May12 |
 |
Harold Jackson talks about why the Inky keeps printing John Yoo’s column
But this is what he said first: “The short answer is he is under contract,” Jackson told me. “We have an obligation to fulfill the contract and we intend to.” I hope Jackson — who was very cordial during our short talk — will forgive me for this observation: Citations of contractual obligations don’t exactly amount to a ringing endorsement of Yoo’s presence on the Inky’s editorial page. Yoo’s columns for the Inquirer have become increasingly controversial. Blogs like Phawker, Young Philly Politics and even Will Bunch at the Inquirer’s sister publication, the Daily News, have all been raising a ruckus. Jackson told me he’s heard from angry readers, as well. “We get a lot of e-mails, a lot of people have threatened to cancel their subscriptions,” Jackson said. Jackson said that Yoo is under a year-long contract to provide a monthly column to the Inquirer. He did not disclose compensation or the contract’s expiration date. He said Yoo had been given the contract because A) he has Philadelphia ties, B) he’s distinguished enough professionally to hold a faculty position at Berkeley law school and C) he has insight into legal matters facing the country. Fair enough. But, I asked Jackson, isn’t there some concern that the Inquirer is being used as a platform by a man believed by many to be a war criminal? “I think that we’re concerned about the content of everyone, everything we publish,” Jackson said. “Certainly John Yoo is a controversial person. He himself will admit he has become a lightning rod.” Jackson then noted the possibility Yoo could face “judicial action” for his authorship of the memos that provided the legal groundwork for the Bush Administration’s torture of terror suspects. “We have not reached that point. The description of him as a war criminal would not be accurate. He’s a member of a distinguished university faculty with interesting things to say,” Jackson said. “If at some point it goes beyond that, we’ll have more concern about our relationship to him.” I had one final concern: Here is the Inquirer’s description of John Yoo at the end of his column:
Notice what it omits? Only the resume item that makes him most-known to the public — and, arguably, the resume item that put him on the Inky’s editorial page: His service in the White House’s Office of Legal Counsel under President George W. Bush. That, I think, is a terribly curious omission, one that obscures Yoo’s history to readers who may not have followed the torture debate closely. “We aren’t trying to hide anything. There’s nothing to hide,” Jackson told me. “It’s just pretty standard identifier for most of the writers we have. It doesn’t go into all the curriculum vitae … Certainly, he’s got a background and a track record our readers are familiar with.” ••• I believe in the First Amendment. I believe that everybody has the right to free speech, no matter how noxious the opinion or odious the speaker. I believe Nazis have the right to march down Broad Street even if it offends everybody in the city of Philadelphia. And I believe that the Philadelphia Inquirer has the absolute right to publish John Yoo’s columns if it so chooses — and, in fact, I want the Inquirer to publish compelling perspectives from across the political spectrum, even if I sometimes think those opinions are nuts. But I also believe that in this case, the Inquirer is making a bad choice. It’s a bad choice because Yoo himself isn’t quite so ardent about the First Amendment. He did, after all, co-author a secret memo suggesting that freedom of the press could be suspended during the War on Terror. It’s a bad choice because a man who can’t quite draw a bright line against the crushing of a child’s testicles has frankly demonstrated judgment that places him well outside mainstream discourse. It’s a bad choice, too, because the Inquirer — like everybody else in the mainstream media these days — has terribly limited resources. The expense of a portion of those limited resources on Yoo’s column is a signal to the public that this is a man worth listening to, with ideas worth contemplating. In most civilized societies, torture enablers are banished to the margins of debate. In Philadelphia, they’re given plum op-ed spots. It’s a damn shame. |
|
Uncategorized, harold jackson, john yoo, phawker, philadelphia inquirer, torture, will bunch, young philly politics
|
The Trouble with Spikol | Make Major Moves | PW Style | Cup o'Joel
I have to admit: When I called Harold Jackson on Monday and asked him 
Yes, I apparently live here now. My apologies. I do have things to do in my real life but for some reason it seems that I would rather write to you about American politics. So it goes.
At any rate, I am really interested in this story. It is incredibly complex, in that one of the best ways we know for assuaging our consciences after a time of extremities is to look for the baddies, the ones who were REALLY at fault (ie: not us) and then hang ‘em high. This is not what YOU are doing, because you were clearly aware of the issue all along, and besides, your take is measured and thoughtful. Surveying the literature available on teh internets, however, I find some of the treatment of Yoo to be a little bit boogie-man and therefore a little reductive. I see this as a problem.
Before saying anything else, I feel I should point out that I agree with your central thesis. Other, better writers deserve his space. Also, I am not defending this man. Firstly, it’s clear that Yoo’s ability to do his job ethically is in doubt, as well it should be. The man advocated torture, and, apparently, really sick and brutal torture – the kind that indicates a scary imagination and probably some horrible childhood issues. There is no excuse for this kind of thinking, it needs to be challenged, on every level, at every turn. Furthermore, Yoo clearly needs counselling (like many bleeding heart liberals, I tend to prefer therapy to punishment.) Whatever else happens, get that man to a therapist.
The flip-side is this: so we go through this post-war clearing process. We point, we accuse, and we get rid of Yoo from the paper. It’s a minor punishment (especially compared to being prosecuted for ideological war crimes, like Howard W. Cambell Jnr.), and he is replaced by a better and less ethically suspect writer, to our mutual good. This is unarguably great. But we have one problem: dealing with Yoo in this way means not dealing with this idea as it exists in the public consciousness.
This is my point: the newspaper wouldn’t have hired him unless they thought there was a market audience. While it’s possible that a big chunk of this audience could be generated by shock value (ie: I can’t believe I am reading this shit!), there, presumabaly, is also an audience that agrees with him. If he and his ilk are rejected from the mainstream press, where will this audience go? SOMEWHERE WHERE WE CAN’T SEE WHAT THEY ARE DOING! Meanwhile, we can then safely assume that the social frameworks which supported his drivel have safely been neutralized because we’re not hearing about them.
Forgive me for saying so, but this assumption scares the crap out of me. If people are going to say noxious things and advocate unethical and, frankly, repellent practices, then I want them – and their fanbases – right out where they can’t surprise me. I am aware that there is an argument that without someone to put ideas into handy Quotables, the problem might desist, not to mention the fact that as an artist I wholeheartedly believe in the social function of both art and editorial: that they can function to teach, to explain, and to give the tools of ethical and critical thinking the proper ergonomic handles. However, I still maintain that when it comes to horrible opinions, obliteration by public discourse is far superior to relegation, if only because it tends to be more effective.
This aside, he really needs to be dissbarred. Really. Really. Really.
Robyn: I love that you’re living here now.
I don’t have a ton of time to respond to this, but let me tackle one significant point you make:
“This is my point: the newspaper wouldn’t have hired him unless they thought there was a market audience.”
I’m not sure that’s correct. The evidence is that publisher Brian Tierney pushed this selection — and that Tierney’s interest might be as much in right-wing cronyism as it is in getting eyeballs for his paper. I’m not really sure this was done at all with the audience in mind.
Hmm, interesting. Actually, that does change things a bit – maybe he’s just a lonely psycho? (That would be good, by the way.)
Keeping Yoo on their payroll is tantamount to employing a lawyer for the Gestapo. I do not say this lightly, as this is a heavy charge. Consider the local readership and you will realize why the Inky has received so many letters on this issue. Philadelphia County voted for Obama by 85% in the presidential election. MontCo: 60%. Chester, Berks, Bucks: 54%. Burlington, NJ: 59%. Mercer and Camden, NJ: 68%. A partial impetus for this vote was to state loud and clear that the actions of the Bush Administration, including the advocacy of torture, are anathema to what we, as Americans, stand for as a culture and a nation.
No defense of Yoo as a “Philadelphian,” or law professor, or man who has not been “convicted” is a decent support for why the Inky continues to print Yoo. Their editor Jackson also stated that Yoo is a “pleasant” guy to talk to. This is a reason to keep him? Yoo’s blessed opinion gives “another side” of the issue of torture. Please. This means that breaking the law, and acting unethically, and advocating for a policy that has made this country less safe while not garnering any credible information from terrorists is just fabulous. Law professors are a dime a dozen. Most of them would not have advocated for torture, which in effect has made our country less safe, not more safe. “Pleasant” can describe the mass murderer next door who surprisingly had five dead bodies in the basement. That he is a Philadelphian? That’s an embarrassment, not a reason to gloat.
If the Philadephia Chief of Police started torturing suspects to try to decrease Philadelphia gun violence, I wonder how long he’d keep his job? I’d like to see more debate in their Opinion Pages on the positives of kidnapping, theft, child molestation, wife beating, slavery, genocide, and I.V. drug use. How about it? That would surely sell more newspapers, and no one could blame them for being partial to one side of the issue, let alone the rule of law. After all, as the Inky editors have stated, their obligation to society is to not be one-sided. I think someone at their paper thinks you are the National Enquirer, not the Philadelphia Inquirer. But who can blame them? It’s getting more and more difficult to tell the difference.