Wednesday, March 02, 2005

kiss the fourt estate goodbye

Actually, I'm not that pessimistic about the condition of the press. Still, this article in Salon makes me slightly less sanguine.

Quotable quote from the article:

According to David Brock, author of "The Right Wing Noise Machine" and CEO of Media Matters for America, a progressive, not-for-profit advocacy group, the White House's ultimate aim is to raise doubts about the information independent journalists produce. "Their explicit goal is to get us to the point where there are blue [state] facts and red [state] facts," Brock says.


I suspect that this tactic has already claimed many vicitms. A friend of mine, a staunch Bush supporter, had this reply when I questioned her on the fact that Bush proudly doesn't read any newspapers: he shouldn't becuase the press is so hopelessly biased, he wouldn't learn anything of import. D'oh! I think I've linked to this before, but once again I refer you to the excellent PIPA investigation of the diparate realities of Bush and Kerry supporters. (Fair warning: the link points directly to a pdf.)

update to what's pissing me off

Sorry, Aldo, there is a way to link to NY Times articles that doesn't require readers to log in, but clearly I have not mastered it.

FYI, I set up a log in to the Times site for people reading this blog, since I link to their articles pretty regularly. That login is: username=yesitreallyis password=myblog. If at some point this fails, I think that bugmenot.com is still up and running.

Also, at the risk of incurring the wrath of the entire lawyerly contingent over at the Times, here is the full text of the editorial I linked in my previous post:
February 28, 2005
EDITORIAL

What's Secretly Wrong With Kansas


In a shocking abuse of office, the attorney general of Kansas is conducting a stealth campaign to violate the privacy of about 90 women who obtained late-term abortions, offering the flimsy claim that he's looking for evidence of crime.

Protected by a sweeping gag order from a local judge, Attorney General Phill Kline has been demanding the women's records from two clinics that have been unable to even warn clients that their intimate histories are being sought. When the inquiry finally came to light through a court brief, Mr. Kline maintained that he needed all the women's records - including their identities, sexual histories, clinical profiles and birth control methods - to prosecute statutory rape and other suspected sexual crimes.

Kansans deserve a full explanation of this gross intrusion into medical confidences that are supposed to be carefully protected by law. But Mr. Kline, a fervid anti-abortion campaigner throughout his career as a Republican politician, would not answer reporters' questions about his investigation. "Clinics should not act to protect the secrecy of the predator," he insisted in a statement, offering a blanket smear in lieu of a proper explanation.

Mr. Kline's campaign echoes a similar salvo last year by Attorney General John Ashcroft. Federal judges eventually cited privacy laws to stop his attempt to forage through hundreds of records at a half-dozen hospitals. Two years ago, Mr. Kline called on health-care providers to report underage sexual activity, but a federal judge ruled him out of line. Mr. Kline deserves another rebuff, beginning with the suspension of the gag order.

The targeted clinics say they have observed state requirements to report possible crimes. They have filed an appeal to the State Supreme Court, complaining that Mr. Kline is conducting a fishing expedition, not a case-specific inquiry. The clinics have suggested a compromise - that the identities of the women be blacked out with the option for more information from any whose records might yield evidence of crimes like statutory rape.

It's not at all clear how that crime is linked in particular to late-term abortions, which just happen to be the current target of Republican anti-abortion activists across the country. Late-term abortions - beyond 22 weeks of gestation - are illegal in Kansas, except when they are done to protect a woman's health. But Mr. Kline offers no evidence to suggest he has any legal ground to justify pawing through the confidential records of the 90 women he has targeted for his mission of harassment. As for predatory abuse of girls under the age of sexual consent, they could have obtained abortions earlier than 22 weeks.

There is no disputing that Mr. Kline has the duty and power to uphold the law. No one wishes child abusers to walk free. But Mr. Kline also has privacy laws to uphold. His demand for the clinics' records is not only insupportable legally; it smacks of an ideological dragnet.