Congratulations to President Obama and Mitt Romney for being respectful, civil, dignified, good-natured, articulate and presidential in tonight’s debate.
I was proud of both of them.
Thanks. We needed that.
Mitt Romney
Look! Now Obama Has a Suck-Up Speech To Explain…
The Daily Caller found a previously uncirculated Barack Obama speech from 2007, and the conservative media has been giving it the “47%” treatment. No wonder. The speech is uncommonly ugly, with the future President channeling Rev. Wright and Kanye West, encouraging black anger and racial hate. Needless to say, he does not sound like a leader of “all the people” here.
I am on record as believing that such partisan audience speeches should be taken for what they are, and thus with several grains of salt, but never mind: the standard, a different one, has already been decreed by the mainstream news media, which treated Mitt Romney’s unscripted remarks about the government-dependent “47%” as more significant than the collapse of Obama’s foreign policy, the negligent death of our Ambassador, and a protracted White House cover-up of a terrorist attack. If they want to aspire to any fairness and even-handedness at all, it should devote a similar amount of attention and outrage to Obama’s remarks to black clergy, which were, in my view, far worse, because they were designed to exploit racial fears and divisiveness. They are also, like Romney’s comments, misleading and unfair.
I could argue that it is more reasonable to focus on Obama’s speech, because it was made in public, and presumably was fair game for criticism at the time. Why didn’t the reporters who witnessed it raise any alarms then? Wouldn’t such a racially divisive speech during the campaign (for the nomination) be at least as newsworthy in 2008 as the “47%” line by Romney 2012? Of course not—because the media was trying to elect Obama then, and it is trying to defeat Romney now.
Don’t be silly. Continue reading
9 Tips For Ethical Debate Watching
The hype and predictions about tomorrow night’s first debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama are already unbearable. Yet the debates will be worth watching, and could do this revolting campaign a lot of good, if we can discipline ourselves to watch it ethically. This is harder than it sounds.
1. The most important aspect to ethical debate watching is resolving to be fair. That means don’t do your own “spin”: force yourself to be equally critical of both candidates. There are no villains in this election, much as it has been framed that way by the two parties. Neither has a nefarious objective; both are dedicated public servants and loyal Americans. If you don’t believe that, you probably shouldn’t watch the debates at all.
2. Look for honesty, and be grateful for it. I will give points to any candidate that admits a mistake, gives credit to his opponent, state that he doesn’t have all the answers, acknowledge that there is merit in some of what the other candidate suggests.
3. Look for dishonesty, and be critical of it. Are his answers evasive? Does he quote false statistics? Is he making promises he can’t keep, or has no control over whether he keeps them or not? Is he trying to mislead the ignorant and gullible in the audience? Do you trust him?
4. Watch for signs of character, good and bad. The debate isn’t scripted, which means that we have a rare chance to see the human beings (maybe) rather than the facades. Are they arrogant? Nervous? Disrespectful? Rude? Dispassionate? Impulsive? Cocky? Are they respectful? Fair? Reasonable? Gracious?
5. Ignore the practiced zingers and the style points. Don’t be overly impressed with recitations of facts, names and numbers: both candidates are smart and do this well; so can many people you wouldn’t want in the White House on the best day of their lives. This is a crisis for each of them; the stakes are huge. How do they handle it? Are they cautious? Reckless? Unprepared? Impulsive? Brave?
6. Try to ignore whether you like either candidate, but rather examine about whether they can be persuasive to others. Try to adjust for your biases.
7. Be open to having your mind changed. The hardest task of all.
8. After the debate is over, make up your own mind before you listen to any of the partisan analysts. All Republicans will say Romney won; all Democrats will say Obama won, except pundits who want to stand out as the “objective” ones. Most of them are calculating too. Confirmation bias operates in overdrive in such events: the partisans really see it the way they want to. Ignore them. Don’t listen to them. How did you feel about the debate? That’s all that matters. Nobody knows how you should react to it better than you do.
9. Watch it. This is important, and we are lucky to have the system we have, as rotten as it often is.
A Tale of Two Panders
I know. I’ve hated the pander-panda pun since Sen. Paul Tsongas called Bill Clinton a “pander bear” in 1992. But the newborn baby panda at the National Zoo died yesterday, there’s no way to write about it on an ethics blog, so this was the best I could do to register my condolences. Forgive me.
What would be the response of an objective and balanced news media—that is, one determined to treat both candidates equally unfairly—to an Obama equivalent of the infamous Romney dismissal of “47%” of the electorate? We really can’t tell from the closest comparison, candidate Obama’s infamous and also surreptitiously taped 2008 comments in ultra-liberal San Francisco, condescendingly describing blue-collar Pennsylvanians who, he said, “get bitter, [and] cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” That was while he was running against another media darling, Hillary Clinton, so it presumably got more play than it would have if he were facing a hated Republican.
Better intelligence comes from Jennifer Rubin’s criticism today of Obama’s answer to an interviewer on the Spanish language cable station Univision, who asked him what his greatest failure was. Why, failing to achieve comprehensive immigration reform, of course! (“This is a Hispanic channel, right?”)
Really?, wonders the conservative Rubin. How about… Continue reading
Romney’s “Worst Weeks” and the 27th Rationalization
Yeah, yeah, but did you hear what Mitt said to raise money?
Normally I would consider the surreptitious taping and then publicizing of a quasi-private meeting unethical, writes a lawyer colleague, “but these are not normal times.”
I thanked him profusely for alerting me that I had inexplicably allowed a hoary, classic rationalization for unethical conduct with a distinguished pedigree to escape the Ethics Alarms list, though this was not, I gather, his original intent. I just remedied the embarrassing omission, dubbing this “The Revolutionary’s Excuse.” Here is the entry:
27. The Revolutionary’s Excuse:
“These are not ordinary times.” Continue reading
Comment of the Day: “Yes, Reporters Engaged in ‘Collaboration’ On Questions For Romney. Good!”
Dwayne N. Zechman, who has one or two other Comments of the Day to his credit, has authored another in response to the post regarding conservative alarms over evidence that reporters coordinated their questions before Mitt Romney began a press conference on the protests and violence at Middle East embassies. My position was that there is nothing sinister in this as long as it results in the politician or candidate being grilled actually answering legitimate questions. Reporters should do this with all question sessions, if politicians insist on spinning, ducking, and prevaricating. Obviously, if reporters employ this strategy with Romney and not the President, that raises an ethical problem, but a different ethical problem.
Here is Dwayne’s Comment of the Day in response to the post, Yes, Reporters Engaged in “Collaboration” On Questions For Romney. Good!. I’ll have a further comment at the end.
“I *do* have a problem with the Press Corps acting this way because it sets up a dangerous future license for them to engage in groupthink with no checks and balances against it. (Indeed, the First Amendment would correctly, though tragically, protect it.) Continue reading
Yes, Reporters Engaged in “Collaboration” On Questions For Romney. Good!
Hidden Camera: The mainstream media meets to plot against Mitt Romney…
Yesterday, the Right Scoop blog breathlessly announced that it had acquired a recording of what an open mic had caught in the discussion among reporters prior . to Mitt Romney’s press conference:
CBS REPORTER: “Yeah that’s the question. I would just say do you regret your question.”
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: “Your question? Your statement?”
CBS REPORTER: “I mean your statement. Not even the tone, because then he can go off on …”
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: “And then if he does, if we can just follow-up and say ‘but this morning your answer is continuing to sound …”
CBS REPORTER: “You can’t say that.…”
CBS REPORTER: “I’m just trying to make sure that we’re just talking about, no matter who he calls on, we’re covered on the one question.”
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: “Do you stand by your statement or regret your statement?”
This is it!, proclaimed Rush Limbaugh and, like echoes in a grotto, every other conservative talk show host and blogger, and of course Fox News, bleated the same. The smoking gun! The proof! The mainstream is engaged in a conspiracy to destroy Mitt Romney and to re-elect President Obama! Just let George Stephanopoulos and the rest try to deny media bias now! Continue reading
Ethics Train Wreck Forensics: The Cairo Embassy Statement
“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
Mitt! Mitt….get off the tracks!
Thus did the U.S. Embassy in Cairo respond to the growing local uproar over a cheapie anti-Islamic film produced in the U.S. and put on the internet. The statement preceded the disruption at the embassy itself as well as the deadly attack later, purportedly with the same motivation, on Libya’s U.S. embassy. Mitt Romney said, shortly after the latter,
“The embassy in Cairo put out a statement after their grounds had been breached,” Romney told reporters. “Protesters were inside the grounds. They reiterated that statement after the breach. I think it’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values. That instead, when our grounds are being attacked and being breached, that the first response of the United States must be outrage at the breach of the sovereignty of our nation. An apology for America’s values is never the right course.”
Later, Romney issued a statement that said, in part,
“It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
The next morning, the White House distanced itself from the Cairo statement. “An administration official tells ABC News that ‘no one in Washington approved that statement before it was released and it doesn’t reflect the views of the U.S. government,’” ABC News reported. Later, both the State Department, in the person of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and President Obama, issued new statements. Clinton:
“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior [in Benghazi], along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear–there is no justification for this, none. Violence like this is no way to honor religion or faith.”
Obama:
“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.”
Naturally, the media got its oar in. Typical on the left was the Washington Post, which editorialized by calling Romney’s critique a “crude political attack,” asserting that the Cairo statement was before, rather than after the attacks on the two embassies, and declaring that President Obama’s statement “struck the right chord.” On the rightward side of the ideological divide, the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto criticized both Obama and Clinton, saying, “…neither the president nor Mrs. Clinton vigorously, or even limply, defended the right of free speech.”
What’s going on here? Continue reading
Ethics Dunce (and Unethical Tweet of the Month): Donald Trump
Stay classy, Donald.
Well, I’m still trying to get that Todd Akin post up, but greater stupidity keeps intervening. Speaking of greater stupidity: here’s the Donald!
Everyone, even Mitt Romney, must know that Trump is a boor, an ass, and an Ethics Dunce Extraordinaire, an embarrassment to such already embarrassing fields as casinos, real estate development, politics and even reality TV. Still, one would think that he would be shrewd enough—and Trump is often shrewd—to avoid rearing his ugliest side during the Republican National Convention and reminding the media, undecided voters and lurking blog-snipers that Mitt hasn’t shown the sense, courage and integrity to separate this slimy birther from his campaign. But no. Trump is, after all, only interested in Trump, so he had to send out this despicable tweet insulting Adrianna Huffington, who must have said or written something critical of him, Whatever it was, it couldn’t have been critical enough. Here is the tweet:
Trump is no gentleman, no statesman, and no fit ally for a man running for President. I assumed everyone knew that already, but this is another reminder. Let’s see if Mitt Romney has standards that go beyond dollar signs.
______________________________________________
Pointer: Hypervocal
Graphic: Brooklyn Mutt
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Hero: Rick Warren
Sorry, no civility this year…
Rick Warren, Saddleback Church’s popular and nationally famous conservative pastor, has announced that his church’s civil forum planned with President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney at the church this week has been canceled as a result of the relentlessly negative, mean-spirited and uncivil campaigns being waged by both parties.
The forum was to have been two hours long, with each candidate speaking with Warren for 50 minutes. Warren hosted the first presidential campaign forum in 2008 between Obama and his Republican opponent Sen. John McCain. Despite that forum’s success and the notoriety it brought him and the church, Warren decided that to host a “civil forum” with such uncivil candidates would be hypocritical, saying, Continue reading
Ethics Alarms 