Issue Ad Nauseam
Posted Thursday, Feb. 10, 2000, at 4:55 AM ETThe Los Angeles Times leads with the latest in L.A.'s police scandal: exclusive details about how "an organized criminal subculture" of the LAPD routinely broke the law. The Washington Post and USA Today go with the third consecutive day of the hack attack against high-profile Web sites. The New York Times goes with an exclusive revealing that President Clinton, to counteract George W. Bush's tremendous financing, is planning to spearhead a multimillion-dollar soft money solicitation campaign to fund ads that can serve the Democratic Party presidential nominee's cause when he emerges from the primary fight. The Times points out the spots being planned are similar to the "issue ads" of the 1996 campaign that have been roundly criticized as violating at least the spirit of the law against soft money flowing to ads for a specific candidate.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponThe LAT's lead is the first extensive look its readers have had at directly quoted material from the burgeoning scandal's nearly 2,000 pages of police and D.A. interviews with the main source, a dirty cop holding up his end of a plea bargain. The story describes in some detail the corrupt practices of the anti-gang unit at the scandal's center: how cops would shoot unarmed gang suspects and then keep supervisors out of the area while they planted a weapon and got their story straight. In one case described, the story-straightening meant an ambulance had to be kept away while the unjustly shot suspect bled to death.
The big flaw in the story is that it delays until the seventh paragraph and utterly keeps out of the headline and subhead the information that the confessing cop has failed the polygraph test he was given. Yes, the paper still marshals information supporting the idea that he's nonetheless being truthful--most notably that some of his statements marked as deceptive by the polygraph have been independently confirmed--but suppressing the "lie detector" results is the mark of attempting to politically spin a news story. Another mark: using another space above the fold for a second story that essentially just repeats the ex-cop's unjustified shooting narratives in just a bit more detail. The truth doesn't need this kind of piling on. In fact, it's hurt by it.
The WP and USAT leads report that Wednesday saw the gumming-up of E*Trade and ZDNet. The Post paints a picture of frustrated traders not able to get executions at E*Trade as a result, including one customer who said while he was on hold for half an hour, the stock he was trying to sell dropped by 6 percent. (Don't you think there were also traders trying to buy a stock who got a better purchase price because of the enforced delay? Why you think the Post didn't quote any of them?) USAT says that the target-site slowdown created a general one--with the top 40 Web sites running about 60 percent slower yesterday--although the paper doesn't explain why this collateral damage occurs. The coverage makes it clear that at this point law enforcement officials admit they are clueless. By the way, an inside story at the NYT quotes insurance experts as surmising that most of the clobbered dot-coms do not carry insurance to protect against losses incurred by service interruptions.
The WP reports that the Food and Drug Administration has backed away from its recent loosey-goosey approach to supplement labels, with the agency now, out of a concern for fetal health, warning companies not to promote their over-the-counter pills as treatments for various maladies and discomforts suffered by pregnant women. The paper says the agency's latest statement appears to be a nonbinding advisory and quotes an official as saying the FDA would evaluate whether it should take some (unspecified) action against companies ignoring the warning. This story and the recent Post coverage of OSHA's tap dance on home-worker safety should remind the reader that it's not just candidates that use the papers for trial balloons. Regulators do too.
Everybody reports that at a news conference in Brussels, the European Union announced that its antitrust regulators were starting to examine whether Microsoft designed Windows 2000 so as to unfairly leverage its dominance in PC operating systems into a dominance of other markets such as server operating systems and e-commerce. A DOJ spokeswoman denies any advance notice of the probe. The main concern is whether or not Microsoft designed Windows 2000 to work less than optimally with server software made by competitors like Sun Microsystems.
The Wall Street Journal "Business Bulletin" quotes an academic study of the notion of branding that purports to show that leading brands don't maintain their market leadership for as long as the conventional wisdom suggests. But the main fact from the study the column quotes is: Of the top brands in 100 product groups surveyed in 1923, only 23 were still leaders in 1997. Excuse, but isn't that a lot?
The USAT front reports that Michael Jordan has made a TV spot for Bill Bradley and will endorse him later this week. (For a Bradley pre-mortem, click here.) What's next--going to the Wizards?
Disclosure: Slate is owned by the Washington Post Co. Don't understand Today's Papers jargon? Check out the Today's Papers glossary. Get Today's Papers free in your mailbox. Having trouble receiving Today's Papers?
Is It More Important for Your Turkey To Be Organic or Local?
Why Gift Cards Are a Terrible Gift
Is Sarah Palin's Approval Rating Really as High as Barack Obama's?
Justice Scalia's Most Eccentric Habits
Adam Lambert's Refreshing Non-Apology on the CBS Early Show
Democrats Have a Lot To Be Thankful For
Highlights from The Fray:
[In response to yesterday's "TP"]
Comparing Hillary's cynical choice of N.Y. as a home to enable her to run for the senate in a state which could conceivably elect someone as far-left as she is to McCain's and Bradley's choice of states is ludicrous. The longest period of time John McCain was able to stay in one place during the years of service he gave his country was the five years he spent in the Hanoi Hilton. If he chooses to live and work in Az. and eventually to run for office, Arizona comes out ahead. Bill Bradley displayed a lot of nerve, drive and intelligence in the many years he lived and worked in the N.Y./New Jersey area. He paid his dues.
All Hillary has done is buy a Yankees hat...
--Levi
(To reply, click here.)
Apropos David Broder's comment (as summarized by TP): If Mrs. Clinton were to return to Arkansas (where she lived for several years, and was, as they say, "politically active") to run against Tim Hutchinson in 2002, no one could possibly object on "carpetbagging" grounds. Similarly, if she went back to Park Ridge, Illinois, to lay the groundwork for a race against Peter Fitzgerald in 2004, she could plausibly argue (albeit with less force) that she has a legitimate connection to the state, having grown up there.
But New York? She's used the state as a cash machine--nothing more. At least RFK lived there as a child.
--Gary
(To reply, click here.)
What Hilary Clinton is doing in New York pales in comparison to the real carpetbaggers did in the reconstruction of the South at the end of the civil war. The real carpetbaggers ran for office, with most of the electorate being either illiterate or prohibited from voting due to their service in the Confederate army. They had no native opposition. In addition to that, the carpetbaggers bought up businesses and real estate at bargain basement prices due to the bankrupt southern economy. Hillary, by contrast, sincerely wants to represent the people of New York.
--Bruce
(To reply, click here.)
We are focusing far too much on the past in Hillary's carpetbagging. It will make no difference. As far as I can see, she has been "appointed" to run for the senate seat in New York by the New York State Democratic Party. Instead, we should investigate her future:
- Will she sign a pledge not to run for any other public office during her tenure as Senator,
if elected?
- Will she agree to blind trusts for all her financial affairs while she is Senator, if elected?
- Will she agree to not to use her office as a shield for any prosecution, if elected?
- Will she agree submit for an appropriate security clearance and make the findings public?
- Does she plan to live in New York even if she looses the election?
--GOODTIMES
(To reply, click here.)
TP notes that worker pay hasn't kept up with productivity increases. In the next paragraph, increasing use of stock options is mentioned as a reason for the productivity increase. Are stock options included in those lagging pay figures? If not, might the increased use of options also explain the lag in pay increases?
--Jim
(To reply, click here.)
TP hits the nail squarely on the head. We are seeing the effects of the "new workforce." With the tightest job market in history, companies are being very creative in attracting and keeping employees. Today's employees want things like signing bonuses, and stock options, and deferred income, and flexible work schedules, and so on. For instance, pancake houses in Texas give out $4,000 signing bonuses, budget hotel managers get free BMWs, and Deloitte & Touche gives away new Jeep Wranglers and $15,000 checks to employees simply for referring new people.
Annual raises have fallen, but variable pay is increasing significantly. (This was the topic of Business Week's cover story of December 6, 1999.)
--eolon
(To reply, click here.)
TP writes:
I should hope so. Productivity levels generally increase year to year, albeit at varying amounts. I assume you meant productivity gains not seen in years (that is, the percentage increase in productivity level).
--SWolfe
(To reply, click here.)