I don't know if dead threads here are ever visited, so this may be a reed shaking in the wind.

Stuck in the back of my head is a thesis or analysis I can't readily attribute-- I think it may be from Mark Crispin Miller. This was offered a few years ago in response both to Bush's idiosyncratic habits of interpersonal communication, Rumsfeld-speak, and a trickle-down of Babel percolating through party spokespersons, federal agencies, the military, and the compliant corporate media.

The gist of the argument is that by eroding the meaning of words, and systematically undermining and challenging common understanding and conviviality, ultimately what words mean is purely a function of power. And indeed, the present Executive Branch governs by monarchical pronouncement and fait accompli, and generates an eon's worth of squid ink, formal and colloquial, to mask itself and remain invulnerable.

And another troubling symptom of the power-centered nihilism of the ruling cabal is that, having pulled down pillars of settled law and impartial jurisprudence down like so many Saddam statues-- and having disinterred and virtually cremated habeas corpus-- general respect for law is vitiated.

I prefer not to discuss my work, but suffice to say that I am acquainted with the concept of a "question of law", and the corollary belief that a question of law that has been fairly adjudicated ought to be accepted as the truth of the matter, except within appeals mandated by due process of law.

Thus, it ought to be generally accepted that Valerie Plame was indeed a covert agent within the meaning of the relevant laws and regulations. Patrick Fitzgerald, an officer of the court, concurred with the CIA's own representation that Plame was covert. Yet, in this weird, Phantom-Zone, Bizarro world of post-modern quiescent fascism, demagogues and infotainwhores can blithely recycle the seemingly-settled question of Plame's covert status.

This is done by flinging down and dancing upon the enlightened, rational principle that a settled question of law demands respect. This hearkens back, I suppose, to the common-sense belief that, once learned authorities have investigated and considered a disputed question in an impartial formal proceeding, their answer is the last word. Now the cult of personality and the breaking of everyday common sense has unmoored We the People. Demagogues may revisit truth and settled questions as long as it suits their purposes, by employing as-ifs like ninjas flinging those star-shaped pointy things, to make it seem as if the legal consensus that Plame was covert is only someone's opinion-- invariably, a someone driven by self-importance or partisan loyalty to put in the fix.

Honesty's all out of fashion

These are the rigs of the times, times, my boy!

These are the rigs of the times.

It occurs to me that a variation of the question that vexed Glenn and these comments the other day could be posed about the NYT: Has the Grey Lady become a chancrous whore only since the SCOTUS appointed the Unitard to the presidency in 2000, or has it functioned as an organ of government propaganda throughout its history?

Personally, I've never been convinced or impressed by self-serving, self-promoting designations like "the newspaper of record"-- "All the news that's fit to print" is a slogan designed to reassure prim, incurious, and obsequious customers.

I had the same thought Jim White expressed. Put another way, I can't help but view the existence of ombudsmen or public editors as farcical. I understand sysprog's explanation that public editors are by definition isolated from the actual news editing, and that the point of their informed commentary depends on such isolation; otherwise, public editors would lack proper, um, standing, to effectively critique news operations and output.

Even so, it seems to me that the Grey Lady's advanced syphilis is inducing a schizophrenic dementia. Because as far as I can see, the flip side of the necessary detachment cited by sysprog is that public editors are at best marginalized and useless except as bean-bags, flak-catchers, and foils to particularly sharp and unsettling criticisms.

Gordon's (et al) persistent defects and shortcomings are either ignored or condoned by his actual editors, if he has any. The public editor, like an irksome parrot securely confined to its cage, can squawk knowingly about troublesome aspects to reporters' published work. Presumably, if some readers are reassured by the public editor's assessments, this is because they feel that at least one responsible party in the organization "gets" the problem-- and that this in-house criticism signals a capability to correct and improve.

In fact, public editors sometimes blatantly defend, support, and advocate for reporters (as the deplorable Okrent did when he chose to publish a private e-mail address on behalf of Adam Nagourney), or castigate dissatisfied readers for alleged uncivility (Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell).

I don't dispute sysprog's characterization of the role of public editor, but it only reinforces my feeling that they are decoys at best. Since the editorial hand doesn't know what the news hand is doing, and vice-versa, the public editor's hand may wag its finger, and occasionally give the public thumbs-up, thumbs-down, or the big "OK". Meanwhile, the news hand will continue to give the public the middle finger that is Michael Gordon and his ilk.

This is a very convivial, agreeable status quo for NYT employees, but it doesn't advance the cause of truth, honesty, and integrity in news reporting an iota. A "great paper"? Perhaps-- even a chancrous whore may provide great sex, if you're willing.