Henry J. Stern
May 25, 2007

LOYALTY IS DEMANDED, BUT CONFLICT IS INEVITABLE

AS FOURTH ESTATE IS CRITICAL OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS. 

Elected officials, particularly in the executive branch of governments, frequently develop a bunker mentality during their terms of office.  They believe that most of their constituents do not understand what they are trying to do, and that the press furthers these misconceptions by its hostile and biased reporting.
 
Conflicts between government and media are perennial, no matter who the characters in the drama are.  In some cases, a newly-elected official gets what is called a honeymoon which may last for a few months.  It is considered poor taste to attack an official immediately after the people have spoken and elected him (or her).  Some officials, like Mayor Ed Koch, managed to prolong this period, but any relief is temporary.  After the honeymoon is over, however, it is open season on the office holders. Some appointed officials have personal relationships with publishers, which immunize them from criticism in certain papers.  Most do not, however, and are at the mercy of reporters.

Part of the conflict is that the press sees itself as guardians of the public interest, as opposed to the officials who are presumed to have sought office to further their personal interests, whether financial or ideological.  Ever since Watergate in 1974, readers and writers have been more suspicious of officials, and not without justification.  Other factors promoting an adversarial relationship are the daily need to find news and the competition between papers to break stories..

If you look at the media, you will find, if you do not already know, that most news is bad news: wars, crimes, accidents, fires, floods, avalanches, embezzlements, human or mechanical errors of one kind or another.  That is because news is what differs from the norm, and departures are often misfortunes.  The aphorism, "No news is good news", which means that if something bad does not happen one is fortunate, is equally applicable in its converse, "Good news is no news."   If an agency is doing well or if a program is working or if expenses or casualties have been reduced, that is not nearly as newsworthy as if the opposite had occurred.

Added to the difference in objectives between the state and the media is the personal antagonism that results from conflict between politicians and reporters, two sets of people noted for their high estimate of themselves. If you watch press conferences, you may notice that some of the questions are leading, or misleading, or carry the negative pregnant,  "Have you stopped beating your wife?  Yes or no."

There are many totally legitimate questions to ask and the press conference is a worthwhile institution.  Often officials skirt the edge of truth telling by their evasive, ambiguous, or misleading replies.  They are not under oath.  In fact, the inadequate answers may come because they are unready, unwilling or unable to provide accurate information..
They may be involved in negotiations, or embroiled in a lawsuit, where out-of-court commentary is inappropriate.  They may not know the answer to a question, yet not wish to appear ignorant by saying so.  There are varying degrees of cynicism and obfuscation in both questions and answers, because the act of making something public is in fact a political event, sometimes as important as the underlying policy.  The tree no longer falls unheard in the silent forest..
 
The concept of the bunker mentality is that officials and their staffs come to believe that they are in an underground defensive position, and that anyone who is not with them is against them. The situation requires abject loyalty by staff to the person who has the power to appoint them or the power to disappoint them; the person who can throw them off the island..  Differences, if any, may only be expressed in private, on pain of giving aid and comfort to the ubiquitous enemy.  Even then disagreement is perilous, because if there be a leak, you will be blamed for it even if the leaker is your bureaucratic rival, and the point of the leak is to embarrass you.  I know that from personal experience.

Submission can be demanded and received as long as people want to stay on the job.  If they are prepared to leave, the power exchange shifts. For example, as former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 15, he, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation were prepared to resign over a matter involving the National Security Agency which was so secret that it could not even be discussed.  Evidently the dispute was resolved amicably because two of the men did not resign until later, and FBI director Robert Mueller is still on the job.
 
The demand for loyalty that politicians make of their staffs is often applied to journalists.  They cannot be fired but they can be cut off, denied stories, or belittled.  Reporters who find fault with a particular act or decision or situation, are frequently   regarded as enemies, and mocked.  The concept of "You're either on the team or off the team" (remember, there is no I in team) tends to extend itself to relationships with professionals who are not subordinates, but observers who generally seek objectivity. We learned this from observing both sides of the relationship.

Of course, some journalists are relentlessly hostile to some officials, and try to make their bones by proving that the people they cover are crooks, imbeciles, racists or frauds.  There is danger from slanted reporting, and if it is done cleverly enough it is difficult to detect.  When the reporter is dripping with indignation, he does not believe that what he writes is slanted.  There is a significant difference in the way The New York Times or Fox News may report the same event.  Yet neither believes it is unfair, one in fact promotes itself as fair and balanced.  
 
It  is particularly difficult for an observer to comment adversely on an action or position of a generally good administration, or about a public official with whose policy objectives one is sympathetic.  Other officials may be frequent objects of criticism, often for ethical reasons.  But even honest and decent public officials make mistakes.  There are cases where the good guys are wrong and the bad guys are right.  The fair-minded journalist discusses issues on their  merits, not on the basis of what the sides are..

Errors are usually based on ignorance, sometimes corruption, rarely malice.  Few officials know more than what their staff tells them. Many do not like to hire people smarter than they are.  For some legislators, that rule is very hard to follow.  Another problem is that some staff members have interests of their own, financial or career-wise, even as they profess  loyalty to their current master.  See Bob Shrum on John Edwards.  The role of staff rivalries in the decision-making process of public officials is often underestimated, which leads us to our next topic

#376  5.25.07  1153wds 

DICKER DESCRIBES DISAGREEMENTS IN EXECUTIVE CHAMBER
 
Fredric U. Dicker had a story on p2 of the July 21 Post about disharmony in New York State's executive chamber.  The alliterative headline: CREW 'CHAOS' CRISIS CRIPPLING SPITZER. There is a photo of Richard Baum.

We waited a few days to see other newspapers picked it up, but they did not.  You can link to the story here.   Dicker presents a shocking picture of disarray and rivalry between members of Governor Spitzer's inner circle.   It is possible that the story is exaggerated, it is also possible that it underestimates the internecine struggles that take place on the second floor of the State Capital.  In any event, Rule 5: "Where there's smoke, there's fire"  clearly applies here.  Although it necessarily relies on blind quotes, the story is not manufactured, it describes a condition with which some Albany insiders are familiar.
 
We were unable to find any other newspapers that picked up Dicker's story.  The same phenomenon, we have observed, often applies to exposes in the Village Voice, when they publish documented accounts of official misconduct.   We offer some reasons why exposés are ignored.  First, envy. Competing newspapers do not like to give credit to the rival who broke the story.  Second, others may not have the sources that the first journalist had developed over the years, so they do not know whether they story is accurate.   Third, if a reporter suggests a follow-up story to the desk, his editor could well say, "If this is such a good story, why didn't you get it first.?"  Fourth, sloth.   That's the way it is, journalists are not intrinsically better than public officials.  Some of them are a lot smarter, and they are in a field where their individual talents are more likely to be expressed.  And they do not suffer the enforced anonymity imposed on people in government, where all attention goes to the chief, with bupkis for the minions unless there is trouble which they may be required to explain away.
 
The story renews doubts about the governor's ability to deal with people, a problem that detracts from his high intelligence.  But cognitive skills and reasoning ability do not guarantee talent at persuading others to do what you think is best, or organizing your own employees to work harmoniously.  The other night we heard the governor make a fine speech at the Citizens Budget Commission dinner, where he outlined his budget objectives.  Of course, he spun the events surrounding the presentation, consideration and adoption of the 2007 budget by the legislature in a manner most favorable to himself.  Perhaps that is what he should have said such an occasion, as he received CBC's award for high civic service (presented last year to City Comptroller Bill Thompson).

 The issue is whether the governor truly believes all that he said at the dinner. This does not mean he should not have said what he did; the remarks were not inappropriate in the felicitous circumstances.  If in fact he knows that the problems are more complex than his exposition, the state would be better off.  If he believes every word he said,  he should posthaste listen to some impartial experts who have the wisdom and the nerve to give him a more balanced view of what is happening in state government.

" O, Caesar, there are many in Albany (and some in Rome, NY) who are not your friends.  You, and they,  pretend that they are, because that is deceit, one of the languages of politics.  Remember not to believe most of what you are told, because it is exaggerated or false. Use your God-given intellect to discern what is true and what is not.  This is the business you  have chosen.  Curse not.  Make friends.  Watch your back.  Listen to your soothsayer."



 
#377  5.25.07  629wds