I, Your Federal Overseer, just need to know what you are working on

Michael Smerconish Show, The Big Talker, WPHT, 1210 am Philadelphia ^ | 4/29/2004 | Michael Smerconish

[bvw]

Michael asks the DOT for a copy of a statement he has learned that they have written regarding his initial column about John Lehman’s questioning of Condoleezza Rice in the 9/11 Commission.

The DOT:

In a recent column, a member of the 9/11 Commission was incorrect in telling your newspaper that the Federal Aviation Administration used a quota restricting the number of foreign passengers that could be subjected to secondary screening at one time. Despite the testimony from current and former airline executives cited in your column, secondary screening of passengers is random or behavior based. It is not now, nor has ever been based on ethnicity, religion or appearance.

Your readers should know that the federal government has and will continue to put in place the strongest possible security screening procedures while protecting the civil rights of all passengers in our aviation system. Cheers,

Michael:

thanks....please do send me whatever you send to the 9/11 commission on this, thanks

DOT:

Sure thing. Again my apologies that you did not receive this earlier.

Clearly, our concern is that your readers have the correct information that no such "quota" ever existed.

Michael:

please provide me whatever statements the DOT has issued concerning comments I have made or things I have written concerning the testimony presented to the 9/11 commission

I have a deadline of Noon today and hope you will respond by then.

thank you

DOT:

What are you working on now?

If you are writing an additional column my assumption is you will provide an overview of what you plan to write and provide an opportunity for the U.S. Department of Transportation to respond specifically to what you are writing. Cheers,

Michael:

I have been told that DOT issued some kind of statement to CNBC concerning my 9/11 work. I am asking you if that is the case, and if so, what did you give them?

DOT:

I'm happy to provide whatever you need. But I'd like to know what you are working on. It is pretty customary to ask a reporter what they are writing and ask for the opportunity to respond completely to the story.

This is relatively common practice, and I'm sure you'll agree quite appropriate.

If you would be kind enough to let me know what you are working on, and what specific questions you have, I will send you both what ran on CNBC, and whatever other answers might be appropriate. Cheers,

Michael:

let me get this straight. unless give you a peek at what I am working on, you will not give to me what you released to a cable news station?

sorry, I don't work for TASS.

I ask that you provide me with whatever you gave cnbc, and if you choose not to, I assure you I will be writing about your refusal. you are only fueling the suspicion of some that the DOT has something to hide.

DOT:

You are asking me to share with you information sent to another news organization, without any context, without any background, without any opportunity to address some possible column you might write. All this after you have already written one incorrect column and after having been informed of those errors still repeated them on national television.

Again, I am very happy to provide you with all appropriate information needed for your reporting. I just need to know what you are working on, or what questions you have so I can be of assistance and provide you with the most accurate, timely and appropriate information possible.

[bvw]

The DOT PR flack sent a neat piece of work over to CNBC maligning Mr. Smerconish, yet refused to allow Mr. Smerconish a copy of that *public* record. For in paraphrase of said flack "I, Your Federal Overseer, just need to know what you are working on! Turn over your papers to ME, NOW!"

[optimistically_conservative]

See Bush Thesis for explanation.

[bvw]

Perplexed by that one. Can you explain in your own words?

[optimistically_conservative]

I will try.

I think the DOT rep is saying, "I'm under no obligation to blindly make your job easier." I'm almost surprised the rep didn't say get it from CNBC.

I think "gotcha" journalism and inaccurate reporting has so reduced public trust in the 4th estate that government agencies feel empowered to blow off and challenge reporters/editorialists/journalists.

The more journalists b*tch about it while demonstrating their incompetence (as they have in the latest Bush press conference and press scandals), the more credibility they lose.

[bvw]

Bad call on your part. Smerconish is honest and true-blue.

[elbucko]

Your readers should know that the federal government has and will continue to put in place the strongest possible security screening procedures while protecting the civil rights of all passengers in our aviation system. Cheers,

Somehow, this is neither believable or "cheer"-full. A reply such as the following woud be more realistic; "We are pandering to as many groups as possible and using industrial strength CYA."

[optimistically_conservative]

Bad call on your part. Smerconish is honest and true-blue.

Well, I specifically avoided making any comment about Smerconsih since I know nothing about him. But I do tend to agree with the DOT rep here even if I may generally agree with Smerconish ideologically.

[bvw]

And "cheers" is a British usage, too. You are right it isn't "cheery" the close is thus a lie of a sort. A tell-tale, eh? At least it didn't say "Sincerely".

Now that truly great man, George Washington, used to close his correspondence: "Yr Humble Servant" -- AND HE MEANT IT. In true humility, and in the absolute respectfulness of a good, honest servant.

[bvw]

Smerconish has something each morning on his radio show called content -- that he deals with fair-squarely. Sadly lacking on some famous and popular right-wing national shows, and absent or high-highly spun on the network left-wing "news" shows.

[elbucko]

...George Washington, used to close his correspondence: "Yr Humble Servant" -- ...

Yes, and President Washington was the greatest civil "servant" this country ever had. We probably wouldn't be here without his sacrifice, leadership and "humble" wisdom.

[bvw]

An exeamplary life! One deserveing of study throughout a child's education, and re-study as an adult.

[elbucko]

,and re-study as an adult.

Agreed. I, like many boomers and our parents before us, were told in school that Geo. Wash. was the "Father of our Country", and took that sobriquet for granted. As an adult, I read the book, "Cincinnatus" and had my eyes opened wide, as well as swelled with tears of thanks and pride that such a remarkable and noble man as Washington was available to fight for this nation, both during the Revolution, the Constitutional Convention and two terms as president.

The description of Washington as being: "First in War, First in Peace and First in the hearts of his countrymen" is an understatement. George Washington really was the Father of the United States of America.

[bvw]

When Washington served his Presidency it was in lower Manhattan (1785-1790). The doors to his office were open to anyone and he was often bothered by time-wasting droppers-in.

Try to drop in on the President today? Can't quite do it.

[new cruelty]

Related thread - Smerconish: AS PLAIN AS THE NOSE ON THEIR FACES, DOT is more concerned about PC than Air Safety

[searchandrecovery]

our civil liberties are being encroched by government because we will not define enemy as "plain islam". terrorists are winning this PC battle big time.

Yep. Islam is a religion AND a government/plan to take over nations. It's not a "religion of peace", just the opposite - kill the infidels! It should be outlawed in the U.S., although it won't be (at least until islamic terror in the U.S. becomes more common (it will)).

Amazing how many countries are being consumed - malaysia, phillipines, india/pakistan/afghanistan, northern africa, insurgents in france, spain, england, some soviet stans. If it's us vs. them demographics, the west is gone in 50 years.