Displaying posts published in

September 2020

Before Reporting Became ‘Journalism’ Writers subdued their egos and encouraged readers to think. Nowadays it’s all about arousing emotion. By Lance Morrow

https://www.wsj.com/articles/before-reporting-became-journalism-11600879803?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

My father’s favorite word of dismissal was “phony.” As a young man, he worked for the Philadelphia Inquirer. For him and his fellow reporters, phony was the watchword—an instinct. That period—the late 1930s, going into the war—had the atmosphere of a movie by Frank Capra, who was big on newspaper reporters as everyman types. After the calamitous sucker-punch of the Great Depression, a guy didn’t want to be a sap.

That generation of reporters would rather have died, or moved permanently to Albany, N.Y., than call themselves “journalists.” The term itself was phony. When young Henry Luce, who went on to co-found the Time-Life empire, was just out of Yale, he showed up for his job at the Chicago Daily News (as a legman for the columnist Ben Hecht, who, with Charles MacArthur, would write “The Front Page”), he carried a walking stick and a briefcase. The editor looked him up and down and said, “Ah, Mr. Luce. A journalist, I see.”

The lesson I absorbed as a boy was that the work of reporting called for a disinfected mind that busied itself, with little-guy sympathies and self-effacing clarity, on available facts, collected conscientiously. The ideal was fairness: Let the reader decide. It would not have occurred to my father or his fellow reporters, or to me in my apprentice days at the Buffalo News or the Washington Star, to drape the facts in adjectives and adverbs and attitude. The eye of the city editor (the great Sid Epstein at the Star, for example) was vigilant and scathing: Who gives a damn what you think?

If a sensitive person, or, God forbid, one of us on the newspaper staff, had declared that something or other made him feel “uncomfortable” or “unsafe” or constituted a “microaggression,” the answer would have been an incredulous stare: “So what?” If it happened again: “You’re fired.”

Two Police Officers Shot in Louisville Riots after Breonna Taylor Grand-Jury Indictment By Zachary Evans

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/two-police-officers-shot-in-louisville-riots-after-breonna-taylor-grand-jury-indictment/

Two police officers have been shot in Louisville, Ky., amid riots following the announcement of an indictment in the shooting of Breonna Taylor.

Louisville chief of police Robert Schroeder confirmed that the officers were shot and were taken to a local hospital. Schroeder told reporters that one of the officers was undergoing surgery but in stable condition, while the other was alert and stable. Police have arrested one suspect in the shooting.

Demonstrations devolved into riots in the city on Wednesday night after a grand jury charged just one of the officers involved in the shooting of Taylor in a botched drug bust. Rioters clashed with police throughout Louisville, burning trash cans and calling to defund the city police department.Demonstrations and riots broke out in other cities including New York and Washington, D.C. New York saw large crowds chanting “no justice, no peace!” outside Barclays Center in Brooklyn, while black-clad demonstrators in Washington passed through the Dupont Circle area.

Rioters in Washington also overturned tables at restaurants providing for outdoor dining, as patrons looked on.

“Praying for the two police officers that were shot tonight in Louisville, Kentucky. The Federal Government stands behind you and is ready to help,” President Trump wrote on Twitter on Wednesday night. “Spoke to [Governor] Andy Beshear and we are prepared to work together, immediately upon request!”

Justice Department Refuses to Testify before Nadler’s Judiciary Committee By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/09/justice-department-refuses-to-testify-before

The lasting damage from the Trump years will be the norm-busting by congressional Democrats.

The unintended consequences of the House Democrats’ anti-Trump derangement, in both infantilizing congressional oversight and foolishly pleading with the federal courts to meddle in it, are becoming manifest. On Monday, the Justice Department declined a request by House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.) that it send top officials to testify at an oversight hearing — or at least what was portrayed by the House as an oversight hearing; it was depicted by DOJ as more election-year political theater.

DOJ’s position traces to two developments in July.

First, as I recounted here, the Supreme Court decided Trump v. Mazars, which involved subpoenas issued by House committees for President Trump’s personal financial information. The dispute over this information pitted the Congress’s broad authority to seek information for legislative purposes versus the president’s legitimate interest in carrying out his weighty responsibilities free of both undue burdens and the pretextual exploitation of Congress’s oversight powers for partisan political advantage. That is, it was the type of legislative/executive tug-of-war that the political branches have worked out between themselves since a time out of memory — such that Chief Justice John Roberts was moved to observe that the case marked the first time in 233 years of American constitutional governance that the High Court had been asked to resolve such a controversy.

Court Rules That Illegal Aliens Are Entitled To Representation In Congress Francis Menton

https://us7.campaign-archive.com/?e=a9fdc67db9&u=9d011a88d8fe324cae8c084c5&id=4e4eb379f7

In a post several weeks ago, I discussed a fact that I suspect most readers found astonishing: the U.S. Census up to now has been counting illegal aliens as part of the “population” for purposes of determining representation in Congress.

The occasion for the post was that President Trump had just issued a Memorandum directing the Census Bureau to inform him of how many illegal aliens are included in the count for 2020 that is currently ongoing, so that he could attempt to have those persons excluded from the population base used for congressional apportionment. Although you might think that it is intuitively obvious that illegal aliens should not get congressional representation, prior to Trump raising the issue there was a reasonable position that there had not been any definitive court decision one way or the other. So the Census Bureau, naturally, had just gone ahead and counted the illegals.

Needless to say, all the usual suspects — led in this case by New York’s Attorney General Letitia James — immediately brought suit to enjoin everything about the President’s Memorandum, including the President even finding out how many illegal aliens are included in the Census count, and where they might be located.

The case went to a (somewhat unusual) three-judge panel sitting in the Southern District of New York. The panel issued its Opinion and Order on September 10. I had not succeeded in finding a link to the Opinion before today. So I’m somewhat late in getting to this, but I want to be sure that readers are informed about just how kooky our law has become.