Rantingprofs

Incomplete

As you know by now, the New York Times joined a number of families suing the City of New York for the release of a number of oral histories and audiotapes from 9/11.

But their lead article leaves you with a sense of tremendous incompleteness in two senses. First, its focus is on the experience of the EMS techs. Now, in part because we've all heard over and over that the hospitals and the triage centers waited all day for casualties, but no one came out, this sense has grown that people either walked out or they died in the collapse, and there wasn't any middle ground. So no real thought has been given to what the EMS people were doing and their experiences have in fact been cut out of our understandings of the day until now -- our sense of 9/11 was, clearly, incomplete. Yet on the other hand after finishing the article you feel as if after all this time, and all the litigation, and thousands of pages, that's it? That's the big revelation?

No doubt, that matters enormously, and that information should have been released (and those oral histories could probably have been released individually.) But all this fuss for that?

Compare the article to this one which the Times puts back up on its web site from 2003, when tapes and transcripts from the Port Authority were released.

Each release of oral histories adds texture and meaning and detail that will be useful, but at some point there may just be a diminishing margin of returns. What's being learned here are the experiences of particular individuals now, and no longer large revelations -- at least of the type so obvious that reporters can glean them by going through the material overnight. Adding the experiences of the EMS techs adds a small piece that can be stapled whole, it does not fundamentally change or reshape our understanding of the day. (Indeed, what the EMS people say is entirely consistent with our understanding of what was going on at the towers: poor coordination, poor communication, poor planning, leaves the troops on the ground to innovate as best they can.)  Historians or specialists may be able to pick something up by going through this material line by painstaking line, families may find out about the experiences of loved ones, but that will take far more time than a reporters' blitz through the material the day it's released. Beyond that what we are left with are the experiences of strangers, each important and powerful, but simply more than we can process. (That was why the Times did such a service with their Portraits of Grief.)

Beyond that, the mere fact that selections from the tapes are being played is a service in and of itself, bringing back, as that process does, the memories.

It was interesting that last night NBC's piece on the release built into the story selections from the tapes, chilling, putting you right back into the day. I came into CBS's story late, so I can't be positive they didn't play any tapes, but at least for the portion of the story I saw, their anchor read out loud from the oral histories. Powerful, to be sure, but having not nearly the same impact. It creates a distancing effect, allowing you to hear the words without fully experiencing them or the emotions the tapes call up.

Let's Talk Suicide Bombing

The Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka is assassinated.

How bad are things in Sri Lanka?

This is the one country that looked at the tsunami as possible good news, because the massive losses might shock both sides to the negotiating table. (I can't find it on the web yet, but you may have seen the recent article in the New Yorker magazine. I thought it provided excellent background on the dispute between the Tamil Tigers terrorist group and the Sri Lankan government, but it barely mentioned suicide bombing, a major gap.) The Tigers may now have been surpassed in the number of suicide bombings by the jihadists in Iraq (I can't imagine they haven't been) but up until very recently, despite the fact that they get very little media coverage here, the majority of suicide bombings historically have been conducted by the Tigers (a secular group, by the way.) For a really fascinating look on the reasons different terrorist organizations choose suicide terrorism, take a look at this new work, based on extensive field research, including with the Tigers.

The British Tipping Point

The Brits reach their final tipping point, and Omar Bakri, glorifier of suicide bombing, spiritual adviser to suicide bombers, is told he isn't welcome back into the country.

The difficulty of the strategy rhetorically is immediately on display:

An associate of Bakri, Anjem Choudary, characterized the government decision as "completely outrageous."

"This is completely predictable; it's just the final manifestation of their war on Muslims," Choudary said in an interview. "Where are all the values they say they stand for: freedom of speech, freedom of expression, the right of innocence until proven guilty?"

Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't an argument you can take on (few advocates of free speech are absolutists, it just isn't that hard to defend reasonable limits) but you have to have access, free access, ironically, to the audience hearing that message to get your point across. (And, of course, if this truly is the "final" manifestation of the supposed war on Muslims, it isn't a particularly egregious or effective war.)

Also immediately on display: the argument I've been making: that the people who are no doubt most offended by the attention given to the likes of Bakri are the moderate Muslims.

A Muslim group expressed satisfaction at the banning of Bakri, whose organization was singled out by Prime Minister Tony Blair late last week in a speech outlining new measures to punish those who promote or incite terrorism.

"Most Muslims are happy he's gone," said Asghar Bukhari of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, a London-based group that advocates Muslim involvement in the democratic process rather than the use of violence. "I don't think Muslims ever bought that he was a threat to national security, but he was such a vocal pain in the backside that he increased racial tensions in the country."

I'm pretty sure I've shared this story at least once with you guys, but during a trip for a program on counterterrorism I had the chance (uh, okay, several chances) to go drinking at Mike's Place, the Tel Aviv bar that had been bombed by the British suicide bombers coached along by Bakri.

Of course we were a bunch of geek academics, so we couldn't just sit there and enjoy a few beers by the beach, we had to find out who on the staff had been there that night, and ask as many questions as we thought we could delicately get away with (not a problem, the wait immediately figured out we were American, asked why we were there, we asked one question, after that the staff was coming to us to talk.) That was an incredibly powerful experience (as was sitting there the night everyone, the guy in our group who's an Army reservist, the security guard out front, the bar tender, and all the kids at the next table over in uniform and armed, all thought the guy with the bulges under his clothes and the plastic bag in his hands was not exactly friendly. Turned out to be a homeless guy.) And this man glorifies that? You bet the Brits aren't interested in having him back.

It's the Little Things

One of the most important news items of the last week finally appears -- on the Washington Post editorial page. Why are we so hesitant to acknowledge those moments when are enemy stands up and declares himself, and the differences between us?

A Little Too Transparent

From Iraq, MSNBC/NBC's Mike Boettcher (formerly of CNN) reports that in a bloody firefight in a small town almost twenty people have been killed, and there are complaints of US forces firing wildly.

But, the Marines say they weren't even in the area.

"We're checking it out," he says.

Then why put it on the air at all? You have two mutually exclusive claims, you don't yet know which one is true, you aren't done researching the story, but airing it, sensational as it is, could deeply harm the US war effort.

I am not suggesting that the media should hold back stories that, if true, might harm the US war effort. If the story is true, that cannot be a consideration in a situation like this. There are no security considerations here, and the American people have a right to know if something like that happened. But at this point what we're talking about is spreading rumors, and if spreading a rumor might hurt the war effort, would it kill you to wait until you knew if you had a story?

In fact, I thought the press wasn't supposed to be spreading rumors. The only reason to do so, in fact, is to "plant the flag," to let everyone know -- if it turns out to be true -- that NBC got it first. So if it turns out to be true, it will count as an NBC scoop. If it turns out to be false, well, no harm, no foul.

Except that isn't really true, is it?

Am I wrong about this? Is there a reason beyond competitive pressure for an outlet to go with a half-baked story before they have it locked down? Am I wrong that it's potentially harmful for them to be spreading wild, unsubstantiated rumors?

Tell me if I am, but if people are upset because the Jessica Lynch story got spread before the press had it locked down that she went down fighting, then people should be equally upset that they're spreading this stuff. And the fact that he's clear that they don't have it locked down is, it seems to me, small comfort -- because the story will spread just the same.

And here's the kicker -- the press does not report negatives.

If his reporting confirms that the Marines were not there at the time, Boettcher will not come back on the air and report, "the Marines did not shoot wildly and kill people in the town of such and so today." That story will never be corrected, precisely because it was left ambiguous. That's NBC's out.

Ask Cindy to Ask About Jeff

Since a new week is about to start, there's something I meant to bring up. (Usually I think of this on Wednesdays, for some reason, so I don't post about it.)

Right now Cindy Sheehan is getting international attention for her efforts to get a (second) meeting with the President.

If she gets that meeting, maybe she could mention Jeffrey Ake of Indiana. Or, better yet, maybe she could take a few seconds of her time with the press, since they seem to be with her all day long.

Up until now at least the Indiana press has always had recent articles on the Ake story but this time, other than the list of hostages a wire put out on July 21st, nothing comes up. The Maupin story does a little better.

The 9/11 Commission Hits Back

Their statement from last night: a review of their staff's notes from the relevant briefings put them in the clear; Weldon's claims are overblown, particularly regarding the 2003 briefing.

Could be, but their inability to provide a single message this first week has hurt them, and probably hurt their chances to shut this down without at least some form of Congressional investigation.

I find the whole thing deeply ironic. The Commission positioned themselves as not only the last and final word on 9/11 but as the last and final word on how to interpret 9/11, and I deeply resent their efforts to stay in that position after their legal mandate ran. No one is more invested in the need to keep the memory of September 11th alive and in the public discourse than I am, but by attempting to retain their nature as a whole, as a "commission" of some sort that controls the nature of public debate over the meaning 9/11 has for policy implications in this country, these 10 people are trying to keep a choke hold on an issue of overriding public importance. But no one elected them to that role, which is the whole reason commissions are only given a set amount of time, after which their mandate runs. But their entire rhetorical strategy has been designed to structure public debate so that if you question their authority or interpretations you're putting the public saftey at risk. It's extraordinarily dangerous, in my opinion, so I'm just as happy to see somebody shake them up a little.

Having these 10 people committed to the cause of keeping the meaning of 9/11 and the memory of 9/11 front and center is a great thing. Having these 10 people committed to keeping their own role intact is a frightening thing, as it stunts debate on a range of issues central to our security.

The Post Zooms Back

One way to think about the narrative frame a news story puts on a particular news event is that it functions conceptually somewhat the way a zoom lens on a camera does. The narrative frame can be very tight, pulling your view in so that you are led to focus on the event at hand, and only on that particular event, or the narrative frame can zoom out for a longer view, putting the event into a different focus, making it seem to be one element in a larger landscape. Both may be legitimate (and "true") ways to look at the event, but they are radically different ways of doing so.

The story of the grieving mother holding lonely vigil outside the President's Texas ranch has gotten an enormous amount of attention from the media. Partially that's because, I suspect, they hate being stuck in Crawford where there's nothing for them to do on days when no one in particular is visiting him, so this gives them a way to occupy their time that's entertaining, partially it's because the template for that frame is so simple and elegant it virtually writes itself. It's a frame that perpetually recurs in news stories, in all sorts of settings and contexts, sports to business to politics, and that reporters love: it's David and Goliath, baby. They recognize it wherever they see it, and all they have to do is fill in the specifics.

Bereaved mother vs. Leader of the Free World.

But the Post today zooms out. That complicates their picture (narrative frame) a good bit, but in general a complicated picture, while less elegant, is one that better informs their readers.

It's bereaved mother (and no one doubts the sincerity of her grief or her political attitudes) not quite alone, but along with her political compatriots, PR consultants, publicists, and an international media circus.

Watching That Pendulum Swing

Look, we all know that some of the rules put in place for airport travel immediately after 9/11 made little sense, and it's about time we were allowed to travel with nail scissors again. But it sounds as if the TSA isn't looking to just make their new rules more "common sense," but more "customer friendly." But I don't give a damn if security procedures are customer friendly as long as they make sense and work.

Look at this:

Since his confirmation in June, Hawley has told his staff that he would reevaluate security measures put in place since the terrorist attacks in 2001 and ensure that they make sense, given today's threats. The TSA is struggling with new cuts in the screener workforce imposed by Congress while its new leaders hope to improve the agency's poor reputation among air travelers by introducing more customer-friendly measures.

Put aside for the moment the fact that having their work force cut may not make sense right now, this does make it sound as if their reputation is his top priority. It shouldn't be.

For example:

The TSA memo proposes to minimize the number of passengers who must be patted down at checkpoints. It also recommends that certain categories of passengers be exempt from airport security screening, such as members of Congress, airline pilots, Cabinet members, state governors, federal judges, high-ranking military officers and people with top-secret security clearances. (My emph.)

The second sentence there makes enormous sense. That's one of the arguments of the pro-profiling crowd, that there are certain groups of people it simply makes no sense to waste security resources on. Well, instead of going at the problem one way, by talking about who you should focus particular attention on, you can get the same good result (focused resources) this way, by figuring out who you can exclude from special attention. But notice that that is a second, additional idea. He also wants to reduce the amount of pat downs, just as these exclusions give him more resources to do them.

Why? Did London and Egypt give him that much confidence that we face a reduced threat?

But I particularly loved this idea:

The proposal also would allow ice picks, throwing stars and bows and arrows on flights. Allowing those items was suggested after a risk evaluation was conducted about which items posed the most danger.

You know, we all have our horror stories of items we weren't allowed to carry on, or that friends weren't allowed to carry on, because TSA said they could be considered a weapon. And then there are those bins and bins and bins of nail scissors (and, now, cigarette lighters.)

But ice picks?

I think this is an agency that wants to be loved a little too much.

I have a friend with an intelligence background who's convinced that all of this is unnecessary because no American plane will ever be taken again: we will all be United 93 from this point forward.

Okay, fine, I can see that.

But if I'm going to be a part of a group of passengers having to fight a crazed hijacking team, could we not let them arm themselves in advance with ice picks and throwing stars?

The Dog Ate My Homework

Not exactly, but the computer just ate my nice, long post. And there goes the time I had allotted for blogging before I need to take off for the office. I'll try and put some stuff up during the day.

Rats. It is really hard to work up the motivation to redo anything longer than a sentence or two.