Saturday in the Bizarro Times. Since I started this blog, my impression has been that the Saturday edition of the Times dependably features the paper's weakest and most politically obtuse reporting. [I don't have the patience right now to construct a tour of the lowlights, but you could browse randomly through Saturday posts in the last several months to understand how I come by that impression.] But what the hell's going on today?

Sarah Kershaw's article on how the FBI's case against Brandon Mayfield fell apart—Mayfield, the Portland lawyer who was held for two weeks as a material witness in the Madrid bombing on the basis of a miserably botched fingerprint id (and on the basis that he was a Muslim)—is impressively detailed and clear-sighted and unwilling to pull its punches on behalf of the Feebies. That's for a start. But what really shocks me is David Halbfinger's article on John Kerry's intimate circle of long-time campaign advisors. I feared the worst when the lead suggested a repeat of the Saturday edition's recent habit of rehashing ancient Kerry gaffes when new ones haven't cropped up recently enough:

When word broke on May 21 that Senator John Kerry was thinking of delaying his acceptance of the Democratic nomination for president until after the convention next month in Boston, the reaction to the news there was swift, blunt and negative.

And that was among Mr. Kerry's friends.

All weekend long, as the idea met with an avalanche of public scorn, the men who have known Mr. Kerry longest and best made their opinions known in private. David Thorne, a college classmate whose sister was Mr. Kerry's first wife, brought it up face to face that Saturday and again by phone on Sunday.

"As Campaign Picks Up, Kerry Turns to Old Circle"

You can see how I started to tighten up a bit in anticipation.

But, David, where's the snark? Where's the snark? The report that follows is respectful, it focuses on a legitimate subject of examination—who a candidate trusts for political counsel and why—and Halbfinger avoids any temptation to turn the piece into an exercise in retailing the standard anti-Kerry memes. On the contrary—amazingly, considering the source—Halbfinger justifies the piece by writing it explicitly against one of the linchpins of the Kerry-bashing narrative:

The episode underlined the low-profile high-impact role of a graying coterie of hometown advisers who have ridden in the backseat with Mr. Kerry throughout his career. This year, they are helping out again — in positions high and low, official and unofficial, big and small. ...

They seldom speak for or about Mr. Kerry, at least on the record. But they know him well enough to tell him when he is wrong. Or when he is taking too long to finish a speech or make a decision. ...

They know Mr. Kerry's often-concealed sense of humor, too, they say - and his loyalty. And they know how much he depends on theirs.

"This is a group that's remained incredibly close for 30-plus years," said Mr. Marttila, a strategist who first worked with Mr. Kerry in 1970. "One of the reputations that John has is for being aloof. But I think the existence of this extended family over this long period of time, a family of considerable numbers, completely belies that phenomenon."

As tough as I've been on Halbfinger—and he's deserved it—in fairness his piece today is genuinely praiseworthy, not simply because it displays a correct attitude (and not at all because it might seem favorable to Kerry) but because it's an example of finely judged and genuinely informative political reporting.

Now let's add that, on the jump page for Halbfinger's article, Jodi Wilgoren shows up writing about Kerry's effort to appeal to the "crossover bloc" of military veterans ("Kerry Woos a Crossover Bloc: Others Who Served"). And Jodi doesn't sneer at Kerry for his emphasis on his military service. (Check out Fact-esque to watch Wilgoren acting more like herself on the topic just a week ago.) Granted, she does let in a sneering "expert" reference to Kerry needing "props to make him look appealing" to vets, given that he's an elitist and not your typical VFW good-ol-boy and all, but the reference is late and not emphasized in a piece that otherwise takes this aspect of the Kerry campaign seriously, and is built around extended and even moving quotes from veterans on their political loyalties and motivations.

If I were more suspicious, I'd think these guys were conspiring to put me out of business ...

posted by michael  2:22:55 PM  
tell me about it []  

 

When reporters get the shakes. David Johnston is so busy reassuring everybody that the news he's reporting isn't really news, God forbid, that he buries a telling detail.

Vice President Dick Cheney was recently interviewed by federal prosecutors who asked whether he knew of anyone at the White House who had improperly disclosed the identity of an undercover C.I.A. officer, people who have been involved in official discussions about the case said on Friday.

Mr. Cheney was also asked about conversations with senior aides, including his chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, according to people officially informed about the case. In addition, those people said, Mr. Cheney was asked whether he knew of any concerted effort by White House aides to name the officer.

"Cheney Reportedly Interviewed in Leak of C.I.A. Officer's Name"

Writing that lead seems to have given Mr. Johnston a bad case of the shakes. What follows is an avalanche of before-the-fact exculpations and disclaimers and protestations of Administration goodwill, consuming fully half the space of the article.

Mr. Cheney is not thought to be a focus of the inquiry ...
His willingness to answer questions was voluntary and apparently followed Mr. Bush's repeated instructions to aides to cooperate with the investigation. ...
Mr. Bush is not thought to be a focus of the grand jury inquiry. On Thursday, Mr. Bush said he did not object to the prosecutors' inquiry. "I've told our administration that we'll fully cooperate with their investigation," Mr. Bush said. ... "I want to know the truth, and I'm willing to cooperate myself." ...
The decision by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney to seek private legal counsel is routine for high-level officials when they become involved, even tangentially, in legal issues unrelated to their official duties. ...
[In what I'm going to assume is simply an error, this last sentence, which occurs just before the print-edition jump, is where the Web version of the article cuts off.]
White House lawyers have not sought to restrict the scope of the prosecutors' questions ...
Some lawyers in the case said that Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, had advised them to tell their clients to answer all the prosecutor's questions.

Please, please don't get the impression that, by paying attention to the Plame investigation on A1, the Times thinks anything could remotely be amiss with Dear Leader or Dear Vice-Leader!

But looka here! If you've survived the avalanche, you can retrieve a nugget of information from the rubble of Johnston's verbiage. Scooter Libby, mentioned in the lead only to be promptly disappeared, rears his head again:

In Mr. Libby's case, the prosecutors have also obtained copious notes that he took at White House meetings that some lawyers described as a guidebook for prosecutors to events in July 2003, when the leak apparently occurred.

[What's with that "apparently," by the way? Why is Johnston hedging on known fact?] I don't know about you, but when I hear that prosecutors consider Scooter Libby's contemporaneous notes a "guidebook" to the leak—well, that strikes me as newsworthy. In fact, it strikes me as something like confirmation that Libby is the key to the Plame affair, and regarded as such by prosecutors.

Perhaps the Times should ask a reporter less subject than David Johnston to fits of nervousness to do its reporting on the Plame investigation. Someone who might recognize when he's learned something valuable and be willing to share it forthrightly with readers.

posted by michael  1:34:25 PM  
tell me about it []