It is not every day that one gets to witness an individual coming out and clearly advocating unethical behavior that advocates Transnational Progressivism! Rare, indeed, is the individual who feels safe and cozy enough to espouse that viewpoint and put forth that it needs be done. And rarer, still, is when such flies in the face of the espoused standards of those doing such work. It thank Patterico for pointing this out at his site with this post and I will take up from there.
Consider the following:
|How the press can prevent another Iraq|
by Dan Froomkin
|The Washington Post Standards and Ethics|
Author: The Washington Post
Published: February 16, 1999
Last Updated: February 17, 1999
You Can’t Be Too Skeptical of Authority
Provocation Alone Does Not Justify War
Be Particularly Skeptical of Secrecy
Watch for Rhetorical Traps
Don’t Just Give Voice to the Administration Officials
Look Outside Our Borders
Understand the Enemy
Encourage Public Debate
Write about Motives
Talk to the Military
|The Washington Post|
Standards and Ethics
A. Conflict of interest
B. The reporter’s role
D. Attribution of sources
E. Plagiarism and credit
H. The national and community interest
J. The Post’s principles
The Washington Post is pledged to an aggressive, responsible and fair pursuit of the truth without fear of any special interest, and with favor to none.
Washington Post reporters and editors are pledged to approach every assignment with the fairness of open minds and without prior judgment. The search for opposing views must be routine. Comment from persons accused or challenged in stories must be included. The motives of those who press their views upon us must routinely be examined, and it must be recognized that those motives can be noble or ignoble, obvious or ulterior.
We fully recognize that the power we have inherited as the dominant morning newspaper in the capital of the free world carries with it special responsibilities:
to listen to the voiceless
to avoid any and all acts of arrogance
to face the public politely and candidly[sic]
A. Conflict of Interest
This newspaper is pledged to avoid conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest, wherever and whenever possible. We have adopted stringent policies on these issues, conscious that they may be more restrictive than is customary in the world of private business. In particular:
We pay our own way.
We accept no gifts from news sources. We accept no free trips. We neither seek nor accept preferential treatment that might be rendered because of the positions we hold. Exceptions to the no-gift rule are few and obvious – invitations to meals, for example. Free admissions to any event that is not free to the public are prohibited. The only exception is for seats not sold to the public, as in a press box. Whenever possible, arrangements will be made to pay for such seats.
We work for no one except The Washington Post without permission from supervisors. Many outside activities and jobs are incompatible with the proper performance of work on an independent newspaper. Connections with government are among the most objectionable. To avoid real or apparent conflicts of interest in the coverage of business and the financial markets, all members of the Business and Financial staff are required to disclose their financial holdings and investments to the assistant managing editor in charge of the section. The potential for conflict, however, is not limited to members of the Business and Financial staff. All reporters and editors, wherever they may work, are required to disclose to their department head any financial interests that might be in conflict or give the appearance of a conflict in their reporting or editing duties. Department heads will make their own financial disclosures to the managing editor.
We freelance for no one and accept no speaking engagements without permission from department heads. Permission to freelance will be granted only if The Washington Post has no interest in the story and only if it is to appear in a medium that does not compete with The Post. It is important that no freelance assignments and no honoraria be accepted that might in any way be interpreted as disguised gratuities.
We make every reasonable effort to be free of obligation to news sources and to special interests. We must be wary of entanglement with those whose positions render them likely to be subjects of journalistic interest and examination. Our private behavior as well as our professional behavior must not bring discredit to our profession or to The Post.
We avoid active involvement in any partisan causes – politics, community affairs, social action, demonstrations – that could compromise or seem to compromise our ability to report and edit fairly. Relatives cannot fairly be made subject to Post rules, but it should be recognized that their employment or their involvement in causes can at least appear to compromise our integrity. The business and professional ties of traditional family members or other members of your household must be disclosed to department heads.
B. The Reporter’s Role
Although it has become increasingly difficult for this newspaper and for the press generally to do so since Watergate, reporters should make every effort to remain in the audience, to stay off the stage, to report the news, not to make the news.
In gathering news, reporters will not misrepresent their identity. They will not identify themselves as police officers, physicians or anything other than journalists.
This newspaper is pledged to minimize the number of errors we make and to correct those that occur. Accuracy is our goal; candor is our defense. Persons who call errors to our attention must be accorded a respectful hearing. See Chapter 3, “The Role of the Ombudsman.”
D. Attribution of Sources
The Washington Post is pledged to disclose the source of all information when at all possible. When we agree to protect a source’s identity, that identity will not be made known to anyone outside The Post.
Before any information is accepted without full attribution, reporters must make every reasonable effort to get it on the record. If that is not possible, reporters should consider seeking the information elsewhere. If that in turn is not possible, reporters should request an on-the-record reason for concealing the source’s identity and should include the reason in the story.
In any case, some kind of identification is almost always possible – by department or by position, for example – and should be reported.
No pseudonyms are to be used.
However, The Washington Post will not knowingly disclose the identities of U.S. intelligence agents, except under highly unusual circumstances which must be weighed by the senior editors.
E. Plagiarism and Credit
Attribution of material from other newspapers and other media must be total. Plagiarism is one of journalism’s unforgivable sins. It is the policy of this newspaper to give credit to other publications that develop exclusive stories worthy of coverage by The Post.
Reporters and editors of The Post are committed to fairness. While arguments about objectivity are endless, the concept of fairness is something that editors and reporters can easily understand and pursue. Fairness results from a few simple practices:
No story is fair if it omits facts of major importance or significance. Fairness includes completeness.
No story is fair if it includes essentially irrelevant information at the expense of significant facts. Fairness includes relevance.
No story is fair if it consciously or unconsciously misleads or even deceives the reader. Fairness includes honesty – leveling with the reader.
No story is fair if reporters hide their biases or emotions behind such subtly pejorative words as “refused,” “despite,” “quietly,” “admit” and “massive.” Fairness requires straightforwardness ahead of flashiness.
On this newspaper, the separation of news columns from the editorial and opposite-editorial pages is solemn and complete. This separation is intended to serve the reader, who is entitled to the facts in the news columns and to opinions on the editorial and “op-ed” pages. But nothing in this separation of functions is intended to eliminate from the news columns honest, in-depth reporting, or analysis or commentary when plainly labeled.
H. The National and Community Interest
The Washington Post is vitally concerned with the national interest and with the community interest. We believe these interests are best served by the widest possible dissemination of information. The claim of national interest by a federal official does not automatically equate with the national interest. The claim of community interest by a local official does not automatically equate with the community interest.
The Washington Post as a newspaper respects taste and decency, understanding that society’s concepts of taste and decency are constantly changing. A word offensive to the last generation can be part of the next generation’s common vocabulary. But we shall avoid prurience. We shall avoid profanities and obscenities unless their use is so essential to a story of significance that its meaning is lost without them. In no case shall obscenities be used without the approval of the executive editor or the managing editor or his deputy. See Chapter 5, “Using the Language,” for guidance on particular words or terms that may be sensitive.
J. The Post’s Principles
After Eugene Meyer bought The Washington Post in 1933 and began the family ownership that continues today, he published “These Principles”:
The first mission of a newspaper is to tell the truth as nearly as the truth may be ascertained.
The newspaper shall tell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it, concerning the important affairs of America and the world.
As a disseminator of the news, the paper shall observe the decencies that are obligatory upon a private gentleman.
What it prints shall be fit reading for the young as well as for the old.
The newspaper’s duty is to its readers and to the public at large, and not to the private interests of the owner.
In the pursuit of truth, the newspaper shall be prepared to make sacrifices of its material fortunes, if such course be necessary for the public good. The newspaper shall not be the ally of any special interest, but shall be fair and free and wholesome in its outlook on public affairs and public men.
“These Principles” are re-endorsed herewith.
Isn't that lovely? And why is the WaPo Ethics standard put up? Because Mr. Froomkin is the #2 editor at the Washingtonpost.com! I am so glad that Mr. Froomkin has decided to break with them in such an open and honest manner. Yes, lovely, isn't it? To see one espouse the breaking of their OWN Ethics and Standards of conduct to take partisan, anti-establishment, anti-democratic, anti-American stances so forthrightly.
Because that is what he is advocating. He is advocating not only an 'adversarial' role for the press, but to actively 'take up the other side' and JOIN IT and present their position without criticism or analysis while harshly criticizing the Administration on *everything*. In doing that he is seeking to interject the press into the conversation and NOT report on the conversation. In that the press would then *fail* to accurately report on the affairs of government AND those that would seek to bring it down. That is not an 'adversarial role' but an 'advocates role'.
That is 'working for the other side'.
He further puts forth to deny that the National Sovereign Right of a Nation that suffers a casus belli is not enough to go to war on. That is not *just* anti-American it is anti-Nation State. To remove that as a legitimate right for Nations to seek martial justice through the use of force is an advocacy that Nation States have NO right to defend themselves.
Further, he advocates that the reporter or journalist determine 'fairness' of an argument in a prejudicial way so as to denigrate any and all that support a martial position and empower those who have ANY anti-establishment, anti-military, anti-National stance to get a full and adequate hearing WITHOUT QUESTION. As he does not advocate that for reporting of the Administration that then makes the reporter an ADVOCATE in the reporting and no longer attempting to report 'facts' or 'news' but purport the individual's opinion to be more important than the 'facts' or 'news'.
In addition to that he wishes to deny that there is any difference between any people, any where and that all Nations should have the exact same outlook and that when the United States does *not* hold the outlook of other Nations it is to be questioned or, indeed, criticized for not holding that stance. That is, again, advocating that the United States should have NO separate identity from other Nations and should be 'just like them' in all outlooks.
By taking on the advocates position for the enemy, he further asserts that asking why the Enemy cannot be 'talked to' belies the fact that diplomacy has RUN OUT at the casus belli and that it is the Nation *causing* such that needs to be asked why they performed that action NOT the victim Nation on why it wishes to respond. Usually a Nation is gracious enough to give 'one last chance' for the aggressor to make up, but in cases like Vietnam and Iraq the long years of that got NOWHERE. Advocating more than *that* is not only pushing for pacifism, it is pushing for the ending of National Sovereignty and the right of a Nation to determine its own course for good or ill so that it may put an end to those attacking it. In taking up to show the horrors of war and the people who will suffer it also belies the fact that those people in that Nation have the right to overthrow their leadership and MAKE AMENDS for its actions or disavow them and attempt to MAKE UP for the wrongs done by the previous government. Because that is what is required in the realm of International Diplomacy. Advocating anything else is a call for an END to the system of International Diplomacy between Nation States as a way of regulating the affairs of Nations so that they may govern themselves and be held accountable for their actions.
Thus you have this strange notion that those that are aggressors are 'victims' and that those suffering from things that would normally allow reprisals of a warlike nature to be justified are to not EVER even think of that as it just might 'hurt the victim' who is the aggressor.
If that weren't enough he then wants to make groups of individuals that can be easily labeled and DISMISSED from reporting if they happen to hold a pro-National stance of *any sort*. The full panoply of dissent is to be given deep and wide coverage so that every conspiracy theory is to be given an airing while those advocating multiple different reasons and rationales to GO TO WAR are not only to be questioned but the 'fairness' of their viewpoint is to be brought into question when NO such questioning of 'fairness' is to be applied evenly and equally to those wanting NOT to go to war. Thus a casus belli may also have more than one set of ground under it beyond a mere incident and may, as in the case of Iraq, have multiple, continuing and ongoing reasons and rationales above and beyond ALL the UN mandates that were broken, the undermining of the trade restrictions, the funneling of money into weapons programs that were not only WMD related that were ALSO to be ENDED COMPLETELY, the violation of National Sovereignty by not returning those kidnapped in the previous war or military personnel captured and then NOT given their Geneva Convention Rights. Those all get lumped into one category and then the reporter gets to decide if those highly different outlooks are 'fair' or not. While those espousing that it is 'all about oil' or 'all about Saddam's attempt to assassinate Bush 41' are given free reign, little question and all the air and print time they can grab.
All of this comes together under a different label that gets applied to those espousing these very things and working to achieve them. As John Fonte described it these things all fall into the heading of Transnational Progressivism. Back in the day when blogging was young, Steven den Beste did an excellent write-up at USS Clueless, and I will be cadging from them both so that those things being espoused can be put into perspective:
The key concepts of transnational progressivism could be described as follows:The alignment of what Mr. Froomkin is advocating is so near 1:1 that it cannot be mistaken. He is advocating that Nations are *not* special units chosen by their People and that all Nations should be equal in ALL things. The assertion that the elected Government does NOT represent the will of the People in a democracy and that it should be considered 'suspect' at all times indicates that he disavows adherence to democracy ITSELF. Going beyond mere skepticism and asserting that a group of individuals is not to be trusted a priori is not only prejudicial but removes the legitimacy of rule especially when it is from the media. That is a denigration of the Nation State, its systems, its laws and its Sovereign outlook as a Nation. It is taking up an anti-Nation stance which, in this case, is the United States.
The ascribed group over the individual citizen. The key political unit is not the individual citizen, who forms voluntary associations and works with fellow citizens regardless of race, sex, or national origin, but the ascriptive group (racial, ethnic, or gender) into which one is born.
A dichotomy of groups: Oppressor vs. victim groups, with immigrant groups designated as victims. Transnational ideologists have incorporated the essentially Hegelian Marxist "privileged vs. marginalized" dichotomy.
Group proportionalism as the goal of "fairness." Transnational progressivism assumes that "victim" groups should be represented in all professions roughly proportionate to their percentage of the population. If not, there is a problem of "underrepresentation."
The values of all dominant institutions to be changed to reflect the perspectives of the victim groups. Transnational progressives insist that it is not enough to have proportional representation of minorities in major institutions if these institutions continue to reflect the worldview of the "dominant" culture. Instead, the distinct worldviews of ethnic, gender, and linguistic minorities must be represented within these institutions.
The "demographic imperative." The demographic imperative tells us that major demographic changes are occurring in the U. S. as millions of new immigrants from non-Western cultures enter American life. The traditional paradigm based on the assimilation of immigrants into an existing American civic culture is obsolete and must be changed to a framework that promotes "diversity," defined as group proportionalism.
The redefinition of democracy and "democratic ideals." Transnational progressives have been altering the definition of "democracy" from that of a system of majority rule among equal citizens to one of power sharing among ethnic groups composed of both citizens and non-citizens. James Banks, one of American education's leading textbook writers, noted in 1994 that "to create an authentic democratic Unum with moral authority and perceived legitimacy, the pluribus (diverse peoples) must negotiate and share power." Hence, American democracy is not authentic; real democracy will come when the different "peoples" that live within America "share power" as groups.
Deconstruction of national narratives and national symbols of democratic nation-states in the West. In October 2000, a UK government report denounced the concept of "Britishness" and declared that British history needed to be "revised, rethought, or jettisoned." In the U.S., the proposed "National History Standards," recommended altering the traditional historical narrative. Instead of emphasizing the story of European settlers, American civilization would be redefined as a multicultural "convergence" of three civilizations—Amerindian, West African, and European. In Israel, a "post-Zionist" intelligentsia has proposed that Israel consider itself multicultural and deconstruct its identity as a Jewish state. Even Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres sounded the post-Zionist trumpet in his 1993 book , in which he deemphasized "sovereignty" and called for regional "elected central bodies," a type of Middle Eastern EU.
Promotion of the concept of postnational citizenship. In an important academic paper, Rutgers Law Professor Linda Bosniak asks hopefully "Can advocates of postnational citizenship ultimately succeed in decoupling the concept of citizenship from the nation-state in prevailing political thought?"
The idea of transnationalism as a major conceptual tool. Transnationalism is the next stage of multicultural ideology. Like multiculturalism, transnationalism is a concept that provides elites with both an empirical tool (a plausible analysis of what is) and an ideological framework (a vision of what should be). Transnational advocates argue that globalization requires some form of "global governance" because they believe that the nation-state and the idea of national citizenship are ill suited to deal with the global problems of the future.
Perhaps Mr. Froomkin has forgotten that Peoples form Nations so as to be DIFFERENT from each other and assert such differences with National Identity to their Nation? By impugning that and asking why the US is 'not like everyone else' he is no longer asserting that there is any difference between the outlooks of peoples in different Nations and that those held in repressive tyranny that are *forced* to say things under pain of torture or death are 'just as equal' as those speaking freely in a democracy. That is especially true when one wants to give 'the other side' its say in things: you become an advocate FOR tyrannical repression in that doing and are attempting to use the emotional weight of loss of life to outweigh ongoing loss of freedom and liberty.
Thank you, Mr. Froomkin, for having openly demonstrated your allegiance to The Volunteer Fifth Column, your repudiation of the Washington Post's code of standards and ethics and your wish to end the United States via asserting that tyrannical rule is never worth attacking at any cost and that those attacking the United States should always get a free ticket to do so and then helped by you and those that follow these rules so that ALL National Sovereignty can be removed.
And the Nation with it.
Welcome to being an affirmed member of The Volunteer Fifth Column, Mr. Froomkin and for explaining just HOW the WaPo got there.
This being the #2 editor at the Washingtonpost.com website and of high stature within the organization, his espousal of these things taints the entire organization and it is no longer to be trusted in ANYTHING. In disavowing democracy, democratic government and espousing that aggressors are 'victims' he has demonstrated his lack of standards, ethics and his allegiance to Transnational Progressivist ideals.
I find those ideals reprehensible and the attitude that goes with them.