-
sponsorship
"'I'll sue you for defamation!' is the toothless wonder of the legal world," declares a confident and defiant HuffPo blogger. But is it really toothless? ... Background: Sarah Palin's attorney suggests that an Alaskan blogger has been defaming the Governor, and is threatening to sue not only the blogger but also "those who republish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post." I would have thought that this threat was decidedly non-toothless--that if a blogger really was publishing something defamatory about Palin (or anyone**), and if HuffPo or the NYT published the blog on their web sites, they'd be on the hook for defamation just as if they'd published an article by one of their own reporters.
That was before I learned about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. It's imprecisely worded, but if it really does immunize HuffPo and Gawker and even Slate or the NYT, etc --by requiring any libel plaintiff to recover damages from the actual original blogger, as some cases suggest--that would change a lot from what I thought I learned in law school. The changes go way beyond defanging Palin. I'm obviously way behind thinking about this, but off the top of my head, here are some of the possible ramifications:
a) It would be great for blogging, because it would mean lawyers for big journalistic outfits (like the Washington Post, which owns Slate) won't require blogs to be edited. In fact, they won't want the blogs to be edited, lest that be interpreted as implicating the big journalistic outlet itself in any libel. "Curation" is for co-defendants!
b) Most bloggers themselves are probably poor enough to be judgment-proof, although some HuffPo bloggers might have deeper pockets than HuffPo itself;
c) It means unverified undernews would now have a prominent, semi-official, de facto-sanctioned home, namely judgment-proof blogs on big news sites;
d) Are they really going to apply this to organizations that pay freelance bloggers for their submissions? If not, the statute might protect HuffPo (which usually doesn't pay bloggers) but not Slate (which pays me). But does this paid/unpaid line really make sense, since readers don't necessarily know who's paying what to whom when evaluating a blog's credibility? Is HuffPo all that different from Slate? And I don't want to give my editors another reason to cut my salary to zero. ...
e) What about repeating these protected-by Sec. 230-but-unverified blog allegations in the core MSM? If actual reporters working for actual traditional news outfits can then relay 'the fact that Judgment-Proof Blog X is reporting Y rumor'--despite the traditional rules saying news outfits couldn't do this, but hey, why cut them out of the new vibrant "diversity of political discourse"?--we've really entered a new world. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with it. ...
But I find it difficult to believe that the broad web-site-protecting reading of Section 230 will hold up--it's a mere statute, remember. Congress can amend it. Is Congress really going to let average citizens get libeled by blogs on the New York Times web site without being able to sue the New York Times? ... On its face, the statutory provision, which protects "interactive computer services and other interactive media," appears intended more to protect outfits like American Online than traditional newspapers that host blogs or even new hybrid journalist/blogging/activist outfits like HuffPo. When Congress sees how that phrase has been interpreted, it may (as they say) revisit the issue. ...
**--Sure, public figures like Palin would have to show "actual malice," as defined in New York Times v. Sullivan. But that's not always impossible to do. ... 2:21 A.M.
___________________________
The "Savonarola of Sullivan's Island": Was he in love with the Latina hottie or with the "unashamedly navel-gazing culture of Argentina itself?" ... 12:11 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
I think Ezra Klein misstates OMB director Peter Orszag's position--which Orszag presented on his blog and in a phone call responding to Virginia Postrel (who argued that if there's so much money to be saved in health care, as demonstrated by waste in Medicare, why doesn't the administration start by eliminating the waste in Medicare?). Klein writes:
The cost reforms, by contrast, are being done cautiously, cooperatively, and with a focus on Medicare. ....
Which is why it's a bit bizarre to read Postrel writing that "if more-efficient government management can slash health-care costs by addressing all these problems, why not start with Medicare?" When it comes to cost, they actually are starting with Medicare. They hope that the efficiencies work and are voluntarily adopted by private insurance. But there's no actual mechanism to make that happen.
My impression (which could be wrong!) is that there are two sorts of cost savings Orszag has in mind. 1) A bunch of "scoreable" Medicare and Medicaid cuts** that will save $5-600 billion over 10 years and (along with some revenue increases) pay for expanding health coverage over that period; and 2) A collection of more ambitious "game changer" reforms*** that aren't part of that next-10-year calculation but will "lower the rate of health care cost growth" in the long run. These game changer reforms are not limited to Medicare and Medicaid, as I understand it--indeed, I think it is Orszag's position that you can't do them if you limit them to Medicare and Medicaid.
This latter assertion appears to be a central pillar of "Orszagism," which is defined the claim that (as Ryan Lizza puts it) "health-care reform is deficit reduction,"-- that without Obama's sweeping health care reforms we just can't "bend the cost curve" down enough in the long run. If the "game changers" could simply be limited to Medicare and Medicaid, you could simply implement them without reforming the rest of the health care system--Postrel's point--thereby more or less totally undermining Orszagism. Expanding health care coverage and cutting long-term federal health-related budget costs would be two distinct, separable policy initiatives (one reliably expensive, one seemingly speculative).
The assertion--that you can't just do the cuts in Medicare--isn't really defended in Orszag's recent posts, though he promises more dialogue in the future. Orszag also has to convince people that a) his "game changers" actually will cut costs--in Medicare, or anywhere b) without compromising health or medical progress and c) without engaging in the nasty treatment-denying behavior HMO's got in trouble for a decade or so ago. ... Update: I forgot d)--and they'll cut costs so much that they'll more than compensate for the obvious ways universal health insurance will increase long-term health costs (i.e., by increasing the number of consumers demanding medical services and enabling them to exert political pressure, not necessarily illegitimate, to pay for particular expensive treatments, including treatments Orszag's various cost-conscious reforms might deny). ... Best of luck to him.
_______
** As described in a recent presidential letter, these "scoreable" shorter-term cuts include
reducing overpayments to Medicare Advantage private insurers; strengthening Medicare and Medicaid payment accuracy by cutting waste, fraud and abuse; improving care for Medicare patients after hospitalizations; and encouraging physicians to form "accountable care organizations" to improve the quality of care for Medicare patients ....
Plus "another $200 to $300 billion" in Medicare and Medicaid savings to be announced soon. ...
***--The "game changers," as described by Orszag, include
steps such as health IT, research into what works and what doesn’t, prevention and wellness, and changes in incentives so that Americans get the best care not just more care.
2:42 A.M.
___________________________
It's Pedal to the Metal for the New Chrysler! Obama spokesperson: "We are delighted that the Chrysler-Fiat alliance can now go forward, allowing Chrysler to re-emerge as a competitive and viable automaker." [E..A.] Viable? Competitive? Hello? We are writing this down. Words like that will be remembered in two years, if Chrysler even makes it that far. ... 2:41 A.M.
___________________________
Arianna vs. the Anti-Objectification Cheesecake Police: All the best fights are intra-left these days. ... P.S.: kf last month, City Paper this month. ... 2:27 A.M.
___________________________
John Dickerson: "Did Google do it for Deeds?" No. ... 2:18 A.M.
___________________________
GM Design Chief Ed Welburn did not not not accuse a HuffPo blogger of racism (sorry TTAC). ... But he did cite his grotesquely cheesy, cartoonish new Camaro as an example of what can be created in GM's "cutting edge 21st century environment." ... Welburn seems like a nice guy. But I would say the Camaro is a firing offense (though,, if he's a UAW member, it will take 6 unexcused Camaros). ... 2:16 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Chrysler Bailout is "capitalism at work," writes private equity macher Scott Sperling in the WSJ. Here are some of the more questionable sentences in his essay:
Without a drastic restructuring neither Chrysler nor GM would have a chance for long-term success ...
These decisions include "right sizing" industry capacity by cutting many union and white-collar jobs and closing numerous manufacturing plants and dealerships; making the unions accept lower wages and benefits so that these companies can compete ... [E.A]
The cuts current union members were forced to accept were not impressive. Before the deal, Chrysler's UAW workers made $28 an hour. After they deal, they'll make $28 an hour. They gave up a scheduled increase in wages, plus a couple of scheduled bonuses. That explains why Chrysler's Belvidere, Illinois workers told TV station WIFR that "the plan is not nearly as drastic as they expected." ...
As for Chrysler's "chance for long-term success," it appears vanishingly small. Italian manufacturer FIAT is supposed to save Chrysler with new products, but according to a recent Automotive News article, "four of the six new vehicles from Fiat will enter the small-car segment," which is highly competitive but "covers only 14 percent of the entire U.S. light-vehicle market."
"The volumes need to be big for Chrysler to survive," [market analyst Tracy Handler] said. "Will they be? I have doubts about that."
See also this BBC article ("it's madness"). Pathetically, Chrysler hopes that even if they don't save the company the new small cars will "[b]urnish the environmental image of Chrysler brands," says Automotive News. Unfortunately, the pipeline for those brands' other, larger, products--burnished or not--is pretty much empty.
If Chrysler workers were paid, say, not $28 an hour instead of $24--still not bad--the firm might actually have a "chance for long term success" through charging lower prices. But that wasn't a sacrifice Obama was ready to ask (even if Belvidere workers were apparently willing). ...
Final obvious point: I don't want to sound like Veronique de Rugy here, but who will pay the price if when this half-baked "restructuring" fails? In normal "capitalism at work," those who would pay the price will be those who made the deal and put up their money--the capitalists. (Query: Would Scott Sperling invest his firm's money in this dubious proposition?) If When Obama's plan fails, the monetary loss will fall not on Obama, but on the taxpayers. It will likely be made up somehow by the taxpayers (via higher tax assessments or inflation). That's not "capitalism at work." It's something else at work. But I'd be all for it, if I thought it really would work. It won't, and it will be Obama's fault. (He'd certainly get credit if it succeeded.) ... 6:05 P.M.
___________________________
Buried Lede of the Day: Thomas Edsall, summarizing a new Pew poll, notes the Dems have gained some support recently! While Republicans have lost ground! And voters care more about the economy than "moral values."
We knew that. What we maybe didn't know is this:
Conversely, public support for labor unions appears to be weakening: the percentage of people agreeing that "labor unions are necessary to protect the working person," has dropped from 74 percent at the start of this decade to 61 percent this year. The decline was sharper --- from 76 to 53 percent, a 23 point fall -- among independent voters than among either Democrats or Republicans. [E.A.]
Some 61% say labor unions are "too powerful," a big jump from 52% in 1999. ... Support for unions, says Pew, is at an "all-time low.". ... Also, perhaps counter-intuitively, "'the overall balance of public opinion on the government's responsibility to provide for the needy has shifted to the right' despite the onset of a severe recession." This rightward movement appears to be the result of growing fear among the above $75K set (a big set) that the poor have become too dependent on government programs. ...
Hmmm. Democratic. But skeptical of unions. And worried about welfare dependence. ... What kind of Democrats are these? ... 6:04 P.M.
___________________________
Arianna's secret weapon: Are you running a political site and worried about reversing the "inevitable post election traffic decline"? Arianna Huffington has the solution. ...
There are things Don Graham won't do, and this is probably one of them. Which is why Huffington Post will always have an edge on WaPo (and the rest of the MSM). She's not scared to go there. ... 5:49 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
"McCaskill Offers Dire Take on Employee Free Choice Act"--headline on Huffington Post. "I'm not sure if we have the votes," is what centrist Dem. Sen. McCaskill says. What she mean "we"? ... P.S.: It actually reads to me as if McCaskill successfully ducked taking a stand on the "card check" bill itself. But you make the call. ... P.P.S.: If the Dems don't have the votes for "card check" in the bag, I don't quite understand the strategy behind labor's blustery show of confidence. ("We are not worried at all.") Sure, the unions would like to have a strong hand in any backroom negotiations over a compromise. And they don't want wavering Dems like McCaskill to think they have permission to be the Senator who puts 60 votes out of reach. But won't labor look like a paper tiger if the votes aren't there? ... P.P.P.S.: Then again, labor thought it had the votes of enough workers at Nissan's Tennessee plant too, before losing by a 2-1 margin. Damn secret ballot. ...
Update: Still no announcement from HuffPo inviting union organizers to start collecting cards from the website's Brentwood and Soho employees. Expected soon, because Employee Free Choice is On the Move! ...11:24 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
'Card Check' Begins at Home: For much of today, pride of place on the Huffington Post home page--the coveted 'Huff Left' slot--was enjoyed by Robert Kuttner's piece touting the Employee Free Choice Act, the so called "card check" bill that would make it easier for unions to organize new workplaces by letting them avoid secret ballot elections if they can produce signed cards from a majority of workers. Kuttner was heartened by President Obama's "stunning declaration of support" for unions (Obama:"we know that you cannot have a strong middle class without a strong labor movement")--but he admitted the card check bill won't be easy to pass without the President's "strong personal engagement."
But wait a minute. Huffington Post doesn't need Obama, or 'card check,' to strike a mighty, demonstrative blow for organized labor. HuffPo's a powerful, left wing new media corporation--the model for future quality journalism, according to Michael Hirschorn--with dozens of non-rich, non-managerial employees, the prototypical knowledge workers of the future. Whole rooms full of them in Soho! Don't they need the level playing field that would let them leverage HuffPo's productivity gains, as (we're told) unions leveraged productivity gains in the 1950s?
It wouldn't be hard to do. A word from Arianna to her friend Andy Stern of the SEIU and I'm sure he'd do her the favor of sending over some top-notch organizers. Collecting signed cards from 30 percent of HuffPo employees should be a piece of cake, especially given what Kuttner discerns as the blessing of Obama. If there are holdouts, a raised eyebrow from Roy Sekoff should be intimidation enough.
After that, all Arianna has to do is recognize her new union and negotiate in "good faith"! I'm sure Stern wouldn't demand much--perhaps a clause saying Arianna and CEO Ken Lerer could not dismiss any employee except for "good cause," as determined by arbitration. And of course promotion by seniority as opposed to, say, diggs or hit counts or ... productivity. Nothing she won't find it easy to live with! Really won't cramp her style at all. And imagine the wave of prosperity when Jason Linkins and Sam Stein purchase new condos in a troubled real estate market with their SEIU-negotiated raises.
Then Stern can move on to the New Republic. I nominate Jonathan Chait for shop steward.
Update: In her latest post, Huffington does not seem very kindly disposed toward teachers' unions. But no doubt that's a special case! ... 10:22 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Friday, January 16, 2009
Matt Yglesias defends his manhood! His site wasn't hijacked by Jennifer Palmieri! Rather, he assumed her proposed blog post
"represented her putting her foot down, so I kind of didn't say anything more about it, and just stuck if up there ...."
Hmm. Does that make it any better? ... P.S.: The point is that until recently Yglesias had a nice perch at the Atlantic, where nobody was going to put their foot down simply because he offended a Democratic interest group. But he opted for the joys of cocooning "community," so now when a ranking politico like Palmieri puts her foot down, he rolls over. ... 4:39 P.M.
___________________________
Card Check Slow Track Watch: Labor strategists deny (to Mark Ambinder) that Obama's remarks to WaPo constitute a slow-tracking of "card check." And I know that some business groups still think there's no slow-tracking of "card check" (if it's not in fact already a done deal). So let's assume there's no slow-tracking of card check! ... But it sure sounds to me like the only bill Obama expects to pass soon would be a compromise (for example, retaining the secret ballot but speeding up various time limits or altering other provisions in ways that would still aid unionization drives). ... If you were Obama and you wanted to slow-track "card check," or force a "reform" compromise that feel short of eliminating the secret ballot, you would tell the Post what Obama told the Post, no? If you were a labor strategist and you were worried that Obama was slow-tracking card check, you wouldn't tell that to Ambinder. You'd tell him that there was "every reason to believe" that Obama would keep his "committment," in order to keep the heat on. ... Update: Anti-card checker Peter Kirsanow is still worried. "Unions understand that the planets won't align for them like this again. ... They won't back down." True. But that's also a reason to discount the bravado they show to Ambinder. They're not going to give up this early and say, "Gee, looks like 'card check's' not going to happen.' ... Not that they might not ultimately win. [via Shopfloor] ... See also Rubin. ...
P.S.: Obama's framework is admirably clear. (It's not mine!)
"[I]f the business community's argument against the Employee Free Choice Act is simply that it will make it easier for people to join unions and we think that is damaging to the economy then they probably won't get too far with me."
Of course, the issue isn't only whether it will get far with Obama, important as that is. It's also how far it gets with 41 senators. ...
P.P.S.: Obama says
Here's my basic principle: that wages and incomes have flatlined over the last decade. That part of that has to do with forces that are beyond everybody's control: globalization, technology and so forth. Part of it has to do with workers have very little leverage and that larger and larger shares of our productivity go to the top and not to the middle or the bottom. I think unions serve an important role in that.
The obvious initial question is whether, in a more fully unionized economy, the net productivity gains would be there to be "leveraged" down. Not a lot of gains being leveraged to UAW members these days. ... 2:59 P.M.
___________________________
"You Call This a Downturn?" Well, it depends if that ugly red line keeps going in the direction it's going, no? ... P.S.: Keep in mind, the line measures how much employment has fallen versus all other recessions after x number of months. So the current recession started mild, but is now somewhere between "medium" and "harsh." Trending "harsh." ... 11:45 A.M.
___________________________
Thursday, January 15, 2009
'We Had a Hat': UAW workers rally against wage concessions to GM in Michigan. ... Old Rules: You demanded higher wages and held rallies against your employer. ... New Rules: You demand higher wages, help drive your employer into bankruptcy, and then you hold rallies against the government that bailed you out. ... P.S.: Shouldn't the mayor of Warren, Michigan be more worried about preventing GM from disappearing, taking all its jobs, than preventing a 10% or 20% pay cut? ... P.P.S.: I just took a 10% pay cut! Do you see me protesting? No! But I'm going to milk it for all its worth. ... P.P.P.S.: I see a parallel to the counterproductive Gran Marcha: A few more rallies like this and GM won't see another dime from Congress. ... [via Brian Faughnan]10:19 P.M.
___________________________
Andy Levy turns today's airplane heroism into a pitch to America's Last Employer. ... [via Insta] 9:47 P.M.
___________________________
“I know as much or more than Cheney." Mr. Biden said. "I’m the most experienced vice president since anybody.” Wow. a) Biden has no private sector experience after age 30, right? b) How insecure is this guy? Getting close to dangerously insecure, no? ... And here we we'd just succeeded in explaining away the "I have a much higher IQ than you do" aria of credentialist braggadocio. ... 9:45 P.M.
___________________________
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Inaugural Schmoozalism: kf discovers that the mood in Washington among veteran Beltway Dems is a lot more skeptical of Tim Geithner's innocence regarding his tax errors than public reaction by offical Dems (or some GOPs) would lead you to expect. Maguire would feel right at home. ... 9:32 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Now Obama's gone and pissed off Slashdot. ... 2:15 A.M.
___________________________
Liberal Media Bias: Occasional Slate contributor Tom Geoghegan is running for Rahm Emanuel's congressional seat. He's a friend of mine, a terrific writer and a man of honor. I'm for him even though I'm sure he's for card check. ... P.S.: You can't call Geoghegan unthinkingly left. In 1972, he wrote a justly famous analysis of the McGovern rebellion in the Democratic Party and its relationship with the student left--still one of the best pieces on the nervous breakdown of post-WWII liberalsim I've ever read. It's online. ... 1:28 A.M.
___________________________
After giving in to a lazy inconclusive lede on whether Richardson's withdrawal might or might not hurt Obama's Southwest strategy (Answer: It might or might not!) NYT's Adam Nagourney finally gets around to asking the obvious key question:
[W]hether the Obama administration’s eagerness to get Mr. Richardson into the Obama cabinet might have contributed to what appeared to be an uncharacteristic laxness ...
And, Nagourney might have added, if there was eagerness why the eagerness. Specifically, was there a pre-endorsement deal?. ... Nagourney doesn't seem to even make an attempt to find out the answer to his question. WaPo at least has some reporting on the vetting process-- and it doesn't reflect well on the expert Obama "team" that "scoured" Richardson's background. If there wasn't eagerness/laxness, it certainly looks like there was incompetence. After all, even if Richardson didn't fully disclose the scope of the investigation that scuppered his nomination, what kind of savvy Washingtonian would take Bill Richardson at his word? A scout for the Kansas City Athletics, maybe? ... P.S.: WaPo certainly didn't get to the bottom of the issue. We demand "tick-tock"--accounts of who said what to whom. And what they were eating. ... Backfill: Byron York notes that, if WaPo's report is right, the FBI seems to have started its background check one (1) day before the appointment was formally announced. ... 1:17 A.M.
___________________________
We'll all be working for Andrew Breitbart one day (if we aren't working for Arianna). In the meantime, he's launched Big Hollywood. ... I'm not sure he can succeed in his mission of getting conservative entertainment industry types to come out of the ideological closet--they're too worried about losing paying work. But that's kind of his point, no? ... 12:25 A.M.
___________________________
Enjoyable anti-DiFi sniping by William Bradley. ... He notes that CIA nominee Leon Panetta is more than just a Clinton loyalist (for one thing, he hasn't been all that loyal). ... But Bradley describes the Iraq Study Group, on which Panetta served, as
"widely excoriated on the right two years ago but whose blueprint is basically being followed today."
Really? I must have missed the part of the blueprint where the Iraq Study Group called for the Petraeus "surge" strategy. ... Update: Fred Kaplan joins the "Keep Kappes" choire, and has a suggestion for breaching the CIA's own internal wall to coordinate intelligence in specific problem areas. ... P.S.: We need a czar! ... Oh, wait. We already have a czar. ... 12:09 A.M.
___________________________
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Michael Hirschorn has seen the future, and it is ... Arianna.
In this scenario, nytimes.com would begin to resemble a bigger, better, and less partisan version of the Huffington Post, which, until someone smarter or more deep-pocketed comes along, is the prototype for the future of journalism: a healthy dose of aggregation, a wide range of contributors, and a growing offering of original reporting. This combination has allowed the HuffPo to digest the news that matters most to its readers at minimal cost, while it focuses resources in the highest-impact areas. [E.A.]
Hmm. OK! .... But I don't quite understand Hirschorn's argument that the proliferation of "lifestyle fluff" in the Times has "undermined the perceived value of serious newspaper journalism." That seems a bit like the argument that gay marriage undermines the perceived value of traditional marriage. How? I don't know anyone who doesn't read the news because of the presence of the fluff. And I know quite a few people who read the news and also love the fluff. ... My problem with the fluff is that the need to generate so much copy, coupled with the subliminal need not to piss off advertisers, leads to what my old collegaue H.R. called "hearty hack" writing. But it's not as if most of the serious Times national reporters are great writers who are tragically infected by the hearty-hack virus. They would be hearty hacks without "Thursday Styles." ... Anyway, HuffPo has started its own lifestyle-y sections--e.g., "Living," and "Style"--for obvious commercial reasons not dissimilar from the Times' reasons. ... 11:30 P.M.
___________________________