Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Spineless Press, Pointless Press Conferences

Please read this account of the latest GWB “Press Conference,” Cage Match – Matt Taibbi [link fixed]. I submit that it makes the case strongly for my modest and practical proposal for improving White House press conferences.

Posted in Politics: US | Comments Off on Spineless Press, Pointless Press Conferences

Press Manipulation and the Iraq War: US Was Not ‘Duped’ By British Disinformation — It Duped Itself

In light of stories spilling the beans on a British campaign of lying to foreign (mostly third-world) media about the dangerousness of Iraq, Zbig is putting out the meme that the US got duped into the Iraq war by British disinformation. This is not credible, as can be seen from every “insider's” account (e.g. Seymore Hersh's article in the New Yorker last October).

In the Bad Old Days, around the Vietnam War era, the CIA had an ongoing program of putting US reporters on retainer. That got stopped. And it had another program of dropping disinformation into foreign newspapers, often third world. Some of the disinfo may have been for legitimate intelligence purposes (to confuse the Bad Guys), but a fair amount of it was designed in the hopes that the disinfo would find its way back to the US and be picked up by our newspapers. The goal was nothing less than to subtly manipulate the US electorate. That was supposed to have stopped too.

Perhaps now we do it by proxy. This past weekend the world press reported on a campaign by the British CIA-equivalent, MI6, in which it 'misled' media on Iraq.

But wait! The right wing is already spinning the story! Here comes Zbigniew Brzezinski calling for an investigation into how the US was manipulated into the Iraq war. See, it wasn't our fault! Those perfidious British with their media manipulation and unverified intel about irrelevant non-existent yellowcake purchases! They are responsible, not that nice George W. Bush!

I personally find the idea that the US administration—which by all reputable accounts was lusting for this war since at least 9/11 if not since it took office (or in some cases, since the cease-fire in Gulf War One)—could possibly be manipulated into Gulf War Two to be laughable. Will anyone buy into Zbig's weird spin? Probably.

Posted in Iraq | 1 Comment

The [Ed] Survives

Will Baude reports that the [Ed] is Here To Stay. I'll be happy to take full credit even if not deserved.

Posted in Blogs | Comments Off on The [Ed] Survives

A Book and a Film and a Meal

We’ve been goofing off. Wednesday we head back to the US—a long day flight after we change planes in London.

Highly recommended book(s): Alastair Reynolds, Redemption Ark, the third in a series beginning with Chasm City and Revelation Space. Almost as good as Ian M. Banks’s best, and far better than his latest.

We wanted to see the Return of the King, but it was sold out so we took what was available and saw Love Actually, which turns out to be a surprisingly fun film. It’s silly, frothy, full of simplistic plots that collapse if you think about most of them for five seconds, but it is wonderfully acted by an all-star cast, and is much more fun than I would ever have expected. Even the miscast Hugh Grant isn’t as annoying as you might fear, and Alan Rickman is superb. (Other cast members include: Colin Firth, Laura Linney, Emma Thompson, Liam Neeson, Martin Freeman, Martine McCutcheon, and a very funny dual cameo by Rowan Atkinson).

Very highly recommended if you are ever in the area: The Original Third Eye, a tiny Nepalese restaurant in Didsbury. Not worth a large detour perhaps, but great to have only ten minutes walk away.

Posted in Kultcha | Comments Off on A Book and a Film and a Meal

The NYT Gets It–Eventually

When I was a kid, I thought the New York Times was the epitome of journalism. I've learned better. By law school, I was receptive to Charles L. Black Jr.'s warning that “The New York Times is a slim reed” for the support of justice and good causes. But here's one where the NYT editorial board gets it right. OK, it's at least 2 years after everyone else figured this out….

Continue reading

Posted in Politics: US | Comments Off on The NYT Gets It–Eventually

Protect Access to the National Archives: Our National Memory Bank

Here's the sort of under-the-radar item that never gets the attention it deserves: who will control access to politically sensitive material in the National Archives. I missed the original item praising the Nixon tapes as a valuable history lesson, and only saw the darker follow-up letter, The Nixon Tapes. The letter (latter?) is more important:

But who protects archivists?

In 1986, the Justice Department tried to force the Archives to accept without discretion Mr. Nixon's claims against release of records. A court threw out the directive.

In 1987, Mr. Nixon blocked the opening of 42,000 documents deemed releaseable by archivists. Mr. Taylor later claimed that the blocked items represented information “routinely” withheld at presidential libraries. The Archives sat on the documents for nine years before upholding most of its archivists' decisions on disclosure.

The belated release showed that Mr. Nixon wanted information about Vietnam (“tell Henry [Kissinger] get best deal — let Thieu paddle his own canoe”) and Watergate (“put it on Mitchell”) withdrawn as “personal.” Who will prevail in future battles, Mr. Nixon's advocates or archivists?

Posted in Civil Liberties | Comments Off on Protect Access to the National Archives: Our National Memory Bank