respublica

So Romney had a plan

This Time Magazine story makes the fact that Romney and his people worked hard ahead of the election to get an organized plan for governing in place in the event he won sound somehow weird and sinister. I have to agree with Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) sentiment:

"So the big news is that Mitt Romney had a detailed plan for his first term as president. Meanwhile, Obama’s second term is marked by his claims that he has absolutely no idea what his underlings are doing."

First Amendment food for thought

Here is the complete text of the First Amendment we're hearing so much about right now as the Obama administration slogs through violations they set in motion. Violations by the IRS and DOJ to journalists and to private groups.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Ah, so it isn't just about freedom of the press, it's also about the freedom to exercise religion, something our mostly secular press does not much care about. It's also where the IRS comes in when they held up tax exempt status to private groups during the years leading up to the 2012 election.

Thoughtful commentary here on this subject.

Vindication of sorts

Watching Morning Joe this morning and had that head slapping moment when NBC reporter Lisa Myers said this to a question about the DOJ confiscating the phone records of the Associated Press:

"The story damages the White House because it upsets the press - "one of the president's most important constituencies."

This got a huge laugh out loud from us. It's moments like this that make us feel we haven't been totally paranoid about the press corps and the Obama administration's close knit relationship. But it seems to be unraveling now...as it should. There has been way too much cosyness between the two which never allows for a necessary checks and balances.

So? Maybe some of us should be a bit paranoid

Two things which cropped up today:

1. Via AP  "The Internal Revenue Service inappropriately flagged conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status, a top IRS official said Friday.

Organizations were singled out because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups.

In some cases, groups were asked for their list of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.

"That was wrong. That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review," Lerner said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association."

2. The White House held an "off the record" briefing for some reporters on Benghazi. " to discuss recent revelations about the Benghazi investigation, sources familiar with the meeting tell POLITICO. The meeting was conducted on "deep background," according to White House spokesman Josh Earnest, but sources told POLITICO that the existence of the meeting was "off the record." The session was announced to reporters in the wake of an ABC News report showing that White House and State Dept. officials were involved in revising the now-discredited CIA talking points about the attack on Benghazi."

Update: Now the briefing has been changed to "deep background" which means they can be quoted. Lots of ire about the secret press meeting probably caused it to be changed.

Media salaries

Here's a list of the highests paid media CEO's. In aid of nothing really, just an FYI. The highest paid is CBS's Les Moonves who received 62.2 million last year.

Only one woman on the list and she is with something named Regal Entertainment. And, hahahaha, the head of AOL is there too, who knew AOL was stilll viable.

AKA the Nerd prom

Tomorrow night is the White House Correspondents Dinner, a fancy dinner for political reporters and the president which is also known as the 'nerd prom'. It's like the Academy Awards for journalists. Everyone dresses up, has dinner and then sits back to laugh at the commedian chosen to be the main speaker and then the president's humorous response.

This is televised in total by CSPAN with the cable news stations carrying the entertainment portion. What makes CSPAN's broadcast best is that they carry every minute of the evening from the red carpet arrival of big names in news, actors, rocks stars, athletes and the like, to people milling around their dinner tables to the exits.

Conan O'Brien will headline this year's event, hopefully he will be relaxed and confident enough to make fun of the president and press which has long been the purpose of the WHCA's dinner. During Obama's term, however, there has been a stiffness to the humor by other speakers and reporters because Obama is not one the media types really want to laugh at. Clinton and Bush were different. They seemed to enjoy the jokes and gave back as good as they got.

Whatever happens, it's a night of tv that is worth watching. CSPAN begins their coverage at 5:15 CST with the arrivals while the cable networks will begin at 8 CST.

Well, bye bye Belleville News Democrat

All of a sudden clicking a story link on the BND website brings up box telling you to either sign in to your Press + Account or become a Press + Account member. Looks like this will cost you money and while memberships allowing access to the stories begin at 99 cents which seems like nothing, it is in reality a real pain. Who wants a 99 cent credit or debit card purchase? 

Oddly, I can open links on the iPad but not the computer. Guess I'll follow them on Twitter to see if their Tweet links work.  Nope, their tweet links bring up that same box.

Since we can't get the BND here in St. Louis, I guess it's so long to that paper.

One thing learned from Boston

After 5 days of experts talking on tv news programs while the manhunt for the Marathon bombers was ongoing, surely we've discovered that they are way too quick to pass along information which is erroneous. Sources are often wrong and the speed of the internet is too slow to put the kabosh on the errors.

And, I've found that when one of those experts begins his/her remarks with "Clearly" or "let's be clear", the information usually isns't....clear.

Journalism's most sacred cow

Abortion. Before you wave off this article by Carl Cannon, I'd advise you to take a look, one of the best discussions on this topic you'll find and not inflammatory.

One reason why you can't believe the initial reports

RE Boston Marathon bombing and most other shocking news events.

Because we're so wired in and have access to immediate news everyone in that industry wants to be the first to get facts which often leads to several missteps, wrong information and u-turns. It's better not to take everything you hear or read at face value just after things happen. Take this one bit of information aired by 2 different national news people:

From CBS' John Miller on the explosive devices, "very early analysis shows they're "not very sophisticated".

At around the same time NBC's Savannah Guthrie, "expert says devices were sophisticated." 

A small point certainly, but that's the kind of contradiction that happens after a major story.