Inside the Beltway

By Jennifer Harper INSIDE THE BELTWAY - The Washington Times - Tuesday, October 20, 2009

BALLOON BOY, CONT’D.

“Let’s do a different take on ’balloon boy.’ Last Friday, for more than two hours, one whole hour of Neil Cavuto’s show on Fox News was spent on the possibility of a six-year-old falling out of this weird apparition sailing over Colorado. This was one hour where there was no mention of Barack Obama, the health debacle, nothing from Afghanistan - only the fact that a young boy could be at risk,” says Beltway reader Mary Lou Rose. “I say, thanks for the respite.”

HAILING THE BAILOUT

Dueling thinkers are in a rush to praise a federal bailout for the nation’s struggling newspaper industry.

“A review of current law strongly suggests that, under present circumstances, a nonprofit newspaper could qualify for tax exemption without the need for legislation by Congress or new rulings by the IRS,” say the sages of Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, which has issued a 37-page analysis entitled, “Can Nonprofits Save Journalism? Legal Constraints and Opportunities.”

The Columbia Journalism School has its own version - “The Reconstruction of American Journalism” - penned by former Washington Post Executive Editor Len Downie and Columbia journalism professor Michael Schudson. Among other things, the 100-page report also suggests that news organization operate as nonprofits. The report has warranted a big send-off by wonks and lawmakers at the Capitol Visitor Center on Wednesday.

But wait a minute. Aren’t there a few complications that could arise here?

“We warned of this crazy trend of government-funded journalism just last week when we released our new report ’The Great Newspaper Bailout.’ ” Dan Gainor tells Inside the Beltway.

The study - written by Mr. Gainor and Catherine Maggio and published by the Business & Media Institute - sets forth a simple but powerful equation: “Government Aid = Government Control.” Mr. Gainor cautions his fellow media analysts.

“At least Downie’s not subtle. His version of the old biased media failed miserably. Now he’s on a jihad to get taxpayers to pay for a new, biased media - this time with billions of our tax dollars. It would still be run by typical lefty journalists, but wouldn’t have any real accountability. Worse still is that Downie will find receptive ears from President Obama and Hill Democrats who want nothing more than to use our money paying off their cronies in the press,” Mr. Gainor says.

“Didn’t anybody in the media read the 1st Amendment? It says ’Congress shall make no law’ regarding freedom of the press. I thought even Len Downie understood ’no’ means ’no.’ ”

BIDEN MOMENT

Well, OK. America’s second-in-command is involved with environmentalism, energy, the middle class - or something - judging from this baroque White House dispatch:

“Vice President Biden will hold a Middle Class Task Force event. The Vice President will release the Recovery through Retrofit Report, which builds on the foundation laid out in the Recovery Act to expand green job opportunities in the United States and boost energy savings for middle class Americans by retrofitting homes for energy efficiency.”

Well, uh, OK.

NOW THAT’S JOURNALISM

The New York Times may have more to worry about than a bailout, or the 100 newsroom positions being eliminated as part of a new round of layoffs.

Dr. William G. Armington has filed a personal-injury suit against the newspaper, along with ProPublica - an independent, nonprofit investigative news group founded by journalists from the Times and other papers.

At issue is “Strained by Katrina, a Hospital Faced Deadly Choices,” a lengthy article that ran in the Times Sunday magazine on Aug. 25, written by Dr. Sheri Fink, a staff reporter for Pro Publica. The 13,000-word account, which cost $400,000 and two years to produce, implied that Dr. Armington, a board certified neuroradiologist, was aware that up to 45 patients at Memorial Medical Center in New Orleans had been euthanized during the 2005 hurricane - and did nothing about it.

Dr. Armington claims that Dr. Fink misrepresented herself and sensationalized the story in a quest for a book deal, and that the Times sought to further its “commercial interest” and alliance with the well-fundedPro Publica by publishing it. The paper refused to print a retraction. The physician is claiming reckless defamation of his character, calling the story “the epitome of partisan, ideological and partial journalism.”