsweek staff.

“If it was really good, it was worth more than a Periscope. If you couldn’t prove it, it was worth a Periscope.”

A big element is that the creative class is virulently anti-discriminatory. It should be the concern of Chambers of Commerce all over Virginia that all the discriminatory legislation being passed in Richmond, including a constitutional amendments against gay marriage, will be a very serious economic drag on Virginia, because the people that we’re trying to get in here to be employed in these high-tech industries don’t want to work in environments shaped by an atmosphere of discrimination. They want to take people at face value who can do the job. That’s what they want. You saw the recent decision of Microsoft was reversed under pressure from the many employees of Microsoft who said, ‘We don’t want to work in a business where discrimination and outdated attitudes, and so forth, prevail.’
So, increasingly, that’s an issue for the business community, for Chambers of Commerce, and we have that in our newspaper as a conscious attempt to create an ally of the creative class. You’ll see that reflected in columns and articles that address wider issues in the pages of the Falls Church News-Press. So just so you know that there’s a method to our madness. I not only think it’s the right thing to do, but it’s good marketing, and I would suggest that idea extend to you as well.

–Falls Church News-Press owner Nicholas F. Benton, commenting on the Virginia legislature’s growing reputation for intolerance

CJR Daily, the blog about news, went one better than David Gergen, who suggested, as I did, that bad anonymous sources ought to be named. CJR agrees that two confirming sources should be the rule.

1 – Return to the much-cited but seldom-used two-source rule for every anonymous accusation that you print. And that doesn’t mean one source plus a second source who confirms “by not denying;” it means a second source that affirms the information passed on by the first source. That simple procedure would have stopped not just Newsweek’s “Koran-flushed-down-the-toilet” item in its tracks, it would also have saved CBS from going on the air last fall with documents whose provenance could not be proved.

2 – Inform each and every one of your anonymous sources that if you, the reporter, get burned by bum information foisted on you (and, by extension, onto your readers) all bets are off, and you will unclothe that source in public.

A friend who attended George Mason University’s graduation exercises said keynote speaker Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) hinted that he’s leaning against supporting the nuclear option. But he was coy. Paraphrasing the senator: Sometimes you have to make decisions that you know are going to upset your colleagues.

Write Warner Now: senator@warner.senate.gov

After the revelations of the Newsweek/Koran fiasco, I asked the question last week, “Should journalists’ contract with anonymous sources be null and void if the material turns out to be false?”

Yesterday on CNN’s Reliable Source, David Gergen suggested the answer is “yes.”

“There was an old rule in journalism, and Ben Bradlee represented that at the Washington Post, if an unnamed source lies to a news organization, that source loses his anonymity, by definition, because he’s misled people,” says Gergen. “In this case, it may be that the unnamed source unintentionally misled Newsweek, but nonetheless, given the seriousness of what happened, it seems to me the unnamed source should be unmasked.”

Otherwise, as Gergen suggests, its journalists who must take the heat. I think this is especially true when there is the possibility that the false information was a set-up. With what this White House has tried, I think there are at least a few folks there who would stoop to such. After all, they are not hesitant to suggest that Newsweek’s mistake is evidence of a vast left wing conspiracy among media.

The aftermath of a school play in Loudoun County has teachers censoring student speech.

When Stone Bridge High School in Ashburn presented “How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying” this month, the hit Broadway musical was not performed exactly as written.

Where the original script called for a secretary to sing that a dress was “tres sexy,” the actress called it “tres lovely” instead. The boss’s nephew, instead of stepping out for a smoke, stepped out for a soda. And in a song titled “A Secretary Is Not a Toy,” several lines were changed to soften cheeky references to sexual tension in the workplace.

The editing was an attempt to put on a play that no one could claim was inappropriate for high school drama students. A one-act play at the same Loudoun County school three months earlier touched off an emotional debate about high school dramatics, free speech and morality, one that is not yet over. “Offsides,” written by student Sabrina Audrey Jess, featured a football player struggling with his homosexuality and an almost-kiss between two male students.

“When this whole story broke, my radar went up to 100 times its normal power,” Stone Bridge drama teacher Glen Hochkeppel said. “It’s natural. You begin to question absolutely everything you’re putting on stage.”

The “Offsides” controversy made its way not only onto the School Board agenda, but also into classrooms and living rooms across the county. It has revealed deep divisions among residents of the rapidly growing county and mirrored a national debate about whether discussion of homosexuality should be allowed or encouraged in public schools.

…[Stone Bridge Principal Jim] Person said that the experience has created an opportunity to “look at what’s appropriate and what’s not” in plays but that it has had very little impact on how teachers run classrooms and what students discuss. Still, he said he believes that parents are going to view lots of school actions against the backdrop of the play.

Take the case of Nikki Buchholz’s submission to the school’s literary magazine. Buchholz, 18, was told that the magazine had accepted her story, a fictional account of a girl who helps a friend who is being sexually abused by her father. But English teacher Tom Clawson said he told her that the story was too dark and that she would have to edit, changing it to a story about physical, not sexual, abuse.

Person and Clawson said that the editing was unrelated to the “Offsides” controversy. But Nikki’s father, Tim, is dubious.

“I see dots being connected,” he said. “I think they’ve tightened down.”

Given the prevalence of sexual abuse, are we really protecting children when we prevent them from discussing the issue in class? Sexual abuse victims are very often afraid of confronting their abusers or telling authorities because not only might they experience retribution from their abusers, but they fear scorn from their peers who they think will blame the abused for what happened to them. A frank discussion about sexual abuse might help victims to come forward. But now Loudoun schools are trying to sweep the problem under the rug. Is that really a service to children? Might the abused get the feeling that the subject is so taboo that they shouldn’t even try to defend themselves?

This is an issues we all should weigh in on. Here’s the email for Loudoun County schools main office: schools@loudoun.k12.va.us

Here is Stone Bridge High School Principal Jim Person’s email address: jperson@loudoun.k12.va.us

Here is English teacher Tom Clawson’s email: tlclawso@loudoun.k12.va.us

Here is Stone Bridge’s drama teacher’s email: GHOCHKEP@loudoun.k12.va.us

I’d also suggest contacting the chairman of the Loudoun County school board. In the past he’s been a supporter of Dick Black, the delegate from the area that ignited the flap about the play. But Andrews was apparently miffed at Black’s meddling. Andrews email is andcominv@aol.com

I’ve not blogged about the Newsweek fiasco due to being professionally depressed. Having been a reporter and still maintaining a membership (though my current dues are late) in the Society of Professional Journalists as a statement of support, thus far the facts behind the magazine’s story make for a fiasco for journalism.

Granted, there is astounding hypocrisy from the White House, as a letter writer (the second letter) to The Washington Post states.

I’m having a reality problem. The White House and the Pentagon are furious because Newsweek didn’t double-check the source on its story about an American interrogator flushing a Koran down a toilet, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is complaining because people’s words and actions have consequences?

Are we not in the middle of a billion-dollar-a-week war with no end in sight and hideous casualties on both sides because the White House and the Pentagon didn’t check their sources about the infamous weapons of mass destruction? Does this mean we can demand an apology and retraction of said war?

The irony runneth over.

Anne Applebaum’s column (which for some reason is not on The Post’s web site) also tries to provide perspective.

Indeed, some of the criticism starts us down a slippery slope.

Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) used even stronger language, saying that Isikoff had “fabricated” the Koran incident and branding Newsweek’s behavior “criminal.”

So are we to prosecute reporters who make a mistake while we allow military leaders who facilitate and cover-up torture to remain unaccountable?

No doubt the fiasco is a “gift to conservatives.”

Consider, for instance, what happened on Monday night when Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center, and Robert Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas, squared off on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country. Jensen attempted to place Newsweek’s error in some context, noting that US forces are responsible for horrific abuses, including torture and homicide, at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere.

Suddenly, Bozell started yipping like a dog that had finally managed to corner a wounded squirrel. “You cite me the evidence of American soldiers murdering people in prisons,” he barked. Jensen, clearly perplexed, replied, “The evidence is in the Army’s own reports.” That wasn’t good enough for Bozell. “You’re accusing the American military of murder. If you don’t back it up, back off,” he sneered. And so it went until the segment sputtered out.

Now, I have to assume that Bozell was being outrageously disingenuous, because he’s not a stupid man. He had to know that, less than two months earlier, the Army reported that 27 prisoners were killed while in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan between August 2002 and November 2004. According to an Associated Press account, the Army had come up with sufficient evidence to charge 21 soldiers with such crimes as murder, negligent homicide, and assault. But in the new environment that Newsweek has helped to create, any accusations that American forces have acted abusively are now null and void.

Still, the bottom line for me is the continuing damage this does to the profession, one already under suspicion by a large segment of Americans, according to a survey by the University of Cincinnati.

It probably comes as no surprise that only 3 percent of the journalists said the US press has too much freedom. But in stark contrast, 43 percent of the public felt the news media are given excessive leeway. Although 95 percent of the journalists strongly agreed that newspapers should be allowed ”to publish freely without governmental approval of a story,” only 55 percent of the public strongly agreed.

The younger generation more than agrees.

One in three U.S . high school students say the press ought to be more restricted, and even more say the government should approve newspaper stories before readers see them, according to a survey being released today.

The survey of 112,003 students finds that 36% believe newspapers should get “government approval” of stories before publishing; 51% say they should be able to publish freely; 13% have no opinion.

Asked whether the press enjoys ” too much freedom,” not enough or about the right amount, 32% say ” too much,” and 37% say it has the right amount. Ten percent say it has too little.

Screw-ups like Newsweek’s don’t help. But what struck me was that the magazine was both willing to go to press with a story based on only one anonymous source and that it was apparently tone-deaf to the repercussions of the article.

Remember Woodward and Bernstein? Every fact needed two sources before editor Ben Bradlee would allow it to be published. It is disturbing to me that journalists apparently go to press with such flimsy verification. Though the Periscope column has struck me as little more than a gossip column when subscribed to the magazine, still you would hope they would recognize the damage a story like this could have before relying on one source who hides behind anonymity.

I can’t, on the other hand, urge that reporters stop using anonymous sources. But there needs to be some major revision of the journalistic ethics regarding them. There was speculation, thus far unconfirmed, that the CBS News much maligned story about Bush’s National Guard service was in fact orchestrated by Bush supporters who planned for the story to emerge just so they could shoot it full of holes and discredit Dan Rather. While there’s no evidence of this, it’s not implausible. Should journalists’ contract with anonymous sources be null and void if the material turns out to be false? I’m not sure if that’s helpful, but something needs to be done.