Foxy Obama

 “First of all,” said President Barack Obama in an interview on CNBC, “I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration.” Although he never said that it was Fox News, there was little doubt that was the network to which he was referring. Unless one makes a vigil of watching the Fox, it would be hard to concur that the network “is entirely devoted to attacking [the Obama] administration,” but it’s close.

Of course, there may be a little residue of miff left after Fox set up a Democratic presidential debate in 2008 in which Obama and the rest of the Democrats backed out because they thought the questions would be too tough.

But on the other hand, Obama does have exceedingly friendly coverage from the rest of the press. In the economic and military crises of today, how can a press conference challenge Obama with questions like, what has humbled him most since becoming president and how has he battled his cigarette habit? Or how about the latest press conference where the initial question from a blogger was set up in advance?

Why the rest of the press is almost enough to make Fox look objective. Almost.

Lawyers’ nest eggs

In England, a couple wanting a second child – and having a difficult time conceiving – contracted with the University Hospital of Wales to perform in vitro fertilization (IVF). If you’re not familiar with it, IVF is the process in which a woman’s egg is harvested and fertilized outside her body. The egg is then replanted in the uterus and, nine months later, a baby is born.

Well, in this case, everything went like clockwork. The egg was fertilized and planted in the uterus. One problem – it was planted in the wrong uterus.

The woman who received the embryo was in the hospital for an IVF herself (hence the error) and was informed of the hospital’s mistake. She immediately opted for an abortion.

Now, regardless of your opinion of abortion, it is a legal medical procedure – but maybe not in this case. The choice to abort is, legally, the mother’s right. But, who is the legal mother? Is it the woman who produced the embryo or is it the woman carrying it?

If the accident had occurred in the United States (and it probably will, one day), it sounds like a bonanza for lawyers.

Painful probes

When probing the decision to publish a news story or not publish it, Bill Keller, Executive Editor of the New York Times said that the Times’ starting point is "not 'why publish?' but 'why would we withhold information of significance?”

It’s a policy not without controversy. If any news organization withholds information, whether through self-censorship or via a request from the government, it requires deep philosophic self-probing – and self probing can hurt. Sometimes the decision can be delusional; does a story warrant being withheld because of a moral imperative or is the story being withheld because of a political imperative masking as a moral one? It’s a tricky probe.

For the past seven months, Keller and New York Times not only sat on a story but asked fellow publications to sit on the story. Why? They were concerned about the safety of one of their reporters, David Rohde.

Rohde had been writing a book on the history of the United States’ involvement in Afghanistan and wanted to interview a Taliban commander. Last November, he set out with his driver and translator and was kidnapped. When the story broke, the Times was concerned that public exposure would endanger Rohde and requested that its sister news organizations sit on the story and they did. Rohde ended the drama when he escaped seven months later.

But from that time to this, as Keller says, the Times “just made a decision that talking about who did what, who decided what, who advised what during this time simply contributes to the playbook of kidnappers.” Kind of makes sense. After all, the secrecy laws of the United States do not provide unfettered access to all information regardless of one’s security clearance: there is a “need to know” requirement and, in the case of the Rohde kidnapping, the “need to know” should be a restriction.

Keller and The Times got it right. The public does not have a “need to know” all the details and, as Keller said, the facts could contribute “to the playbook of kidnappers.” The Times got it right – this time.

In a similar seven-month period beginning in December 2005, Keller and his staff decided that contributing to the playbook of al-Qaida was okay. And further, that it was not necessary to “withhold information of significance.” In those cases, the “need to know” caution went out the window. In that period, the Times published heretofore classified information that (1) the National Security Administration eavesdropped on international phone calls to and from specific countries where a suspected al-Qaeda link existed and (2) that the United States monitored some financial transactions through the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) that could have been al-Qaida linked.

Is there a difference in these two situations? Of course. In the Rohde case, the Times was dealing with one of Times’ own and with the financial and eavesdropping case, they were dealing with the Bush Administration. Should they handle both equally? Yes, but it’s hard to be objective when the paper’s tone was set by Keller’s predecessor. Former Executive Editor Howell Raines has referred to President Bush as “dim-witted,” amoral and adopting “the full agenda of redneck America.”

The Times got it right, this time. Will they get the next story on eavesdropping and financial transaction monitoring right? Don’t know; I hope their probing decision is not dependent on who occupies the White House.

Top Drone

Top Gun is the nickname of United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program, a pilot training school which became the setting of movie by the same name starring Tom Cruise. And now, a new Top Gun school has been opened for pilots and its first class graduated this month.

Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada runs the Air Force Advanced Weapons School where they provide advanced training for fighter and bomber pilots and now—drone pilots.

Drone weaponry seems to be the way the Air Force is going. For fiscal 2009, the Air Force plans to train 214 fighter and bomber pilots and 240 drone pilots.

Fans who watched the Top Gun movie got adrenalin pumping watching Tom Cruise perform breath taking maneuvers in his F-14 Tomcat as he faced the enemy in combat. In films of the future, it’ll be kind of hard to get excited over Tom Cruise sitting at a screen and keyboard while he is sipping a Diet Pepsi and maneuvering his drone — but we’ll get over it.

Robert J. Kulak

West Hartford, Connecticut