"We have now reached a point where the tactics we have adopted in the struggle against terrorism have compromised our ability to respond to the 9/11 conspiracy itself," Farmer said.
Farmer served as Attorney General under Governors Whitman and DeFrancesco. He originally opposed the independent commission, but said he decided it was necessary after the government didn't prosecute the 20th hijacker because he was tortured. He continued:
"No amount of internal bureaucratic review will suffice to allay public concern about the way its government has been conducting itself," Farmer said.
Watching highlights of the testimony yesterday, you had Republicans on the committee seemingly opposing the idea of a commission because they said the matter should be investigated by the Justice Department. On the Rachel Maddow show last night, Senator Pat Leahy was talking about just this and said they should be careful what they wish for:The Obama administration hasn't seemed very interested in pursuing the matter as of yet. Leahy doesn't think we will get the full truth unless we proceed with an independent commission. He also made a good point, that you have to read the page before you turn it so that you don't have future administrations tempted to break the law again.
John Farmer started out his tenure as Editorial Page Editor at the Star-Ledger by comparing the internet to a cesspool and claiming that newspapers are better than the internet because everything is vetted multiple times.
However, this multiple vetting process still seems to be misfiring. Today's example is from the Hunterdon County section of the Courier News/Home News Tribune which leads with the headline: "Matthew Holt to run from Leonard Lance's state Senate seat."
Holt is running FROM the seat? Is he scared or something? Note the headline on the clickthrough page clears it up: "Matthew Holt to run for Leonard Lance's state Senate seat"
Yeah, no one is fallible - since I wrote the piece on Farmer, I actually misspelled someone's name. But a quick email and an edit and it was fixed. The newspapers, however, cannot correct a print error until the next day at the earliest. IF anyone notices.
This makes it only five days since the last print media snafu. Restart the Farmer clock: Now!
Q: Speaking of change, you're taking over at this newspaper at a time when the newspaper industry is changing. People can go on the internet to get their opinions, to express their opinions. A lot of people say there's no need for a newspaper editorial board or opinion pages anymore. How do you feel about that?
A: Well, I hope they're very wrong. I think a very strong case can be made for newspapers and the public need of them. The problem with information on the internet is that it is unvetted, unedited, it's raw data in half the cases. As it was described by one executive, it can be "a cesspool."
The difference is, what appears in newspapers, in both the news and editorial sections, has been researched, carefully edited, usually through more than one hand. It's dicey proposition and with all of that we still make mistakes. But we're a hell of a lot better than the internet.
Financial ills plague New Jersey's hospitals
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
PRINCETON BOROUGH -- NRG Energy said Monday its board rejected Exelon's unsolicited buyout offer, saying it "significantly undervalues" the company. It recommended its shareholders not tender their shares for the deal.
Chicago-based Exelon took its buyout offer directly to shareholders earlier this month, offering them 0.485 of its own stock for each NRG share.
Wait, NRG Energy and Excelon are hospitals being plagued by financial ills? Of course not, but by Farmer's finely tuned logic, this might just be another log in the cesspool. Mistakes happen and Farmer should focus on dealing with the many problems facing his own industry before he starts concentrating on us cheeto eaters.
Congratulations go out to John Farmer, who has been named as the new editorial page editor at the Star-Ledger. I've read Farmer's columns as long as I've been in Jersey, and I generally like the writing, even when I disagree with the thrust of it. I really don't like the thrust of his Q&A session with Kelly Heyboer.
Particularly, I don't like this answer to whether or not the newspaper industry can remain relevant:
Well, I hope they're very wrong. I think a very strong case can be made for newspapers and the public need of them. The problem with information on the internet is that it is unvetted, unedited, it's raw data in half the cases. As it was described by one executive, it can be "a cesspool."
The difference is, what appears in newspapers, in both the news and editorial sections, has been researched, carefully edited, usually through more than one hand. It's dicey proposition and with all of that we still make mistakes. But we're a hell of a lot better than the internet.
Yeah, so much better than half of the newsroom just got cutback. And, as for that "carefully edited" line - care to explain the rash ofverifiedplagiarism at the New York Times?
More than anything, the quote illustrates that Farmer doesn't understand the internet at all. Make the jump, please.
Star Ledger columnist John Farmer has a good piece about the US Attorney scandal. In it he shows just how much the Bush administration has politicized the justice system by connecting the dots between Karl Rove and several US Attorneys, including Chris Christie. They're connections that most are still unwilling to admit publicly, despite mounting evidence (emphasis mine):
Remember when [Alberto] Gonzales first said he didn't know diddly about the firings and no one believed him? Well, that's when he was telling the truth. He was fibbing when he tried take the heat before the committee. He didn't know about the firings because no one told him. He was irrelevant, a dummy. The decision was made elsewhere.
But look at the fix that put Gonzales in. He couldn't tell the Senate outright that he was in the dark, because that would have raised the $64,000 question, the one the White House dreaded: "If you didn't fire them, who did?"
Which brings us to Karl (The Consigliere) Rove.
Rove's DNA is all over both the appointment of U.S. attorneys and now their political firings. He had the U.S. attorney in Arkansas sacked to make room for a crony. He assured Allen Weh, chairman of the New Mexico GOP, who complained about the delay in firing U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, that Iglesias "was gone."
And Rove was instrumental in getting the U.S. attorney's post in New Jersey for a fundraiser with no criminal trial experience, Chris Christie, who reciprocated by launching an investigation into Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez in the middle of a tough election campaign. (Christie's debt to Rove is presumably marked paid-in-full.)
However, this multiple vetting process still seems to be misfiring. 
