International Politics As Usual

 

There's no such thing as Right and Wrong in politics. It's always been that way. “There is nothing new under the sun.”

There is no place for morality. The accomplishment of particular ends, the achievement of specific goals, has always superseded any consideration of means. Truth gives way to philosophy. That's the more important criterion. Fact yields to spin; information to innuendo; criticism to cynicism. Whatever it takes. It's not how you play the game – it's whether you win or lose. There is no middle ground. Ideological purity is more important than agreement.

There was a time when compromise was viewed as a method for reaching a reasonable and satisfactory result – one which gave all those with different views the opportunity to claim victory. Politics was described as “the art of the possible.” We now live in an age of extreme sports and, sadly, politics has become the most extreme of the blood sports. Sometimes compromises are reached, but only after cut-throat bargaining. Cooperative give and take has evolved into brinkmanship and campaigning. Too often parties enter into negotiations with a goal not of solving a problem for their constituents, but of claiming a position, and creating an issue for the next election.

Not only is all fair in love and war,ⁱ but the same is true in politics. Rumor, spying, and “dirty tricks” have become staples of the form. Winning is everything. It's not hypocrisy; it's hardball.

If local and national politics are savage, however, the international form of the art is even rougher. Diplomatic cocktail parties may have all the trappings of civility, but international law is merely the law of the jungle in tails and striped pants. Reality yields to realpolitik. The survival of the fittest is the rule that governs decisions. And nowhere is that more clearly seen than in the Middle East – in the dispute between the Palestinians and Israel.

The arguments for and against Israel are coming to an end. We're reaching the end game. The Muslim world, indeed the world, supports a Palestinian state, and it is likely to be declared by the UN in September. Israel may not survive, but that is not the primary consideration. The UN giveth, the UN taketh away. No negotiations. No compromises. No concessions by the Palestinians, only by Israel.

There are about 1.7 billion Muslims alive and only about 14 million Jews – many of whom choose not to identify with Judaism – in an already antisemitic world. And the birth rate is much higher among the Muslims than the Jews. According to Muslims, the Jews, less than one tenth of one percent of their numbers, somehow are dominating them. Right, wrong, and logic are irrelevant. Everyone loves a winner, and if numbers, and control of oil, are the marks of a winner, the Muslims are way ahead. No matter what concessions Israel makes, they will not be enough. They will only be starting points. The Palestinians will demand an unprecedented “right of return” recognizing that this would certainly end the viability of a Jewish state.ⁱⁱ The world's politicians are smart enough to know this, so arguing the point is silly. The nations claim that they are simply demanding fair treatment for the weak, without acknowledging that the Palestinians and the Muslims are not weak, except to the degree that their condition is caused by their fellows. The nations actually favor the strong, using the “weak” as a smokescreen. They expect the Muslims to be the ultimate winners and they want to be on the winning side.

But there's more to it than that. Much as Israel's enemies claim that anti-Zionism is not the same as antisemitism, their argument is unconvincing. Many of their justifications center on the claimed flaws of “the Jews.” And those who disagree with them are usually accused of playing the “antisemitism card.”

Unfortunately, antisemitism is a large part of the equation. In ancient times people looked forward to a time when nation would not lift up sword against nation. At that time the battles were between nations.ⁱⁱⁱ With the development of Christianity, and the need of new Christians to distance themselves from their former heritage, it became useful to scorn and denigrate that heritage – to defame Judaism itself. And antisemitism was born. In recent years there has been an effort on the part of many Christians to atone for this sin – to honor that heritage even if they expect someday to replace it – but the cudgel was taken up by the Muslims and has been magnified greatly in recent years. Indeed, there are some Muslims who goad Christians by claiming that the Jews have caused great harm to Christianity and that an alliance between Muslims and Christians against the Jews is justified.^iv So if there are problems in the world – and there are – the Jews must be to blame. That has been the claim for many years concerning every crisis in the Middle East. If it was not caused directly by Israel (read: the Jews), it resulted from the resentment of the humiliation and oppression that Israel imposed on the Palestinians. Turmoil around the world in recent years, especially that in the Middle East, is of no concern to the world's diplomats unless a way can be found to fault Israel. They close their eyes to anything else. If genocides occur among Christians, Animists, or Muslims, they are of no import if they cannot be blamed on Israel.

And who can blame them? It is their job, and possibly their passion, to look to the best interests of their homelands. Morality is not an issue. As Lord Palmerston said, “There are neither eternal allies nor eternal enemies. Only interests are eternal.” The interests of the nations are on their own survival and their ability to provide for their own people – the voters in the case of democracies.^v Times change and, perhaps, over time, eternal interests will be seen differently, when oil, numbers, bribery, and threats carry less weight. But not now. And it's time Israel recognized this and dealt with it.

One of the important threads in Judaism is faith. Have trust in G-d. He will save the Jews. It will all work out in the end, when the Messiah comes.^vi But not everyone is content to suffer injustice while waiting.

There is another view in tension with the wait and see attitude. According to the Talmud, “We do not rely on a miracle.”^vii Whatever will happen in the future, we must deal with the present. And perhaps there is still time. While the world is too embarrassed to abandon Israel entirely, a treaty is advisable. Maybe even possible. So the solution for Israel? Cop a plea. Deal while you can. It won't be easy, but the conditions can be limited and presented as a final offer – not as a starting point for further negotiations. Give^viii the Palestinians Judea and Samaria; build an island in the Mediterranean for them with an airport and a sea port off Gaza – perhaps in exchange for some land like cities built in the land being surrendered; allow the establishment of a Palestinian capital in some Arab neighborhoods outside the Old City. But in exchange there should be an end to the claim of a “right of return” that would turn Israel into another Palestinian state, and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Although as many Jews as Muslims were displaced in 1948, the likelihood of the Jews receiving any compensation is nil, but they should not lose their new country after being expelled from the old. And security should be assured. Indeed, if Israel is attacked again by the Palestinians or one of their surrogates, any treaty would be invalidated, and if Israel prevails there should be no expectation of easy or quick return of captured land without significant concessions.

Of course a treaty is only a sheet of paper and it wouldn't be a surprise if it is broken,^ix so preparations for the next round would have to begin immediately. It's not inevitable, but it's likely. So Israel will have to accept a treaty even though they must prepare for even worse problems. Not because it is fair. It isn't. Not because it is just. That's certainly not the case. But because it is possible, or it may be possible, to win a few years of normalcy. And politics – local or international – is the art of the possible. There is little choice. All Israel can do is have faith, but she can't wait for miracles.

And she should pray.

Next episode: "Two For The Price Of One?" – Multitasking and chewing gum.

i      Helen, Paris, and their horse attest to that.

ii     It is the goal of the Muslims, openly expressed, that Israel not exist. Hamas has been the loudest advocate of this point of view, but there is a widespread view that any Jewish State on “Muslim land” is intolerable.

iii    It was a national, not a religious issue.

iv    Such an alliance, however, should leave the Muslims in charge and the Christians as tolerated subjects.

v     And, of course, the interests of national leaders and of politicians at all levels, are in themselves – in power, their egos, their legacies, and the more mundane benefits of office.

vi    The Naturei Karta, and similar groups, are Jews who oppose the State of Israel and believe that until that time – when the Messiah comes – there should not be such a state.

vii    Pesachim, 64b. Statement of Raba.

viii    Not return. It's really part of Israel.

ix    More likely, it won't even be accepted. As much as the Arab states claim they want peace, the presence of a Jewish state in their midst is an affront which they will probably not countenance. Hamas has certainly taken this position publicly, and the possibility of the approval of a treaty by the Palestinian Authority is remote. Yassar Arafat denied any connection of Jews with the land and that is hardly a confidence-building start.

Death And Texas

 

Just about every year Texas tops the list as the state with the most executions, with 17 in 2010. This is twice as many as the next state, Ohio with 8 executions. www.antideathpenalty.org

Since 1976 Texas has executed about 375 people, followed by Virginia with about 100. And before each execution there is some kind of demonstration demanding that the sentence not be carried out. The two main arguments against the death penalty are that the individual being executed may, in fact, be innocent but the penalty is irrevocable, and even if he is guilty, the death penalty is atavistic, an act of vengeance. The government has no right to take any life, irrespective of the circumstances. They maintain, moreover, that opposition to the death penalty may be causing some prosecutors to look for lesser charges and it may be inducing some juries to acquit murderers or find them guilty of lesser crimes. Because they recognize the evil of murder, however, and the possibility that death penalty supporters may have public opinion on their side, opponents often recommend a sentence of life in prison without parole, both because, in their view, it may be appropriate, and in order to satisfy the others who believe that execution is a just punishment so that the killer will never be on the street again and have the possibility of killing someone else.ⁱ

It's a neat package. If only matters were so simple.

We make mistakes. There's no denying that. Fortunately, especially as pertains to our legal system, we're right far more often than we're wrong. By itself that doesn't justify errors, but it is important to look at all the implications of those mistakes. As opponents of the death penalty point out, the conviction of an innocent person leading to his execution is an irrevocable error.

Suppose an individual is convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Should that sentence be changed to life in prison without parole because the conviction may have been erroneous and thus the sentence unwarranted? After all, after the execution there will be no way to address the grievance.

Perhaps, but some who are imprisoned escape. And not all murderers are sentenced to death. Some receive short sentences or are paroled from life sentences. However it has occurred though, the freedom of someone guilty of killing is also a mistake that may have lethal consequences.ⁱⁱ According to the Department of Justice,ⁱⁱⁱ within three years after release of an individual who had been imprisoned for “homicide,” 1.2% were re-arrested for a new homicide.^iv There are no separate statistics for those who commit premeditated murder – a more serious crime than homicide – but it is likely to be higher.^v The statistic doesn't help us understand how often convicted murderers escape from prison, often killing guards to attain their liberty. And it certainly doesn't include information on the frequency of release and subsequent homicide by accused murderers who were acquitted because evidence was excluded, or who were found not guilty because of insanity or duress or (real or claimed) self-defense. These statistics don't excuse the execution of an innocent person, but they bring a little perspective to the question. What is the risk of an error in the other direction, and how might we avoid that? How many deaths result from our failure to put murderers to death?

Suppose a jury convicts an individual of murder and the judge sentences him to a period of imprisonment. Suppose that following his release he kills someone else. In view of the known rate of recidivism, should he not have been released because of the possibility he would kill again and that the death of new victim would be permanent, and there would be no way to address the grievance after it occurred? Should all those convicted of murder of homicide get "life without parole" sentences?

The same questions – could there have been an error, and will the convicted criminal strike again after his release – may be asked about any crime and any trial. A mistake may be made, and even if there is not a death penalty the emotional, fiscal, and time loss effects will be permanent. They cannot be addressed in retrospect.^vi For this reason, should we end the idea of trial for any individual accused of a crime? Should the whole question of judicial decisions – not just the death penalty for murder – be rethought because we are not perfect? The idea that mistakes are made is one that society as a whole must consider, and thought given to the extent to which we are willing to accept mistakes to prevent an even worse outcome.

And that is a question which is not limited to the legal system. There is a predictable death rate caused by automobile accidents. Deaths and disease are sure to result from legal use of alcohol, tobacco, and other substances. Mining deaths are common. Even construction – whether of high rise buildings, bridges, tunnels or highways – will predictably result in deaths and injuries. We know it will happen and the results will not be reversible. They are irrevocable. We could make all these activities illegal but we won't, even though those who die won't be murderers. Not only do we make mistakes, but we are ready to accept death^vii

However we only protest when the death penalty is involved, since we may make an error and since we must not allow the government to kill – in this case to execute those convicted of a capital offense by our own citizens. Is there any way to avoid errors, and, if not, are we better off not making any decisions so we can prevent mistaken ones? Or is this an error as well?

But even these considerations leave questions unanswered.

Suppose another country invades us. Should we surrender immediately to avoid the need to kill others and and to prevent the deaths of our own sons and daughters? Is killing ever a justified act by a government?

In terms of the justifiability of killing, there are differences of opinion. She was speaking of war, but Golda Meir said, "We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours." She recognized the reality of death in war, but, like death penalty opponents, she questioned the morality of taking the lives of others.

On the other hand, in a release dated March 14, 2004, al-Qaeda stated "You love life and we love death."^viii Different versions of this statement have been made by Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, Adis Medunjanin, the jihadist who crashed while fleeing police, and many others. Martyrdom is an ideal in some countries. It is inculcated in children – often by their own parents or clerics – before they are old enough to form independent opinions. For them death is not something to be avoided because of its finality. It's a preferred outcome. And they're not alone. Indeed, some convicted of murder would choose the death penalty over a life sentence with no possibility of release. Should they – especially if they admit to the act – be given the choice? Should they be permitted suicide?^ix Or might this be too easy for "martyrs," as well as too tempting for innocent persons who fear a life in prison? The two major objections to the death penalty – the possibility of error and killing sanctioned by the state – are not as clear as they may seem.

According to the Bible, the death penalty is warranted for a number of crimes including intentional murder.^x That, however, is not a satisfactory justification in the eyes of many. We don't even agree on the definition of murder. So what should be done? I don't know the answer. I'm not smart enough. But I do know that the debate is not as black and white as it's often painted. And that's a start.

Next episode: "Politics As Usual" – Sadly that's the case.

i     Their approach is not complicated. Death penalty opponents see this as a way around those who raise an objection with which they may disagree but which they cannot defeat in argument. It's the lesser of evils. "Life isn't fair, it's just fairer than death, that's all." — William Golding, The Princess Bride. (Of course that's not what Golding meant, but life isn't fair.)

ii     The pain suffered by the murdered party and his family is not considered in the statistics.

iii    “Bureau of Justice Statistics Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994” Ojp.usdoj.gov. 2002-06-02. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm. Cited in Wikipedia.

iv    Or multiple homicides.

v      One additional action would be the establishment of a registry of those convicted of homicide comparable to that for convicted sex-crime offenders. The recidivism rate for rape is 2.5%, which is higher than that for homicide, but statistics don't seem to be the determining factor. The rearrest rate for car theft is 78.8%, for larceny 74.6%, and for robbery 70.2% , but they don't get a registry. It's hard not to conclude that there's a political component, or one inflamed by the media. In any case, the establishment of such a registry for released murderers might be useful. That's a life sentence.

vi    Actually the fiscal effects can be addressed at the cost of the time and money involved in a countersuit. But this is not always possible when the government is the opponent. And it is not always wise to invest the time, money, and emotion in a new trial even if it is.

vii    At least the death of others, as long as it makes our own lives more enjoyable..

viii    http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2004/03/14/you_love_life_and_we_love_death/

ix   After all, suicide is now accepted, and abortion is morally and legally sanctioned.

x     But not accidental killing or necessary killing as in time of war.

A Christmas Letter

 

It's April. Not the usual time for a Christmas letter, but don't worry. This won't be one. It will, however, discuss the purpose of such a missive – what's new with you.ⁱ That's what it's for. The letter is designed to reveal certain “personal” facts to as many people as practicable with as little effort as possible. It represents the distribution of information – the antithesis of privacy. There are things we want everyone to know, whether they're interested or not. My guess is that people would be less eager to “share”ⁱⁱ all their private thoughts and actions with the IRS. But April's not the time to talk about that.

There seems to be an impulse in our society, and in other countries as well, to expose everything – including the skinny about our selves and about others. We demand it of our government and all the agencies that impact on our lives, and we call it “transparency.” That's a high-minded way of saying that we're both exhibitionists and voyeurs – in terms of national and international functions as well as our own lives. And we now have the tools to make our urge to tell all – and our uncontrolled nosiness – easier. With blogs and the social media we can learn everything we want to know, and reveal everything about ourselves and others to the world. And the audience seems to be there. What used to be private parts, for example, can now become part of the public domain; all you want to know about the family jewels is given away – no negotiation is necessary. Freud would have a ball.ⁱⁱⁱ We like to think that we live in an age of information, but it's more an age of too much information.

It hasn't always been this way. It wasn't until long after his death that I learned of FDR's polio and inability to walk unaided, and of the indiscretions that allowed him to perform other unreported acts. There was a time – a time gone by now – when the press and the public respected personal privacy. (It wasn't universal – paparazzi have been around for a long time^iv Indeed, their appearance was anticipated.^v They were more interested in the money than the ethics.) As long as an individual's acts did not affect others, there was little said or done about them. Now, although we speak of “the need to know,” and “eyes only,” those concepts seem to be intended only for fiction. WikiLeaks, and its clones, disclose everything. Who or what is compromised is irrelevant.

The issue of privacy is a difficult one. The First Amendment makes free speech a priority,^vi but other amendments, including the fourth and fifth, make the home inviolate and protect one's property and thoughts – they address the protection of privacy, even though it is not expressed in those words. Since the Warren and Brandeis article asserted this idea it has been seen as one of our inalienable rights.^vii Still, it's easy to become ensnared in the minutiae of the laws as applied to individual cases. With all that, however, I see one point as basic to the whole concept, even though I recognize that choosing a single fundamental precept in those cases may be difficult.

From my perspective, the primary principle, as expressed by Cooley, is “the right to be let alone.”^viii Not everyone is interested in this protection – at least not all the time. But it's important to remember that we are all being “recorded” all the time, and the assembling of information about us takes place at virtually every moment. In some instances this is through the use of mechanical and electronic devices data bases which merge internet, telephone, medical, fiscal, DNA,^ix consumer, library, etc. records in a manner that permits easy retrieval. And there are surveillance cameras everywhere. It's easy to see the value of such collections of information, especially in cases of emergency or for fighting crime, but it's even easier to see how they my be misused. While anecdotes and fiction are not good sources for such examples, it is hard to avoid the stories on television which show the good guys browbeating and accusing someone of a crime based on that kind of information, and later learning that someone else is guilty. A simple “I'm sorry” – and that is rarely seen on these shows – cannot reconstruct a life that has been ruined, or heal an innocent person who has been emotionally scarred by such subservience to the computer. It is likely, as well, that if we knew what was being recorded we would not agree to placing all that information in those data bases. But no one asks. The only way they “let [us] alone” is by not flaunting what they are doing. What we don't know ...

Privacy is claimed by most web sites, and they generally ask (or force) you to read and accept that policy before you can sign on and sign in. They don't really expect people to actually do so – only to indicate their agreement in some legally binding way, and then click to move on without wasting time reading it. Very often, however, the “privacy” they offer is absent or illusory^x It is reasonable to assume that anything that goes onto your computer is open to anyone who has the software and the interest to mine it.^xi And that includes other devices as well. There's a GPS in most everything nowadays, so you can't hide. Your vehicle navigation system can certainly reveal where you are . And if it doesn't, your cell phone will find you

Perhaps, however, the whole idea of privacy has outlived its usefulness. Transparency is the catchword of the day and secrets are to be shunned. The “tell all” and gossip columns in the newspapers. and the magazines which reveal all the “secrets” of the famous, are big sellers. While it is likely that most of the material in them is planted by the publicists for those people, to a great degree they pander to the desire of much of the population to know about the lives of others. How harmful can it be to learn everything that is going on? WikiLeaks has made it clear that the revelation of everything happening in government can be problematic. There are certain areas where the guarantee of confidentiality is necessary if there is to be communication between the involved parties, and if they are to accomplish their goals.^xii The Constitution itself, which we all cite as the basis of our liberty and rights, was the product of secret negotiations and a secret compromise. And other compromises – labor, political, international, legal – would never be accomplished if some guarantee of secrecy were not given the negotiators.

The right to “privacy” has been accepted by the Court to a great degree following Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, although their cases dealt with decisional rather than informational privacy. But those classifications may be difficult to separate. Decisions are based on information, and the knowledge of decisions and acts should have the same protection as the decisions and the acts themselves. So if a thought, or an act, or a location is not a threat to others, it should be off limits unless the owner chooses otherwise. It is not the prerogative of the state, or anyone else, to invade an individual's privacy. We all have a right to be let alone. Often, though, while the law is on our side, it may not help. Legal cases will be sporadic and they'll only apply to the particular plaintiffs. No matter how broad the law and its interpretation, unless you sue (and who can afford that?) no one will pay any attention to the law.

So what's the answer? Sorry, there is none. We've crossed the Rubicon. There's already too much about us out there. We've gone too far too fast. They, whoever “they” are, know more about us than we do ourselves. They keep better records, so there's no hope. At least none for us. Perhaps if you warn your children or grandchildren to go into hiding and not give any information to anyone, they can escape the intrusions. But they won't listen. The electronics are too seductive and too much fun, and they don't care about privacy. It's a thing of the past.

There is an apocryphal motto of the “Acme Door Company”: “We stand behind every door.” It's unfortunate that we have to look behind each door, but we do. And once we're certain that no one is there, we should keep the door closed. If it doesn't adversely affect someone else, what happens in our minds, or in an area which we can reasonably consider private, should stay there. That's our right. And when, knowingly or not, we voluntarily surrender that right, we surrender our selves.

 

Next episode: “Death And Texas” – Nothing to do with the IRS.

i     I mentioned that briefly last week when talking about newspapers and their lack of emphasis on anything that doesn't suit their biases and their wish to make money. Your letter fills in some of the blanks and presents “metered” news with all your biases included, but no attempt to make a profit.

ii    “Sharing” and “caring” are the warm and fuzzy catchwords of current life.

iii    Or at least a cigar.

iv    In an article on August 23, 1902, The New York Times wrote of “Kodakers lying in wait.”

v     See Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, Harvard Law Review, 1890. (4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 – if you care.)

vi    I'll leave the issue of free speech for another time, although it bears a significant relationship to privacy.

vii    Interestingly, no such right is explicit in the Constitution. Although certain other rights are spelled out, there is no mention of privacy. What we accept as an inalienable right (actually the Declaration of Independence says “unalienable,” but that doesn't change the meaning) is inferred from common law, common sense, and rights of personal property.

viii   Thomas C. Cooley, Law of Torts 29 (2^nd edition, 1888).

ix     Getting material for the determination of DNA is easy. Apart from the tricks on the television shows, whenever a blood test is done the DNA can be obtained if it's in someone's interests. Should insurance companies have access? Should rates be governed by the findings? Should they remain secret with the result that everyone shares the costs of care for those who pose the greater risk? Privacy is a complicated issue.

x     The policy for my home page follows. I read it for the first time when preparing this essay. It is generally long and dry and says they can use or distribute my information as they see fit, though it is clearly primarily for advertising uses. It certainly does not give me much privacy – at least not if I want the site to work properly.

- - - - - - -

PRIVACY POLICY

CONSUMER PRIVACY AND THE EXCITE® WEBSITE AND RELATED SERVICES
Excite.com is operated by Mindspark Interactive Network, Inc. ("Mindspark"), part of the IAC family of businesses(www.iac.com) which includes Ask.com, iWon.com, Girlsense.com, Life123.com, Vimeo.com, Citysearch, Evite, Match.com, Girlsense.com, ServiceMagic, Gifts.com, Pronto, Shoebuy, College Humor, and many others.
At Mindspark, we respect the privacy of our users and the importance of the information they entrust to us. We summarize below the basic information policies and practices in place on the Excite.com website and related applications/services (each, an "Excite Product" and collectively, the "Excite Products"). To read the entire Privacy Policy applicable to the Excite Products, please click here.
Last Updated: February 3, 2009
Information we may collect (Read more)

We may collect information that can identify you ("personal information"), such as your name and email address, (i) when you (or other users) provide it to us when using any Excite Product or in some other manner, or (ii) from other IAC businesses, from our business partners, and from other third parties. We may combine the personal information that we receive from different sources.

We also may collect other types of information in the following ways when you visit any Excite Product our website:

• Our server logs automatically collect information, such as your IP address, your browser type and language, and the date and time of your visit, which helps us track users' movements around our site and understand trends
• We may assign your computer one or more cookies which may collect information to facilitate access to our website and to personalize your online experience.
• We may use standard Internet tools, such web beacons, which collect information that tracks your use of our website and enables us to customize our services and advertisements.

We do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 13. Should we ever do so, we will comply with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

Information others may collect (Read more)

We may allow third-party advertising companies or ad networks to display advertisements on our websites.

• We do not provide any personal information to these companies.
• These companies may use tracking tools, such as cookies, to collect information about computers used to view or interact with their advertisements.
• Some of these companies may be members of the Network Advertising Initiative, which offers consumers the ability to opt out of ad targeting by all member companies.

If you post information about yourself or others, or communicate with others using any Excite Product, please note that we cannot control who reads your postings or what they do with the information you provide. We encourage you to use caution in posting personal information.

How we may use information we collect (Read more)

We may use information to:

• Fulfill your requests for products and services;
• Offer products and services that may be of interest to you;
• Process payment for products or services you order via an Excite Product;
• Customize the advertising and content that you see on our website;
• Facilitate use of our Excite Products;
• Manage your account and your preferences;
• Analyze use of and improve our website, products and services;
• Identify and protect against fraudulent transactions and other misuses of our website; and
• Enforce any EULA, terms of use, terms of service or other terms/policies governing your use of the Excite Products.

With whom we may share information we collect (Read more)

We will not share your personal information with others except as indicated below, or except when we inform you in advance and give you the opportunity to opt out. We may share personal information with:

• Service providers, such as credit-card payment processors, performing services on our behalf;
• Other IAC businesses;
• Other businesses with which we partner or which we carefully select to offer you products, services, and promotions through our Excite Products or offline; and
• Other third parties in limited circumstances, such as complying with legal requirements, preventing fraud, and protecting the safety of our users.

We may share aggregated, non-personal information in any of the above situations and also with advertisers and others.

Your choices (Read more)

You may choose:

• Not to provide personal information, although that may result in your inability to obtain certain services or use certain features of our Excite Products;
• To stop receiving promotional emails or newsletters from us by sending an email to the contact address at the bottom of this policy or by modifying your email and information sharing preferences by clicking here;
• To delete or decline cookies by changing your browser settings, although if you do so, some of the features or services of the Excite Products may not function properly;
• To review and update your personal information by contacting us at the email address below or, if you have an online account on our website, by logging into that account

Security (Read more)

We take appropriate physical, electronic, and other security measures to help safeguard personal information from unauthorized access, alteration, or disclosure.

Changes to our Privacy Policy

We may occasionally update our Privacy Policy to reflect changes in our practices and services. If we make material changes in the way we collect, use, or share your personal information, we will notify you by sending you an email to your Excite.com email address and/or by prominently posting notice of the changes on the Excite website.

xi     Every day there are stories of hackers and of the information they have stolen.

xii    Not just the classic categories of priest/penitent, attorney/client, and doctor/patient.

All The News That's Fit To Print

 

Who, what, where, when, and how. They're supposed to be the basis of journalism – the information, the points most important when writing an article for publication. And they must play some part, but certainly not the most important, in the process. If information were the primary consideration they might be – but it's not.

The most important criterion in journalism nowadays is selling the newspapers,ⁱ not the significance of the story or its completeness and accuracy. So there's only one question to be answered now: “Will it sell?”ⁱⁱ

In that respect there are several determinants that play a part. People are certainly interested in news, but even more so in news that feeds their biases. So, for example, if Palestinians butcher an Israeli familyⁱⁱⁱ it will play well in papers that serve Jewish populations and in papers that specialize in sensationalism.^iv For others it will be a one-shot affair, appearing, but hidden, because it cannot be completely ignored, but it's not something an editor with a contrary agenda or mandate wants to dwell on. And, of course, it will play well in those media serving populations that cheer the event, only in those outlets the slant will be different.^v

One criticism of a free press and the First Amendment is that it exists primarily for those able to pay the bills.^vi If you can afford to publish, hire editors and reporters, and control editorial policy, you'll be able to exercise your constitutional rights to the hilt.^vii You can give news space to advocacy journalists who don't hesitate to use loaded language and opinion in articles nominally labeled as news, and their bias – what they promote in those articles – is your bias. After all, that's why you hired them.

But there are other considerations. How do readers see themselves?; what are the characteristics by which they define their lives? Are they conservatives or liberals? Do they view themselves as intellectuals who look for articles with big words that won't be understood or appreciated by their “inferiors,” or are they simply interested in easy reading?^viii How big and how colorful should the pictures be? And how catchy the headlines? Do readers want to be surprised or given stories that fulfill their expectations?^ix In the unlikely event that Israelis were to slit the throats of Palestinian children there would certainly be detailed and well-illustrated front page stories, for prolonged periods, around the world – especially in Arab countries and in Europe. And in “liberal” papers everywhere.^x In fact, had that been the story recently, it would have blown reports of the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear accident in Japan out of the water, and it would have dominated the United Nations Security Council debates, making Libya a second-class crisis.

And it is not simply the stories that sell papers, other features^xi include such additional items as comics, puzzles, advertising, entertainment listings, gossip, and, of course, sports. The mix of all these elements is the grist which you might think is produced by the media mill, but it is actually the fuel which makes the mill run. The publisher may provide the underlying bias – one governing both the slant of the “reporters” and the choice of the consumers – but it is hardly the only consideration used in crafting a media product. Whatever the publisher's politics, left or right, he's in business to make money. (Even liberals want to make money.) So he caters to his public's other wants as well.

But it's usually not a problem – at least in locales where there are multiple outlets. And that is now becoming everywhere, since the internet is available.^xii The publishers choose the issues^xiii and the public chooses the publishers who say what particular groups want to hear. The opinion columns will generally follow the opinion preferred by the organ, although there will often be a smattering of contrary views to demonstrate “even-handedness.” And letters to the web site or paper will usually reflect the view of the outlet as well – either because the readers already favor its perspective, or the letters published are selected to reinforce what has been written.

There's another group whose voice must be heard. That is the voice of the advertisers. Readers don't pay the bills. Advertisers do. But advertisers have a far greater interest in selling products than in selling political opinions. They tend to stay aloof of issues and maintain their neutrality to as great a degree as they can. Their advertisements are certain to appear in multiple outlets with conflicting politics in order to reach as many people as possible. They're only likely to withdraw their ads, for a period at least, if they get too many angry letters about a particular position expressed by a paper – one that embarrasses them. And they don't get embarrassed easily. It's bad for business. What's good is that a lot of people see the ad. Their politics are irrelevant.

What it all boils down to is the idea that when you read your favorite source of news you are getting what you pay for. It may not be true or complete, but it will be predictable and satisfying, especially if it promotes your righteous indignation. As Will Rogers said, “All I know is what I read in the papers.” He was, of course, being sarcastic. He was aware that the papers weren't to be trusted. But that's something that all of us should keep in mind.

Which leaves us with:

Who? Who can supply what the publisher believes and what the readers will buy? Don't waste your time with truth and accuracy. That's rarely the concern of the readers.

What? What do those readers believe already? It's worth reinforcing.

Where? Where can we hide a story we don't like but are obligated to print, and where can we place the advertisements so they won't be missed?

When? When will they be bored with the current story and looking for something new? New is more important than news.

Why? Why do readers actually take what they read seriously? But then who cares – as long as they buy the paper or turn to our internet site?

Next episode: “A Christmas Letter” – Unseasonal?

i     Actually that should read “media” rather than “newspapers.” The world is changing and with it the means of communication of information. Indeed, the nature of information is also changing, or at least the nature of what people consider information.

ii    In fact that's probably always been the case. If publications like the Weekly World News sell, it can only mean that truth and accuracy are not major considerations among the readers.

iii    As happened recently in Itamar, Israel.

iv    As they say in the trade, “If it bleeds, it leads.”

v    “Advocacy journalism,” the disguising of opinion as fact, can take any event and tailor it to the bias of the “journalist.”

vi   The same is true, by the way, for all propaganda. Whether paid for by bribes, threats, or industrial (or oil) contracts, the circulated points of view can be costly and, in the end, the consumer will pay for it.

vii   You're entitled to a contrary opinion. You have rights too. But no one is obliged to publicize it.

viii   Or viewing, or whatever.

ix    The classic, if apocryphal, example is the story titled “Man Bites Dog” rather than “Dog Bites Man” which would be more in keeping with people's stereotypes.

x    The same story, of course, would be played down in media with a different perspective.

xi    Especially features.

xii    The publisher of a local organ may be obliged to slant his news in keeping with local biases, but he is likely to have them anyway. National and international news are probably obtained from other sources.

xiii   The editors choose which articles will appear since there is not room for every story to appear. The result is that the stories chosen are usually those that say what the publisher wants said, and there is “no room” for those that might lead a reader to consider a different opinion or to focus on a different subject. Although editors usually profess independence, they will rarely disagree significantly from the ideas of whoever signs the paycheck – either because they chose the position based on the outlook of the organ, or they were chosen for the position based on their previously demonstrated slant.