Citizen Cartwright

Note to readers

Citizen Cartwright is taking some holiday time off and will publish next on Tuesday, Jan. 2. Warmest wishes for all you enjoy most this season.

Rubio’s wrench in the tax bill wrapup

The potential defection of Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., over a tax credit for low-income parents has put a speed bump in Republican leaders’ drive to push their tax package through the Senate — but it’s a complication that’s likely to be resolved, says The Associated Press.

 

Senate Republicans could pass the legislation without Rubio’s vote, but they would be cutting it extremely close. An original version was approved 51-49 — with Rubio’s support.

 

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Thad Cochran, R-Miss., both missed Senate votes this week because of medical procedures. But Cochran’s office says he’ll be available to vote next week. And Sen. John Cornyn, Texas, the No. 2 Senate Republican, says he expects McCain to return for the vote. 

 

Vice President Mike Pence, who would break a 50-50 tie in favor of passing the tax bill, is delaying a planned trip to the Middle East so he can preside over the tax vote next week.

 

By the way, more than half of the 11,000 registered lobbyists in Washington reported working on tax-related issues through the first nine months of the year, says The New York Times, citing a report by the nonprofit Public Citizen.

FCC’s repeal of net neutrality rules

First, many thanks to the Silicon Valley reader who has sent me copious amounts of information to help me understand this issue, including this posting by Mike Masnick, editor of the blog Techdirt. 

 

The Federal Communications Commission’s 3-2 party-line vote on Thursday scraps regulations that prohibited broadband providers from blocking websites or charging for higher-quality service or certain content. The federal government also will no longer regulate high-speed internet delivery as if it were a utility such as phone service.

 

Net neutrality supporters are threatening legal challenges, with New York’s attorney general saying he'll lead a multistate lawsuit. Some Democrats want to overturn the FCC's action in Congress.

 

Here is what the FCC’s vote means for you, according to The Associated Press.

Is Paul Ryan getting ready to leave Congress?

The House speaker is saying “no,” after Politico Magazine and HuffPost published articles speculating that Ryan would make this two-year Congress his last or even resign after lawmakers approve the tax bill.

Also in the news

NATO concerned Russian missile system violates Cold War arms treaty

 

White House to push for merit-based, rather than family-based, immigration in new campaign

 

Labor board reverses ruling that helped workers fight fast-food, hotel chains

 

Thousands of Interior Department employees report harassment, intimidation at work; Zinke pledges action

 

With new focus on sexual misconduct, Democrats taking aim at Trump

 

ProPublica: Texas landowners say government should pay them for property values damaged by border wall

 

Study: As Zika babies become toddlers, some can’t see, walk, talk

Note to readers

It’s been awhile, but I think I hear a dog barking ...

One dog barking

By John Dineen

What is the news for?

I’ve spent the better part of a career in newsrooms, making countless decisions on what is and is not news on any particular day.

Despite that experience — maybe because of that experience — I’m now driven to ask the question: What is the news for?

  •    •

When I was an editor of policy news, I would meet with reporters to discuss their “story arcs,” the overarching direction of each of their main areas of coverage (yes, I stole the term from entertainment television). We would discuss where we thought each issue would be a year down the road and the best ways to convey that to readers.

We weren’t attempting to craft endless, ponderous articles on “where the world is headed.” Rather, each story arc provided a pole star for that issue — a guide, in our daily decisions, to what was actually important and worth reporting.

We viewed that as our jobs: to help readers understand where a particular issue was going, to help them separate the meaningful from the noise.

That’s what we thought the news was for.

I share that bit of mechanics because — as obvious an approach as it may seem — I never met another editor who used it. And I surely see no signs of it in policy and political coverage today.

I’m returning to that approach now. Here’s my story arc: With the seismic changes in technology, business models and politics, I don’t think we know what the news is for anymore.

Consider:

In early November, Brian Stelter of CNN tweeted that White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway would be a guest on his weekly program, Reliable Sources. Stelter asked his followers, any questions for her?

A primary question for some was, given Conway’s arms-length relationship with the truth, why have her on at all?

Stelter tweeted in part, “She is a W.H. aide, not a hard call to make.”

And again, “How is ignoring an admin official better than asking the official Q’s and letting the audience judge the responses?”

For Stelter, the forum was the point. For Conway, the forum was an opportunity to disparage CNN, to cast the network as the enemy. Among her comments:

“I think that's a usual hyperbolic opening to one of CNN's segments. … CNN used to be a place where people can tune in and get the news all day long. Now they get spin and people's opinions. … Stop being jealous of Fox News, Brian, and their ratings. I think that would help if you drop the jealousy a little bit about Fox News.”

Around the same time (Nov. 1), The New York Times reported that Donald Trump called them up and told them everything was going smoothly, that — contrary to reports — he wasn’t mad at anybody and he was enjoying the job.

You know, when I say it like that, it doesn’t sound like news at all.

Last week, the Columbia Journalism Review published an analysis of the coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign. It found, as other analyses already had, that the news was dominated by Hillary Clinton’s and Clinton campaign emails.

It also made this point about The New York Times, ostensibly the pinnacle of American journalism:

“If voters had wanted to educate themselves on issues such as healthcare, immigration, taxes, and economic policy — or how these issues would likely be affected by the election of either candidate as president — they would not have learned much from reading the Times.”

   •      •

At our story arc meetings, I would ask the reporter, “A year from now, what will you be glad that you communicated to our readers about this issue over the past year?”

Do you suppose reporters covering the presidential campaign would have said, “Ultimately, I’ll be glad we downplayed policies. We needed to get across the importance of Clinton’s emails. That’s what this election was about.”

So, what is the news for?

In the coming weeks and months, let’s keep asking that question.

(One dog barking is an occasional column. John is a former senior congressional staffer and media executive. He also is my husband.)

Also in the news

British Parliament demands greater say over Brexit, defying Prime Minister Theresa May

 

Rwanda government accuses France of complicity in 1994 genocide

 

White House corrects Tillerson on openness to talks with North Korea

 

Republicans say they have a deal on tax legislation; cuts coming for next year

 

Establishment Republicans relieved that Roy Moore was defeated in Alabama Senate race

 

Nate Silver: Alabama is more evidence that Republicans need to be worried about 2018

 

Minnesota Lt. Gov. Tina Smith to replace Franken, run for seat in 2018

 

Trump judicial nominees Brett Talley, Jeff Mateer are out after criticism

 

Trump’s EPA chemical safety nominee Michael Dourson withdraws

 

Former 'Apprentice' reality star Omarosa Manigault Newman fired from White House job

 

Federal Reserve raises interest rate for 3rd time this year; foresees 3 more hikes in 2018

 

In the decade since the recession, thriving cities have left others behind

 

ProPublica/Texas Tribune: Federal government’s bold land grab produced first border wall

 

Center for Public Integrity: Worker protection isn’t a priority in U.S.

 

Trying to robot-proof your child’s future career

 

Friday is the deadline for signing up to get Obamacare coverage in 2018

 

Consumers who froze their credit reports could hit a glitch in Obamacare enrollment

Note to readers

Yesterday, the site that hosts Citizen Cartwright was down. Below, in addition to today’s headlines, are some from yesterday that I woulda posted if I coulda.

Democrat Doug Jones’ ‘stunning’ win in Alabama

As you know, I particularly value The Associated Press and Reuters because, in my observation, they’re the most unbiased sources of news.

 

Here’s the way AP characterizes Tuesday’s vote in Alabama:

 

"In a stunning victory aided by scandal, Democrat Doug Jones won Alabama’s special Senate election, beating back history, an embattled Republican opponent and President Donald Trump, who urgently endorsed GOP rebel Roy Moore despite a litany of sexual misconduct allegations.

"It was the first Democratic Senate victory in a quarter-century in Alabama, one of the reddest of red states, and proved anew that party loyalty is anything but certain in the age of Trump. Tuesday’s Republican loss was a major embarrassment for the president and a fresh wound for the nation’s already divided GOP."

 

Jones said, "We have shown not just around the state of Alabama, but we have shown the country the way — that we can be unified." Described as "in shock," he said, "I think that I have been waiting all my life, and now I just don’t know what the hell to say."

 

Meanwhile, Moore refused to concede and raised the possibility of a recount.

"It’s not over," he said, adding, "We know that God is still in control."

 

Alabama law calls for a recount if the margin of victory is less than one-half of one percentage point. With all the precincts reporting, AP says Jones led by 1.5 percentage points — three times that margin.

 

If the secretary of state determines there were more write-in votes than the difference between Jones and Moore, the state’s counties would be required to count those votes. It isn't clear how that would help Moore, who ended the night trailing Jones by more than 20,000 votes, says AP.

 

The victory by Jones, a former U.S. attorney best known for prosecuting two Ku Klux Klansmen responsible for Birmingham’s 1963 church bombing, narrows the GOP majority in the Senate to 51-49.

 

Republicans on Capitol Hill have expressed hopes of scheduling a vote on their tax bill before Jones is sworn in, but lawmakers still are struggling to put together a compromise bill to bridge the divide between the House and Senate legislation that can win majority support in both chambers, AP says.

 

Top allies of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., see the Alabama results as a deep — and possibly fatal — wound for Stephen Bannon, their arch-rival in the battle for the soul of the Republican Party, says The Hill.

 

Bannon enthusiastically campaigned Moore even after public allegations that Moore pursued relationships with teenagers several decades ago.

 

"Not only did Steve Bannon cost us a critical Senate seat in one of the most Republican states in the country, but he also dragged the President of the United States into his fiasco," Senate Leadership Fund CEO Steven Law, a former McConnell chief of staff, says in a statement.

 

Interestingly, there are many anti-Bannon comments this morning on Breitbart, Bannon’s own website.

 

Here is an analysis of the Alabama outcome by Julie Pace, AP’s Washington bureau chief, titled "Trump bets on Moore and suffers stinging defeat."

 

And here is the analysis of Dan Balz of The Washington Post, titled "In Alabama, a lousy night for Republicans and a resounding defeat for Trump."