Today brings a firestorm about the Philadelphia Inquirer’s signing of John Yoo—the jurist responsible for authoring the Bush administration’s just-released “torture memos,” as well as for crafting the legal justification for that administration’s massive expansion of executive power—to be a regular columnist at the paper. (Yoo has been writing Inquirer columns on a freelance basis since 2005.)
While one could view Yoo’s hiring—which the Inquirer editorial page editor, Harold Jackson, explains by noting that Yoo is “a Philadelphian, and very knowledgeable about the legal subjects he discusses in his commentaries”—as a mere stunt, geared as much at generating publicity for the struggling paper as at fostering discourse, one could also view the move as a good-faith attempt at fostering civic conversation. Yoo’s freelance columns, Jackson notes, have “promoted further discourse, which is the objective of newspaper commentary.”
Many, however, are outraged at the hiring. “While promoting public discourse is a goal of newspaper commentary,” Philadelphia Daily News columnist Will Bunch writes,
it should not be the main objective. The higher calling for an American newspaper should be promoting and maintaining our sometimes fragile democracy, the very thing that Yoo and his band of torture advocates very nearly shredded in a few short years. Quite simply, by handing Yoo a regularly scheduled platform for his viewpoint, the Inquirer is telling its readers that Yoo’s ideas — especially that torture is not a crime against the very essence of America — are acceptable.
What do you think? Is the Inquirer’s hiring of Yoo an opportunity to foster the open-minded discussion that democracy requires—or is it, as Bunch had it, an “indefensible” affront to that democracy?
In these days of constricted newpaper budgets, where should thefunding for scarce resources go?
Architect of torture and Constitutional assaults versus qualified investigative reporters to - I dunno - report what was done, by whom, to whom, when and where, etc.
Yoo stands for the antithesis of meritocracy. He's literally taking the bread and butter away from one or more investigative reporters, and the public, meanwhile, not only is not informed, but is further propagandized.
Epic FAIL.
#1 Posted by Annie, CJR on Tue 12 May 2009 at 01:37 PM
Yoo made some difficult calls and history will judge his decisions and advice in preventing the incineration of many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of lives. All of this was done with congressional oversight and seemed quite reasonable at the time. Much of it still seems reasonable.
But I wonder why we aren’t seeing similar fits of outrage over Obama’s shredding of contract law with his leveraging of TARP, stimulus and auto bailout funds? I guess some violations of law are more palatable than others.
#2 Posted by Mike, CJR on Tue 12 May 2009 at 02:13 PM
The Philadelphia Inquirer is insulting its readers by firing investigative reporters while plucking rotten fruit from the establishment's tree. Anyone who is still subscribed to this waste of ink should cancel immediately.
#3 Posted by Shii, CJR on Tue 12 May 2009 at 02:27 PM
It's sad that so many people believe, as Mike does, that Yoo's torture saved "many thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of lives". Terrorism has never been more than a minor threat to Americans' safety, and even if the use of immoral and illegal methods could be proven to have gotten us important intelligence faster, the increase in our security can only have been minuscule. In fact, if every terrorist in the world were to drop dead tomorrow, we would hardly be any safer. If more people understood this, they would realize how cowardly it is to defile our national honor for such purposes, and how shamefully the terrorists have defeated us.
But to the point: I think it is important for a newspaper to pursue ideological balance in its reporting, but not in its opinion section. A journalistic institution must have values, and should proclaim them openly. There are already too many widely read columnists churning out cant, misinformation, and nonsense; newspapers should not hire a columnist unless their editors believe that most of what he says is true.
#4 Posted by D. B., CJR on Wed 13 May 2009 at 12:37 PM
I question the accuracy of your calling Mr. Yoo a "jurist." I don't think that's right. And the larger question is his tenure at the University of California law school. I assume that if he is disbarred as a result of the investigations being done, he will lose that position.
#5 Posted by larry, CJR on Wed 13 May 2009 at 02:30 PM
1. I disagree with Mr. Yoo on most accounts. And yet: he must be able to say his piece. Jefferson said he might disagree with somebody, but he would defend that person's right to say it with his, Jefferson's, life. That's what it's all about.
2. If, however, paying Mr. Yoo means that Inky has less money for an investigate reporter, I say: let Yoo write without pay.
3. Am interested to know if there are any memos rejecting torture.
4. It is clear that torture yields almost nothing of value that couldn't be obtained by legal means.
5. Those who don't like to read Mr. Yoo can a) not by the paper, b) not subscribe to it, c) cancel a subscription if they already have one, and d) if he's on tv change the remote. I.e.: we have choices.
Michael S. Cullen, Berlin, Germany
#6 Posted by Michael S. Cullen, CJR on Wed 13 May 2009 at 03:21 PM
Why do publishers consider columns as jobs programs for out-of-office conservatives? I think it would be kinda cool to hire somebody who is - oh, I don't know -- a professional nonfiction writer who could produce something people might read. Just a crazy idea.
#7 Posted by P Twistleton, CJR on Wed 13 May 2009 at 03:55 PM
It would seem to any thinking person that Professor Yoo's inability to comprehend that the United States does not have a president that acts in the unitary fashion would disqualify him from writing for a newspaper in the United States. While it won't keep him from teaching law or even holding a Bar card--it should.
Any first or second year con law student knows that the president cannot assume extraordinary powers without a declaration of war. Ask Harry Truman. Even his friend on the Court had to tell Truman that he couldn't take over the steel industry as FDR was able to control the entire economy. Truman didn't have a declaration of war. Roosevelt did. And President G.W. Bush did not.
Those who pass the Bar take an oath to defend the Constitution, not shred it. Yoo is a disgrace to the legal profession and should be disbarred. But to give him a job as a journalist? A columnist? Really. Infamy is more important than credibility?
#8 Posted by Jaye, CJR on Thu 14 May 2009 at 08:47 AM
Mike:
I find the shredding of contract law disturbing, too. Like the contract my husband made with his employer for a pension which the company cancelled; the contracts cities make with corporations for jobs in exchange for tax breaks; the contracts credit-card companies make with customers for interest rates. Yeah. I know what you mean.
#9 Posted by snead, CJR on Thu 14 May 2009 at 04:48 PM
Perhaps Professor Yoo can promote "further discourse" as to whether it is murder or merely manslaughter when a prisoner dies as a result of torture. It is after all a subject with which he may soon need to be very familiar.
#10 Posted by Benedict@Large, CJR on Fri 15 May 2009 at 03:18 AM
If public opinion matters at all, it's worth noting that polling is closely divided on this issue. By contrast, the tone of the coverage suggests that the interrogation practices are universally condemned. This is not so - while elite opinion has overwhelmingly decided that the interrogation techniques were 'torture', mass opinion is far from agreement.
There is a kind of opinion-culture quite present in the liberal papers and magazines that there is no legitimate disagreement with liberal opinion - that the only basis for such is irrationality or other low sentiments (greed, racism, the usual laundry list). This is the method by which censorship and repression always justifies itself. If a mindless right-wing group shouted down a speaker on a college campus, 'mainstream' chattering class opinion would see Fascism just around the corner, but mindless left-wing activists shout down speakers and interrupt hearings and generally deny free speech to those who disagree with them all the time, on exactly the same grounds that some in this thread employ - i.e., opposition is borderline criminal. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the progressive, lol, posers who have their knickers in a twist over the Yoo hiring would look with satisfaction on the torture of Yoo himself. He didn't abet terrorism that killed people, but on the other hand he was a member of the Bush Administration, you see . . . the moral equivalence of the fanatically partisan and self-righteous middle-class radical in the West.
#11 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 15 May 2009 at 02:08 PM
This is the same Philly Inquirer which doled out about $45K to pay Rick Santorum for a twice monthly column (in an environment where staff reporters making far less are being sacked).
Amazing that a politician can actually get PAID to use a major city newspaper to voice his opinions.
#12 Posted by Xavier, CJR on Fri 15 May 2009 at 09:33 PM
We must remember the primary purpose of any news media - sell. The Inquirer is trying to do just that. Also all views should be considered of all news. We may disagree about much of what Mr. Yoo writes but, we will be wiser for the reading.
#13 Posted by thedirtydemocrat, CJR on Sat 16 May 2009 at 12:50 PM
Mark Richard,
That's a lot of straw men for one short comment. But first to your suggestion that there is an "opinion-culture" amongst liberals that itself suggests that there are no other opinions other than those of liberals. You offer not a single reference to such an opinion. You offer no references to your own suggestion that condemnation of "enhanced" interrogation techniques was not universal. You offer nothing more than your opinion that the opinions of others is not the correct view of the situation. As a result your opinion is shown to be of little value as you have not provided any evidence to suggest that your opinion has value as an anlytic tool.
#14 Posted by Jack, CJR on Sat 23 May 2009 at 02:14 PM
To claim that someone or something or some action is an insult to democracy is short-sighted. Democracy is a process, not a point in time or space -- it is the debate itself that preserves our freedom (and I do mean both sides of the debate). We as a society allowed the bad decisions of the Bush administration (including Yoo), and for any one of us to act as if we weren't complacent is far too simple of an outlook. Perhaps this hiring is an affront to democracy -- but it is through that conflict that democracy endures.
#15 Posted by Alex Foley, CJR on Sun 24 May 2009 at 11:54 AM